IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR HARTSHORN RUN

CLEARFIELD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

PREPARED BY:

CLEARFIELD COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT 650 LEONARD STREET CLEARFIELD, PA 16830

AND

TROUT UNLIMITED 18 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 3 LOCK HAVEN, PA 17745 June 2010 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for this project was provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection through Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

This implementation plan was completed using assistance from the Trout Unlimited Abandoned Mine Drainage Technical Assistance Grant program.

Thank you to Joe Kendrick and the Clearfield County After Care Youth Program, as well as, Carl Undercofler of the Clearfield County Senior Environment Corps, for your help with stream reconnaissance, weir installation, and monthly monitoring of the stream.

Thanks also to Ed Swanson, former North American Refractories Company employee, for sharing first hand knowledge regarding the Hartshorn Mine.

Thank you to all of the landowners who granted access to their property to allow monthly sampling to take place. Without your cooperation, this study could not have been completed.

Finally, thank you to all project partners, cooperating agencies, and all others who contributed to this implementation plan by sharing their knowledge, data, talents, or in- kind services.

ii Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS...... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... v 1.0 BACKGROUND...... 1-1 1.1 Watershed Characteristics...... 1-1 1.1.1 Topography and Land Use...... 1-1 1.1.2 Geology...... 1-2 1.1.3 Surface Water Resources and Wetlands...... 1-2 1.2 Mining History...... 1-2 1.3 Prior Studies...... 1-3 2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF POLLUTION SOURCES...... 2-1 2.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads and Other Watershed Problems...... 2-1 2.1.1 Sample Locations and Descriptions...... 2-1 2.2 Applicable Water Quality Standards...... 2-5 2.3 Identification and Prioritization of Pollution Sources...... 2-6 3.0 POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTIONS REQUIRED TO MEET TMDLS...... 3-1 3.1 Required Reductions...... 3-1 3.2 Impacts on Downstream Waters...... 3-6 4.0 MANAGEMENT MEASURES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE PRESCRIBED LOAD REDUCTIONS...... 4-1 4.1 Existing Best Management Practices...... 4-1 4.2 Areas Designated for Additional Controls...... 4-1 Priority #1: HAR 07, Hartshorn Mine discharge...... 4-1 Priority #2: HAR 05, Iron Seeps...... 4-3 Priority #3: Headwaters above HAR 04...... 4-4 4.3 Summary Treatment Areas...... 4-5 4.3 Predicted Effect of Systems on Receiving Stream...... 4-5 4.4 Additional Areas of Interest...... 4-6 4.5 Establishment of an O&M Fund...... 4-6 5.0 TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCED NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT BMPS...... 5-1 5.1 Design, Installation, and Maintenance Costs...... 5-1 5.1.1 Overall Watershed Restoration Costs...... 5-2 5.2 Sources of Funding for Plan Implementation...... 5-2 5.3 Funding Shortfalls...... 5-3 5.4 Technical Assistance Required...... 5-3 6.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION...... 6-1 6.1 Stakeholder Identification...... 6-1

iii Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

6.2 Sources of Information and Influence in the Watershed...... 6-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

6.3 Information Strategy...... 6-3 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND EVALUATION...... 7-1 7.1 Implementation Milestones...... 7-1 7.2 Funding, Construction, and Maintenance Activities...... 7-1 7.3 Parties Responsible for Implementation Milestones...... 7-2 7.4 Schedule...... 7-2 8.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND EVALUATION...... 8-1 8.1 Loading and Water Quality Milestones...... 8-1 8.2 Local Considerations...... 8-1 8.3 Responsible Parties...... 8-2 8.4 Schedule...... 8-2 9.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS...... 9-1 9.1 Criteria for Evaluating Results...... 9-1 9.2 Re-evaluation Procedures...... 9-1 10.0 REFERENCES ...... 10-1 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Maps Appendix B: Water Chemistry & Loading Data from Assessment Appendix C: Mining Permit Data Appendix D: Photographs of Priority Areas

iv Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This implementation plan has been developed for Hartshorn Run, a tributary to the West Branch Susquehanna River, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. Although much of the watershed is virtually un-impacted, one large deep mine discharge occurs in one branch of the stream, leading to the abandoned mine drainage (AMD) impacts that are apparent in the watershed today. Due to this AMD discharge and one other less significant discharge to the stream, Hartshorn Run contributes a substantial pollutant load of metals and acidity to the West Branch Susquehanna River.

The Clearfield County Conservation District and Clearfield County Senior Environment Corps, in conjunction with students from the Clearfield County After Care Youth program, completed a yearlong stream assessment project within the Hartshorn Run watershed. This assessment and a number of related studies, such as the Hartshorn Run Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) completed by the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in 2004, form the basis for this implementation plan.

The primary pollutant source in the watershed is AMD that originates from an abandoned underground clay mine, known as the Hartshorn Mine. Surface mining also took place along the stream; however, only one discreet AMD discharge attributed to surface mining was located during the assessment phase of this grant. It emerges as a series of iron-laden seeps from the toe of slope of a reclaimed surface mine area on the same branch as the Hartshorn Mine. It is also possible that AMD is reaching the stream through base flow of polluted groundwater from other reclaimed mine areas. Acid deposition may be an additional source of acidity to the stream, as it is in neighboring watersheds.

This implementation plan prioritizes the major AMD pollution sources in the watershed and establishes the best course of action to remediate those sites. A conceptual design is included for each treatment system that is needed to address a particular source of pollution to the watershed and also help to meet the TMDL guidelines that have been set forth. This plan also discusses any further studies that need to be conducted and makes other recommendations for the protection and restoration of the watershed. This plan also lays out a course of action for continued monitoring of water quality and evaluation and documentation of restoration successes.

v Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

1.0 BACKGROUND

The Hartshorn Run watershed is located in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. A watershed location map is located in Appendix A. The watershed lies entirely within Pike Township. The headwaters are located in a forested area north of Curwensville Borough and the stream flows from there toward the southeast, entering the West Branch Susquehanna River between Curwensville and Hyde.

The Hartshorn Run watershed is impaired by abandoned mine drainage (AMD). Approximately 1 mile north of its confluence with the West Branch Susquehanna River, Hartshorn Run splits into two branches. The western branch consists of an unnamed tributary, which originates near an abandoned reservoir and receives water from an abandoned deep mine. The eastern branch is considered the main stem of Hartshorn Run and still maintains a viable fish population including native brook trout. Treatment of the deep mine discharge would restore the unnamed tributary, as well as, the impacted portion of the main stem, allowing brook trout to repopulate the entire watershed. Besides the large deep mine discharge mentioned above, there is only one other discreet source of pollution in the watershed that is in the form of an iron seep flowing to the main stem.

Hartshorn Run is listed in Pennsylvania’s 2008 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. It appears that it was first listed in 1996. A TMDL was completed on the stream and approved by EPA in October 2004; however, the stream is not yet attaining its designated use. For this reason, the stream can be found in Category 4a of the Integrated List. The stream is listed because of impairments due to AMD, including sulfates, acidity and metals such as, manganese, and aluminum.

This implementation plan has been developed for the restoration of Hartshorn Run. As stated above, the watershed has been significantly impacted by an abandoned deep mine discharge resulting in a higher pollutant loading of acidity and metals reaching the West Branch Susquehanna River.

1.1 Watershed Characteristics

The Hartshorn Run watershed encompasses a drainage area of 4.61 square miles. A watershed boundary map is provided in Appendix A.

1.1.1 Topography and Land Use

According to the USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle topographic maps of Elliot Park, Clearfield, and Glen Richey, elevations within the Hartshorn Run watershed range from 1240 feet to 1980 feet above mean sea level. Site topography is provided on the Watershed Boundary Map located in Appendix A. Topography in the immediate area consists of broad stream valleys and rolling hills with the streams in the watershed flowing from north to south.

1-1 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

Much of the watershed remains forested and relatively un-impacted by human development. The exception to this is the mining that has taken place in the watershed along with several paved and unpaved roads that parallel the stream. Also, the middle section of the watershed has a handful of residential homes. The town of Curwensville, to the southwest, is the major population center in the area, but remains outside of the watershed boundary. At one time, a water supply reservoir for the town of Curwensville was located on the western branch of Hartshorn Run.

1.1.2 Geology

The Hartshorn Run watershed and most of Clearfield County are located in the Pittsburgh Low Plateaus Section of the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province. Underlying rock formations of the watershed include the Allegheny and Pottsville Groups, as well as, the Burgoon Sandstone Formation. Most of the mining that has occurred in the watershed has been of the Upper, Lower and Middle Kittanning coal seams, lower Freeport coals, and high-alumina underclays. According to the Soil Survey of Clearfield County, PA, general soils in the Hartshorn Run watershed are from the Rayne-Gilpin-Ernest association. In areas where surface mining has occurred, mainly on the ridge tops above the stream, there are areas of Udorthents shale that consist of overburden that was stripped from beds of clay and coal, as well as, backfill material. A soils map can be found in Appendix A.

1.1.3 Surface Water Resources and Wetlands

According to the PA Code, Title 25, Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards, Hartshorn Run is classified as a Cold Water Fishery (CWF).

The headwaters of Hartshorn Run begin in a mostly forested area north of Curwensville. The stream then flows in a southeastern direction until its confluence with the West Branch Susquehanna River between Curwensville and Hyde. Hartshorn Run has two main branches that flow together to form the main stem. The branch to the east is considered the main stem of Hartshorn Run, while the branch to the west is considered an unnamed tributary that originates near an abandoned reservoir and is fed by a discharge from an abandoned clay mine. Below the confluence of the two branches, the stream is fed by a number of very small, unnamed tributaries.

Most of the wetlands that are found within the watershed are located in the riparian zone along Hartshorn Run and its tributaries. Several small wetland areas are actually formed by acid mine drainage seeps. These degraded wetlands were found along the middle section of the watershed. A map showing the wetlands recognized by the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) can be found in Appendix A.

1.2 Mining History

It should be noted that a search conducted by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, found no recorded deep mines within the Hartshorn Run watershed;

1-2 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010 however, one significant deep mine operation was present in the watershed and still impacts the stream today. This mine was opened late in 1942 and was officially closed on December 1, 1958. This mine was known as the “Hartshorn Mine” and was owned and operated by the North American Refractories Company (NARCO). Clay from this mine was used to make high quality firebrick at NARCO’s plant in Curwensville.

In the mid-1970s, the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), then the Department of Environmental Resources (DER), received a complaint that the Hartshorn Mine was causing a safety hazard to children playing in the area, as well as, discharging water that was killing fish in Hartshorn Run. Apparently, NARCO was found liable to correct the safety issue, but was not held liable for the discharge as the mine had been closed in the late 1950’s, before regulations existed that would prevent such a discharge. Additional damage caused by pre-Act surface mining in the forties and fifties left the area with water quality problems and several abandoned mine land (AML) features. Subsequent remining under stricter environmental regulations brought water quality improvements to the area and virtually erased the AML scars; however, the Hartshorn Mine still remains the major source of impairment to the watershed. According to the DEP Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR), only one refuse pile remains in the watershed from past mining. This AML feature can be located on the AML map in Appendix A.

1.3 Prior Studies

A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study was completed for the Hartshorn Run watershed in 2004 for the DEP. Specific load reductions that are necessary for Hartshorn Run to meet the TMDL guidelines were reported in the resulting document and will be discussed in greater detail in this implementation plan. A map of the TMDL sampling locations can be found in Appendix A.

Prior to the spring of 1989, the Pike Township Municipal Authority made application to withdraw up to 1.3 million gallons per day of water from Bailey Spring, a tributary to Hartshorn Run. As part of the application review process, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, now PA Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), conducted a field survey on April 27, 1989. During kick-net sampling of the 75-meter section of Bailey Spring, at least two species of mayflies (Ephemeroptera), three species of caddisflies (Trichoptera), three species of stoneflies (Plecoptera), and three species of aquatic Diptera were collected along with one spring salamander, Gyrinophilus porphyriticus (PFC, 1989).

Along with macroinvertebrate sampling in Bailey Spring, a 100-meter section of Hartshorn Run was sampled by backpack electrofishing, with Bailey Spring as the upstream limit. Twenty-four brook trout, ranging in size from 50-199 mm were collected during this sampling effort. In order to protect the diverse aquatic community that was found in Bailey Spring and Hartshorn Run, a conservation release approximating the Q7-10 flow was recommended for Bailey Spring. Incidentally, the last stocking report for Hartshorn Run was from April 3, 1944, at which time 1200 fingerling brook trout from the Tionesta hatchery were released into the stream (PFC, 1944).

1-3 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF POLLUTION SOURCES

Pollution sources in the Hartshorn Run watershed were identified during the yearlong assessment that was conducted by the project partners including the Clearfield County Conservation District (CCCD), Clearfield County Senior Environment Corps (CCSEC), and Clearfield County After Care Youth program. The information collected during this assessment, as well as, other applicable TMDL and stream data, and water quality standards will be outlined in the following paragraphs.

2.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads and Other Watershed Problems

As stated before, abandoned mine drainage (AMD) is the greatest source of pollution in the Hartshorn Run watershed. It is also possible that acid deposition may contribute to the high levels of acidity and depressed pH that are found in the stream, as this is the case in many neighboring watersheds including Lick Run, Trout Run, Deer Creek, and Mosquito Creek. Other pollution problems in the watershed such as excess sediment and nutrients seem to have minimal impacts to the watershed.

TMDLs for the Hartshorn Run watershed were developed as part of the Hartshorn Run Watershed TMDL that was prepared for the DEP in 2004. TMDL criteria for this document are provided in Section 3 of this narrative. The watershed assessment that was completed by the Project Partners divided the stream into reaches that were similar to those found in the TMDL document. All sampling data, from both the recent assessment and mining permit data were analyzed as they relate to the appropriate TMDL segment.

The following is a description of each sampling location that was monitored during the assessment of Hartshorn Run. A map of these sampling locations can be found in Appendix A. At each location, flow values were collected and water samples were analyzed for pH, conductivity, acidity, aluminum, iron, manganese, sulfates, total dissolved solids, and total suspended solids. Most locations were sampled on a monthly basis. The water chemistry data and loadings for each sampling location can be found in Appendix B. Water quality data found through mining permit research can be found in Appendix C.

2.1.1 Sample Locations and Descriptions

The following discharges and in-stream sampling points are organized according to the TMDL section in which they are located. Maps showing the TMDL sample points in relation to the assessment sample points can also be found in Appendix A.

TMDL point HART07, Hartshorn Run upstream of UNT 26654

Samples were not taken at this point during the assessment as the TMDL calls only for a reduction of acidity and no discreet AMD discharges were located.

2-1 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

TMDL point HART08, Mouth of UNT 26654

Samples were not taken at this point during the assessment as the TMDL calls only for a reduction of acidity and no discreet AMD discharges were located.

TMDL point HART03, Hartshorn Run upstream of UNT 26653

HAR 04 – This is an in-stream sample of Hartshorn Run above the unnamed tributary 26653, “Mine Trib.” Average flow was 2640 gpm, and the average pH was 6.1. On average, about 7.3 mg/l of acid, 0.2 mg/l of iron, 0.05 mg/l of manganese, and 0.1 mg/l of aluminum are flowing past this monitoring point. The alkalinity concentration at this point is approximately 6.5 mg/l; however, the stream is still slightly net acid here. This point is below but corresponds to the TMDL point HART03.

MP 23 (SMP# 17960117) - This was an in-stream sampling point located above the Thunder Coal Company “Smay” operation along the main stem of Hartshorn Run. It was sampled intermittently between April 1995 and April 2000. Average flow at this location was 169 gpm with an average pH of 6.2. Average alkalinity was 10 mg/l and acidity was 1 mg/l. Dissolved metals averaged as follows: 0.09 mg/l iron, 0.045 mg/l manganese, and 0.09 mg/l aluminum. Sulfates averaged 11 mg/l during the sampling period.

MP 27 (SMP# 17960117) – This sampling point was a seep that was located upstream of the Thunder Coal Company “Smay” operation along the main stem of Hartshorn Run. It was sampled intermittently between April 1995 and April 2000. Average flow at this location was 3 gpm with an average pH of 5.8. Average alkalinity was 10 mg/l and acidity was 1 mg/l. Dissolved metals averaged as follows: 0.13 mg/l iron, 0.12 mg/l manganese, and 0.11 mg/l aluminum. Sulfates averaged 29 mg/l during the sampling period.

MP 28 (SMP# 17960117) - This sampling point was a seep to a small unnamed tributary to Hartshorn Run and was associated with the Thunder Coal Company “Smay” operation along the main stem of Hartshorn Run. It was sampled intermittently between April 1995 and July 2001. Average flow at this location was 4 gpm with an average pH of 6.0. Average alkalinity was 9 mg/l and acidity was 2 mg/l. Dissolved metals averaged as follows: 0.20 mg/l iron, 0.34 mg/l manganese, and 0.14 mg/l aluminum. Sulfates averaged 210 mg/l during the sampling period.

MP 32 (SMP# 17960117) - This sampling point was a seep to a small unnamed tributary to Hartshorn Run and was associated with the Thunder Coal Company “Smay” operation along the main stem of Hartshorn Run. It was sampled intermittently between April 1995 and July 2001. Average flow at this location was 5 gpm with an average pH of 4.8. Average alkalinity was 8 mg/l and acidity was 31 mg/l. Dissolved metals averaged as follows: 1.44 mg/l iron, 8.89 mg/l manganese, and 4.56 mg/l aluminum. Sulfates averaged 409 mg/l during the sampling period.

2-2 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

MP 1127A (SMP# 17810141) - This was an in-stream sampling point located at the mouth of a small unnamed tributary to Hartshorn Run and was associated with the McDonald Land & Mining Company “Smay” operation along the main stem of Hartshorn Run. It was sampled intermittently between December 1982 and April 1991. Average flow at this location was 20 gpm with an average pH of 5.2. Average alkalinity was 10 mg/l and acidity was 24 mg/l. Dissolved metals averaged as follows: 0.14 mg/l iron and 9.74 mg/l manganese. Aluminum was not sampled at that time. Sulfates averaged 498 mg/l during the sampling period.

MP 35 (SMP# 17960117) - This was an in-stream sampling point located along the main stem of Hartshorn Run and was associated with the Thunder Coal Company “Smay” operation. It was sampled intermittently between April 1995 and July 2001. Average flow at this location was 207 gpm with an average pH of 6.3. Average alkalinity was 10 mg/l and acidity was 1 mg/l. Dissolved metals averaged as follows: 0.09 mg/l iron, 0.07 mg/l manganese, and 0.08 mg/l aluminum. Sulfates averaged 19 mg/l during the sampling period.

TMDL point HART05, UNT 26653 below reservoir

No recent sampling points were located in this TMDL section as the water quality in this section of Hartshorn Run is good and there were no discreet AMD discharges were identified.

TMDL point HART04, Mouth of UNT 26653

HAR 05 – This is a sample taken from a pipe that collects a series of iron seeps that flow to the unnamed tributary (Mine Trib) to Hartshorn Run. Average flow was 31 gpm and average pH was 3.9. The following average concentrations were determined for this point: 32 mg/l acid, 13.2 mg/l iron, 1.32 mg/l manganese, and 0.25 mg/l aluminum. Alkalinity was found to be 0.625 mg/l, making this discharge net acid.

HAR 06 – This is an in-stream sample of UNT 26653 (Mine Trib) below the Hartshorn Mine discharge (HAR 07). Average flow was 1029 gpm and average pH was 4.3. The average concentrations for this point were found to be 42.8 mg/l acid, 2.4 mg/l iron, 0.5 mg/l manganese, and 5.2 mg/l aluminum. The stream at this point is net acid, as alkalinity averaged 2.5 mg/l.

HAR 07 – This is a sample that was taken from a weir that collects the flow from the abandoned “Hartshorn” underground clay mine. Average flow was 51 gpm and average pH was 2.9. The following average concentrations were calculated for this point: 272.8 mg/l acid, 23.1 mg/l iron, 3.2 mg/l manganese, and 26.6 mg/l aluminum. This discharge is net acid, as alkalinity was completely absent during this assessment.

HAR 08 – This is an in-stream sample of UNT 26653 (Mine Trib) downstream of the abandoned Curwensville Reservoir and upstream of the “Hartshorn Mine” discharge (HAR 07). Average flow was 730 gpm and average pH was 7.0. The average

2-3 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010 concentrations for this point were found to be 16.5 mg/l acid, 2.1 mg/l iron, 0.1 mg/l manganese, and 2.0 mg/l aluminum. Average alkalinity at this point was approximately 15.6 mg/l, thus the stream is net alkaline above the point where the Hartshorn Mine discharge enters.

HAR 09 – This is an in-stream sample of a small unnamed tributary above the Hartshorn Mine discharge (HAR 07) that joins the discharge before flowing to UNT 26653 (Mine Trib). Average flow was 456 gpm and the average pH was 6.7. The following average concentrations were determined for this point: 1.0 mg/l acid, 0.24 mg/l iron, 0.02 mg/l manganese, and 0.09 mg/l aluminum. The stream is net alkaline above HAR 07, with an average alkalinity concentration of 14mg/l.

HAR 10 – This is an in-stream sample of the combination of the Hartshorn Mine discharge (HAR 07) and the small-unnamed stream (HAR 09) at the mouth, before their combined flow enters UNT 26653 (Mine Trib). Average water chemistry for this point is as follows based on 5 grab samples: pH of 3.5, 0 mg/l alkalinity, 94 mg/l acidity, 6.48 mg/l iron, 0.81 mg/l manganese, and 10.91 mg/l aluminum.

HAR 03 – This is an in-stream sample point that was taken at the mouth of the unnamed tributary (Mine Trib) that receives the Hartshorn Mine discharge. Average flow was 1514 gpm and the average pH was 4.6. The following average concentrations were determined for this point: 23 mg/l acid, 0.55mg/l iron, 0.46 mg/l manganese, and 2.51 mg/l aluminum. The stream is net acid at this point, with an average alkalinity concentration of 3.0 mg/l. This is downstream from but corresponds to TMDL point HART 04.

TMDL point HART01, Mouth of Hartshorn Run

HAR 02 – This is an in-stream sample of the main stem of Hartshorn Run below the confluence of the main stem with UNT 26653 (Mine Trib). It is located below sample points HAR 03 and HAR 04. Average flow was 3852 gpm and the average pH was 5.1. The following average concentrations were determined for this point: 12 mg/l acid, 0.29 mg/l iron, 0.13 mg/l manganese, and 0.67 mg/l aluminum. The stream is net acid at this point, with an average alkalinity concentration of 5.0 mg/l.

HAR 01 – This is an in-stream sample of the main stem of Hartshorn Run below the former Fern Cliff swimming pool but above SR 879. It represents the mouth of Hartshorn Run as no significant sources of water enter the stream below this point. This point is above but corresponds to TMDL point HART01. Average flow was 4388 gpm and the average pH was 5.7. The following average concentrations were determined for this point: 9 mg/l acid, 0.36 mg/l iron, 0.26 mg/l manganese, and 0.42 mg/l aluminum. The stream is net acid at this point, with an average alkalinity concentration of 5 mg/l.

2-4 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

MP HR below (SMP# 17810141) - This was an in-stream sampling point located along the main stem of Hartshorn Run and was associated with the McDonald Land & Mining Company “Smay” operation. It was sampled intermittently between October 1986 and October 1990. Average flow at this location was 2552 gpm with an average pH of 4.8. Average alkalinity was 7 mg/l and acidity was 11 mg/l. Dissolved metals averaged as follows: 0.33 mg/l iron and 0.36 mg/l manganese. Aluminum was not sampled at that time. Sulfates averaged 35 mg/l during the sampling period.

2.2 Applicable Water Quality Standards

The entire Hartshorn Run drainage basin is listed as having a protected use of Cold Water Fishery in Title 25, Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania Code. The stream is included in Drainage List L for the West Branch Susquehanna River Basin. In addition to the TMDLs for iron, manganese, aluminum, sulfates and pH that were established by the DEP for the watershed, specific and state-wide water quality criteria for the stream are provided in Title 25, Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania Code.

Tables 3 and 4 of 25 PA Code §93.7 provide specific water quality criteria for critical uses including CWF, as Hartshorn Run is classified. Specific criteria for CWF include dissolved oxygen and temperature. Water quality criteria for CWF uses are provided in Table 2.1.

TABLE 2.1 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR CWF

PARAMETER CRITERIA

Alkalinity Minimum 20 mg/l as CaCO3 except where natural conditions are less Dissolved Oxygen 6.0 mg/l minimum daily average for flowing waters; 5.0 mg/l minimum Osmotic Pressure 50 milliosmoles per kilogram Temperature Ranges from 38 to 66 degrees, maximum, depending on the month 500 mg/l monthly average value; Total Dissolved Solids 750 mg/l maximum Total Residual Chlorine 0.011 mg/l for 4-day average; 0.019 mg/l for hourly average

Values have also been established for iron and pH but they duplicate the values for these parameters established by the TMDLs for the stream and were included with the TMDLs.

The TMDLs for the Hartshorn Run Watershed were developed to meet water quality endpoints or goals as provided in Table 2.2.

2-5 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

TABLE 2.2 WATER QUALITY ENDPOINTS FOR THE HARTSHORN RUN WATERSHED

PARAMETER ENDPOINT Aluminum, Total Recoverable 0.75 mg/l Manganese, Total Recoverable 1.00 mg/l Iron, 30-day Average Recoverable 1.50 mg/l Sulfates, Total Recoverable 250 mg/l pH* 6.0-9.0 *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 endpoints were selected, as they should allow the waters to achieve their designated uses. The required reductions were designed to be protective of the water quality criterion for each specific parameter 99 percent of the time. Additional information about specific TMDL limits and reductions for points in the Hartshorn Run watershed is provided in Section 3 of this narrative.

2.3 Prioritization of Pollution Sources

The prioritization of treatment areas was based on a variety of criteria. The criteria used were outlined by the EPA for the development and prioritization of treatment projects as received by the watershed manager of the Moshannon District Mining Office of the PADEP. Priorities were based on loadings or significant impact in the watershed, availability of space for construction, cost feasibility, landowner permission, access, and overall impact towards reaching the outlined watershed goals. There are three priority areas in the watershed. Treatment at all sites is recommended to restore Hartshorn Run. While two of the sites appear to be treatable through passive treatment technology, the third site is being recommended for active treatment due to the severity of the chemistry and the large flow.

Table 2.3 below provides a summary of the priority areas for the restoration of the Hartshorn Run Watershed. Estimated costs are given for each and were calculated using AMDTreat. Additional information about each of these priority areas and areas requiring additional consideration can be found in Section 4 of this narrative.

2-6 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

TABLE 2.3 SUMMARY OF PRIORITY TREATMENT AREAS IN THE HARTSHORN RUN WATERSHED Priority Sites Treatment Cost #1 HAR 07 Lime Silo $250,000 Yearly O&M Cost for Lime $10,000 - Doser $21,000 #2 HAR 05 Wetland with limestone $125,000 #3 HAR 04 Limestone Sand Addition - $2,500 - $5,000 annually Total Estimated Cost for Priority Treatment Areas $375,000 Capital Expenditure + $12,500 – $26,000 Annual O&M

2-7 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

3.0 POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS REQUIRED TO MEET TMDLS

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Hartshorn Run were included in the Hartshorn Run Watershed TMDL prepared for the PA DEP in 2004. This section is based on the limits established by and published in the Hartshorn Run Watershed TMDL.

The TMDLs for Hartshorn Run were developed for depressed pH and high levels of metals and sulfates due to abandoned mine drainage from abandoned coal and clay mines. The TMDL addresses pH and the three primary metals associated with AMD (iron, manganese, and aluminum). No other categories of impairment were listed for the Hartshorn Run watershed. The required pollutant reductions specified in the TMDL and the impacts to downstream waters from the required reductions are discussed in the following paragraphs.

3.1 Required Reductions

The TMDLs for Hartshorn Run were developed for specific reaches of the stream and are provided in reference to several points in the watershed, including the following: Hartshorn Run upstream of Unnamed Tributary 26654 (HART07); Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 26654 (HART08); Hartshorn Run upstream of Unnamed Tributary 26653 (HART03); Unnamed Tributary 26653 below reservoir (HART05); Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 26653 (HART04); Mouth of Hartshorn Run (HART01). Figures showing the locations of each of the sample points are provided in Appendix A.

The TMDLs were developed to meet water quality criterion values of 0.75 mg/l of total recoverable aluminum, 1.50 mg/l of 30-day average recoverable iron, 1.00 mg/l of total recoverable manganese, 250 mg/l of total recoverable sulfates, and a pH between 6.0 and 9.0 The pollutant reductions needed to meet the water quality criteria are described in detail below for each stream segment. The required reductions were designed to be protective of the water quality criterion for each specific parameter 99 percent of the time.

Hartshorn Run upstream of Unnamed Tributary 26654

TMDL point HART07 represents the headwaters of Hartshorn Run before the confluence with UNT 26654. This segment was listed for metals impairment due to AMD on the 2004 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report and was still found to be impaired due to metals according to the 2008 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. There is currently no listing for pH for this segment; however, pH was addressed as part of the TMDL because of mining impacts. Iron, manganese, and aluminum concentrations were below detection limits at point HART07; therefore, TMDLs were not necessary for metals at this point.

3-1 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

TABLE 3.0 REQUIRED POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FOR HARTSHORN RUN UPSTREAM OF UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 26654 MEASURED SAMPLE ALLOWABLE VALUES REDUCTION SAMPLE VALUES IDENTIFIED POINT Conc. Load LTA Conc. Load Percent HART07 (mg/l) (lb/day) (mg/l) (lb/day) Iron ND ND NA NA 0 Manganese ND ND NA NA 0 Aluminum ND ND NA NA 0 Acidity 9.00 89.4 4.59 45.6 49 Alkalinity 7.75 76.9

Reductions in iron, manganese and aluminum were not necessary in this segment. Acidity must be reduced from 9.00 mg/l to 4.59 mg/l for the long-term average daily concentration. Correspondingly, the reduction in acidity is from 89.4 lb/day of acidity to 45.6 lb/day. The reduction identified is 49% for acidity.

Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 26654

TMDL point HART08 represents Unnamed Tributary 26654 above its confluence with Hartshorn Run. A TMDL has been developed for acidity for this segment of the stream. While the pH in this segment ranges between 5.5 and 6.6, the segment is net acidic due to mining impacts so acidity values were included in the TMDL for the segment. Iron and aluminum levels were below detection limits and the manganese load is equal to the allowable load. Because water quality standards are met, TMDLs for metals were not necessary at this point: however, the calculated manganese load is accounted for at the next downstream TMDL point (HART03).

TABLE 3.1 REQUIRED POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FOR MOUTH OF UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 26654 MEASURED SAMPLE ALLOWABLE VALUES REDUCTION SAMPLE VALUES IDENTIFIED POINT Conc. Load LTA Conc. Load Percent HART08 (mg/l) (lb/day) (mg/l) (lb/day) Iron ND ND NA NA 0 Manganese 0.06 0.1 0.06 0.1 0 Aluminum ND ND NA NA 0 Acidity 4.50 6.1 1.67 2.3 63 Alkalinity 9.20 12.5 All values shown in this table are long-term daily values.

Reductions in iron, manganese and aluminum were not necessary in this segment. Acidity must be reduced from 4.5 mg/l to 1.67 mg/l for the long-term average daily concentration. The corresponding reduction in acidity is from 6.1 lb/day of acidity to 2.3 lb/day. The reduction identified is 63% for acidity.

3-2 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

Hartshorn Run upstream of Unnamed Tributary 26653

The TMDL for sampling point HART03 has been developed for the area between sample points HART07, HART08 and HART03 and represents Hartshorn Run above its confluence with Unnamed Tributary 26653 (Mine Trib). This TMDL point corresponds to assessment point HAR04. It was first listed on the PA Section 303(d) list in 1996. Most recently, it was listed in the 2008 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report as impaired due to metals, pH, and other inorganics. The load reductions for this segment consist of a reduction in acidity. While the pH in this segment ranges between 6.1 and 6.6, acidity will be addressed as part of this TMDL because the water quality is net acidic due to mining impacts in this segment. The required pollutant reductions are provided in Table 3.2.

TABLE 3.2 REQUIRED POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FOR HARTSHORN RUN UPSTREAM OF UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 26653 MEASURED SAMPLE ALLOWABLE VALUES REDUCTION SAMPLE VALUES IDENTIFIED POINT Conc. Load LTA Conc. Load Percent HART03 (mg/l) (lb/day) (mg/l) (lb/day) Iron ND ND NA NA 0 Manganese ND ND NA NA 0 Aluminum ND ND NA NA 0 Acidity 5.35 77.5 2.51 36.4 6 Alkalinity 8.9 128.9 All values shown in this table are long-term average daily values.

Based on the data included in Table 3.2, acidity reductions from concentrations of 5.35 mg/l to 2.51 mg/l and from an acidity loading of 77.5 lb/day to 36.4 lb/day are required at HART03. This corresponds to a 6% reduction in acidity. Although manganese was detected upstream at TMDL point HART08, it was not detected at this point. Iron and aluminum were also below detection levels; therefore, a TMDL for metals was not necessary at this point.

Unnamed Tributary 26653 below reservoir

TMDL point HART05 is located on Unnamed Tributary 26653 (Mine Trib) below the abandoned Curwensville Reservoir and above the Hartshorn Mine discharge (HAR 07). This segment was listed on both the 2004 and 2008 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for metals impairment due to AMD. Metals concentrations are near or below detection levels for this point, therefore TMDLs were not necessary for metals at this time. A TMDL has been developed for acidity for this segment of the unnamed tributary. The pH in this segment ranges between 6.4 and 7.0; however, pH is addressed as part of this TMDL because of the mining impacts. The required pollution reductions for this segment are provided in Table 3.3.

3-3 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

TABLE 3.3 REQUIRED POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FOR THE UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 26653 BELOW RESERVOIR SAMPLE MEASURED SAMPLE ALLOWABLE VALUES REDUCTION POINT VALUES IDENTIFIED HART05 Conc. Load LTA Conc. Load Percent (mg/l) (lb/day) (mg/l) (lb/day) Iron 0.55 2.1 0.55 2.1 0 Manganese 0.12 0.5 0.12 0.5 0 Aluminum ND ND NA NA 0 Acidity 2.5 9.6 2.00 7.7 20 Alkalinity 17.10 65.6 All values shown in this table are long-term average daily values.

Based on the data in Table 3.3, acidity concentrations must be reduced from 2.5 mg/l to 2.00 mg/l, while acidity loadings must be reduced from 9.6 lb/day to 7.7 lb/day. This corresponds to a 20% reduction in acidity. Because the metals concentrations were below or near detection limits, reductions were not necessary at this point for iron, manganese or aluminum.

Mouth of Unnamed Tributary 26653

This segment represents Unnamed Tributary 26653 between TMDL point HART05 and HART04, which is the mouth of the unnamed tributary. This segment receives the discharge from the Hartshorn Mine (HAR 07). This segment was listed in both the 2004 and 2008 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for metals impairment due to AMD. The load reductions required for this segment consist of reductions in manganese, aluminum, and acidity. The pH in this segment ranges from 3.9 to 4.6, and acidity will be addressed as part of this TMDL because the water quality is net acidic due to mining impacts. The required pollution reductions for this segment are provided in Table 3.4.

TABLE 3.4 REQUIRED POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FOR THE MOUTH OF UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 26653 SAMPLE MEASURED SAMPLE ALLOWABLE VALUES REDUCTION POINT VALUES IDENTIFIED HART04 Conc. Load LTA Conc. Load Percent (mg/l) (lb/day) (mg/l) (lb/day) Iron 0.61 6.9 0.61 6.9 0 Manganese 1.10 12.6 0.14 1.6 87 Aluminum 4.20 48.0 0.13 1.4 97 Acidity 77.10 882.9 0.77 8.8 99 Alkalinity 3.65 41.8 All values shown in this table are long-term average daily values.

3-4 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

Based on the data included in Table 3.4, reductions in manganese concentrations from 1.10 mg/l to 0.14 mg/l, and reductions in manganese loadings from 12.6 lb/day to 1.6 lb/day are required. Aluminum concentrations must be reduced from 4.20 mg/l to 0.13 mg/l, and aluminum loadings must be reduced from 48.0 lb/day to 1.4 lb/day. Acidity concentrations must be reduced from 77.10 mg/l to 0.77 mg/l, and reductions in acidity loading from 882.9 lb/day to 8.8 lb/day are required at HART04.

Mouth of Hartshorn Run

TMDL point HART01 is located at the mouth of Hartshorn Run and represents the entire watershed above that point. This segment was first listed for impairment due to metals and pH on the PA Section 303(d) list. Most recently, it was listed in the 2008 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report as being impaired due to pH and metals. Taking into account the removal of upstream sources of pollutant loadings at HART03, HART04, HART05, HART07, and HART08, TMDLs for metals are not necessary at this point. The pH in this segment ranges between 5.5 and 5.8; however, comparisons of the measured acidity load between points HART03, HART04, and HART01 show that there is a loss of acidity load and no additional reductions are necessary at HART01. Table 3.5 below shows this load accounting, while Table 3.6 shows that no further pollutant reductions are necessary at HART01.

TABLE 3.5 LOAD ALLOCATIONS AT POINT HART01 Fe Mn Al Acidity (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) Existing Load ND 7.3 ND 785.1 Difference in Existing Load between HART01, HART03 & HART04 - -5.3 - -175.2 Load tracked from HART03 & HART04 - 1.6 - 45.2 Percent loss due to instream process - 42 - 18 Percent of loads tracked through segment - 58 - 82 Total Load tracked between points HART01, HART03 & HART04 - 0.9 - 37.0 Allowable Load at HART01 NA 7.3 NA 86.4 Load Reduction at HART01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Reduction required at HART01 0 0 0 0

3-5 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

TABLE 3.6 POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS NECESSARY AT THE MOUTH OF HARTSHORN RUN SAMPLE MEASURED SAMPLE ALLOWABLE VALUES REDUCTION POINT VALUES IDENTIFIED HART01 Conc. Load LTA Conc. Load Percent (mg/l) (lb/day) (mg/l) (lb/day) Iron ND ND NA NA 0 Manganese 0.28 7.3 0.28 7.3 0 Aluminum ND ND NA NA 0 Acidity 29.90 785.1 3.29 86.4 0 Alkalinity 7.85 206.1 All values shown in this table are long-term average daily values.

As explained above, no additional reductions in pollutant load are required at HART01.

3.2 Impacts to Downstream Waters

Hartshorn Run discharges to the West Branch Susquehanna River between the towns of Curwensville and Hyde. This section of the West Branch Susquehanna River, although supporting a fishery, is still considered to be impacted by AMD. The restoration activities in the Hartshorn Run watershed will help to reduce the metal and acid loadings and increase the buffering capacity of the West Branch Susquehanna River, further enhancing the already recovering fishery that exists there. The Old Town Sportsmen’s Association contracted Trout Unlimited to perform a biological survey of the main stem of the West Branch Susquehanna River between Curwensville and Clearfield, including the section containing Hartshorn Run. Findings from this study will become a valuable tool in determining the effects that restoration of Hartshorn Run will have on the river.

The restoration of Hartshorn Run through the implementation of restoration projects in the priority areas will result in a reduction in pollutant loadings in the West Branch Susquehanna River. However, the reduction in loadings from Hartshorn Run to the West Branch alone will not be sufficient to completely restore the West Branch below its confluence with Hartshorn Run. It will, however, have a positive impact to the aquatic community in the river until influences from other AMD-impacted streams, such as Montgomery Creek, Clearfield Creek, Deer Creek and Moshannon Creek enter downstream. The West Branch Susquehanna Recovery Benchmark project, being completed by Trout Unlimited and slated to be released in 2010, will measure the cumulative effects that AMD restoration in tributaries, including Hartshorn Run, has and will have on the water quality and biological community in the West Branch Susquehanna River.

Restoration of Hartshorn Run will also allow for fish and other aquatic organisms to move from the river upstream into Hartshorn Run into areas of suitable habitat that are currently inaccessible to them due to poor water quality. It will also allow populations of brook trout and other species that have been isolated to headwaters areas by AMD- impaired waters to recolonize additional stream segments once water quality is restored.

3-6 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

4.0 MANAGEMENT MEASURES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE PRESCRIBED LOAD REDUCTIONS

Water quality and flow data were studied during the assessment of Hartshorn Run in preparation for development of this implementation plan. Based on the data collected during the assessment, three priority areas for restoration were identified to aid in meeting the prescribed TMDLs for the different segments of Hartshorn Run. Existing best management practices (BMPs), areas designated for additional pollution controls, and appropriate best management practices and their anticipated performance are described in the following paragraphs.

4.1 Existing Best Management Practices

Aside from the site reclamation that was performed on the modern strip mining sites located within the watershed, no BMPs have been implemented to improve the water quality of Hartshorn Run.

4.2 Areas Designated for Additional Controls

The available water quality data from both the assessment and historic mining permits were used to identify areas where additional controls are needed. Three priority areas within the watershed have been designated as having a need for BMPs to control pollutants resulting from AMD. The proposed controls are located at one deep mine discharge, one iron seep, and one in-stream location. Approximately 1.5 miles of the main stream and an additional 0.6 miles of tributaries could benefit from this work. The areas where controls are proposed include the following:

• HAR 07, Hartshorn Mine discharge • HAR 05, iron seeps • Headwaters of Hartshorn Run above HAR 04

The location of each of these areas is provided on the figure labeled “Overview of Proposed Treatment Systems” in Appendix A. Each area is described in detail in the following paragraphs along with the cost estimate for each treatment option and the predicted effect on the receiving stream. Photographs of each priority area as it currently exists can be found in Appendix D.

Priority #1: HAR 07, Hartshorn Mine discharge

Site Description:

This monitoring point is a discharge from the opening of the Hartshorn Mine, an underground clay mine that was abandoned in 1958. After exiting the mine, the discharge flows through a small ravine formed by spoil material from the mine. It is then joined by surface water from a small intermittent stream before flowing to the Unnamed Tributary

4-1 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

26653 (Mine Trib) and then to Hartshorn Run. This discharge averages only about 50 gpm but is the main contributor of pollutant loading to Hartshorn Run.

Summary of Chemistry for HAR 07 Flow pH Lab Cond Acidity Acid Iron Iron Mn Al Sulfate (gpm) (SU) (Umhos) (mg/l) Load (mg/l) Load (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) Average 46.6 2.9 1123 273 139.49 24.8 13.13 1.60 26.6 347 Min 0.0 2.6 873 188 0.00 18.2 0.00 1.08 17.0 237 Max 81.0 3.1 1770 484 243.58 36.2 24.36 2.70 48.4 592 75% CI 54.4 2.9 1226 304 159.28 26.8 15.17 1.78 29.9 387 90% CI 57.8 2.9 1270 317 167.79 27.7 16.04 1.86 31.3 404

Recommendations:

This discharge is designated as the number one treatment priority in the restoration and implementation plan. The design flow is 60 gpm, the iron concentration is 28 mg/L, aluminum is 30 mg/L, and manganese is 2 mg/L. Due to the high metal loadings and the lack of space for passive treatment construction, along with designing the most cost effective system, an active treatment system is recommended for this site. A lime doser with Swedish bucket system, which requires no electricity, is the recommended treatment option for the site. It will involve the construction of a check dam to regulate flow and a silo/doser to hold the alkaline material. These lime dosers can work with either pebble quicklime or regular lime. If pebble quicklime is used approximately 26 tons of material will be needed each year or 6 lbs/hour. If a 1-ton silo is installed, it will need to be filled with reagent approximately every 13 days. Installation of two 1-ton silos is recommended. This will allow for a longer period of time between deliveries of alkaline material and will also provide a backup in case problems with delivery, operation or maintenance are encountered.

The estimated capital cost for the construction of two lime silos is $250,000. An annual expenditure of $21,000 is expected for pebble quicklime. Additional field tests are recommended to determine if a cheaper lime material can be used without decreasing treatment efficiency. If this is found to be the case, annual expenditures can be decreased to approximately $10,000 to $15,000 a year for alkaline material.

It is recommended that Lime Doser Consultant, LLC be contacted to further discuss the final design and layout of this active treatment system.

Predicted Effect of System on Receiving Stream:

The water discharging from the dosing area will flow through a rock-lined ditch before entering Hartshorn Run. This will give adequate time for the metals to precipitate in the channel and not in the stream itself. If space is available, a settling pond will be constructed to capture precipitants as well. The water entering Hartshorn Run will be alkaline in nature with minimal iron and aluminum concentrations. The treatment will remove 140 lb/day of acidity, 1 lb/day of iron, and 15 lb/day of aluminum. The treated water will be able to support an aquatic community and will begin the neutralization of Hartshorn Run.

4-2 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

Other:

Since this site is recommended for active treatment, the Clearfield County Conservation District will work to identify a responsible party for operation and maintenance at this facility. Interest has already been expressed by one local Trout Unlimited chapter, as well as several local residents who live within the watershed. The dosers work without electricity and are low maintenance, but they will still need to be checked and monitored on a routine basis, along with coordinating the delivery of the lime material to keep the dosers functional. The channel and/or settling basin will also need to be monitored for build up of sediments and cleaned on a routine basis. A field-monitoring plan will be established to determine the overall effects of the treatment system on water quality.

Priority #2: HAR 05, iron seeps

Site Description:

This monitoring point is a series of small iron seeps located along the bank of Unnamed Tributary 26653 (Mine Trib). They appear to emanate from the toe of slope of a reclaimed surface mine where they gather into two channels and discharge to the unnamed tributary.

Summary of Chemistry for HAR 05 Flow pH Lab Cond Acidity Acid Iron Iron Mn Al Sulfate (gpm) (SU) (Umhos) (mg/l) Load (mg/l) Load (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) Average 28.23 3.9 274 32 9.75 13 4.26 1.45 0.25 90.6 Min 0.00 3.3 185 15 0.00 4 0.00 0.89 0.06 63.0 Max 214.00 4.3 473 65 94.94 39 42.60 2.28 0.41 153.0 75% CI 52.05 4.0 309 37 18.68 17 8.27 1.60 0.28 101.3 90% CI 62.29 4.0 324 39 22.51 19 10.00 1.67 0.30 105.9

Recommendations:

This discharge is being designated as the number two treatment priority in the watershed because of the low pH and iron loadings entering the stream. The design flow is 20 gpm, the iron concentration is 20 mg/L, aluminum is 0.3 mg/L, and manganese is 1.5 mg/L. The recommendation for treatment is to first build two shallow iron oxidation ponds to allow for low pH iron precipitation to occur and to also act as flow control to the subsequent components. These ponds will be followed by an anaerobic wetland 160’ by 55’ with one foot of compost and one foot of limestone to both increase the pH and allow for further precipitation of the iron. A limestone bed with 500 tons of limestone will follow to allow for a final increase in pH and alkalinity before being discharged to the stream. It is recommended that a small settling basin or a rip/rapped ditch be installed after the limestone bed to allow for final iron precipitation. A by-pass ditch will be included for high flow events.

The estimated cost of constructing this system is $125,000.

4-3 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

Predicted Effect of System on Receiving Stream:

The water discharging from the treatment system will be alkaline in nature with minimal iron and aluminum concentrations. It will remove 32 lb/day of acidity, 13 lb/day of iron and less than 1 lb/day of aluminum. It will continue the neutralization of Hartshorn Run.

Other:

A final operation and maintenance plan will be developed with the construction phase of the project once final design specifications are complete. Visual checks of the system will be made monthly to ensure that wildlife is not affecting the integrity of the system. A field-monitoring plan will be established to determine the overall effects of the treatment system on water quality. The Clearfield County Conservation District has agreed to work with local residents and a local Trout Unlimited chapter to assume the long-term operation and maintenance of the treatment system. They will be conducting the monthly checks and reporting to the project consultant if any corrections need to be made.

Priority #3: Headwaters of Hartshorn Run above HAR 04

Site Description:

HAR 04 is an in-stream monitoring point on the main stem of Hartshorn Run above the confluence with Unnamed Tributary 26653 (Mine Trib). The stream has reasonably good water quality at this location and brook trout are present above this point, however, the stream is acid sensitive and has very little buffering capacity at this location.

Summary of Chemistry on HAR 04 Flow pH Lab Cond Acidity Acid Iron Iron Mn Al Sulfate (gpm) (SU) (Umhos) (mg/l) Load (mg/l) Load (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) Average 2419.9 6.1 70 7 237.99 0.17 5.96 0.04 0.11 14 Min 0 5.8 57 2 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.04 11 Max 7732.8 6.6 80 12 927.24 0.72 16.69 0.09 0.41 16 75% CI 3333.4 6.2 73 8 338.95 0.23 8.21 0.04 0.15 15 90% CI 3726.1 6.2 74 9 382.35 0.25 9.17 0.05 0.16 15

Recommendations:

Hartshorn Run above HAR 04 has been designated as the number three treatment priority in the implementation and restoration plan because of the adverse impact to aquatic life in the tributary. The stream is on the borderline to having a healthy aquatic community; therefore, lime sand addition is recommended to reach the tipping point. The chemistry used to calculate the lime sand addition rate is a flow of 3800 gpm, a pH of 5.8, acidity concentration of 10 mg/L, and iron and aluminum concentrations of less than 1 mg/L. This is an ideal site for lime addition due to access, low acidity and minimal metal loadings. It is recommended that limestone material of less than 1/8” diameter be used to increase the pH and alkalinity in the stream. Using lime sand will allow for that pH tipping point to be reached and will increase productivity in the present aquatic community. Based on loadings, it is recommended that at a minimum 85 tons of lime

4-4 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010 material be used each year. Using high flow values for lime sand calculations, 165 tons of material would be used.

At approximately $30 a ton delivered, the yearly cost for limestone sanding would be $2550 to $4950. Once the tipping point is reached, the stream may not require sanding on a yearly basis and treatment costs may be reduced to every other or every several years.

Predicted Effect of System on Receiving Stream:

Through the addition of the lime sand in the headwaters region of Hartshorn Run, the existing aquatic community should be able to expand and increase once acidity levels are buffered. This is a low cost way to restore this stream that has no discreet acid discharges to be treated. Increasing the buffering capacity of the stream above HAR 04 will also help to counteract the negative impacts to water quality from Unnamed Tributary 26653 (Mine Trib) that enters just downstream, further expanding the available habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms.

Other:

Lime sand should be dumped at varying times throughout the year, preferably during high flow in the spring and again in early September. The Clearfield County Conservation District will be responsible for coordinating these efforts with local partners and making sure that lime sand is entering the stream on a steady basis. One local contractor has already shown interest in supplying the necessary equipment to maintain the sanding sites. A field-monitoring plan will be established to determine the overall effects of limestone sand addition on water quality.

4.3 Summary Treatment Areas

Table 2.3 in Section 2 of this narrative summarizes the treatment necessary for the restoration of Hartshorn Run. Three priority treatment areas as described above are needed. The table lists the type of treatment to be used and the cost associated with each area. The best available technology at the time will be used and treatment designs may be changed upon further site investigation as work in these areas progresses.

Note: A description of each of these treatment areas can be found in Section 2 of this report, while a photograph of each can be found in Appendix E.

4.4 Predicted Effect of Systems on Receiving Stream

For the Hartshorn Run Assessment, sample points were located at identified discharges throughout the watershed and at points corresponding to the TMDL study, specifically HAR 03 to correspond to TMDL point HART 04, HAR 04 to correspond to TMDL point HART 03, and HAR 01 to correspond to TMDL point HART 01. This was done to collect the most current water quality results for these points. Using this more recent data, the priority treatment areas were chosen and treatment systems designed to meet the

4-5 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010 required reductions necessary at TMDL points downstream, as described above. The reductions in loadings resulting from the installation of each proposed treatment system, the necessary size of the proposed treatment system, and the cost for each system were determined using the program “AMDTreat”.

4.5 Additional Areas of Interest

Due to constraints of both time and money, certain areas of the watershed were not studied in as great of detail during the assessment of Hartshorn Run as others.

Once the top three priorities in the watershed have been addressed, it is expected that the TMDL for Hartshorn Run should be met. If this is not the case, perhaps these areas should be taken into further consideration at that time. Although the stream is not listed for impairment due to sediment or nutrients, several areas could benefit from work completed via habitat improvement/streambank stabilization projects, streambank fencing, and/or the Dirt and Gravel Road Program. Once excess acidity is removed from the stream, it may also unmask nutrient issues pertaining to private septic systems in the watershed, as municipal sewage treatment is not present in most of the watershed.

4.6 Establishment of an Operation and Maintenance Fund

It should be noted that due to the generosity of one local business, an operation and maintenance fund has been established for treatment of Hartshorn Run. Starr Hill Vineyard and Winery, located on the hillside overlooking the stream, has created a wine called Hartshorn Run Red. A portion of each sale of this wine is donated to the Hartshorn Run O&M fund. The Clearfield County Conservation District manages this fund and will continue to seek new sources of funding to increase the account holding.

4-6 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

5.0 TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT BMPS

Several organizations are working to restore the Hartshorn Run watershed. These include the Clearfield County Conservation District (CCCD), Trout Unlimited (TU), the Clearfield County Senior Environment Corps (CCSEC), and the West Branch Susquehanna Restoration Coalition (WBSRC), collectively known as the “Project Partners.” The roles and efforts of these organizations are discussed later in this narrative. These organizations, particularly TU, SEC, and the WBSRC are comprised of volunteers and have limited technical and financial resources. The CCCD is also financially limited and is unable to provide significant amounts of funding for the restoration of Hartshorn Run. Therefore, technical and financial assistance will be needed to implement the BMPs required to restore the Hartshorn Run watershed. The technical and financial assistance needed for design, installation, and maintenance and potential funding sources and shortfalls are described in the following paragraphs.

5.1 Design, Installation, and Maintenance Costs

This implementation plan has identified three areas where BMPs will need to be installed to remediate the water quality problems in Hartshorn Run and meet the TMDLs for the watershed. A list of the three priority areas and the activities for which future funding will be required is provided in Table 5.1 below.

TABLE 5.1 PROJECTS AND PROJECT TASKS REQUIRING FUTURE FUNDING

PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OPERATION ESTIMATED PERMITTING FUNDS NEEDED AND COSTS FUNDS MAINTENANCE NEEDED FUNDS NEEDED

HAR 07 YES YES YES $250,000 + Lime $10,000- Dosers 21,000 annually

HAR 05 YES YES YES $125,000 Passive Treatment System

5-1 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OPERATION ESTIMATED PERMITTING FUNDS NEEDED AND COSTS FUNDS MAINTENANCE NEEDED FUNDS NEEDED

HAR 04 YES NO YES $2,500-5,000 Lime Sand annually Addition

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR ABOVE RESTORATION PROJECTS $375,000 + $12,500- 26,000 annually

5.1.1 Overall Watershed Restoration Costs

Construction costs for the future treatment sites in the Hartshorn Run watershed are also addressed in Section 4 of this report as part of the description of each priority area. A summary of the priority projects along with the associated construction costs can also be found in Table 2.3 in Section 2.

5.2 Sources of Funding for Plan Implementation

Several potential sources of funding have been identified for the restoration efforts in the Hartshorn Run watershed. These funding sources include Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener Program (contingent upon its continuation) and the Federal Section 319 Program. The CCCD has been successful in obtaining Section 319 and Growing Greener funding for projects in the past. Other potential sources of funding include Federal Funding available through the Office of Surface Mining and/or assistance from the DEP BAMR.

Other smaller potential sources of funding in the form of matching funds and volunteer funds have also been identified. These include funding provided by project consultants, who typically provide some services at no charge as a form of matching funds, volunteer labor for the collection of water samples, etc., and matching funds provided by CCCD for project oversight and management. Trout Unlimited may also be able to provide technical assistance and/or matching funds toward construction projects.

AMD restoration funds may also be available through the Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds, the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other similar organizations.

5-2 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

Operation and maintenance costs will require long-term and ongoing funding. The Project Partners will explore all avenues for long-term operation and maintenance, including the potential for reuse or sale of precipitates, such as iron and aluminum, recovered from the treatment facilities. If current research into the recovery and reuse of metals precipitates from treatment systems results in a market for these materials, these precipitates will be sold, donated to research, etc. in a manner which either generates funds that could be used for operation and maintenance costs or that minimizes the costs of disposal of materials for the Project Partners.

As described in Section 4.5, an operation and maintenance fund has already been established for the watershed and the project partners will continue to seek revenue to increase this fund.

5.3 Funding Shortfalls

At the present time, it is believed that the current funding sources are sufficient to provide for the design and construction of reclamation/remediation projects for the restoration of most of the priorities in the watershed. However, funding for the more costly projects, especially those requiring active treatment methods, may be more difficult to obtain due to limited funding sources and competition for funding among projects. Currently, the Growing Greener and 319 programs will pay for construction of active treatment systems, but only if the applicant has demonstrated the ability to pay for the operation and maintenance for those systems for a period of at least 20 years.

A known funding shortfall for treatment system operation, maintenance, and replacement currently exists for all projects to be implemented. Prior to the 2006 Growing Greener Grant Application Round, funding was not available for the operation and ongoing maintenance of treatment systems. Although some grant funding is now available for operation and maintenance, these funds are limited. While the Project Partners can provide varying amounts of volunteer labor for operation and maintenance activities, both groups will be in need of funds for future maintenance activities, such as replacement of limestone in passive treatment systems.

The possibility exists that these funds may become available through the recent reauthorization of the federal Abandoned Mine Land Fund, where up to thirty percent of Pennsylvania’s annual allocation could be set aside for watershed restoration projects.

5.4 Technical Assistance Required

The WBSRC and CCSEC are organizations comprised of volunteers, and all have limited technical and financial resources. These organizations will be in need of technical assistance for these projects to be implemented in the Hartshorn Run watershed. The needed technical assistance will include, but will not be limited to, engineering and design services such as site design, development of erosion and sediment control plans, and development of operation and maintenance plans, and permitting assistance such as obtaining stream encroachment permits. These organizations will work with professional consultants who have been assisting them with watershed restoration activities for a

5-3 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010 number of years, and will also seek assistance from Trout Unlimited and the Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts’ Technical Assistance Grant programs.

5-4 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

6.0 PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION

As part of the watershed assessment, the stakeholders for restoration of the Hartshorn Run watershed were identified. This section provides more detailed information specific to the Hartshorn Run watershed regarding stakeholders, sources of information and influence in the watershed, a watershed advisory group, and information strategy.

6.1 Stakeholder Identification

The following stakeholders have been identified for restoration activities in the watershed: Aletta’s Farm Market; Allegheny Mountain Chapter of Trout Unlimited (AMC-TU); Clearfield Borough; Clearfield County Conservation District (CCCD); Clearfield County Rails to Trails Association; Clearfield County Recreation and Tourism Authority; Clearfield County Planning Commission; Clearfield County Senior Environment Corps (CCSEC); Curwensville Anglers Restocking Program (CARP); Curwensville Borough; Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV); the town of Hyde; Jim’s Sports Center; Old Town Sportsman’s Association; PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); PA Fish & Boat Commission (PFBC); Pennsylvania State Council of Trout Unlimited; Pennsylvania State University DuBois Campus; Pike Township Board of Supervisors; P.J. Bressler’s Bait & More; Starr Hill Winery; Susquehanna River Basin Commission; Trout Unlimited National (TU); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Office of Surface Mining; Upper West Branch Regional Greenways Committee; West Branch Susquehanna Restoration Coalition (WBSRC); private consultants; residents and landowners along Hartshorn Run; other government interests; and local development interests.

The CCCD and AMC-TU will be the lead organizations in the restoration of Hartshorn Run. They will work with the Pike Township Board of Supervisors to determine the townships involvement in the restoration of the watershed. The Township may be asked to provide fiscal administration or in-kind services in the form of equipment and/or labor for both the active and passive treatment systems on the stream.

The CCCD has continued to provide ongoing support to the restoration of Hartshorn Run by providing technical guidance through all phases of the assessment project. The Watershed Specialist at the District has provided the volunteers with training on water sampling, equipment use, and AMD treatment technologies. She has also helped the group to collect monthly and quarterly stream samples, performed macroinvertebrate sampling, compiled and interpreted the water quality data, and worked with a consultant to develop the conceptual treatment system designs. She has and will continue to assist the volunteers with grant writing and other technical assistance as restoration of the watershed progresses.

The list of stakeholders includes Pike Township, Clearfield and Curwensville Boroughs, the town of Hyde, and residents and property owners along Hartshorn Run and nearby communities. Improved water quality in the stream will result in improved quality of living in these areas, increased property values, and increased recreational opportunities,

6-1 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010 as well as, an influx of tourism dollars being spent in the local area. Businesses that cater to the fishing community such as Aletta’s Farm Market, Jim’s Sports Center, and P.J. Bressler’s Bait and More, will see an increase in sales of bait, gear, and other fishing supplies along with the increase in fishing opportunities. As more people come to enjoy the enhanced fishing opportunities created by cleaner water, restaurants, gas stations, hotels and grocery stores in the area will see an increase in business as well.

The Old Town Sportsman’s Association and CARP will see increased fishing opportunities in sections of the river that they currently stock as water quality improves due to the influx of good water from Hartshorn Run. The CCCD, CCSEC, AMC-TU, EBTJV, TU, PFBC, WBSRC and local anglers are interested in the recovery of Hartshorn Run as a reproducing wild brook trout stream. Currently, fish do exist above the Hartshorn Mine discharge that could repopulate the stream once the pollution is removed. This stream could become the perfect location to conduct research (perhaps by a Penn State DuBois student) on the recovery of a brook trout stream following AMD abatement efforts.

Strong, sustainable partnerships between local stakeholders and other entities are crucial to the restoration of the Hartshorn Run watershed. The project partners will work to promote cooperation and ongoing partnerships between all identified stakeholders, as well as identify additional stakeholders, to aid in the restoration of the stream.

6.2 Sources of Information and Influence in the Watershed

Sources of information and influence in the watershed include newspapers, websites, radio stations, and local gathering places. The Clearfield Progress and the DuBois Courier Express/Tri-County Sunday are the local newspapers and the primary sources of printed information in the watershed. The Progress is available online at www.theprogressnews.com, and the Courier Express/Tri-County Sunday is available online at www.thecourierexpress.com. These papers include community and outdoor features in addition to regular news that would be appropriate for publication of watershed-related activities. Another local, online news source is Gant Daily, which can be found online at www.gantdaily.com.

A website is available for Clearfield County, which could also potentially serve to publicize information relating to watershed issues. This website can be located at http:// www.clearfieldco.org/. Additional information pertaining to watershed activities could potentially be posted on the Clearfield County Recreation & Tourism Authority’s website at www.visitclearfieldcounty.org or the Clearfield County Conservation District’s website at www.clfdccd.com.

Additional websites where information could be submitted include those of Trout Unlimited (www.tu.org); the West Branch Susquehanna Restoration Coalition (www.wbsrc.org); and Pennsylvania Trout Unlimited (www.patrout.org).

The local radio station out of Clearfield is WOKW 102.9 FM. This station regularly runs public notices and information pieces on local happenings. They have a regular public

6-2 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010 affairs program on Sunday called “A Closer Look,” where they discuss issues that are important to the local community. The Conservation District has used this format to get the word out about watershed-related activities in the past, so this would likely be a great way to inform the public about the efforts to restore Hartshorn Run.

Events and news relating to Hartshorn Run could be posted in the local post offices in Curwensville, Hyde and Clearfield, as well as, the local fire halls, grocery stores and other businesses.

On a related note, the Conservation District is currently involved in a Social Marketing study through EPA Region 3 to determine the marketability of Hartshorn Run and two adjacent watersheds, Montgomery Creek and Anderson Creek. Through this study, the Conservation District hopes to learn the best ways to inform the public of watershed activities along those streams, raise awareness of AMD issues, and attract new volunteers to help in restoration activities. This project should be implemented in the coming year.

6.3 Information Strategy

Local citizens will be informed about current watershed issues in the Hartshorn Run watershed, and their involvement will be solicited during implementation of restoration projects in the watershed. Two primary mechanisms will be utilized to disseminate information: public presentations to be held during public meetings of the CCCD, AMC- TU, and WBSRC and press releases to the local media identified previously in this narrative.

The CCCD and AMC-TU meet on monthly basis while the WBSRC meets quarterly. These meetings will become an excellent setting for distribution of watershed information. The meetings will allow for dialog with local citizens and provide an opportunity for citizens to provide input on the projects and restoration plan. The local newspapers and websites will also provide a means of distributing information to the general public. Using the information gleaned from their Social Marketing project, the CCCD can, hopefully, attract some additional interest in the watershed, perhaps even forming an official watershed association for the stream.

Public distribution of planning and project information shall occur at three key points for the remaining projects in the watershed: 1) Prior to the application for funding for design and for construction; 2) Prior to commencement of construction; and 3) Following completion of construction. A project status report will be provided at a public meeting for each of the three key points. A press release will also be distributed to the newspapers and websites listed previously, prior to the commencement of construction activities.

6-3 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND EVALUATION

This implementation plan has identified three priority areas where BMPs will need to be installed to remediate the water quality problems in the Hartshorn Run watershed in order for the TMDLs for the stream to be met. Efforts to obtain funding for the needed BMPs will commence with the completion of this implementation plan. An implementation schedule, including implementation milestones, funding, construction, and maintenance activities, responsible parties, local considerations, and progress monitoring and reporting is detailed in the following paragraphs.

7.1 Implementation Milestones

The implementation milestones for the restoration of Hartshorn Run include funding, construction, and maintenance activities, as shown in Section 7.4 of this narrative. The milestones provide specific target dates to obtain funding, construct or implement projects, to maintain projects, and to monitor and report on the progress of projects.

Meetings of the CCCD and AMC-TU will allow for coordination of project funding applications, and will provide an opportunity for the responsible parties to address the planning of future projects, to review and report on the progress of ongoing and completed projects, and to address any difficulties in achieving the project implementation milestones. If milestones are not achieved due to a lack of funding, weather, or any other unforeseen factors that may prevent construction of all of the scheduled projects in any given year, the project implementation milestones and schedule will be adjusted accordingly, and uncompleted projects will be rescheduled for the following year.

7.2 Funding, Construction, and Maintenance Activities

Funding for restoration activities in the Hartshorn Run watershed will be obtained mainly from grant sources, with small amounts of matching funds provided from contractors, watershed organizations, and consultants. A schedule for applying for funding for the projects in the watershed is included in Section 7.4. This schedule is subject to change based on availability and award of funding.

Construction is dependent on project funding, and the construction schedule may need to be revised in the future. As construction of each project is completed, the evaluation process will begin and the implementation schedule for future projects will be reviewed to determine if changes should be made prior to construction to incorporate considerations such as improvements in BMP technology, successes or failures of BMPs in the watershed, and maintenance concerns specific to the watershed.

Maintenance activities have also been included in the implementation schedule. Maintenance activities have been estimated for those treatment systems or BMPs not yet designed. The actual performance of various BMPs may vary following implementation, and the operation and maintenance schedule will be revised accordingly in the future.

7-1 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

7.3 Parties Responsible for Implementation Milestones

Three parties are or will be responsible for the funding, implementation, construction, operation and maintenance, and progress monitoring and reporting for the restoration projects in this watershed. These parties include the Pike Township Board of Supervisors, Allegheny Mountain Chapter of TU, and the Clearfield County Conservation District. The AMC-TU will be responsible for inspecting, maintaining and monitoring the treatment systems that are installed. Similarly, Pike Township and the Conservation District will be responsible for assisting the AMC-TU with future applications for funding of those BMPs and operation and maintenance needs. These groups, as well as, others identified in Section 6 of this narrative, will assume operation and maintenance responsibility for all the projects that they have implemented. The exact responsible parties will be laid out in the Operation & Maintenance plan that will accompany the complete design package for each construction project. Specific project responsibilities are summarized in Section 7.4.

7.4 Schedule

The proposed schedule for completion of future restoration efforts is provided in Table 7.1. Milestones and parties responsible for the activities listed on the schedule are also shown.

TABLE 7.1 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBLE ACTIVITY OR PARTY MILESTONE

Construction of Lime Doser on Apply for design & permitting AMC-TU & CCCD Hartshorn Mine Discharge & construction funds Summer (HART 07) 2011

Commence construction activities - Fall 2011/Spring 2012

Construction of Passive Apply for design & permitting– AMC-TU & CCCD Treatment System at HART 05 Summer 2011

Apply for construction funds – Spring 2012

7-2 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBLE ACTIVITY OR PARTY MILESTONE

Limestone Sanding of Apply for design & permitting– AMC-TU, CCCD & Hartshorn Run above HART 04 Summer 2011 Pike Township

Apply for funds – Summer 2012

Commence sanding activities – Fall 2012/Spring 2013

7-3 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

8.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The goal of this implementation plan is the restoration of water quality in Hartshorn Run to a quality sufficient to achieve the designated use of the stream as a Cold Water Fishery (CWF) and to allow for the stream to be removed from Pennsylvania’s Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Several sections of the stream are presently listed as impaired for pH and metals due to non-point source pollution from AMD. In order to determine if the watershed restoration goal for Hartshorn Run is met, a water quality evaluation and monitoring plan has been developed. The plan, as discussed in the following sections of this narrative, includes loading and water quality milestones, local considerations, a monitoring schedule and the parties responsible.

8.1 Loading and Water Quality Milestones

Loading and water quality milestones are presented in Table 8.1 in Section 8.4 of this narrative. These milestones were developed to fit within the framework provided by the sampling points used in the assessment of Hartshorn Run and the framework of the TMDL developed for the watershed.

The water quality milestones were developed for reductions in pollutant load and improvements in water quality that will lead to the achievement of the DEP’s standards for water quality and recommended use. The milestones were tailored to the specific impairments in the Hartshorn Run watershed, specifically AMD. The parameters for sampling were based on impairment by AMD, and the resultant parameters of interest-- acidity, alkalinity, and metals. Sampling locations and sample collection frequency have been provided.

8.2 Local Considerations

As stated previously, the Hartshorn Run watershed benefits from having multiple conservation-minded organizations, working to improve the watershed. All parties involved will need to be in agreement for these goals to be realized.

Other unique local considerations include winter weather. The winter weather in this watershed can be more severe than many other areas of Pennsylvania, and as a result, collection of water samples during the winter months is often not practical or possible. The presence of ice precludes access to collect samples, and thick snow may prevent the sample collector from reaching the sample sites. The schedule provided in Section 8.4 allows for potential weather concerns by allowing some flexibility in the sample collection schedule.

A final consideration for water quality monitoring and evaluation, while not specific to the local area, is the availability of funding for water quality monitoring activities. Typically, manpower to collect a small number of water samples on a quarterly to yearly frequency does not pose any difficulties to the CCCD and volunteer organizations working on the stream; however, the cost for sample analysis does present an issue for ongoing water quality monitoring. As mentioned earlier, the organizations involved are

8-1 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010 dependent on grant funding for projects, and many of the grant programs do not provide funding for the laboratory analysis of water samples. Long-term monitoring will require the ongoing laboratory analysis of water samples, resulting in significant costs for the responsible parties. The project partners must seek a funding source to meet the costs of laboratory analysis for ongoing monitoring.

8.3 Responsible Parties

The CCCD and AMC-TU will meet at least once per year, preferably in January and will maintain open lines of communication during the rest of the year to provide an opportunity for the responsible parties to review the water quality monitoring and determine if pollutant loading and water quality milestones are being achieved.

The parties who are or will be responsible for the funding, implementation, construction, operation and maintenance, and progress monitoring and reporting for the restoration projects in this watershed will also be responsible for water quality monitoring and evaluation. These parties may include the CCCD, AMC-TU, Pike Township, CCSEC, and others. The specific water quality monitoring duties will vary by project but will be laid out in the Operation & Maintenance plan that is developed for each construction project. Specific project responsibilities are summarized in the schedule in Section 8.4 of this narrative.

8.4 Schedule

The proposed schedule for water quality monitoring activities and the achievement of water quality milestones is provided in the following table. The parties responsible for the activities listed on the schedule are also shown. Maps showing the locations of water sampling points are provided in Appendix A.

The Water Quality Monitoring Schedule and Milestones utilizes the term “restoration” of stream reaches with respect to water quality milestones. This term should be defined as restoration of water quality sufficient to achieve the designated use of Hartshorn Run as a CWF, including all applicable water quality criteria as described in 25 PA Code §93 for the designated use as well as sufficient water quality to allow for the stream to be removed from Pennsylvania’s Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. In addition, the specific pollutant limits established by the TMDL for the stream should be met. By doing so, the wild brook trout fishery of the stream will be restored.

The schedule also utilizes the phrase “improvement in water quality” with respect to several of the priority treatment areas. Since the restoration of the watershed may not progress in an upstream-to-downstream direction, improvements in water quality may be made before the segment of stream can be considered restored.

8-2 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

TABLE 8.1 WATER QUALITY MONITORING SCHEDULE AND MILESTONES

MONITORING ACTIVITY SCHEDULE SAMPLING SAMPLE RESPONSIBLE OR MILESTONE LOCATION(S) PARAMETERS PARTY

ACTIVITY 1 Estimated construction Treatment system pH, acidity, CCCD & completion by end of 2012. outfall at final settling alkalinity, iron, Monitoring of effluent of Monitoring commences basin aluminum, and AMC-TU Hartshorn Mine Discharge immediately following manganese (HAR 07) Lime Doser construction completion. Mouth of UNT 26653 Treatment System, Mouth of to Hartshorn Run UNT 26653 (Mine Trib), and Monthly monitoring January (HART 04, HAR 03) Mouth of Hartshorn Run 2013-December 2014. Mouth of Hartshorn Quarterly monitoring January Run (HART01, HAR 2014-December 2015. 01) -Quarterly

Semi-annual monitoring January 2016 and beyond.

MILESTONE

Improvement of UNT 26653 to To be achieved by March 2013 Same as Activity 1 Same as Activity 1 Same as Activity 1 confluence with Hartshorn Run; Reduction in pollutant loading of Hartshorn Run to mouth (See note 3)

8-3 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

MONITORING ACTIVITY SCHEDULE SAMPLING SAMPLE RESPONSIBLE OR MILESTONE LOCATION(S) PARAMETERS PARTY

ACTIVITY 2 Estimated construction Treatment system pH, acidity, CCCD & completion by end of 2013. outfall at final settling alkalinity, iron, Monitoring of effluent from Monitoring commences basin aluminum, and AMC-TU HAR 05 Passive Treatment immediately following manganese System , mouth of UNT 26653 construction completion. Mouth of UNT 26653 (Mine Trib), mouth of (HART 04, HAR 03) Hartshorn Run Monthly monitoring January 2013-December 2014. Mouth of Hartshorn Run (HART 01, HAR Quarterly monitoring January 01) - Quarterly 2015-December 2016.

Semi-annual monitoring January 2017 and beyond.

MILESTONE

Restoration of water quality in To be achieved by March 2013 Same as Activity 2 Same as Activity 2 Same as Activity 2 UNT26653 (Mine Trib). Reduction in pollutant loadings in Hartshorn Run to mouth.

8-4 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

MONITORING ACTIVITY SCHEDULE SAMPLING SAMPLE RESPONSIBLE OR MILESTONE LOCATION(S) PARAMETERS PARTY

ACTIVITY 3 Estimated lime sanding Immediately pH, acidity, CCCD & implementation by end of downstream of lime alkalinity, iron, Monitoring of Hartshorn Run 2012. Monitoring commences sand addition site. aluminum, and AMC-TU below Lime Sand Addition immediately following manganese location(s), above UNT 26653, limestone sanding. Hartshorn Run above and mouth of Hartshorn Run UNT 26653 (HART Monthly monitoring January 03, HAR 04) 2013-December 2013. Mouth of Hartshorn Quarterly monitoring January Run (HART 01, HAR 2014-December 2015. 01)

Semi-annual monitoring January 2016 and beyond contingent upon additional lime sand additions.

MILESTONE

Restoration of Hartshorn Run To be achieved by March Same as Activity 3 Same as Activity 3 Same as Activity 3 2013.

Water Quality Progress At regular CCCD & AMC-TU All points listed above All points listed CCCD & Reporting—All Projects meetings above AMC-TU Special meeting to be called if problems or declines in water quality are noted

8-5 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010 Notes:

1. All samples to be analyzed for the parameters of acidity, alkalinity, iron, aluminum, and manganese.

2. If projects are completed sooner than anticipated, monitoring shall begin immediately following completion of construction.

3. A time of 6 months following completion of construction of passive treatment systems or other BMPs has been allowed before a water quality milestone was considered to be achieved. This 6-month time period was allowed to account for variability in treatment system efficiency during startup and any necessary adjustments to treatment systems due to unforeseen conditions.

4. The sampling timeframe has been left fairly flexible to allow for adjustments for winter weather conditions, flooding conditions, etc. However, the sample should be collected during high flow winter conditions, when treatment efficiency is likely to decline, and during low flow summer conditions, when discharges may be less diluted and other environmental factors such as temperature and oxygen levels are likely to have negative impacts to aquatic life.

5. See also Sample Location Map provided in Appendix A. Sample location points reference the same sample point designations as the Hartshorn Run assessment that was completed to develop this implementation plan and the Hartshorn Run TMDL to the fullest extent possible. Several new sample points may be necessary in order to fully measure the effects of each treatment system on its receiving waters. These were noted above in the “Sampling Locations” column.

6. Manganese and aluminum to be measured as total recoverable quantity. Iron to be measured as total recoverable, dissolved, as per PA Code, Title 25, Chapter 93.

8-6 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

9.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS

The need for remedial or corrective actions for BMPs and restoration activities will be based on achieving certain criteria that were established for the purpose of evaluating the results of restoration projects in the Hartshorn Run watershed. The criteria for evaluating results and re-evaluation procedures are discussed in the following paragraphs.

9.1 Criteria for Evaluating Results

The results of project implementation and water quality monitoring will be judged against prescribed milestones for water quality improvement. Water quality milestones were addressed in Section 8.4 of this narrative.

The water quality criteria to be met include the following criteria established by the TMDLs for Hartshorn Run as discussed in Section 3 of this narrative.

Title 25, §93.7 of the Pennsylvania Code provides water quality criteria for designated uses such as CWF. The criteria listed above for the TMDL should be used for iron, manganese, aluminum, and acidity. Alkalinity must be 20 mg/l minimum as per §93.7.

It should be noted that in some cases the TMDLs for Hartshorn Run involve relatively small reductions in pollutant concentrations. Some initial metals concentrations are well below the level of 1 mg/l. Reductions in metals concentrations below 1 mg/l are difficult to predict and achieve using today’s current passive treatment technologies, and special care must be exercised to provide appropriate treatment methods to achieve the necessary reductions in pollutant concentration.

9.2 Re-evaluation Procedures

The goal of this implementation plan is the restoration of water quality in Hartshorn Run to a quality sufficient to achieve the designated use of the stream as a Cold Water Fishery (CWF) to allow for the stream to be removed from Pennsylvania’s Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report and to meet the TMDLs that were established for the stream. Post-construction water quality monitoring will be used to indicate if the implemented projects are meeting the water quality criteria established for the restoration of Hartshorn Run.

In the event that the water quality data collected during the post-construction sampling indicate that project implementation has not produced the desired improvements in water quality, if the water quality criteria are not being met, or if progress is less than expected, the implementation process must be re-evaluated. Implementation efforts, project milestones, the selected restoration measures, and the TMDLs for the stream may be re- evaluated, either collectively or on an individual basis.

The AMC-TU and CCCD will be responsible for the re-evaluation process. As indicated on the Water Quality Monitoring Schedule, the groups will meet on a regular basis, but a special meeting will be called if water quality results indicate that the water quality

9-1 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010 criteria are not being met and a problem is occurring. The group will discuss the nature and severity of the situation and develop a plan and schedule for correction of the situation. As needed, additional special meetings will be called until the situation is addressed. On an as-needed basis, the group may take actions such as re-scheduling proposed activities, retrofitting activities, adding additional BMP’s, and shifting priorities to the necessary corrective action to ensure that remediation of the watershed is proceeding in an effective and technically appropriate fashion based on current watershed conditions.

9-2 Implementation Plan for Hartshorn Run June 2010

10.0 REFERENCES

Kime, Rodney. December 23, 2008. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Personal communications regarding Hartshorn Run TMDL document.

Orr, Jennifer. January 2, 2009. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Personal communications regarding Hartshorn Run TMDL document.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Hartshorn Run Watershed TMDL, Clearfield County.

Pennsylvania Fish Commission. April 3, 1944. Distribution Report for Hartshorn Run. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Division of Fisheries Management.

Pennsylvania Fish Commission. May 1989. Water Allocation (WA 17-364B) Permit Recommendations to the Pike Township Municipal Authority from Leroy M. Young, Fisheries Biologist. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Division of Environmental Services.

Swanson, Edward R. 2008. North American Refractories Company. Personal communications regarding the Hartshorn underground clay mine.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1981. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. www.nrcs.usda.gov.

United States Geological Survey. 1981. 7.5 Minute Topographic Map of Clearfield, PA Quadrangle.

United States Geological Survey. 1993. 7.5 Minute Topographic Map of Curwensville, PA Quadrangle.

United States Geological Survey. 1983. 7.5 Minute Topographic Map of Elliott Park, PA Quadrangle.

United States Geological Survey. 1993. 7.5 Minute Topographic Map of Glen Richey, PA Quadrangle.

10-1 APPENDIX A

Maps Location of Hartshorn Run Watershed

DUBOIS Watershed in Clearfield County

CLEARFIELD Legend West Branch Watershed STATE COLLEGE Noted cities

ALTOONA Hartshorn Watershed PITTSBURGH Other counties HARRISBURG Clearfield County

PHILADELPHIA

Civil boundaries and watershed outline Location within Pennsylvania 1:2,806,237 provided by PASDA 0 30,000 60,000 120,000 180,000 240,000 Meters A-1 Map is intended as representational. Size and position of map elements are not guaranteed in size or placement. Boundary of Hartshorn Run Watershed

CLEARFIELD

Watershed in Clearfield County ELLIOTT PARK Topographic Map: 7.5 minute Raster graphic for Elliot Park, Curwensville, and Glen Richey Quandrangles as well as watershed boundaries and civil bounds provided by PASDA

CURWENSVILLE GLEN RICHEY

Watershed Boundary on relevant Quad maps 1:50,000 0 550 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 Meters A-2 Map is intended as representational. Size and position of map elements are not guaranteed in size or placement. Soils of Hartshorn Run Watershed

Legend

92D ErC Up 95D ExB W BeB GlB WhB Watershed in Clearfield County BeC GlC WhC Soils data provided by BeD GmD WhD USDA NRCS BrA HbD National Soil Information System BrB HbF Spatial data BxB HdB provided by PASDA CaB NxB CaC Ph CmB Po CmC RaB CxB RbF CxD RcD ErB Ru

1:50,000 0 550 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 Meters A-3 Map is intended as representational. Size and position of map elements are not guaranteed in size or placement. NWI Recognized Wetlands of Hartshorn Run

PUBHh

PUBHh

PUBHh Watershed Overview PUBHh

PUBHh Civil and watershed boundaries provided by PASDA

NWI Mapping data provided by PUBFx PUBHh US Fish & Wildlife Service

PUBHh

Identified NWI Wetland locations 1:20,000 0 235 470 940 1,410 1,880 Meters A-4 Map is intended as representational. Size and position of map elements are not guaranteed in size or placement. AML Site in Hartshorn Run Watershed

Watershed in Clearfield County

Spatial data provided by PASDA

AML data provided by PADEP-BAMR as subset of OSM data.

Refuse Pile

AML Site 1:50,000 0 550 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 Meters A-5 Map is intended as representational. Size and position of map elements are not guaranteed in size or placement. TMDL Sampling in Hartshorn Run Watershed

HART08

HART07

Watershed in Clearfield County

HART05 HART03

HART04

HART01 Watershed and civil boundaries TMDL Sampling locations 1:50,000 provided by PASDA 0 550 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 Meters A-6 Map is intended as representational. Size and position of map elements are not guaranteed in size or placement. CCCD Sampling in Hartshorn Run Watershed

HAR 08

HAR 09 HAR 10 HAR 06 HAR 05 1:110,000 HAR 07 Watershed Overview with sampling points

HAR 04

HAR 02 HAR 01 HAR 03

1:10,000 Watershed and civil boundaries Location of Watershed Assessment Sampling Locations 1:10,000 provided by PASDA 0 105 210 420 630 840 Meters A-7 Map is intended as representational. Size and position of map elements are not guaranteed in size or placement. Proposed Treatment Sites on Hartshorn Run

HAR 07 HAR 05

Treatment Areas in Watershed

Watershed boundary and stream digitizing as well as 7.5 minute Raster graphic HAR 04 for Curwensville Quandrangle. provided by PASDA

Approximate locations for proposed treatment areas 1:10,000 0 105 210 420 630 840 Meters A-8 Map is intended as representational. Size and position of map elements are not guaranteed in size or placement. APPENDIX B

Water Chemistry & Loading Data from Assessment Table 1: Water Chemistry of HAR 01 Description: Main stem of Hartshorn Run below the former Fern Cliff swimming pool but above SR 879

N 40.97873 W 78.50006

Date Flow Field Lab Cond Temp Alk Alk Acid Acid Iron Iron Mn Mn Al Al Sulfate Sulfate TSS TDS Sampled GPM pH pH Umhos C mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l mg/l 8/16/2006 298 5.3 5.4 235 18 3 10.72 6 21.44 0.14 0.50 0.36 1.29 0.13 0.46 72 257 <6.2 140 9/19/2006 2097.02 4.4 5.5 149 15 4 100.58 7 176.02 2.06 51.80 0.41 10.31 1.53 38.47 38 956 8.6 90 10/27/2006 3175.26 5.9 5.8 133 6 6 228.45 8 304.60 0.21 8.00 0.23 8.76 0.31 11.80 38 1447 <6.2 80 11/14/2006 4643.69 5.6 6.1 131 8 7 389.78 9 501.14 0.27 15.03 0.20 11.14 0.29 16.15 36 2005 <6.2 84 12/15/2006 199.4 5.1 5.1 155 4 5 11.96 11 26.30 0.23 0.55 0.33 0.79 0.59 1.41 47 112 <6.2 93 1/17/2007 12246.63 5.7 6.0 111 2 6 881.10 9 1321.64 0.27 39.65 0.13 19.09 0.25 36.71 30 4405 <6.2 66 2/13/2007 FROZEN 5.0 4.7 179 0 4 10 0.15 0.35 0.79 55 11.0 117 3/26/2007 11212.55 5.7 6.1 133 7 6 806.70 8 1075.60 0.35 47.06 0.21 28.23 0.32 43.02 35 4706 <5.0 84 4/18/2007 11515.21 5.7 6.0 124 6 7 966.55 8 1104.63 0.24 33.14 0.13 17.95 0.23 31.76 28 3866 <5.0 79 5/15/2007 1551.37 4.8 5.9 154 11 6 111.61 12 223.23 0.14 2.60 0.23 4.28 0.30 5.58 42 781 <5.0 85 6/15/2007 895.36 5.7 5.6 133 12 5 53.68 14 150.31 0.15 1.61 0.24 2.58 0.19 2.04 35 376 8.0 75 7/11/2007 428.6 6.2 5.7 224 18 6 30.84 11 56.53 0.09 0.46 0.24 1.23 0.11 0.57 79 406 <5.0 70

Average 4387.55 5.4 5.7 155 9 5 326.54 9 451.04 0.36 18.22 0.26 9.60 0.42 22.10 45 1756 9.2 89 Min 199.40 4.4 4.7 111 0 3 10.72 6 21.44 0.09 0.46 0.13 0.79 0.11 0.46 28 112 8.0 66 Max 12246.63 6.2 6.1 235 18 7 966.55 14 1321.64 2.06 51.80 0.41 28.23 1.53 43.02 79 4706 11.0 140 75 % CI 6072.90 5.6 5.8 168 11 6 457.20 10 618.74 0.54 25.34 0.28 12.72 0.55 28.02 50 2363 10.3 95 90% CI 6797.39 5.7 5.9 174 12 6 513.37 10 690.83 0.62 28.40 0.30 14.05 0.61 30.56 52 2624 10.7 98 Table 2: Water Chemistry HAR 02 Description: Main stem of Hartshorn Run below the confluence of the main stem with UNT 26653 (Mine Trib)

N 40.99420 W 78.51304

Date Flow Field Lab Cond Temp Alk Alk Acid Acid Iron Iron Mn Mn Al Al Sulfate Sulfate TSS TDS Sampled GPM pH pH Umhos C mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l mg/l 8/16/2006 311.58 4.5 4.4 142 18 2 7.47 11 41.10 0.11 0.41 0.30 1.12 1.24 4.63 30 112 <6.2 74 9/19/2006 2015.56 4.1 4.8 117 15 4 96.67 9 217.52 0.31 7.49 0.13 3.14 0.74 17.88 23 556 <6.2 61 10/27/2006 2615.35 4.9 5.1 98 6 5 156.80 10 313.61 0.32 10.04 0.11 3.45 0.56 17.56 23 721 <6.2 61 11/14/2006 3058.27 5.0 5.5 97 7 6 220.03 13 476.73 0.33 12.10 0.09 3.30 0.44 16.14 22 807 7.1 60 12/15/2006 1319.47 4.4 4.8 112 5 4 63.29 15 237.33 0.31 4.90 0.14 2.22 0.88 13.92 27 427 <6.2 57 1/17/2007 11258.15 5.5 5.9 82 2 6 809.98 9 1214.97 0.37 49.95 0.07 9.45 0.35 47.25 19 2565 7.1 43 2/13/2007 FROZEN 4.2 4.5 122 -2 4 14 0.24 0.16 1.17 28 6.0 90 3/26/2007 9458.46 5.1 5.5 104 8 6 680.50 9 1020.75 0.27 30.62 0.06 6.80 0.31 35.16 20 2268 <5.0 77 4/18/2007 9898.28 5.7 5.9 96 6 6 712.14 7 830.83 0.25 29.67 0.07 8.31 0.27 32.05 18 2136 <5.0 63 5/15/2007 1349.99 3.7 4.9 102 14 5 80.94 15 242.82 0.30 4.86 0.14 2.27 0.88 14.25 23 372 <5.0 58 6/15/2007 937.09 5.3 4.9 88 12 5 56.18 15 168.55 0.35 3.93 0.14 1.57 0.78 8.76 19 213 9.0 45 7/11/2007 152.37 5.8 5.3 89 18 5 9.14 11 20.10 0.09 0.15 0.27 0.46 0.84 21 38 <5.0 60

Average 3852.23 4.9 5.1 104 9 5 263.01 12 434.94 0.29 14.01 0.13 3.81 0.67 31.10 23 929 7.3 62 Min 152.37 3.7 4.4 82 -2 2 7.47 7 20.10 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.84 18 38 6.0 43 Max 11258.15 5.8 5.9 142 18 6 809.98 15 1214.97 0.37 49.95 0.30 9.45 1.24 47.25 30 2565 9.0 90 75 % CI 5306.35 5.1 5.3 110 11 5 370.57 12 575.66 0.31 19.51 0.15 4.86 0.78 35.92 24 1252 8.0 67 90% CI 5931.44 5.2 5.4 112 12 5 384.07 13 636.16 0.32 21.88 0.16 5.31 0.83 37.99 25 1390 8.3 69 Table 3: Water Chemistry HAR 03 Description: Mouth of UNT 26653 (Mine Trib)

N 40.99420 W 78.51382

Date Flow Field Lab Cond Temp Alk Alk Acid Acid Iron Iron Mn Mn Al Al Sulfate Sulfate TSS TDS Sampled GPM pH pH Umhos C mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l mg/l 8/16/2006 90.21 3.9 3.8 331 17 0 0.00 35 37.86 0.18 0.19 1.28 1.38 5.76 6.23 84 91 <6.2 163 9/19/2006 650.45 3.5 4.2 207 16 2 15.60 22 171.59 0.62 4.84 0.36 2.81 2.13 16.61 45 351 <6.2 107 10/27/2006 889.75 4.5 4.7 154 6 4 42.68 18 192.04 0.81 8.64 0.27 2.88 1.69 18.03 37 395 <6.2 90 11/14/2006 3933.09 4.5 4.9 141 7 6 282.97 18 848.91 0.68 32.07 0.20 9.43 1.06 49.99 34 1603 <6.2 81 12/15/2006 332.11 3.7 4.1 213 5 1 3.98 28 111.51 0.89 3.54 0.45 1.79 3.26 12.98 57 227 <6.2 103 1/17/2007 3525.33 5.5 5.8 114 1 6 253.63 10 422.72 0.60 25.36 0.11 4.65 0.56 23.67 26 1099 11.4 61 2/13/2007 FROZEN 3.8 3.9 259 0 0 36 0.83 0.56 4.44 75 9.0 144 3/26/2007 3442.3 5.1 5.4 146 7 5 206.38 10 412.77 0.65 26.83 0.11 4.54 0.64 26.42 29 1197 <5.0 91 4/18/2007 3238.09 5.6 5.8 132 6 6 232.97 10 388.28 0.40 15.53 0.09 3.49 0.44 17.08 24 932 9.0 54 5/15/2007 272.87 3.3 4.2 225 14 2 6.54 28 91.62 0.55 1.80 0.45 1.47 3.20 10.47 58 190 <5.0 113 6/15/2007 258.5 4.4 4.3 215 12 3 9.30 29 89.89 0.21 0.65 0.50 1.55 3.03 9.39 56 174 5.0 112 7/11/2007 21.76 4.5 4.3 300 18 3 0.78 34 8.87 0.13 0.03 1.10 0.29 3.86 1.01 92 24 <5.0 182

Average 1514.04 4.4 4.6 203 9 3 95.89 23 252.37 0.55 10.86 0.46 3.12 2.51 45.49 51 571 8.6 108 Min 21.76 3.3 3.8 114 0 0 0.00 10 8.87 0.13 0.03 0.09 0.29 0.44 1.01 24 24 5.0 54 Max 3933.09 5.6 5.8 331 18 6 282.97 36 848.91 0.89 32.07 1.28 9.43 5.76 49.99 92 1603 11.4 182 75 % CI 2078.57 4.6 4.9 226 11 4 137.27 26 338.50 0.63 15.04 0.58 3.98 3.07 50.03 59 758 10.1 121 90% CI 2321.24 4.7 5.0 236 12 4 155.06 28 375.52 0.67 16.83 0.64 4.36 3.31 51.98 62 838 10.8 127 Table 4: Water Chemistry HAR 04 Description: Hartshorn Run above the unnamed tributary 26653 (Mine Trib)

N 40.99470 W 78.51373

Date Flow Field Lab Cond Temp Alk Alk Acid Acid Iron Iron Mn Mn Al Al Sulfate Sulfate TSS TDS Sampled GPM pH pH Umhos C mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l mg/l 8/16/2006 208.02 5.2 6.1 80 16 5 12.47 2 4.99 0.15 0.37 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.15 13 32 <6.2 41 9/19/2006 1454.11 4.5 6.2 80 14 6 104.62 4 69.74 0.72 12.55 0.09 1.57 0.41 7.15 14 244 <6.2 47 10/27/2006 1725.64 5.5 6.2 71 6 7 144.85 5 103.46 0.07 1.45 0.03 0.62 0.05 1.03 15 310 <6.2 44 11/14/2006 2324.78 5.2 6.2 74 8 8 223.01 8 223.01 0.18 16.69 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.00 16 0 <6.2 51 12/15/2006 987.36 5.1 6.2 74 5 6 71.04 7 82.88 0.07 0.83 0.02 0.24 0.04 0.47 16 189 <6.2 51 1/17/2007 7732.82 5.4 5.9 64 2 6 556.35 10 927.24 0.18 16.69 0.05 4.64 0.16 14.84 15 1391 10.0 36 2/13/2007 FROZEN 5.3 5.8 72 -1 6 8 0.07 0.02 0.04 15 11.0 53 3/26/2007 6016.16 5.5 6.0 73 8 6 432.84 8 577.12 0.16 11.54 0.05 3.61 0.16 11.54 15 1082 <5.0 71 4/18/2007 6660.19 5.5 5.9 74 7 7 559.04 8 638.90 0.11 8.78 0.04 3.19 0.12 9.58 15 1198 5.0 49 5/15/2007 1077.12 5.2 6.6 65 13 7 90.41 9 116.24 0.11 1.42 0.02 0.26 0.09 1.16 13 168 <5.0 37 6/15/2007 678.59 6.3 6.1 57 12 6 48.82 12 97.64 0.12 0.98 0.02 0.16 0.08 0.65 11 90 7.0 29 7/11/2007 174.13 7.0 6.2 61 18 7 14.62 7 14.62 0.08 0.17 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.10 12 25 <5.0 73

Average 2639.90 5.5 6.1 70 9 6 205.28 7 259.62 0.17 6.50 0.04 1.31 0.11 3.59 14 430 8.3 49 Min 174.13 4.5 5.8 57 -1 5 12.47 2 4.99 0.07 0.17 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 11 0 5.0 29 Max 7732.82 7.0 6.6 80 18 8 559.04 12 927.24 0.72 16.69 0.09 4.64 0.41 14.84 16 1391 11.0 73 75 % CI 3601.45 5.7 6.2 73 11 7 278.32 8 366.81 0.23 8.87 0.04 1.90 0.15 5.49 15 611 9.8 53 90% CI 4014.79 5.8 6.2 74 12 7 309.72 9 412.89 0.25 9.89 0.05 2.15 0.16 6.31 15 689 10.5 55 Table 5: Water Chemistry HAR 05 Description: Pipe that collects a series of iron seeps that flow to UNT 26653 (Mine Trib)

N 40.99767 W 78.52379

Date Flow Field Lab Cond Temp Alk Alk Acid Acid Iron Iron Mn Mn Al Al Sulfate Sulfate TSS TDS Sampled GPM pH pH Umhos C mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l mg/l 8/16/2006 1.6 5.4 4.3 405 12 2 0.04 65 1.25 38.80 0.74 2.28 0.04 0.06 0.00 153 3 7.1 274 9/19/2006 214 4.3 4.0 263 15 1 2.57 37 94.94 16.60 42.60 1.61 4.13 0.15 0.38 92 236 7.1 166 10/27/2006 9.89 3.9 3.9 225 6 0 0.00 25 2.96 9.52 1.13 1.18 0.14 0.21 0.02 77 9 <6.2 129 11/14/2006 8.89 3.9 3.9 211 7 0 0.00 27 2.88 11.80 1.26 1.04 0.11 0.25 0.03 68 7 8.6 127 12/15/2006 3.83 3.9 3.9 195 6 0 0.00 15 0.69 4.78 0.22 1.30 0.06 0.30 0.01 67 3 <6.2 104 1/17/2007 12.4 4.1 4.2 185 7 3 0.45 23 3.42 8.79 1.31 1.08 0.16 0.41 0.06 63 9 7.1 107 2/13/2007 FROZEN 3.9 3.6 258 -1 0 22 7.92 1.70 0.31 82 43.0 152 3/26/2007 16.7 3.4 3.8 207 10 0 0.00 19 3.80 4.47 0.90 0.89 0.18 0.32 0.06 71 14 <5.0 128 5/15/2007 10 3.2 3.6 313 18 0 0.00 36 4.32 18.20 2.18 1.82 0.22 0.25 0.03 110 13 21.0 151 6/15/2007 5 4.1 3.3 473 14 0 0.00 46 2.76 13.00 0.78 1.55 0.09 0.23 0.01 123 7 37.0 176 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

Average 31.37 4.0 3.9 274 9 1 0.28 32 10.64 13.39 4.65 1.45 0.47 0.25 0.09 91 28 18.7 151 Min 1.60 3.2 3.3 185 -1 0 0.00 15 0.00 4.47 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.06 0.00 63 0 7.1 104 Max 214.00 5.4 4.3 473 18 3 2.57 65 94.94 38.80 42.60 2.28 4.13 0.41 0.38 153 236 43.0 274 75 % CI 57.69 4.2 4.0 309 11 1 0.54 37 20.35 17.03 9.02 1.60 0.89 0.28 0.13 101 52 25.4 169 90% CI 69.00 4.3 4.0 324 12 1 0.66 39 24.53 18.59 10.90 1.67 1.07 0.30 0.15 106 62 28.3 177 Table 6: Water Chemistry HAR 06 Description: UNT 26653 (Mine Trib) below the Hartshorn Mine discharge (HAR 07)

N 40.99817 W 78.52477

Date Flow Field Lab Cond Temp Alk Alk Acid Acid Iron Iron Mn Mn Al Al Sulfate Sulfate TSS TDS Sampled GPM pH pH Umhos C mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l mg/l 8/16/2006 106.37 3.3 3.1 564 12 0 0.00 107 136.48 4.61 5.88 0.95 1.21 13.10 16.71 148 189 <6.2 253 9/19/2006 532.28 3.0 3.9 221 14 0 0.00 28 178.71 2.51 16.02 0.27 1.72 3.47 22.15 50 319 <6.2 103 10/27/2006 727.06 4.2 4.5 141 6 4 34.87 16 139.49 1.29 11.25 0.14 1.22 1.88 16.39 33 288 <6.2 73 11/14/2006 1014.29 4.4 4.9 188 7 6 72.97 18 218.92 1.12 13.62 0.12 1.46 1.41 17.15 29 353 10.0 71 12/15/2006 461.14 3.5 3.8 227 4 0 0.00 32 176.94 3.42 18.91 0.36 1.99 4.34 24.00 59 326 <6.2 101 1/17/2007 3444.54 5.2 5.8 86 2 6 247.82 10 413.03 0.66 27.26 0.05 2.07 0.66 27.26 19 785 8.6 44 2/13/2007 FROZEN 3.6 3.5 326 -1 0 53 5.35 0.43 5.57 93 12.0 144 3/26/2007 2535.72 4.7 5.3 113 7 5 152.03 10 304.06 0.86 26.15 0.07 2.13 0.88 26.76 21 639 8.0 69 4/19/2007 1981.45 4.4 5.5 107 7 6 142.56 8 190.08 0.62 14.73 0.05 1.19 0.69 16.39 21 499 10.0 52 5/15/2007 281.62 3.1 3.8 269 12 0 0.00 41 138.45 3.58 12.09 0.41 1.38 5.00 16.88 67 226 <5.0 99 6/15/2007 198.59 4.0 3.8 273 12 0 0.00 44 104.78 2.66 6.33 0.40 0.95 5.22 12.43 68 162 10.0 116 7/11/2007 37.8 3.3 3.2 646 18 0 0.00 157 71.16 5.53 2.51 1.71 0.78 20.90 9.47 252 114 6.0 346

Average 1029.17 3.9 4.3 263 8 2 59.11 44 188.37 2.68 14.07 0.41 1.46 5.26 64.91 72 354 9.2 123 Min 37.80 3.0 3.1 86 -1 0 0.00 8 71.16 0.62 2.51 0.05 0.78 0.66 9.47 19 114 6.0 44 Max 3444.54 5.2 5.8 646 18 6 247.82 157 413.03 5.53 27.26 1.71 2.13 20.90 27.26 252 785 12.0 346 75 % CI 1420.88 4.1 4.6 322 10 3 88.74 59 221.88 3.29 16.80 0.57 1.62 7.26 66.88 94 427 10.1 152 90% CI 1589.27 4.2 4.7 347 11 4 101.47 65 236.28 3.55 17.97 0.64 1.69 8.12 67.73 104 458 10.4 165 Table 7: Water Chemistry HAR 07 Description: Deep mine discharge from Hartshorn Clay Mine

N 40.99774 W 78.52847

Date Flow Field Lab Cond Temp Alk Alk Acid Acid Iron Iron Mn Mn Al Al Sulfate Sulfate TSS TDS Sampled GPM pH pH Umhos C mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l mg/l 8/16/2006 23.4 2.7 2.6 1720 10 0 0.00 440 123.46 36.20 10.16 2.70 0.76 48.40 13.58 579 162 <6.2 739 9/19/2006 64.9 2.2 2.8 1260 12 0 0.00 313 243.58 31.30 24.36 1.83 1.42 30.30 23.58 406 316 <6.2 546 10/27/2006 49.5 2.9 2.8 1140 8 0 0.00 260 154.32 20.00 11.87 1.25 0.74 23.00 13.65 338 201 <6.2 499 11/14/2006 49.5 2.9 2.9 1040 8 0 0.00 244 144.83 24.90 14.78 1.48 0.88 25.70 15.25 321 191 <6.2 489 12/15/2006 49.5 2.9 2.9 948 8 0 0.00 221 131.18 22.90 13.59 1.42 0.84 21.90 13.00 289 172 <6.2 396 1/17/2007 49.5 3.0 2.9 953 6 0 0.00 229 135.92 25.10 14.90 1.39 0.83 23.60 14.01 294 175 11.4 424 2/13/2007 FROZEN 3.2 2.9 912 1 0 215 21.30 1.38 20.60 270 6.0 416 3/26/2007 64.9 2.9 3.0 927 8 0 0.00 231 179.77 21.70 16.89 1.14 0.89 20.20 15.72 332 258 <5.0 453 4/18/2007 81 2.8 3.1 873 8 0 0.00 188 182.60 18.20 17.68 1.08 1.05 17.00 16.51 237 230 <5.0 346 5/15/2007 64.9 2.8 3.0 935 11 0 0.00 206 160.31 19.60 15.25 1.37 1.07 20.80 16.19 241 188 <5.0 391 6/15/2007 49.5 3.0 2.9 999 10 0 0.00 242 143.64 21.40 12.70 1.47 0.87 24.00 14.25 266 158 7.0 458 7/11/2007 12.8 2.8 2.6 1770 11 0 0.00 484 74.29 34.80 5.34 2.69 0.41 44.20 6.78 592 91 <5.0 871

Average 50.85 2.8 2.9 1123 8 0 0.00 273 152.17 24.78 14.32 1.60 0.89 26.64 16.25 347 195 8.1 502 Min 12.80 2.2 2.6 873 1 0 0.00 188 74.29 18.20 5.34 1.08 0.41 17.00 6.78 237 91 6.0 346 Max 81.00 3.2 3.1 1770 12 0 0.00 484 243.58 36.20 24.36 2.70 1.42 48.40 23.58 592 316 11.4 871 75 % CI 57.54 2.9 2.9 1226 9 304 166.82 26.79 15.97 1.78 0.97 29.89 17.61 387 215 10.0 553 90% CI 60.41 3.0 2.9 1270 10 317 173.12 27.66 16.68 1.86 1.01 31.29 18.19 404 224 10.9 575 Table 8: Water Chemistry HAR 08 Description: UNT 26653 (Mine Trib) downstream of the abandoned Curwensville Reservoir and upstream of the HAR 07

N 40.99867 W 78.52550

Date Flow Field Lab Cond Temp Alk Alk Acid Acid Iron Iron Mn Mn Al Al Sulfate Sulfate TSS TDS Sampled GPM pH pH Umhos C mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l mg/l 8/16/2006 18.04 5.3 6.9 162 15 27 5.84 -18 -3.89 0.28 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.21 0.05 10 2 <6.2 84 9/19/2006 114.74 5.0 6.9 123 15 17 23.39 -7 -9.63 0.44 0.61 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.19 11 15 <6.2 69 10/27/2006 766.55 6.5 7.0 99 6 14 128.68 -1 -9.19 0.08 0.74 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.46 11 101 <6.2 63 11/14/2006 933.5 5.6 6.7 98 7 15 167.90 2 22.39 0.11 1.23 0.01 0.11 0.06 0.67 12 134 <6.2 63 12/15/2006 323.14 5.2 7.0 127 4 15 58.12 -2 -7.75 0.10 0.39 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.15 12 46 <6.2 64 1/17/2007 1713.29 6.0 8.8 82 2 12 246.53 2 41.09 0.21 4.31 0.02 0.41 0.14 2.88 12 247 <6.2 46 2/13/2007 FROZEN 5.9 6.6 129 -1 13 3 0.16 0.01 0.07 11 10.0 83 3/26/2007 2010.62 6.2 6.8 111 7 11 265.20 1 24.11 0.27 6.51 0.03 0.72 0.17 4.10 12 289 <5.0 69 4/19/2007 1537.14 5.8 6.8 108 6 11 202.75 0 0.00 0.16 2.95 0.02 0.37 0.12 2.21 13 240 6.0 50 5/15/2007 331.44 5.9 7.0 120 12 16 63.59 -1 -3.97 0.22 0.87 0.02 0.08 0.12 0.48 10 40 <5.0 65 6/15/2007 260.3 6.7 6.8 117 14 17 53.06 3 9.36 0.49 1.53 0.02 0.06 0.40 1.25 10 31 8.0 59 7/11/2007 25 6.8 6.9 130 17 32 9.59 -13 -3.90 0.20 0.06 0.00 0.11 0.03 9 3 <5.0 78

Average 730.34 5.9 7.0 117 9 17 111.33 -3 5.33 0.23 1.75 0.02 0.18 0.14 1.19 11 104 8.0 66 Min 18.04 5.0 6.6 82 -1 11 5.84 -18 -9.63 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.03 9 2 6.0 46 Max 2010.62 6.8 8.8 162 17 32 265.20 3 41.09 0.49 6.51 0.04 0.72 0.40 4.10 13 289 10.0 84 75 % CI 981.14 6.1 7.2 124 11 19 144.52 0 11.16 0.27 2.46 0.02 0.26 0.17 1.66 11 142 9.3 70 90% CI 1088.95 6.2 7.3 127 11 20 158.78 1 13.67 0.29 2.76 0.02 0.29 0.18 1.86 12 158 9.9 72 Table 9: Water Chemistry HAR 09 Description: Small unnamed tributary above the Hartshorn Mine discharge (HAR 07) that joins the discharge before flowing to UNT 26653 (Mine Trib)

N 40.99780 W 78.52859

Date Flow Field Lab Cond Temp Alk Alk Acid Acid Iron Iron Mn Mn Al Al Sulfate Sulfate TSS TDS Sampled GPM pH pH Umhos C mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l mg/l 9/19/2006 352.64 4.9 6.9 104 14 16 67.66 -7 -29.60 0.61 2.58 0.03 0.13 0.10 0.42 16 68 <6.2 59 10/27/2006 124.63 5.5 6.8 85 6 14 20.92 0 0.00 0.08 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 16 24 <6.2 53 11/14/2006 31.29 5.6 6.5 80 6 13 4.88 6 2.25 0.15 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.03 16 6 <6.2 61 12/15/2006 88.5 5.1 6.8 102 4 15 15.92 0 0.00 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 18 19 <6.2 57 1/17/2007 1681.75 5.8 6.3 76 1 10 201.66 5 100.83 0.25 5.04 0.02 0.40 0.18 3.63 16 323 15.7 41

Average 455.76 5.4 6.7 89 6 14 62.21 1 14.70 0.24 1.59 0.02 0.11 0.09 0.50 16 88 15.7 54 Min 31.29 4.9 6.3 76 1 10 4.88 -7 -29.60 0.08 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.03 16 6 15.7 41 Max 1681.75 5.8 6.9 104 14 16 201.66 6 100.83 0.61 5.04 0.03 0.40 0.18 3.63 18 323 15.7 61 75 % CI 813.89 5.6 6.8 96 9 15 104.17 3 40.38 0.35 2.72 0.02 0.20 0.12 1.31 17 156 #### 58 90% CI 967.84 5.7 6.8 99 10 15 122.20 5 51.42 0.40 3.21 0.02 0.24 0.13 1.66 17 186 #### 60 Table 10: Water Chemistry HAR 10 Description: combination of the Hartshorn Mine discharge (HAR 07) and HAR 09 at the mouth, before their combined flow enters UNT 26653 (Mine Trib)

N 40.99849 W 78.52544

Date Flow Field Lab Cond Temp Alk Alk Acid Acid Iron Iron Mn Mn Al Al Sulfate Sulfate TSS TDS Sampled GPM pH pH Umhos C mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l lbs/day mg/l mg/l 2/13/2007 3.4 3.1 667 -1 0 140 11.00 1.24 15.80 221 8.0 292 3/26/2007 3.1 4.0 158 7 0 25 1.80 0.15 2.09 40 <5.0 60 4/19/2007 283.31 3.1 4.0 165 7 0 0.00 21 71.34 1.50 5.10 0.13 0.44 1.87 6.35 44 149 9.0 61 5/15/2007 2.8 3.2 551 12 0 103 7.42 1.00 12.90 176 <5.0 218 6/15/2007 3.1 3.0 846 10 0 180 10.70 1.53 21.90 206 6.0 346

Average 283.31 3.1 3.5 477 7 0 0.00 94 71.34 6.48 5.10 0.81 0.44 10.91 37.07 137 149 7.7 195 Min 283.31 2.8 3.0 158 -1 0 0.00 21 71.34 1.50 5.10 0.13 0.44 1.87 6.35 40 149 6.0 60 Max 283.31 3.4 4.0 846 12 0 0.00 180 71.34 11.00 5.10 1.53 0.44 21.90 6.35 221 149 9.0 346 75 % CI 3.2 3.7 635 10 130 8.87 1.14 15.43 183 8.7 263 90% CI 3.3 3.8 703 11 145 9.89 1.28 17.37 203 9.1 292 APPENDIX C

Mining Permit Data Permit #: 17810141 Mining Company: McDonald Land & Mining Company, Inc. Operation: "Smay" Point: Hartshorn Run-below Coordinates: N 40.992778 W 78.511389

DATE FLOW FIELD pH LAB pH COND TEMP ALK ACID Fe Mn Sulfate TSS 10/8/86 3600 4.95 5.05 85 10 6.5 7.5 0.18 0.34 31.2 4 1/5/87 7168 4.7 4.7 95 1 6 9.5 0.37 0.23 32.4 6 4/16/87 3590 4.8 4.9 95 8 7.5 7 0.27 0.27 27.6 3 7/16/87 2016 5 5.05 110 15 8.5 9.5 0.27 0.41 32.3 5 10/9/87 2020 4.95 4.95 190 8 8 13 0.25 0.47 42.5 3 1/7/88 FROZEN 4.8 4.9 120 1 9 13 0.34 0.36 32.5 6 4/19/88 3366 4.8 4.8 100 8 9 12.5 0.32 0.3 32.1 3 7/11/88 200 5.7 5.8 83 20 11 8 0.32 0.24 22.5 1 10/3/88 500 5.4 4.35 195 12 3.5 24.5 0.48 0.45 58.6 1 1/9/89 2000 4.25 4.3 140 1 3 9 0.48 0.29 31.2 2 4/12/89 2500 4 4.15 100 4 1 11 0.37 0.26 25.8 6 7/4/89 2500 5 5 135 16 8 7 0.21 0.36 34.3 4 10/3/89 400 4.45 4.45 230 12 5.5 24.5 0.39 0.91 67.5 1 1/3/90 FROZEN 4.35 4.35 180 1 5.5 12.5 0.52 0.34 38 3 4/18/90 4039 4.85 4.85 120 7 7 7 0.48 0.26 25.4 4 8/6/90 1010 5.3 5.3 140 17 9 6 0.18 0.26 30.8 6 10/17/90 3366 5.4 5.45 100 11 10.5 6.5 0.24 0.32 28.4 5 Average 2552 4.9 4.8 130 9 7 11 0.33 0.36 35 4 Permit #: 17810141 Mining Company: McDonald Land & Mining Company, Inc. Operation: "Smay" Point: 1127A UT Hartshorn Run Coordinates: N 40.997778 W 78.516389

DATE FLOW FIELD pH LAB pH COND TEMP ALK ACID Fe Mn Sulfate TSS 12/17/82 15 5.25 5.32 890 NA 10 26 0.03 7.63 315.8 1 2/4/83 5 5.02 5.18 630 25 7 30 0.03 8.94 412.2 5 5/6/83 65 4.7 4.78 1200 25 10 34 0.07 18.64 605.3 8 9/1/83 5 4.95 5.3 1300 25 12 100 0.34 18.34 588.3 8 11/4/83 5 5.35 6.05 1300 25 11 36.5 0.12 16.24 619.2 1 3/8/84 30 5.05 5.15 800 25 8 25 0.07 10.02 413.2 6 6/4/84 18 4.65 4.7 1200 14 9 60 0.2 18.44 628 4 8/17/84 20 5.5 5.6 890 16 9 20 0.02 10.26 438.9 0 10/30/84 10 6 6.2 850 15 13.5 0.5 0.05 5.74 239.1 0 1/18/85 12 4.95 5.05 820 1 8.5 31.5 0.55 10.24 383.1 14 5/9/85 15 5.1 5.15 960 12 10 31 0.03 9.4 497.2 3 8/19/85 2 4.95 5 1200 20 9 18.5 0.26 3.79 544 3 10/21/85 5 4.9 5 1300 12 10.5 33.5 0.12 6.18 597.1 0 1/15/86 10 4.95 5 1200 1 9 39 0.1 11.66 571.7 1 4/10/86 15 4.9 5 900 6 10 16 0.07 8.13 410.6 4 10/8/86 50 5.1 5.2 1150 11 12 13 0.15 12.82 555.5 2 1/5/87 40 4.85 4.9 1150 1 8 18 0.11 12.6 505.5 3 4/16/87 37 4.95 4.95 1100 9 9 22.5 0.09 11.88 508.5 2 7/16/87 30 5.35 5.45 1250 14 12.5 10.5 0.13 11.38 487.8 10 10/9/87 15 5.35 5.45 1250 8 10.5 18.5 0.07 10.26 463.9 3 1/7/88 na 5.1 5.15 1200 1 11 31 0.27 10.82 485.9 8 4/19/88 10 5.15 5.15 980 8 10.5 24.5 0.1 5.77 422 2 7/11/88 1.5 5.05 5.1 1300 20 10 14 0.14 1.98 585.7 1 10/3/88 10 5.3 4.95 1250 12 6 11.5 0.08 7.3 493.4 1 1/9/89 25 4.95 5 940 1 6 11.5 0.04 8.13 457.9 1 4/12/89 25 4.7 4.7 1200 4 5 40 0.37 12.42 538.2 4 7/7/89 25 5.1 5.1 1200 14 10 17 0.16 10.74 480 4 10/3/89 5 5.85 5.9 1300 12 9 1 0.09 1.84 471 2 1/3/90 10 5.65 5.75 1100 2 10 2 0.12 4.36 431.3 1 4/18/90 37 4.85 4.95 1400 11 10.5 23 0.16 9.84 549.2 3 8/6/90 28 6.15 6.25 1500 17 12.5 3.5 0.16 6.26 549.2 1 10/17/90 28 5.15 5.2 1100 11 12 17 0.23 12.02 587 3 Permit #: 17810141 (continued) Mining Company: McDonald Land & Mining Company, Inc. Operation: "Smay" Point: 1127A UT Hartshorn Run Coordinates: N 40.997778 W 78.516389

DATE FLOW FIELD pH LAB pH COND TEMP ALK ACID Fe Mn Sulfate TSS 1/4/91 30 4.95 4.95 900 3 12 24 0.12 9.6 522.9 2 4/12/91 7.5 5.1 5.2 1000 12 11 15.5 0.12 7.36 561.3 2 Average 20 5.1 5.2 1109 12 10 24 0.14 9.74 498 3 Permit #: 17960117 Mining Company: Thunder Coal Company Operation: "Smay" Point: 23-Main stem up gradient Coordinates: N 41.007778 W 78.523611

FIE LD DATE FLOW pH LAB pH COND TEMP ALK ACID Fe Mn Al Sulfate TSS 4/12/1995 200 5.7 5.9 85 8 8 0 0.01 0.01 0.16 9 0.7 5/20/1995 75 7.1 5.9 45 12 8 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 9 3.3 6/17/1995 70 5.3 5.1 48 13 6 0 0.01 0.04 0.1 11 0.3 7/15/1995 45 6.7 6 48 16 10 0 0.01 0.04 0.01 2 0.3 8/26/1995 50 6.9 6.6 41 13 10 0 0.01 0.02 0.04 13 0.3 9/22/1995 35 6.8 6.8 39 9 10 0 0.04 0.02 0.16 6 1 6/7/1997 292 6 6.2 45 14 8 0 0.04 0.03 0.11 10 0.3 7/21/1997 108 6.3 6.5 50 16 12 0 0.04 0.03 0.08 11 0.3 10/17/1997 25 6.5 6.5 64 12 12 0 0.13 0.04 0.04 16 0.3 1/17/1998 200 6 6.3 50 7 12 0 0.04 0.05 0.06 11 0.3 4/17/1998 1000 6.6 6.2 53 11 14 0 0.04 0.03 0.04 11 0.3 8/7/1998 NA 7.5 7.3 72 19 22 0 0.04 0.03 0.04 10 0.7 11/5/1998 50 6.4 6.6 59 15 10 0 0.04 0.03 0.09 11 0.3 1/14/1999 FROZEN 6.2 6 166 2 12 0 0.04 0.17 0.1 17 3 4/8/1999 NA 6.6 5.8 61 14 6 2 0.35 0.1 0.16 12 0.3 8/3/1999 28 6.7 6.1 72 19 6 2 0.27 0.04 0.07 12 0.3 11/4/1999 25 6.8 6.4 95 11 10 0 0.22 0.034 0.07 15 1.3 2/3/2000 58 6.7 6 87 3 6 6 0.16 0.08 0.23 16 2 4/3/2000 450 6.6 5.8 85 8 6 4 0.2 0.05 0.07 16 0.3 Average 169 6.5 6.2 67 12 10 1 0.09 0.045 0.09 11 0.8 Permit #: 17960117 Mining Company: Thunder Coal Company Operation: "Smay" Point: 27-seep upgradient Coordinates: N 41.003611 W 78.520694

FIEL DATE FLOW D pH LAB pH COND TEMP ALK ACID Fe Mn Al Sulfate TSS 4/12/1995 3 5.3 5.8 95 7 8 0 0.01 0.01 23 0.07 5/20/1995 2 6.5 5.7 87 8 8 0 0.01 0.01 25 0.3 4/12/1996 3.5 5.4 5.6 99 8 8 0 0.04 0.03 0.04 23 0.3 5/3/1996 10 5.6 5.6 87 8 8 0 0.04 0.03 0.06 25 0.3 6/19/1996 4 5.6 5.5 107 9 10 0 0.04 0.03 0.04 31 6.3 10/31/1996 2.5 5.8 6 122 10 10 0 0.04 0.03 0.04 35 0.3 6/7/1997 3 5.8 5.8 79 9 8 0 0.04 0.03 0.04 22 0.3 7/21/1997 1 6.3 6.1 104 15 12 0 0.04 0.03 0.07 30 0.3 10/17/1997 1 5.9 5.7 99 11 12 0 0.09 0.03 0.04 27 0.3 1/17/1998 10 5.1 5.8 85 8 14 0 0.04 0.03 0.05 29 0.7 4/17/1998 4 5.8 5.7 80 10 12 0 0.04 0.03 0.04 25 0.3 8/7/1998 DRY 11/5/1998 DRY 1/14/1999 DRY 4/8/1999 4 6.5 5.7 81 11 6 2 0.25 0.25 0.12 28 0.3 8/3/1999 1 5.9 4.4 141 15 4 6 0.1 0.1 0.07 32 0.3 11/4/1999 1 6.7 7.1 147 11 26 0 0.22 0.22 0.12 39 4 2/3/2000 1 6.2 6.1 115 8 8 2 0.95 0.95 0.75 31 18.7 4/3/2000 2 7 5.6 84 8 6 2 0.11 0.11 0.07 31 0.3 Average 3 6.0 5.8 101 10 10 1 0.13 0.12 0.11 29 2.1 Permit #: 17960117 Mining Company: Thunder Coal Company Operation: "Smay" Point: 28-seep to UT #2 Coordinates: N 40.99875 W 78.51625

FIEL DATE FLOW D pH LAB pH COND TEMP ALK ACID Fe Mn Al Sulfate TSS 4/12/1995 2.5 5.4 5.8 531 10 10 0 0.02 0.49 210 5/20/1995 4 6.9 6 453 16 10 0 0.01 0.54 187 4/12/1996 4 5.6 5.7 412 9 6 0 0.04 0.12 0.04 175 5/3/1996 8 5.6 5.6 348 10 10 0 0.04 0.17 0.05 153 6/19/1996 5.7 5.5 555 10 10 0 0.04 0.34 0.04 254 10/31/1996 3 5.7 5.7 503 8 8 0 0.43 0.34 0.06 225 6/7/1997 1 6 6 352 13 8 0 0.04 0.08 0.07 154 7/21/1997 1 6 5.8 542 15 10 0 1.13 0.14 0.26 244 10/17/1997 1 6.1 6.3 585 11 16 0 0.41 1.78 0.13 280 1/17/1998 4 6.3 5.8 390 8 10 6 0.08 0.35 0.15 174 4/17/1998 8 6.1 6 229 10 12 0 0.04 0.06 0.04 87 8/7/1998 DRY 11/5/1998 1 6.7 6.5 573 14 14 0 0.27 0.2 0.04 254 1/14/1999 DRY 4/8/1999 10 7.1 6.1 356 14 8 2 0.21 0.17 0.24 166 8/3/1999 1 6.2 5.9 548 17 10 0 0.31 0.25 0.23 244 11/4/1999 2 7.1 6.1 576 11 8 0 0.12 0.55 0.19 273 2/3/2000 6 6.5 6.1 499 2 8 4 0.36 0.38 0.42 240 4/3/2000 8 6.3 6 344 8 6 2 0.19 0.24 0.18 172 8/21/2000 2 6.6 6.4 453 15 8 4 0.07 0.25 217 1 1/18/2001 4 6.8 5.9 473 3 6 10 0.14 0.24 231 2 5/17/2001 8 6.9 6 421 15 8 4 0.23 0.2 209 0.7 7/20/2001 3 6.2 6.1 507 16 8 4 0.04 0.2 258 0.3 Average 4 6.3 6.0 460 11 9 2 0.20 0.34 0.14 210 1 Permit #: 17960117 Mining Company: Thunder Coal Company Operation: "Smay" 32-seep, top of UT Point: #2 Coordinates: N 41.001111 W 78.513889

FIEL DATE FLOW D pH LAB pH COND TEMP ALK ACID Fe Mn Al Sulfate TSS 4/12/1995 3.8 4.1 4.9 952 13 8 28 3.54 10.48 380 3.3 5/20/1995 1.5 5.7 4.6 932 17 8 48 0.07 9.77 468 8.7 4/12/1996 9 4.7 4.5 878 7 6 32 0.21 8.63 3.8 409 0.3 5/3/1996 15 4.3 4.5 887 12 8 36 0.26 8.86 3.85 442 1.3 6/19/1996 6 5.2 5 1040 16 10 16 5.37 15.09 2.54 482 7.7 10/31/1996 2.5 4.5 4.6 821 9 6 18 0.29 8.8 3.48 402 0.7 6/7/1997 8 4.5 4.5 795 12 6 26 0.04 5.8 2.97 417 0.7 7/21/1997 DRY 10/17/1997 1 5 4.8 832 14 10 26 0.55 8.89 2.97 426 3.3 1/17/1998 4 4.2 4.5 860 8 6 40 0.04 7.61 3.66 408 0.3 4/17/1998 11 4.3 4.2 782 11 6 46 0.04 6.8 3.28 386 0.3 8/7/1998 DRY 11/5/1998 DRY 1/14/1999 4 5.5 5.7 1400 3 10 0 0.32 11.07 1.35 676 10.3 4/8/1999 10 5.8 5 774 15 6 12 0.26 3.38 1.43 417 4.7 8/3/1999 DRY 11/4/1999 1 5 4.2 846 12 4 26 0.68 9.9 3.3 431 134.7 2/3/2000 3 4.8 4.4 2150 2 6 168 1.79 34.24 24.35 1576 10.7 4/3/2000 8 6.7 6.9 209 10 20 0 4.41 0.22 2.3 30 95.3 8/21/2000 DRY 1/18/2001 1 7 5 735 4 6 10 0.49 2.11 0.95 374 5/17/2001 1 6 4.9 785 12 6 14 6.63 5.18 7.53 446 7/20/2001 1 4.8 5 838 15 8 8 0.9 3.18 1.43 468 Average 5 5.1 4.8 918 11 8 31 1.44 8.89 4.56 409 87.2 Permit #: 17960117 Mining Company: Thunder Coal Company Operation: "Smay" Point: 35-main stem, down gradient Coordinates: N 40.994444 W 78.513889

LAB DATE FLOW FIELD pH pH COND TEMP ALK ACID Fe Mn Al Sulfate TSS 4/12/1995 400 6 6.1 74 7 8 0 0.01 0.02 0.11 15 3.3 5/20/1995 200 7.7 5.7 65 13 8 0 0.01 0.03 0.02 16 3.3 6/17/1995 125 6.8 5.8 63 13 6 0 0.01 0.04 0.03 13 0.3 7/15/1995 60 6.4 6.4 71 18 10 0 0.01 0.08 0.01 14 1.3 8/26/1995 40 6.7 7 95 14 14 0 0.01 0.05 0.08 32 0.3 9/22/1995 40 6.7 7 108 9 18 0 0.06 0.04 0.05 19 0.3 6/7/1997 465 7.1 6.1 58 14 10 0 0.04 0.03 0.04 13 1.7 7/21/1997 125 6.8 6.6 63 18 12 0 0.04 0.03 0.12 12 2 10/17/1997 188 6.6 6.3 85 11 14 0 0.04 0.03 0.04 21 0.3 1/17/1998 500 6.1 5.8 75 6 14 0 0.07 0.05 0.04 19 1.3 4/17/1998 NA 6 6.2 62 11 12 0 0.04 0.04 0.04 15 0.3 8/7/1998 51 6.4 6.6 59 19 12 0 0.04 0.09 0.07 10 13 11/5/1998 75 6.5 6.7 102 14 8 0 0.04 0.03 0.08 26 0.3 1/14/1999 NA 6.3 6.1 189 1 10 0 0.04 0.13 0.04 26 0.3 4/8/1999 NA 7.1 5.7 79 15 6 2 0.19 0.08 0.17 13 0.3 8/3/1999 156 7 6.3 78 18 10 0 0.12 0.03 0.07 13 0.3 11/4/1999 195 7.1 6.2 123 11 8 0 0.03 0.03 0.07 27 1.7 2/3/2000 NA 4.8 5.8 139 2 8 6 0.34 0.09 0.32 21 7 4/3/2000 NA 6.6 6 75 9 6 2 0.26 0.06 0.14 20 0.7 8/21/2000 450 6.7 6.4 103 16 10 2 0.08 0.13 23 0.3 1/18/2001 250 7 5.9 99 3 8 2 0.03 0.07 21 0.7 5/17/2001 225 7.2 6.2 84 15 8 4 0.3 0.21 21 0.3 7/20/2001 180 6.8 6.9 69 16 14 0 0.16 0.17 16 0.3 Average 207 6.6 6.3 88 12 10 1 0.09 0.07 0.08 19 1.7 APPENDIX D

Photographs of Priority Areas HAR 07 Hartshorn Mine Discharge

HAR 05 Iron Seeps Headwaters above HAR 04