peters creek watershed tmdl · 2017. 10. 2. · the tmdl for peters creek consists of load...

60
PETERS CREEK WATERSHED TMDL Allegheny and Washington Counties For Mine Drainage Affected Segments Prepared by: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection January 6, 2009 1

Upload: others

Post on 29-Aug-2020

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

PETERS CREEK WATERSHED TMDL

Allegheny and Washington Counties

For Mine Drainage Affected Segments

Prepared by

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

January 6 2009

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 4 Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed 6 Watershed Characteristics 6 7 Segments addressed in this TMDL 7 Clean Water Act Requirements 7 Section 303(d) Listing Process 8 Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL 9 AMD Methodology 9 TMDL Endpoints 12 TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS) 12 Allocation Summary 12 Recommendations 15 Public Participation 18 Future TMDL Modifications 18 Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval 19 Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval 19 Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load 28 Load Tracking Mechanisms 57 Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds 57 Options identified 57 Other possible options 57

TABLES

Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments 4 Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria 12 Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table 13

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A 20

Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines

Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and

Peters Creek Watershed Maps 20 Attachment B 24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH 24 Attachment C 27

27 Attachment D 32

TMDLs By Segment 32 Attachment E 48

Integrated ReportList (2004 2006) 48 Attachment F 51

Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations 51

2

Attachment G 56 TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination 56

Attachment H 59 Comment and Response 59

3

TMDL1

Peters Creek Watershed Allegheny and Washington Counties Pennsylvania

Introduction

This report presents the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) developed for segments in the Peters Creek Watershed (Attachment A) These were done to address the impairments noted on the 1996 Pennsylvania Section 303(d) list of impaired waters required under the Clean Water Act and covers one segment on that list and additional segments on later listsreports Peters Creek was listed as impaired for metals All impairments resulted from drainage from abandoned coalmines The TMDL addresses the three primary metals associated with abandoned mine drainage (iron manganese aluminum) and pH

Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments State Water Plan (SWP) Subbasin 19C

HUC 05020005 Lower Monongahela River Year Miles Use

Designation Assessment

ID Segment ID DEP

Stream Code

Stream Name

Desig-nated Use

Data Source

Source EPA 305(b) Cause Code

1996 223 Not in GIS 39425 Peters Creek TSF 305(b) Report

RE Metals

1998 223 Not in GIS 39425 Peters Creek TSF SWMP AMD Metals 2008 672

041

Aquatic Life

3481

4348

Lick Run TSF SWMP AMD Metals

Metals pH

2008 028 Aquatic Life

3481 39452 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 058 Aquatic Life

3481 39453 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 055 Aquatic Life

3481 39454 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 047 Aquatic Life

3481 39455 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 044 Aquatic Life

3481 39456 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 066 Aquatic Life

3481 39457 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 104 Aquatic Life

3481 39458 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 115 Aquatic Life

3481 39459 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 032 Aquatic Life

3481 39460 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

1 Pennsylvaniarsquos 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) lists and the 2004 and 2006 Integrated Water Quality Report were approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The 1996 Section 303(d) list provides the basis for measuring progress under the 1997 lawsuit settlement of American Littoral Society and Public Interest Group of Pennsylvania v EPA

4

2008 059 Aquatic Life

3481 39461 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 063 Aquatic Life

3481 39462 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 385

381

Aquatic Life

3909

3913

39425 Peters Creek TSF SWMP AMD Metals

Metals 2008 055 Aquatic

Life 3911 39426 Peters

Creek Unt TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 045 Aquatic Life

3911 39427 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 101 Aquatic Life

3911 39428 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 086 Aquatic Life

3911 39429 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 045 Aquatic Life

3911 39430 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 055 Aquatic Life

3911 39431 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 049 Aquatic Life

3911 39439 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 032 Aquatic Life

3911 39440 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 069 Aquatic Life

3911 39441 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 073 Aquatic Life

3911 39450 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 067 Aquatic Life

3901 39463 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 025 Aquatic Life

3910 39489 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 033 Aquatic Life

3910 39490 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 119 Aquatic Life

3910 39491 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 040 Aquatic Life

3910 39492 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 074 Aquatic Life

3910 39493 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 071 Aquatic Life

3910 39494 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 054 Aquatic Life

3910 39495 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 054 Aquatic Life

3910 39496 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 376 Aquatic Life

3856 39497 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 063 Aquatic Life

3856 39498 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 072 Aquatic Life

3856 39499 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 332 Aquatic Life

3856 39500 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 064 Aquatic Life

3910 39501 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

5

Resource Extraction=RE Trout Stocked Fish = TSF Surface Water Monitoring Program = SWMP Abandoned Mine Drainage = AMD See Attachment D Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and the 2004 and 2006 Integrated Water Quality Report The use designations for the stream segments in this TMDL can be found in PA Title 25 Chapter 93

Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed

The Peters Creek Watershed is located in Allegheny and Washington Counties in southwestern Pennsylvania The watershed can be accessed by traveling Route 70 west from New Stanton until its intersection with Route 51 north Route 51 crosses Peters Creek upstream of its mouth Additional access is provided by a number of smaller roads including Route 88 SR3014 SR3015 SR3017 and SR1007

Watershed Characteristics

The Peters Creek Watershed is located in southwestern Allegheny County and northeastern Washington County in Southwestern Pennsylvania The watershed is located on the US Geological Survey maps covering portions of the Bridgeville Glassport Monongahela and Hackett 75 minute quadrangles The area within the watershed encompasses approximately 50 miles2 The political subdivisions represented in the watershed include Baldwin Bethel Park Clairton Jefferson Hills Pleasant Hills South Park Township West Mifflin and Whitehall Borough in Allegheny County and Finleyville Nottingham Township North Strabane Peters Township and Union Township in Washington County South Park County Park is a 2000 acre multi-use park located entirely within the watershed This park is managed by Allegheny County and is comprised of parts of Bethel Park and South Park Township Land use in the watershed includes forestland cropland rural residential low density urban and abandoned mine land uses

Most of the Peters Creek Watershed is underlain with high-quality easily-mined coal deposits that outcrop on the slopes of many of the stream valleys The close proximity of these valuable deposits to the many Pittsburgh area coke ovens and steel mills has led to extensive mining throughout the watershed The Pittsburgh coal bed has been mined since the early 1900rsquos by underground methods and has resulted in many parts of the watershed being prone to surface subsidence The Redstone coal bed which overlies the Pittsburgh coal bed was mined subsequently by surface methods before environmental laws were enacted requiring reclamation of mined lands The resulting spoil piles have remained largely un-reclaimed and are scattered throughout the watershed

Despite the impact of mining and mine drainage areas of high biodiversity in the watershed remain Two areas in the watershed have been identified as significant biodiversity areas by the Natural Heritage Inventory the Peters Creek Wetland Biodiversity Area in Jefferson Hills (one of the few remaining robust emergent marsh communities in Allegheny County) and the Wrights Woods Biodiversity Area in Nottingham Township

6

Segments addressed in this TMDL

Peters Creek is affected by pollution from AMD This pollution has caused high levels of metals in the watershed The TMDLs will be expressed as long-term average loadings Due to the nature and complexity of mining effects on the watershed expressing the TMDL as a long-term average gives a better representation of the data used for the calculations See Table 3 for TMDL calculations and see Attachment C for TMDL explanations

This AMD TMDL document contains one or more future mining Waste Load Allocations (WLA) These WLAs were requested by the Greensburg District Mining Office (DMO) to accommodate one or more future mining operations The District Mining Office determined the number of and location of the future mining WLAs This will allow speedier approval of future mining permits without the time-consuming process of amending this TMDL document All comments and questions concerning the future mining WLAs in this TMDL are to be directed to the appropriate DMO Future wasteload allocations are calculated using the method described for quantifying pollutant load in Attachment C

The following are examples of what is or is not intended by the inclusion of future mining WLAs This list is by way of example and is not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive

1 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs is not intended to exclude the issuance of future non-mining NPDES permits in this watershed or any waters of the Commonwealth

2 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs in specific segments of this watershed is not intended to exclude future mining in any segments of this watershed that does not have a future mining WLA

3 The inclusion of future mining WLAs does not preclude the amending of this AMD TMDL to accommodate additional NPDES permits

Clean Water Act Requirements

Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act requires states territories and authorized tribes to establish water quality standards The water quality standards identify the uses for each waterbody and the scientific criteria needed to support that use Uses can include designations for drinking water supply contact recreation (swimming) and aquatic life support Minimum goals set by the Clean Water Act require that all waters be ldquofishablerdquo and ldquoswimmablerdquo

Additionally the federal Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPA) implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 130) require

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

7

bull States to establish priority rankings for waters on the lists based on severity of pollution and the designated use of the waterbody states must also identify those waters for which TMDLs will be developed and a schedule for development

bull States to submit the list of waters to EPA every two years (April 1 of the even numbered years)

bull States to develop TMDLs specifying a pollutant budget that meets state water quality standards and allocate pollutant loads among pollution sources in a watershed eg point and nonpoint sources and

bull EPA to approve or disapprove state lists and TMDLs within 30 days of final submission

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

In the cases that have been settled to date the consent agreements require EPA to backstop TMDL development track TMDL development review state monitoring programs and fund studies on issues of concern (eg AMD implementation of nonpoint source Best Management Practices (BMPs) etc)

These TMDLs were developed in partial fulfillment of the 1997 lawsuit settlement of American Littoral Society and Public Interest Group of Pennsylvania v EPA

Section 303(d) Listing Process

Prior to developing TMDLs for specific waterbodies there must be sufficient data available to assess which streams are impaired and should be on the Section 303(d) list With guidance from the EPA the states have developed methods for assessing the waters within their respective jurisdictions

The primary method adopted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for evaluating waters changed between the publication of the 1996 and 1998 Section 303(d) lists Prior to 1998 data used to list streams were in a variety of formats collected under differing protocols Information also was gathered through the Section 305(b)2 reporting process DEP is now using the Statewide Surface Waters Assessment Protocol (SSWAP) a modification of the EPArsquos 1989 Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II (RBP-II) as the primary mechanism to assess Pennsylvaniarsquos waters The SSWAP provides a more consistent approach to assessing Pennsylvaniarsquos streams

2 Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires a biannual description of the water quality of the waters of the state

8

The assessment method requires selecting representative stream segments based on factors such as surrounding land uses stream characteristics surface geology and point source discharge locations The biologist selects as many sites as necessary to establish an accurate assessment for a stream segment the length of the assessed stream segment can vary between sites All the biological surveys included kick-screen sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat evaluations Benthic macroinvertebrates are identified to the family level in the field

After the survey is completed the biologist determines the status of the stream segment The decision is based on habitat scores and a series of narrative biological statements used to evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate community If the stream is determined to be impaired the source and cause of the impairment is documented An impaired stream must be listed on the statersquos Section 303(d) list with the source and cause A TMDL must be developed for the stream segment and each pollutant In order for the process to be more effective adjoining stream segments with the same source and cause listing are addressed collectively and on a watershed basis

Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL

Although all watersheds must be handled on a case-by-case basis when developing TMDLs there are basic processes or steps that apply to all cases They include

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

2 Calculating the TMDL for the waterbody using EPA approved methods and computer models

3 Allocating pollutant loads to various sources 4 Determining critical and seasonal conditions 5 Public review and comment and comment period on draft TMDL 6 Submittal of final TMDL and 7 EPA approval of the TMDL

AMD Methodology

A two-step approach is used for the TMDL analysis of AMD impaired stream segments The first step uses a statistical method for determining the allowable instream concentration at the point of interest necessary to meet water quality standards This is done at each point of interest (sample point) in the watershed The second step is a mass balance of the loads as they pass through the watershed Loads at these points will be computed based on average annual flow

The statistical analysis described below can be applied to situations where all of the pollutant loading is from non-point sources as well as those where there are both point and non-point sources The following defines what are considered point sources and non-point sources for the purposes of our evaluation point sources are defined as permitted discharges or a discharge that has a responsible party non-point sources are then any pollution sources that are not point sources For situations where all of the impact is due to non-point sources the equations shown below are applied using data for a point in the stream The load allocation made at that point will be for all of the watershed area that is above that point For situations where there are point-

9

source impacts alone or in combination with non-point sources the evaluation will use the point-source data and perform a mass balance with the receiving water to determine the impact of the point source

Allowable loads are determined for each point of interest using Monte Carlo simulation Monte Carlo simulation is an analytical method meant to imitate real-life systems especially when other analyses are too mathematically complex or too difficult to reproduce Monte Carlo simulation calculates multiple scenarios of a model by repeatedly sampling values from the probability distribution of the uncertain variables and using those values to populate a larger data set Allocations were applied uniformly for the watershed area specified for each allocation point For each source and pollutant it was assumed that the observed data were log-normally distributed Each pollutant source was evaluated separately using Risk3 by performing 5000 iterations to determine the required percent reduction so that the water quality criteria as defined in the Pennsylvania Code Title 25 Environmental Protection Department of Environmental Protection Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be met instream at least 99 percent of the time For each iteration the required percent reduction is

PR = maximum 0 (1-CcCd) where (1)

PR = required percent reduction for the current iteration

Cc = criterion in mgl

Cd = randomly generated pollutant source concentration in mgl based on the observed data

Cd = RiskLognorm(Mean Standard Deviation) where (1a)

Mean = average observed concentration

Standard Deviation = standard deviation of observed data

The overall percent reduction required is the 99th percentile value of the probability distribution generated by the 5000 iterations so that the allowable long-term average (LTA) concentration is

LTA = Mean (1 ndash PR99) where (2)

LTA = allowable LTA source concentration in mgl

Once the allowable concentration and load for each pollutant is determined mass-balance accounting is performed starting at the top of the watershed and working down in sequence This mass-balance or load tracking is explained below

3 Risk ndash Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-in for Microsoft Excel Palisade Corporation Newfield NY 1990-1997

10

Load tracking through the watershed utilizes the change in measured loads from sample location to sample location as well as the allowable load that was determined at each point using the Risk program

There are two basic rules that are applied in load tracking rule one is that if the sum of the measured loads that directly affect the downstream sample point is less than the measured load at the downstream sample point it is indicative that there is an increase in load between the points being evaluated and this amount (the difference between the sum of the upstream and downstream loads) shall be added to the allowable load(s) coming from the upstream points to give a total load that is coming into the downstream point from all sources The second rule is that if the sum of the measured loads from the upstream points is greater than the measured load at the downstream point this is indicative that there is a loss of instream load between the evaluation points and the ratio of the decrease shall be applied to the load that is being tracked (allowable load(s)) from the upstream point

Tracking loads through the watershed gives the best picture of how the pollutants are affecting the watershed based on the information that is available The analysis is done to insure that water quality standards will be met at all points in the stream The TMDL must be designed to meet standards at all points in the stream and in completing the analysis reductions that must be made to upstream points are considered to be accomplished when evaluating points that are lower in the watershed Another key point is that the loads are being computed based on average annual flow and should not be taken out of the context for which they are intended which is to depict how the pollutants affect the watershed and where the sources and sinks are located spatially in the watershed

For pH TMDLs acidity is compared to alkalinity as described in Attachment B Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and hot acidity Statistical procedures are applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for streams affected by low pH from AMD may not be a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Information for the TMDL analysis performed using the methodology described above is contained in the ldquoTMDLs by Segmentrdquo section of this report

11

TMDL Endpoints

One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of an instream numeric endpoint which is used to evaluate the attainment of applicable water quality An instream numeric endpoint therefore represents the water quality goal that is to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL The endpoint allows for a comparison between observed instream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses The endpoint is based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in water quality standards

Because the pollution sources in the watershed are nonpoint sources the TMDLs component makeup will be load allocations (LAs) with waste load allocations (WLAs) for permitted discharges All allocations will be specified as long-term average daily concentrations These long-term average concentrations are expected to meet water-quality criteria 99 of the time as required in PA Title 25 Chapter 963(c) The following table shows the applicable water-quality criteria for the selected parameters

Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Parameter Criterion Value

(mgl) Total

RecoverableDissolved Aluminum (Al) 075 Total Recoverable

Iron (Fe) 150 Total Recoverable Manganese (Mn) 100 Total Recoverable

pH 60-90 NA The pH values shown will be used when applicable In the case of freestone streams with little or no buffering capacity the TMDL endpoint for pH will be the natural background water quality

TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A TMDL equation consists of a waste load allocation (WLA) load allocation (LA) and a margin of safety (MOS) The waste load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to point sources The load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to non-point sources The margin of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the computational process The margin of safety may be expressed implicitly (documenting conservative processes in the computations) or explicitly (setting aside a portion of the allowable load) The TMDL allocations in this report are based on available data Other allocation schemes could also meet the TMDL

Allocation Summary

These TMDLs will focus remediation efforts on the identified numerical reduction targets for each watershed The reduction schemes in Table 3 for each segment are based on the assumption that all upstream allocations are implemented and take into account all upstream reductions Attachment D contains the TMDLs by segment analysis for each allocation point in a detailed discussion As changes occur in the watershed the TMDLs may be re-evaluated to reflect current conditions An implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the analysis is included in the TMDL calculations

12

The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the average flow and a conversion factor at each sample point The allowable load is the TMDL at that point

Waste load allocations have also been included at some points for future mining operations The difference between the TMDL and the WLA at each point is the load allocation (LA) at the point The LA at each point includes all loads entering the segment including those from upstream allocation points The percent reduction is calculated to show the amount of load that needs to be reduced from nonpoint sources within a segment in order for water quality standards to be met at the point

In some instances instream processes such as settling are taking place within a stream segment These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points

Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC5 ndash Peters Creek at bridge upstream of Finleyville Aluminum (lbsday) 3113 1121 056 1065 1992 64

Iron (lbsday) 2012 2012 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 1352 1352 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -251751 -251751 NA NA NA NA PCTR1 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek Stoneybridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

Aluminum (lbsday) 026 007 - 007 019 73 Iron (lbsday) 021 015 - 015 006 29

Manganese(lbsday) 002 002 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -9426 -9426 NA NA NA NA

PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge crossing in Gastonville Aluminum (lbsday) 387 077 - 077 310 80

Iron (lbsday) 198 198 NA NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 095 084 - 084 011 12

Acidity (lbsday) -35475 -35475 NA NA NA NA PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek from mined area upstream of PC4

Aluminum (lbsday) 1956 039 028 011 1917 98 Iron (lbsday) 317 048 0564 0 269 85

Manganese(lbsday) 453 118 075 043 335 74 Acidity (lbsday) 27346 273 - 273 15652 99

4 The waste load allocation for total iron is calculated assuming discharges at PA Chapter 93 water quality criteria of 15 mgL Maintaining this discharge concentration assures that the discharge will not contribute to water quality impairment in downstream segments

13

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 2: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 4 Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed 6 Watershed Characteristics 6 7 Segments addressed in this TMDL 7 Clean Water Act Requirements 7 Section 303(d) Listing Process 8 Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL 9 AMD Methodology 9 TMDL Endpoints 12 TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS) 12 Allocation Summary 12 Recommendations 15 Public Participation 18 Future TMDL Modifications 18 Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval 19 Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval 19 Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load 28 Load Tracking Mechanisms 57 Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds 57 Options identified 57 Other possible options 57

TABLES

Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments 4 Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria 12 Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table 13

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A 20

Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines

Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and

Peters Creek Watershed Maps 20 Attachment B 24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH 24 Attachment C 27

27 Attachment D 32

TMDLs By Segment 32 Attachment E 48

Integrated ReportList (2004 2006) 48 Attachment F 51

Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations 51

2

Attachment G 56 TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination 56

Attachment H 59 Comment and Response 59

3

TMDL1

Peters Creek Watershed Allegheny and Washington Counties Pennsylvania

Introduction

This report presents the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) developed for segments in the Peters Creek Watershed (Attachment A) These were done to address the impairments noted on the 1996 Pennsylvania Section 303(d) list of impaired waters required under the Clean Water Act and covers one segment on that list and additional segments on later listsreports Peters Creek was listed as impaired for metals All impairments resulted from drainage from abandoned coalmines The TMDL addresses the three primary metals associated with abandoned mine drainage (iron manganese aluminum) and pH

Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments State Water Plan (SWP) Subbasin 19C

HUC 05020005 Lower Monongahela River Year Miles Use

Designation Assessment

ID Segment ID DEP

Stream Code

Stream Name

Desig-nated Use

Data Source

Source EPA 305(b) Cause Code

1996 223 Not in GIS 39425 Peters Creek TSF 305(b) Report

RE Metals

1998 223 Not in GIS 39425 Peters Creek TSF SWMP AMD Metals 2008 672

041

Aquatic Life

3481

4348

Lick Run TSF SWMP AMD Metals

Metals pH

2008 028 Aquatic Life

3481 39452 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 058 Aquatic Life

3481 39453 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 055 Aquatic Life

3481 39454 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 047 Aquatic Life

3481 39455 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 044 Aquatic Life

3481 39456 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 066 Aquatic Life

3481 39457 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 104 Aquatic Life

3481 39458 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 115 Aquatic Life

3481 39459 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 032 Aquatic Life

3481 39460 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

1 Pennsylvaniarsquos 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) lists and the 2004 and 2006 Integrated Water Quality Report were approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The 1996 Section 303(d) list provides the basis for measuring progress under the 1997 lawsuit settlement of American Littoral Society and Public Interest Group of Pennsylvania v EPA

4

2008 059 Aquatic Life

3481 39461 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 063 Aquatic Life

3481 39462 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 385

381

Aquatic Life

3909

3913

39425 Peters Creek TSF SWMP AMD Metals

Metals 2008 055 Aquatic

Life 3911 39426 Peters

Creek Unt TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 045 Aquatic Life

3911 39427 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 101 Aquatic Life

3911 39428 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 086 Aquatic Life

3911 39429 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 045 Aquatic Life

3911 39430 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 055 Aquatic Life

3911 39431 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 049 Aquatic Life

3911 39439 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 032 Aquatic Life

3911 39440 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 069 Aquatic Life

3911 39441 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 073 Aquatic Life

3911 39450 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 067 Aquatic Life

3901 39463 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 025 Aquatic Life

3910 39489 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 033 Aquatic Life

3910 39490 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 119 Aquatic Life

3910 39491 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 040 Aquatic Life

3910 39492 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 074 Aquatic Life

3910 39493 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 071 Aquatic Life

3910 39494 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 054 Aquatic Life

3910 39495 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 054 Aquatic Life

3910 39496 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 376 Aquatic Life

3856 39497 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 063 Aquatic Life

3856 39498 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 072 Aquatic Life

3856 39499 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 332 Aquatic Life

3856 39500 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 064 Aquatic Life

3910 39501 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

5

Resource Extraction=RE Trout Stocked Fish = TSF Surface Water Monitoring Program = SWMP Abandoned Mine Drainage = AMD See Attachment D Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and the 2004 and 2006 Integrated Water Quality Report The use designations for the stream segments in this TMDL can be found in PA Title 25 Chapter 93

Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed

The Peters Creek Watershed is located in Allegheny and Washington Counties in southwestern Pennsylvania The watershed can be accessed by traveling Route 70 west from New Stanton until its intersection with Route 51 north Route 51 crosses Peters Creek upstream of its mouth Additional access is provided by a number of smaller roads including Route 88 SR3014 SR3015 SR3017 and SR1007

Watershed Characteristics

The Peters Creek Watershed is located in southwestern Allegheny County and northeastern Washington County in Southwestern Pennsylvania The watershed is located on the US Geological Survey maps covering portions of the Bridgeville Glassport Monongahela and Hackett 75 minute quadrangles The area within the watershed encompasses approximately 50 miles2 The political subdivisions represented in the watershed include Baldwin Bethel Park Clairton Jefferson Hills Pleasant Hills South Park Township West Mifflin and Whitehall Borough in Allegheny County and Finleyville Nottingham Township North Strabane Peters Township and Union Township in Washington County South Park County Park is a 2000 acre multi-use park located entirely within the watershed This park is managed by Allegheny County and is comprised of parts of Bethel Park and South Park Township Land use in the watershed includes forestland cropland rural residential low density urban and abandoned mine land uses

Most of the Peters Creek Watershed is underlain with high-quality easily-mined coal deposits that outcrop on the slopes of many of the stream valleys The close proximity of these valuable deposits to the many Pittsburgh area coke ovens and steel mills has led to extensive mining throughout the watershed The Pittsburgh coal bed has been mined since the early 1900rsquos by underground methods and has resulted in many parts of the watershed being prone to surface subsidence The Redstone coal bed which overlies the Pittsburgh coal bed was mined subsequently by surface methods before environmental laws were enacted requiring reclamation of mined lands The resulting spoil piles have remained largely un-reclaimed and are scattered throughout the watershed

Despite the impact of mining and mine drainage areas of high biodiversity in the watershed remain Two areas in the watershed have been identified as significant biodiversity areas by the Natural Heritage Inventory the Peters Creek Wetland Biodiversity Area in Jefferson Hills (one of the few remaining robust emergent marsh communities in Allegheny County) and the Wrights Woods Biodiversity Area in Nottingham Township

6

Segments addressed in this TMDL

Peters Creek is affected by pollution from AMD This pollution has caused high levels of metals in the watershed The TMDLs will be expressed as long-term average loadings Due to the nature and complexity of mining effects on the watershed expressing the TMDL as a long-term average gives a better representation of the data used for the calculations See Table 3 for TMDL calculations and see Attachment C for TMDL explanations

This AMD TMDL document contains one or more future mining Waste Load Allocations (WLA) These WLAs were requested by the Greensburg District Mining Office (DMO) to accommodate one or more future mining operations The District Mining Office determined the number of and location of the future mining WLAs This will allow speedier approval of future mining permits without the time-consuming process of amending this TMDL document All comments and questions concerning the future mining WLAs in this TMDL are to be directed to the appropriate DMO Future wasteload allocations are calculated using the method described for quantifying pollutant load in Attachment C

The following are examples of what is or is not intended by the inclusion of future mining WLAs This list is by way of example and is not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive

1 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs is not intended to exclude the issuance of future non-mining NPDES permits in this watershed or any waters of the Commonwealth

2 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs in specific segments of this watershed is not intended to exclude future mining in any segments of this watershed that does not have a future mining WLA

3 The inclusion of future mining WLAs does not preclude the amending of this AMD TMDL to accommodate additional NPDES permits

Clean Water Act Requirements

Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act requires states territories and authorized tribes to establish water quality standards The water quality standards identify the uses for each waterbody and the scientific criteria needed to support that use Uses can include designations for drinking water supply contact recreation (swimming) and aquatic life support Minimum goals set by the Clean Water Act require that all waters be ldquofishablerdquo and ldquoswimmablerdquo

Additionally the federal Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPA) implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 130) require

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

7

bull States to establish priority rankings for waters on the lists based on severity of pollution and the designated use of the waterbody states must also identify those waters for which TMDLs will be developed and a schedule for development

bull States to submit the list of waters to EPA every two years (April 1 of the even numbered years)

bull States to develop TMDLs specifying a pollutant budget that meets state water quality standards and allocate pollutant loads among pollution sources in a watershed eg point and nonpoint sources and

bull EPA to approve or disapprove state lists and TMDLs within 30 days of final submission

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

In the cases that have been settled to date the consent agreements require EPA to backstop TMDL development track TMDL development review state monitoring programs and fund studies on issues of concern (eg AMD implementation of nonpoint source Best Management Practices (BMPs) etc)

These TMDLs were developed in partial fulfillment of the 1997 lawsuit settlement of American Littoral Society and Public Interest Group of Pennsylvania v EPA

Section 303(d) Listing Process

Prior to developing TMDLs for specific waterbodies there must be sufficient data available to assess which streams are impaired and should be on the Section 303(d) list With guidance from the EPA the states have developed methods for assessing the waters within their respective jurisdictions

The primary method adopted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for evaluating waters changed between the publication of the 1996 and 1998 Section 303(d) lists Prior to 1998 data used to list streams were in a variety of formats collected under differing protocols Information also was gathered through the Section 305(b)2 reporting process DEP is now using the Statewide Surface Waters Assessment Protocol (SSWAP) a modification of the EPArsquos 1989 Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II (RBP-II) as the primary mechanism to assess Pennsylvaniarsquos waters The SSWAP provides a more consistent approach to assessing Pennsylvaniarsquos streams

2 Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires a biannual description of the water quality of the waters of the state

8

The assessment method requires selecting representative stream segments based on factors such as surrounding land uses stream characteristics surface geology and point source discharge locations The biologist selects as many sites as necessary to establish an accurate assessment for a stream segment the length of the assessed stream segment can vary between sites All the biological surveys included kick-screen sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat evaluations Benthic macroinvertebrates are identified to the family level in the field

After the survey is completed the biologist determines the status of the stream segment The decision is based on habitat scores and a series of narrative biological statements used to evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate community If the stream is determined to be impaired the source and cause of the impairment is documented An impaired stream must be listed on the statersquos Section 303(d) list with the source and cause A TMDL must be developed for the stream segment and each pollutant In order for the process to be more effective adjoining stream segments with the same source and cause listing are addressed collectively and on a watershed basis

Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL

Although all watersheds must be handled on a case-by-case basis when developing TMDLs there are basic processes or steps that apply to all cases They include

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

2 Calculating the TMDL for the waterbody using EPA approved methods and computer models

3 Allocating pollutant loads to various sources 4 Determining critical and seasonal conditions 5 Public review and comment and comment period on draft TMDL 6 Submittal of final TMDL and 7 EPA approval of the TMDL

AMD Methodology

A two-step approach is used for the TMDL analysis of AMD impaired stream segments The first step uses a statistical method for determining the allowable instream concentration at the point of interest necessary to meet water quality standards This is done at each point of interest (sample point) in the watershed The second step is a mass balance of the loads as they pass through the watershed Loads at these points will be computed based on average annual flow

The statistical analysis described below can be applied to situations where all of the pollutant loading is from non-point sources as well as those where there are both point and non-point sources The following defines what are considered point sources and non-point sources for the purposes of our evaluation point sources are defined as permitted discharges or a discharge that has a responsible party non-point sources are then any pollution sources that are not point sources For situations where all of the impact is due to non-point sources the equations shown below are applied using data for a point in the stream The load allocation made at that point will be for all of the watershed area that is above that point For situations where there are point-

9

source impacts alone or in combination with non-point sources the evaluation will use the point-source data and perform a mass balance with the receiving water to determine the impact of the point source

Allowable loads are determined for each point of interest using Monte Carlo simulation Monte Carlo simulation is an analytical method meant to imitate real-life systems especially when other analyses are too mathematically complex or too difficult to reproduce Monte Carlo simulation calculates multiple scenarios of a model by repeatedly sampling values from the probability distribution of the uncertain variables and using those values to populate a larger data set Allocations were applied uniformly for the watershed area specified for each allocation point For each source and pollutant it was assumed that the observed data were log-normally distributed Each pollutant source was evaluated separately using Risk3 by performing 5000 iterations to determine the required percent reduction so that the water quality criteria as defined in the Pennsylvania Code Title 25 Environmental Protection Department of Environmental Protection Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be met instream at least 99 percent of the time For each iteration the required percent reduction is

PR = maximum 0 (1-CcCd) where (1)

PR = required percent reduction for the current iteration

Cc = criterion in mgl

Cd = randomly generated pollutant source concentration in mgl based on the observed data

Cd = RiskLognorm(Mean Standard Deviation) where (1a)

Mean = average observed concentration

Standard Deviation = standard deviation of observed data

The overall percent reduction required is the 99th percentile value of the probability distribution generated by the 5000 iterations so that the allowable long-term average (LTA) concentration is

LTA = Mean (1 ndash PR99) where (2)

LTA = allowable LTA source concentration in mgl

Once the allowable concentration and load for each pollutant is determined mass-balance accounting is performed starting at the top of the watershed and working down in sequence This mass-balance or load tracking is explained below

3 Risk ndash Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-in for Microsoft Excel Palisade Corporation Newfield NY 1990-1997

10

Load tracking through the watershed utilizes the change in measured loads from sample location to sample location as well as the allowable load that was determined at each point using the Risk program

There are two basic rules that are applied in load tracking rule one is that if the sum of the measured loads that directly affect the downstream sample point is less than the measured load at the downstream sample point it is indicative that there is an increase in load between the points being evaluated and this amount (the difference between the sum of the upstream and downstream loads) shall be added to the allowable load(s) coming from the upstream points to give a total load that is coming into the downstream point from all sources The second rule is that if the sum of the measured loads from the upstream points is greater than the measured load at the downstream point this is indicative that there is a loss of instream load between the evaluation points and the ratio of the decrease shall be applied to the load that is being tracked (allowable load(s)) from the upstream point

Tracking loads through the watershed gives the best picture of how the pollutants are affecting the watershed based on the information that is available The analysis is done to insure that water quality standards will be met at all points in the stream The TMDL must be designed to meet standards at all points in the stream and in completing the analysis reductions that must be made to upstream points are considered to be accomplished when evaluating points that are lower in the watershed Another key point is that the loads are being computed based on average annual flow and should not be taken out of the context for which they are intended which is to depict how the pollutants affect the watershed and where the sources and sinks are located spatially in the watershed

For pH TMDLs acidity is compared to alkalinity as described in Attachment B Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and hot acidity Statistical procedures are applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for streams affected by low pH from AMD may not be a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Information for the TMDL analysis performed using the methodology described above is contained in the ldquoTMDLs by Segmentrdquo section of this report

11

TMDL Endpoints

One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of an instream numeric endpoint which is used to evaluate the attainment of applicable water quality An instream numeric endpoint therefore represents the water quality goal that is to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL The endpoint allows for a comparison between observed instream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses The endpoint is based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in water quality standards

Because the pollution sources in the watershed are nonpoint sources the TMDLs component makeup will be load allocations (LAs) with waste load allocations (WLAs) for permitted discharges All allocations will be specified as long-term average daily concentrations These long-term average concentrations are expected to meet water-quality criteria 99 of the time as required in PA Title 25 Chapter 963(c) The following table shows the applicable water-quality criteria for the selected parameters

Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Parameter Criterion Value

(mgl) Total

RecoverableDissolved Aluminum (Al) 075 Total Recoverable

Iron (Fe) 150 Total Recoverable Manganese (Mn) 100 Total Recoverable

pH 60-90 NA The pH values shown will be used when applicable In the case of freestone streams with little or no buffering capacity the TMDL endpoint for pH will be the natural background water quality

TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A TMDL equation consists of a waste load allocation (WLA) load allocation (LA) and a margin of safety (MOS) The waste load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to point sources The load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to non-point sources The margin of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the computational process The margin of safety may be expressed implicitly (documenting conservative processes in the computations) or explicitly (setting aside a portion of the allowable load) The TMDL allocations in this report are based on available data Other allocation schemes could also meet the TMDL

Allocation Summary

These TMDLs will focus remediation efforts on the identified numerical reduction targets for each watershed The reduction schemes in Table 3 for each segment are based on the assumption that all upstream allocations are implemented and take into account all upstream reductions Attachment D contains the TMDLs by segment analysis for each allocation point in a detailed discussion As changes occur in the watershed the TMDLs may be re-evaluated to reflect current conditions An implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the analysis is included in the TMDL calculations

12

The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the average flow and a conversion factor at each sample point The allowable load is the TMDL at that point

Waste load allocations have also been included at some points for future mining operations The difference between the TMDL and the WLA at each point is the load allocation (LA) at the point The LA at each point includes all loads entering the segment including those from upstream allocation points The percent reduction is calculated to show the amount of load that needs to be reduced from nonpoint sources within a segment in order for water quality standards to be met at the point

In some instances instream processes such as settling are taking place within a stream segment These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points

Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC5 ndash Peters Creek at bridge upstream of Finleyville Aluminum (lbsday) 3113 1121 056 1065 1992 64

Iron (lbsday) 2012 2012 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 1352 1352 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -251751 -251751 NA NA NA NA PCTR1 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek Stoneybridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

Aluminum (lbsday) 026 007 - 007 019 73 Iron (lbsday) 021 015 - 015 006 29

Manganese(lbsday) 002 002 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -9426 -9426 NA NA NA NA

PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge crossing in Gastonville Aluminum (lbsday) 387 077 - 077 310 80

Iron (lbsday) 198 198 NA NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 095 084 - 084 011 12

Acidity (lbsday) -35475 -35475 NA NA NA NA PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek from mined area upstream of PC4

Aluminum (lbsday) 1956 039 028 011 1917 98 Iron (lbsday) 317 048 0564 0 269 85

Manganese(lbsday) 453 118 075 043 335 74 Acidity (lbsday) 27346 273 - 273 15652 99

4 The waste load allocation for total iron is calculated assuming discharges at PA Chapter 93 water quality criteria of 15 mgL Maintaining this discharge concentration assures that the discharge will not contribute to water quality impairment in downstream segments

13

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 3: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Attachment G 56 TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination 56

Attachment H 59 Comment and Response 59

3

TMDL1

Peters Creek Watershed Allegheny and Washington Counties Pennsylvania

Introduction

This report presents the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) developed for segments in the Peters Creek Watershed (Attachment A) These were done to address the impairments noted on the 1996 Pennsylvania Section 303(d) list of impaired waters required under the Clean Water Act and covers one segment on that list and additional segments on later listsreports Peters Creek was listed as impaired for metals All impairments resulted from drainage from abandoned coalmines The TMDL addresses the three primary metals associated with abandoned mine drainage (iron manganese aluminum) and pH

Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments State Water Plan (SWP) Subbasin 19C

HUC 05020005 Lower Monongahela River Year Miles Use

Designation Assessment

ID Segment ID DEP

Stream Code

Stream Name

Desig-nated Use

Data Source

Source EPA 305(b) Cause Code

1996 223 Not in GIS 39425 Peters Creek TSF 305(b) Report

RE Metals

1998 223 Not in GIS 39425 Peters Creek TSF SWMP AMD Metals 2008 672

041

Aquatic Life

3481

4348

Lick Run TSF SWMP AMD Metals

Metals pH

2008 028 Aquatic Life

3481 39452 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 058 Aquatic Life

3481 39453 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 055 Aquatic Life

3481 39454 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 047 Aquatic Life

3481 39455 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 044 Aquatic Life

3481 39456 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 066 Aquatic Life

3481 39457 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 104 Aquatic Life

3481 39458 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 115 Aquatic Life

3481 39459 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 032 Aquatic Life

3481 39460 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

1 Pennsylvaniarsquos 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) lists and the 2004 and 2006 Integrated Water Quality Report were approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The 1996 Section 303(d) list provides the basis for measuring progress under the 1997 lawsuit settlement of American Littoral Society and Public Interest Group of Pennsylvania v EPA

4

2008 059 Aquatic Life

3481 39461 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 063 Aquatic Life

3481 39462 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 385

381

Aquatic Life

3909

3913

39425 Peters Creek TSF SWMP AMD Metals

Metals 2008 055 Aquatic

Life 3911 39426 Peters

Creek Unt TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 045 Aquatic Life

3911 39427 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 101 Aquatic Life

3911 39428 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 086 Aquatic Life

3911 39429 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 045 Aquatic Life

3911 39430 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 055 Aquatic Life

3911 39431 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 049 Aquatic Life

3911 39439 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 032 Aquatic Life

3911 39440 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 069 Aquatic Life

3911 39441 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 073 Aquatic Life

3911 39450 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 067 Aquatic Life

3901 39463 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 025 Aquatic Life

3910 39489 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 033 Aquatic Life

3910 39490 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 119 Aquatic Life

3910 39491 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 040 Aquatic Life

3910 39492 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 074 Aquatic Life

3910 39493 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 071 Aquatic Life

3910 39494 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 054 Aquatic Life

3910 39495 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 054 Aquatic Life

3910 39496 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 376 Aquatic Life

3856 39497 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 063 Aquatic Life

3856 39498 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 072 Aquatic Life

3856 39499 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 332 Aquatic Life

3856 39500 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 064 Aquatic Life

3910 39501 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

5

Resource Extraction=RE Trout Stocked Fish = TSF Surface Water Monitoring Program = SWMP Abandoned Mine Drainage = AMD See Attachment D Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and the 2004 and 2006 Integrated Water Quality Report The use designations for the stream segments in this TMDL can be found in PA Title 25 Chapter 93

Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed

The Peters Creek Watershed is located in Allegheny and Washington Counties in southwestern Pennsylvania The watershed can be accessed by traveling Route 70 west from New Stanton until its intersection with Route 51 north Route 51 crosses Peters Creek upstream of its mouth Additional access is provided by a number of smaller roads including Route 88 SR3014 SR3015 SR3017 and SR1007

Watershed Characteristics

The Peters Creek Watershed is located in southwestern Allegheny County and northeastern Washington County in Southwestern Pennsylvania The watershed is located on the US Geological Survey maps covering portions of the Bridgeville Glassport Monongahela and Hackett 75 minute quadrangles The area within the watershed encompasses approximately 50 miles2 The political subdivisions represented in the watershed include Baldwin Bethel Park Clairton Jefferson Hills Pleasant Hills South Park Township West Mifflin and Whitehall Borough in Allegheny County and Finleyville Nottingham Township North Strabane Peters Township and Union Township in Washington County South Park County Park is a 2000 acre multi-use park located entirely within the watershed This park is managed by Allegheny County and is comprised of parts of Bethel Park and South Park Township Land use in the watershed includes forestland cropland rural residential low density urban and abandoned mine land uses

Most of the Peters Creek Watershed is underlain with high-quality easily-mined coal deposits that outcrop on the slopes of many of the stream valleys The close proximity of these valuable deposits to the many Pittsburgh area coke ovens and steel mills has led to extensive mining throughout the watershed The Pittsburgh coal bed has been mined since the early 1900rsquos by underground methods and has resulted in many parts of the watershed being prone to surface subsidence The Redstone coal bed which overlies the Pittsburgh coal bed was mined subsequently by surface methods before environmental laws were enacted requiring reclamation of mined lands The resulting spoil piles have remained largely un-reclaimed and are scattered throughout the watershed

Despite the impact of mining and mine drainage areas of high biodiversity in the watershed remain Two areas in the watershed have been identified as significant biodiversity areas by the Natural Heritage Inventory the Peters Creek Wetland Biodiversity Area in Jefferson Hills (one of the few remaining robust emergent marsh communities in Allegheny County) and the Wrights Woods Biodiversity Area in Nottingham Township

6

Segments addressed in this TMDL

Peters Creek is affected by pollution from AMD This pollution has caused high levels of metals in the watershed The TMDLs will be expressed as long-term average loadings Due to the nature and complexity of mining effects on the watershed expressing the TMDL as a long-term average gives a better representation of the data used for the calculations See Table 3 for TMDL calculations and see Attachment C for TMDL explanations

This AMD TMDL document contains one or more future mining Waste Load Allocations (WLA) These WLAs were requested by the Greensburg District Mining Office (DMO) to accommodate one or more future mining operations The District Mining Office determined the number of and location of the future mining WLAs This will allow speedier approval of future mining permits without the time-consuming process of amending this TMDL document All comments and questions concerning the future mining WLAs in this TMDL are to be directed to the appropriate DMO Future wasteload allocations are calculated using the method described for quantifying pollutant load in Attachment C

The following are examples of what is or is not intended by the inclusion of future mining WLAs This list is by way of example and is not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive

1 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs is not intended to exclude the issuance of future non-mining NPDES permits in this watershed or any waters of the Commonwealth

2 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs in specific segments of this watershed is not intended to exclude future mining in any segments of this watershed that does not have a future mining WLA

3 The inclusion of future mining WLAs does not preclude the amending of this AMD TMDL to accommodate additional NPDES permits

Clean Water Act Requirements

Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act requires states territories and authorized tribes to establish water quality standards The water quality standards identify the uses for each waterbody and the scientific criteria needed to support that use Uses can include designations for drinking water supply contact recreation (swimming) and aquatic life support Minimum goals set by the Clean Water Act require that all waters be ldquofishablerdquo and ldquoswimmablerdquo

Additionally the federal Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPA) implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 130) require

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

7

bull States to establish priority rankings for waters on the lists based on severity of pollution and the designated use of the waterbody states must also identify those waters for which TMDLs will be developed and a schedule for development

bull States to submit the list of waters to EPA every two years (April 1 of the even numbered years)

bull States to develop TMDLs specifying a pollutant budget that meets state water quality standards and allocate pollutant loads among pollution sources in a watershed eg point and nonpoint sources and

bull EPA to approve or disapprove state lists and TMDLs within 30 days of final submission

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

In the cases that have been settled to date the consent agreements require EPA to backstop TMDL development track TMDL development review state monitoring programs and fund studies on issues of concern (eg AMD implementation of nonpoint source Best Management Practices (BMPs) etc)

These TMDLs were developed in partial fulfillment of the 1997 lawsuit settlement of American Littoral Society and Public Interest Group of Pennsylvania v EPA

Section 303(d) Listing Process

Prior to developing TMDLs for specific waterbodies there must be sufficient data available to assess which streams are impaired and should be on the Section 303(d) list With guidance from the EPA the states have developed methods for assessing the waters within their respective jurisdictions

The primary method adopted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for evaluating waters changed between the publication of the 1996 and 1998 Section 303(d) lists Prior to 1998 data used to list streams were in a variety of formats collected under differing protocols Information also was gathered through the Section 305(b)2 reporting process DEP is now using the Statewide Surface Waters Assessment Protocol (SSWAP) a modification of the EPArsquos 1989 Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II (RBP-II) as the primary mechanism to assess Pennsylvaniarsquos waters The SSWAP provides a more consistent approach to assessing Pennsylvaniarsquos streams

2 Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires a biannual description of the water quality of the waters of the state

8

The assessment method requires selecting representative stream segments based on factors such as surrounding land uses stream characteristics surface geology and point source discharge locations The biologist selects as many sites as necessary to establish an accurate assessment for a stream segment the length of the assessed stream segment can vary between sites All the biological surveys included kick-screen sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat evaluations Benthic macroinvertebrates are identified to the family level in the field

After the survey is completed the biologist determines the status of the stream segment The decision is based on habitat scores and a series of narrative biological statements used to evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate community If the stream is determined to be impaired the source and cause of the impairment is documented An impaired stream must be listed on the statersquos Section 303(d) list with the source and cause A TMDL must be developed for the stream segment and each pollutant In order for the process to be more effective adjoining stream segments with the same source and cause listing are addressed collectively and on a watershed basis

Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL

Although all watersheds must be handled on a case-by-case basis when developing TMDLs there are basic processes or steps that apply to all cases They include

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

2 Calculating the TMDL for the waterbody using EPA approved methods and computer models

3 Allocating pollutant loads to various sources 4 Determining critical and seasonal conditions 5 Public review and comment and comment period on draft TMDL 6 Submittal of final TMDL and 7 EPA approval of the TMDL

AMD Methodology

A two-step approach is used for the TMDL analysis of AMD impaired stream segments The first step uses a statistical method for determining the allowable instream concentration at the point of interest necessary to meet water quality standards This is done at each point of interest (sample point) in the watershed The second step is a mass balance of the loads as they pass through the watershed Loads at these points will be computed based on average annual flow

The statistical analysis described below can be applied to situations where all of the pollutant loading is from non-point sources as well as those where there are both point and non-point sources The following defines what are considered point sources and non-point sources for the purposes of our evaluation point sources are defined as permitted discharges or a discharge that has a responsible party non-point sources are then any pollution sources that are not point sources For situations where all of the impact is due to non-point sources the equations shown below are applied using data for a point in the stream The load allocation made at that point will be for all of the watershed area that is above that point For situations where there are point-

9

source impacts alone or in combination with non-point sources the evaluation will use the point-source data and perform a mass balance with the receiving water to determine the impact of the point source

Allowable loads are determined for each point of interest using Monte Carlo simulation Monte Carlo simulation is an analytical method meant to imitate real-life systems especially when other analyses are too mathematically complex or too difficult to reproduce Monte Carlo simulation calculates multiple scenarios of a model by repeatedly sampling values from the probability distribution of the uncertain variables and using those values to populate a larger data set Allocations were applied uniformly for the watershed area specified for each allocation point For each source and pollutant it was assumed that the observed data were log-normally distributed Each pollutant source was evaluated separately using Risk3 by performing 5000 iterations to determine the required percent reduction so that the water quality criteria as defined in the Pennsylvania Code Title 25 Environmental Protection Department of Environmental Protection Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be met instream at least 99 percent of the time For each iteration the required percent reduction is

PR = maximum 0 (1-CcCd) where (1)

PR = required percent reduction for the current iteration

Cc = criterion in mgl

Cd = randomly generated pollutant source concentration in mgl based on the observed data

Cd = RiskLognorm(Mean Standard Deviation) where (1a)

Mean = average observed concentration

Standard Deviation = standard deviation of observed data

The overall percent reduction required is the 99th percentile value of the probability distribution generated by the 5000 iterations so that the allowable long-term average (LTA) concentration is

LTA = Mean (1 ndash PR99) where (2)

LTA = allowable LTA source concentration in mgl

Once the allowable concentration and load for each pollutant is determined mass-balance accounting is performed starting at the top of the watershed and working down in sequence This mass-balance or load tracking is explained below

3 Risk ndash Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-in for Microsoft Excel Palisade Corporation Newfield NY 1990-1997

10

Load tracking through the watershed utilizes the change in measured loads from sample location to sample location as well as the allowable load that was determined at each point using the Risk program

There are two basic rules that are applied in load tracking rule one is that if the sum of the measured loads that directly affect the downstream sample point is less than the measured load at the downstream sample point it is indicative that there is an increase in load between the points being evaluated and this amount (the difference between the sum of the upstream and downstream loads) shall be added to the allowable load(s) coming from the upstream points to give a total load that is coming into the downstream point from all sources The second rule is that if the sum of the measured loads from the upstream points is greater than the measured load at the downstream point this is indicative that there is a loss of instream load between the evaluation points and the ratio of the decrease shall be applied to the load that is being tracked (allowable load(s)) from the upstream point

Tracking loads through the watershed gives the best picture of how the pollutants are affecting the watershed based on the information that is available The analysis is done to insure that water quality standards will be met at all points in the stream The TMDL must be designed to meet standards at all points in the stream and in completing the analysis reductions that must be made to upstream points are considered to be accomplished when evaluating points that are lower in the watershed Another key point is that the loads are being computed based on average annual flow and should not be taken out of the context for which they are intended which is to depict how the pollutants affect the watershed and where the sources and sinks are located spatially in the watershed

For pH TMDLs acidity is compared to alkalinity as described in Attachment B Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and hot acidity Statistical procedures are applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for streams affected by low pH from AMD may not be a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Information for the TMDL analysis performed using the methodology described above is contained in the ldquoTMDLs by Segmentrdquo section of this report

11

TMDL Endpoints

One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of an instream numeric endpoint which is used to evaluate the attainment of applicable water quality An instream numeric endpoint therefore represents the water quality goal that is to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL The endpoint allows for a comparison between observed instream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses The endpoint is based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in water quality standards

Because the pollution sources in the watershed are nonpoint sources the TMDLs component makeup will be load allocations (LAs) with waste load allocations (WLAs) for permitted discharges All allocations will be specified as long-term average daily concentrations These long-term average concentrations are expected to meet water-quality criteria 99 of the time as required in PA Title 25 Chapter 963(c) The following table shows the applicable water-quality criteria for the selected parameters

Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Parameter Criterion Value

(mgl) Total

RecoverableDissolved Aluminum (Al) 075 Total Recoverable

Iron (Fe) 150 Total Recoverable Manganese (Mn) 100 Total Recoverable

pH 60-90 NA The pH values shown will be used when applicable In the case of freestone streams with little or no buffering capacity the TMDL endpoint for pH will be the natural background water quality

TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A TMDL equation consists of a waste load allocation (WLA) load allocation (LA) and a margin of safety (MOS) The waste load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to point sources The load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to non-point sources The margin of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the computational process The margin of safety may be expressed implicitly (documenting conservative processes in the computations) or explicitly (setting aside a portion of the allowable load) The TMDL allocations in this report are based on available data Other allocation schemes could also meet the TMDL

Allocation Summary

These TMDLs will focus remediation efforts on the identified numerical reduction targets for each watershed The reduction schemes in Table 3 for each segment are based on the assumption that all upstream allocations are implemented and take into account all upstream reductions Attachment D contains the TMDLs by segment analysis for each allocation point in a detailed discussion As changes occur in the watershed the TMDLs may be re-evaluated to reflect current conditions An implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the analysis is included in the TMDL calculations

12

The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the average flow and a conversion factor at each sample point The allowable load is the TMDL at that point

Waste load allocations have also been included at some points for future mining operations The difference between the TMDL and the WLA at each point is the load allocation (LA) at the point The LA at each point includes all loads entering the segment including those from upstream allocation points The percent reduction is calculated to show the amount of load that needs to be reduced from nonpoint sources within a segment in order for water quality standards to be met at the point

In some instances instream processes such as settling are taking place within a stream segment These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points

Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC5 ndash Peters Creek at bridge upstream of Finleyville Aluminum (lbsday) 3113 1121 056 1065 1992 64

Iron (lbsday) 2012 2012 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 1352 1352 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -251751 -251751 NA NA NA NA PCTR1 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek Stoneybridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

Aluminum (lbsday) 026 007 - 007 019 73 Iron (lbsday) 021 015 - 015 006 29

Manganese(lbsday) 002 002 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -9426 -9426 NA NA NA NA

PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge crossing in Gastonville Aluminum (lbsday) 387 077 - 077 310 80

Iron (lbsday) 198 198 NA NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 095 084 - 084 011 12

Acidity (lbsday) -35475 -35475 NA NA NA NA PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek from mined area upstream of PC4

Aluminum (lbsday) 1956 039 028 011 1917 98 Iron (lbsday) 317 048 0564 0 269 85

Manganese(lbsday) 453 118 075 043 335 74 Acidity (lbsday) 27346 273 - 273 15652 99

4 The waste load allocation for total iron is calculated assuming discharges at PA Chapter 93 water quality criteria of 15 mgL Maintaining this discharge concentration assures that the discharge will not contribute to water quality impairment in downstream segments

13

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 4: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

TMDL1

Peters Creek Watershed Allegheny and Washington Counties Pennsylvania

Introduction

This report presents the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) developed for segments in the Peters Creek Watershed (Attachment A) These were done to address the impairments noted on the 1996 Pennsylvania Section 303(d) list of impaired waters required under the Clean Water Act and covers one segment on that list and additional segments on later listsreports Peters Creek was listed as impaired for metals All impairments resulted from drainage from abandoned coalmines The TMDL addresses the three primary metals associated with abandoned mine drainage (iron manganese aluminum) and pH

Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments State Water Plan (SWP) Subbasin 19C

HUC 05020005 Lower Monongahela River Year Miles Use

Designation Assessment

ID Segment ID DEP

Stream Code

Stream Name

Desig-nated Use

Data Source

Source EPA 305(b) Cause Code

1996 223 Not in GIS 39425 Peters Creek TSF 305(b) Report

RE Metals

1998 223 Not in GIS 39425 Peters Creek TSF SWMP AMD Metals 2008 672

041

Aquatic Life

3481

4348

Lick Run TSF SWMP AMD Metals

Metals pH

2008 028 Aquatic Life

3481 39452 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 058 Aquatic Life

3481 39453 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 055 Aquatic Life

3481 39454 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 047 Aquatic Life

3481 39455 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 044 Aquatic Life

3481 39456 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 066 Aquatic Life

3481 39457 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 104 Aquatic Life

3481 39458 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 115 Aquatic Life

3481 39459 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 032 Aquatic Life

3481 39460 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

1 Pennsylvaniarsquos 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) lists and the 2004 and 2006 Integrated Water Quality Report were approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The 1996 Section 303(d) list provides the basis for measuring progress under the 1997 lawsuit settlement of American Littoral Society and Public Interest Group of Pennsylvania v EPA

4

2008 059 Aquatic Life

3481 39461 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 063 Aquatic Life

3481 39462 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 385

381

Aquatic Life

3909

3913

39425 Peters Creek TSF SWMP AMD Metals

Metals 2008 055 Aquatic

Life 3911 39426 Peters

Creek Unt TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 045 Aquatic Life

3911 39427 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 101 Aquatic Life

3911 39428 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 086 Aquatic Life

3911 39429 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 045 Aquatic Life

3911 39430 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 055 Aquatic Life

3911 39431 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 049 Aquatic Life

3911 39439 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 032 Aquatic Life

3911 39440 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 069 Aquatic Life

3911 39441 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 073 Aquatic Life

3911 39450 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 067 Aquatic Life

3901 39463 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 025 Aquatic Life

3910 39489 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 033 Aquatic Life

3910 39490 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 119 Aquatic Life

3910 39491 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 040 Aquatic Life

3910 39492 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 074 Aquatic Life

3910 39493 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 071 Aquatic Life

3910 39494 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 054 Aquatic Life

3910 39495 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 054 Aquatic Life

3910 39496 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 376 Aquatic Life

3856 39497 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 063 Aquatic Life

3856 39498 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 072 Aquatic Life

3856 39499 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 332 Aquatic Life

3856 39500 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 064 Aquatic Life

3910 39501 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

5

Resource Extraction=RE Trout Stocked Fish = TSF Surface Water Monitoring Program = SWMP Abandoned Mine Drainage = AMD See Attachment D Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and the 2004 and 2006 Integrated Water Quality Report The use designations for the stream segments in this TMDL can be found in PA Title 25 Chapter 93

Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed

The Peters Creek Watershed is located in Allegheny and Washington Counties in southwestern Pennsylvania The watershed can be accessed by traveling Route 70 west from New Stanton until its intersection with Route 51 north Route 51 crosses Peters Creek upstream of its mouth Additional access is provided by a number of smaller roads including Route 88 SR3014 SR3015 SR3017 and SR1007

Watershed Characteristics

The Peters Creek Watershed is located in southwestern Allegheny County and northeastern Washington County in Southwestern Pennsylvania The watershed is located on the US Geological Survey maps covering portions of the Bridgeville Glassport Monongahela and Hackett 75 minute quadrangles The area within the watershed encompasses approximately 50 miles2 The political subdivisions represented in the watershed include Baldwin Bethel Park Clairton Jefferson Hills Pleasant Hills South Park Township West Mifflin and Whitehall Borough in Allegheny County and Finleyville Nottingham Township North Strabane Peters Township and Union Township in Washington County South Park County Park is a 2000 acre multi-use park located entirely within the watershed This park is managed by Allegheny County and is comprised of parts of Bethel Park and South Park Township Land use in the watershed includes forestland cropland rural residential low density urban and abandoned mine land uses

Most of the Peters Creek Watershed is underlain with high-quality easily-mined coal deposits that outcrop on the slopes of many of the stream valleys The close proximity of these valuable deposits to the many Pittsburgh area coke ovens and steel mills has led to extensive mining throughout the watershed The Pittsburgh coal bed has been mined since the early 1900rsquos by underground methods and has resulted in many parts of the watershed being prone to surface subsidence The Redstone coal bed which overlies the Pittsburgh coal bed was mined subsequently by surface methods before environmental laws were enacted requiring reclamation of mined lands The resulting spoil piles have remained largely un-reclaimed and are scattered throughout the watershed

Despite the impact of mining and mine drainage areas of high biodiversity in the watershed remain Two areas in the watershed have been identified as significant biodiversity areas by the Natural Heritage Inventory the Peters Creek Wetland Biodiversity Area in Jefferson Hills (one of the few remaining robust emergent marsh communities in Allegheny County) and the Wrights Woods Biodiversity Area in Nottingham Township

6

Segments addressed in this TMDL

Peters Creek is affected by pollution from AMD This pollution has caused high levels of metals in the watershed The TMDLs will be expressed as long-term average loadings Due to the nature and complexity of mining effects on the watershed expressing the TMDL as a long-term average gives a better representation of the data used for the calculations See Table 3 for TMDL calculations and see Attachment C for TMDL explanations

This AMD TMDL document contains one or more future mining Waste Load Allocations (WLA) These WLAs were requested by the Greensburg District Mining Office (DMO) to accommodate one or more future mining operations The District Mining Office determined the number of and location of the future mining WLAs This will allow speedier approval of future mining permits without the time-consuming process of amending this TMDL document All comments and questions concerning the future mining WLAs in this TMDL are to be directed to the appropriate DMO Future wasteload allocations are calculated using the method described for quantifying pollutant load in Attachment C

The following are examples of what is or is not intended by the inclusion of future mining WLAs This list is by way of example and is not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive

1 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs is not intended to exclude the issuance of future non-mining NPDES permits in this watershed or any waters of the Commonwealth

2 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs in specific segments of this watershed is not intended to exclude future mining in any segments of this watershed that does not have a future mining WLA

3 The inclusion of future mining WLAs does not preclude the amending of this AMD TMDL to accommodate additional NPDES permits

Clean Water Act Requirements

Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act requires states territories and authorized tribes to establish water quality standards The water quality standards identify the uses for each waterbody and the scientific criteria needed to support that use Uses can include designations for drinking water supply contact recreation (swimming) and aquatic life support Minimum goals set by the Clean Water Act require that all waters be ldquofishablerdquo and ldquoswimmablerdquo

Additionally the federal Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPA) implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 130) require

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

7

bull States to establish priority rankings for waters on the lists based on severity of pollution and the designated use of the waterbody states must also identify those waters for which TMDLs will be developed and a schedule for development

bull States to submit the list of waters to EPA every two years (April 1 of the even numbered years)

bull States to develop TMDLs specifying a pollutant budget that meets state water quality standards and allocate pollutant loads among pollution sources in a watershed eg point and nonpoint sources and

bull EPA to approve or disapprove state lists and TMDLs within 30 days of final submission

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

In the cases that have been settled to date the consent agreements require EPA to backstop TMDL development track TMDL development review state monitoring programs and fund studies on issues of concern (eg AMD implementation of nonpoint source Best Management Practices (BMPs) etc)

These TMDLs were developed in partial fulfillment of the 1997 lawsuit settlement of American Littoral Society and Public Interest Group of Pennsylvania v EPA

Section 303(d) Listing Process

Prior to developing TMDLs for specific waterbodies there must be sufficient data available to assess which streams are impaired and should be on the Section 303(d) list With guidance from the EPA the states have developed methods for assessing the waters within their respective jurisdictions

The primary method adopted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for evaluating waters changed between the publication of the 1996 and 1998 Section 303(d) lists Prior to 1998 data used to list streams were in a variety of formats collected under differing protocols Information also was gathered through the Section 305(b)2 reporting process DEP is now using the Statewide Surface Waters Assessment Protocol (SSWAP) a modification of the EPArsquos 1989 Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II (RBP-II) as the primary mechanism to assess Pennsylvaniarsquos waters The SSWAP provides a more consistent approach to assessing Pennsylvaniarsquos streams

2 Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires a biannual description of the water quality of the waters of the state

8

The assessment method requires selecting representative stream segments based on factors such as surrounding land uses stream characteristics surface geology and point source discharge locations The biologist selects as many sites as necessary to establish an accurate assessment for a stream segment the length of the assessed stream segment can vary between sites All the biological surveys included kick-screen sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat evaluations Benthic macroinvertebrates are identified to the family level in the field

After the survey is completed the biologist determines the status of the stream segment The decision is based on habitat scores and a series of narrative biological statements used to evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate community If the stream is determined to be impaired the source and cause of the impairment is documented An impaired stream must be listed on the statersquos Section 303(d) list with the source and cause A TMDL must be developed for the stream segment and each pollutant In order for the process to be more effective adjoining stream segments with the same source and cause listing are addressed collectively and on a watershed basis

Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL

Although all watersheds must be handled on a case-by-case basis when developing TMDLs there are basic processes or steps that apply to all cases They include

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

2 Calculating the TMDL for the waterbody using EPA approved methods and computer models

3 Allocating pollutant loads to various sources 4 Determining critical and seasonal conditions 5 Public review and comment and comment period on draft TMDL 6 Submittal of final TMDL and 7 EPA approval of the TMDL

AMD Methodology

A two-step approach is used for the TMDL analysis of AMD impaired stream segments The first step uses a statistical method for determining the allowable instream concentration at the point of interest necessary to meet water quality standards This is done at each point of interest (sample point) in the watershed The second step is a mass balance of the loads as they pass through the watershed Loads at these points will be computed based on average annual flow

The statistical analysis described below can be applied to situations where all of the pollutant loading is from non-point sources as well as those where there are both point and non-point sources The following defines what are considered point sources and non-point sources for the purposes of our evaluation point sources are defined as permitted discharges or a discharge that has a responsible party non-point sources are then any pollution sources that are not point sources For situations where all of the impact is due to non-point sources the equations shown below are applied using data for a point in the stream The load allocation made at that point will be for all of the watershed area that is above that point For situations where there are point-

9

source impacts alone or in combination with non-point sources the evaluation will use the point-source data and perform a mass balance with the receiving water to determine the impact of the point source

Allowable loads are determined for each point of interest using Monte Carlo simulation Monte Carlo simulation is an analytical method meant to imitate real-life systems especially when other analyses are too mathematically complex or too difficult to reproduce Monte Carlo simulation calculates multiple scenarios of a model by repeatedly sampling values from the probability distribution of the uncertain variables and using those values to populate a larger data set Allocations were applied uniformly for the watershed area specified for each allocation point For each source and pollutant it was assumed that the observed data were log-normally distributed Each pollutant source was evaluated separately using Risk3 by performing 5000 iterations to determine the required percent reduction so that the water quality criteria as defined in the Pennsylvania Code Title 25 Environmental Protection Department of Environmental Protection Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be met instream at least 99 percent of the time For each iteration the required percent reduction is

PR = maximum 0 (1-CcCd) where (1)

PR = required percent reduction for the current iteration

Cc = criterion in mgl

Cd = randomly generated pollutant source concentration in mgl based on the observed data

Cd = RiskLognorm(Mean Standard Deviation) where (1a)

Mean = average observed concentration

Standard Deviation = standard deviation of observed data

The overall percent reduction required is the 99th percentile value of the probability distribution generated by the 5000 iterations so that the allowable long-term average (LTA) concentration is

LTA = Mean (1 ndash PR99) where (2)

LTA = allowable LTA source concentration in mgl

Once the allowable concentration and load for each pollutant is determined mass-balance accounting is performed starting at the top of the watershed and working down in sequence This mass-balance or load tracking is explained below

3 Risk ndash Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-in for Microsoft Excel Palisade Corporation Newfield NY 1990-1997

10

Load tracking through the watershed utilizes the change in measured loads from sample location to sample location as well as the allowable load that was determined at each point using the Risk program

There are two basic rules that are applied in load tracking rule one is that if the sum of the measured loads that directly affect the downstream sample point is less than the measured load at the downstream sample point it is indicative that there is an increase in load between the points being evaluated and this amount (the difference between the sum of the upstream and downstream loads) shall be added to the allowable load(s) coming from the upstream points to give a total load that is coming into the downstream point from all sources The second rule is that if the sum of the measured loads from the upstream points is greater than the measured load at the downstream point this is indicative that there is a loss of instream load between the evaluation points and the ratio of the decrease shall be applied to the load that is being tracked (allowable load(s)) from the upstream point

Tracking loads through the watershed gives the best picture of how the pollutants are affecting the watershed based on the information that is available The analysis is done to insure that water quality standards will be met at all points in the stream The TMDL must be designed to meet standards at all points in the stream and in completing the analysis reductions that must be made to upstream points are considered to be accomplished when evaluating points that are lower in the watershed Another key point is that the loads are being computed based on average annual flow and should not be taken out of the context for which they are intended which is to depict how the pollutants affect the watershed and where the sources and sinks are located spatially in the watershed

For pH TMDLs acidity is compared to alkalinity as described in Attachment B Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and hot acidity Statistical procedures are applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for streams affected by low pH from AMD may not be a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Information for the TMDL analysis performed using the methodology described above is contained in the ldquoTMDLs by Segmentrdquo section of this report

11

TMDL Endpoints

One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of an instream numeric endpoint which is used to evaluate the attainment of applicable water quality An instream numeric endpoint therefore represents the water quality goal that is to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL The endpoint allows for a comparison between observed instream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses The endpoint is based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in water quality standards

Because the pollution sources in the watershed are nonpoint sources the TMDLs component makeup will be load allocations (LAs) with waste load allocations (WLAs) for permitted discharges All allocations will be specified as long-term average daily concentrations These long-term average concentrations are expected to meet water-quality criteria 99 of the time as required in PA Title 25 Chapter 963(c) The following table shows the applicable water-quality criteria for the selected parameters

Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Parameter Criterion Value

(mgl) Total

RecoverableDissolved Aluminum (Al) 075 Total Recoverable

Iron (Fe) 150 Total Recoverable Manganese (Mn) 100 Total Recoverable

pH 60-90 NA The pH values shown will be used when applicable In the case of freestone streams with little or no buffering capacity the TMDL endpoint for pH will be the natural background water quality

TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A TMDL equation consists of a waste load allocation (WLA) load allocation (LA) and a margin of safety (MOS) The waste load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to point sources The load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to non-point sources The margin of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the computational process The margin of safety may be expressed implicitly (documenting conservative processes in the computations) or explicitly (setting aside a portion of the allowable load) The TMDL allocations in this report are based on available data Other allocation schemes could also meet the TMDL

Allocation Summary

These TMDLs will focus remediation efforts on the identified numerical reduction targets for each watershed The reduction schemes in Table 3 for each segment are based on the assumption that all upstream allocations are implemented and take into account all upstream reductions Attachment D contains the TMDLs by segment analysis for each allocation point in a detailed discussion As changes occur in the watershed the TMDLs may be re-evaluated to reflect current conditions An implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the analysis is included in the TMDL calculations

12

The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the average flow and a conversion factor at each sample point The allowable load is the TMDL at that point

Waste load allocations have also been included at some points for future mining operations The difference between the TMDL and the WLA at each point is the load allocation (LA) at the point The LA at each point includes all loads entering the segment including those from upstream allocation points The percent reduction is calculated to show the amount of load that needs to be reduced from nonpoint sources within a segment in order for water quality standards to be met at the point

In some instances instream processes such as settling are taking place within a stream segment These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points

Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC5 ndash Peters Creek at bridge upstream of Finleyville Aluminum (lbsday) 3113 1121 056 1065 1992 64

Iron (lbsday) 2012 2012 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 1352 1352 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -251751 -251751 NA NA NA NA PCTR1 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek Stoneybridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

Aluminum (lbsday) 026 007 - 007 019 73 Iron (lbsday) 021 015 - 015 006 29

Manganese(lbsday) 002 002 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -9426 -9426 NA NA NA NA

PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge crossing in Gastonville Aluminum (lbsday) 387 077 - 077 310 80

Iron (lbsday) 198 198 NA NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 095 084 - 084 011 12

Acidity (lbsday) -35475 -35475 NA NA NA NA PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek from mined area upstream of PC4

Aluminum (lbsday) 1956 039 028 011 1917 98 Iron (lbsday) 317 048 0564 0 269 85

Manganese(lbsday) 453 118 075 043 335 74 Acidity (lbsday) 27346 273 - 273 15652 99

4 The waste load allocation for total iron is calculated assuming discharges at PA Chapter 93 water quality criteria of 15 mgL Maintaining this discharge concentration assures that the discharge will not contribute to water quality impairment in downstream segments

13

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 5: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

2008 059 Aquatic Life

3481 39461 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 063 Aquatic Life

3481 39462 Lick Run Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 385

381

Aquatic Life

3909

3913

39425 Peters Creek TSF SWMP AMD Metals

Metals 2008 055 Aquatic

Life 3911 39426 Peters

Creek Unt TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 045 Aquatic Life

3911 39427 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 101 Aquatic Life

3911 39428 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 086 Aquatic Life

3911 39429 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 045 Aquatic Life

3911 39430 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 055 Aquatic Life

3911 39431 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 049 Aquatic Life

3911 39439 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 032 Aquatic Life

3911 39440 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 069 Aquatic Life

3911 39441 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 073 Aquatic Life

3911 39450 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 067 Aquatic Life

3901 39463 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 025 Aquatic Life

3910 39489 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 033 Aquatic Life

3910 39490 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 119 Aquatic Life

3910 39491 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 040 Aquatic Life

3910 39492 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 074 Aquatic Life

3910 39493 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 071 Aquatic Life

3910 39494 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 054 Aquatic Life

3910 39495 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 054 Aquatic Life

3910 39496 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 376 Aquatic Life

3856 39497 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 063 Aquatic Life

3856 39498 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 072 Aquatic Life

3856 39499 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 332 Aquatic Life

3856 39500 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

2008 064 Aquatic Life

3910 39501 Peters Creek Unt

TSF SWMP AMD Metals

5

Resource Extraction=RE Trout Stocked Fish = TSF Surface Water Monitoring Program = SWMP Abandoned Mine Drainage = AMD See Attachment D Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and the 2004 and 2006 Integrated Water Quality Report The use designations for the stream segments in this TMDL can be found in PA Title 25 Chapter 93

Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed

The Peters Creek Watershed is located in Allegheny and Washington Counties in southwestern Pennsylvania The watershed can be accessed by traveling Route 70 west from New Stanton until its intersection with Route 51 north Route 51 crosses Peters Creek upstream of its mouth Additional access is provided by a number of smaller roads including Route 88 SR3014 SR3015 SR3017 and SR1007

Watershed Characteristics

The Peters Creek Watershed is located in southwestern Allegheny County and northeastern Washington County in Southwestern Pennsylvania The watershed is located on the US Geological Survey maps covering portions of the Bridgeville Glassport Monongahela and Hackett 75 minute quadrangles The area within the watershed encompasses approximately 50 miles2 The political subdivisions represented in the watershed include Baldwin Bethel Park Clairton Jefferson Hills Pleasant Hills South Park Township West Mifflin and Whitehall Borough in Allegheny County and Finleyville Nottingham Township North Strabane Peters Township and Union Township in Washington County South Park County Park is a 2000 acre multi-use park located entirely within the watershed This park is managed by Allegheny County and is comprised of parts of Bethel Park and South Park Township Land use in the watershed includes forestland cropland rural residential low density urban and abandoned mine land uses

Most of the Peters Creek Watershed is underlain with high-quality easily-mined coal deposits that outcrop on the slopes of many of the stream valleys The close proximity of these valuable deposits to the many Pittsburgh area coke ovens and steel mills has led to extensive mining throughout the watershed The Pittsburgh coal bed has been mined since the early 1900rsquos by underground methods and has resulted in many parts of the watershed being prone to surface subsidence The Redstone coal bed which overlies the Pittsburgh coal bed was mined subsequently by surface methods before environmental laws were enacted requiring reclamation of mined lands The resulting spoil piles have remained largely un-reclaimed and are scattered throughout the watershed

Despite the impact of mining and mine drainage areas of high biodiversity in the watershed remain Two areas in the watershed have been identified as significant biodiversity areas by the Natural Heritage Inventory the Peters Creek Wetland Biodiversity Area in Jefferson Hills (one of the few remaining robust emergent marsh communities in Allegheny County) and the Wrights Woods Biodiversity Area in Nottingham Township

6

Segments addressed in this TMDL

Peters Creek is affected by pollution from AMD This pollution has caused high levels of metals in the watershed The TMDLs will be expressed as long-term average loadings Due to the nature and complexity of mining effects on the watershed expressing the TMDL as a long-term average gives a better representation of the data used for the calculations See Table 3 for TMDL calculations and see Attachment C for TMDL explanations

This AMD TMDL document contains one or more future mining Waste Load Allocations (WLA) These WLAs were requested by the Greensburg District Mining Office (DMO) to accommodate one or more future mining operations The District Mining Office determined the number of and location of the future mining WLAs This will allow speedier approval of future mining permits without the time-consuming process of amending this TMDL document All comments and questions concerning the future mining WLAs in this TMDL are to be directed to the appropriate DMO Future wasteload allocations are calculated using the method described for quantifying pollutant load in Attachment C

The following are examples of what is or is not intended by the inclusion of future mining WLAs This list is by way of example and is not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive

1 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs is not intended to exclude the issuance of future non-mining NPDES permits in this watershed or any waters of the Commonwealth

2 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs in specific segments of this watershed is not intended to exclude future mining in any segments of this watershed that does not have a future mining WLA

3 The inclusion of future mining WLAs does not preclude the amending of this AMD TMDL to accommodate additional NPDES permits

Clean Water Act Requirements

Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act requires states territories and authorized tribes to establish water quality standards The water quality standards identify the uses for each waterbody and the scientific criteria needed to support that use Uses can include designations for drinking water supply contact recreation (swimming) and aquatic life support Minimum goals set by the Clean Water Act require that all waters be ldquofishablerdquo and ldquoswimmablerdquo

Additionally the federal Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPA) implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 130) require

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

7

bull States to establish priority rankings for waters on the lists based on severity of pollution and the designated use of the waterbody states must also identify those waters for which TMDLs will be developed and a schedule for development

bull States to submit the list of waters to EPA every two years (April 1 of the even numbered years)

bull States to develop TMDLs specifying a pollutant budget that meets state water quality standards and allocate pollutant loads among pollution sources in a watershed eg point and nonpoint sources and

bull EPA to approve or disapprove state lists and TMDLs within 30 days of final submission

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

In the cases that have been settled to date the consent agreements require EPA to backstop TMDL development track TMDL development review state monitoring programs and fund studies on issues of concern (eg AMD implementation of nonpoint source Best Management Practices (BMPs) etc)

These TMDLs were developed in partial fulfillment of the 1997 lawsuit settlement of American Littoral Society and Public Interest Group of Pennsylvania v EPA

Section 303(d) Listing Process

Prior to developing TMDLs for specific waterbodies there must be sufficient data available to assess which streams are impaired and should be on the Section 303(d) list With guidance from the EPA the states have developed methods for assessing the waters within their respective jurisdictions

The primary method adopted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for evaluating waters changed between the publication of the 1996 and 1998 Section 303(d) lists Prior to 1998 data used to list streams were in a variety of formats collected under differing protocols Information also was gathered through the Section 305(b)2 reporting process DEP is now using the Statewide Surface Waters Assessment Protocol (SSWAP) a modification of the EPArsquos 1989 Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II (RBP-II) as the primary mechanism to assess Pennsylvaniarsquos waters The SSWAP provides a more consistent approach to assessing Pennsylvaniarsquos streams

2 Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires a biannual description of the water quality of the waters of the state

8

The assessment method requires selecting representative stream segments based on factors such as surrounding land uses stream characteristics surface geology and point source discharge locations The biologist selects as many sites as necessary to establish an accurate assessment for a stream segment the length of the assessed stream segment can vary between sites All the biological surveys included kick-screen sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat evaluations Benthic macroinvertebrates are identified to the family level in the field

After the survey is completed the biologist determines the status of the stream segment The decision is based on habitat scores and a series of narrative biological statements used to evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate community If the stream is determined to be impaired the source and cause of the impairment is documented An impaired stream must be listed on the statersquos Section 303(d) list with the source and cause A TMDL must be developed for the stream segment and each pollutant In order for the process to be more effective adjoining stream segments with the same source and cause listing are addressed collectively and on a watershed basis

Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL

Although all watersheds must be handled on a case-by-case basis when developing TMDLs there are basic processes or steps that apply to all cases They include

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

2 Calculating the TMDL for the waterbody using EPA approved methods and computer models

3 Allocating pollutant loads to various sources 4 Determining critical and seasonal conditions 5 Public review and comment and comment period on draft TMDL 6 Submittal of final TMDL and 7 EPA approval of the TMDL

AMD Methodology

A two-step approach is used for the TMDL analysis of AMD impaired stream segments The first step uses a statistical method for determining the allowable instream concentration at the point of interest necessary to meet water quality standards This is done at each point of interest (sample point) in the watershed The second step is a mass balance of the loads as they pass through the watershed Loads at these points will be computed based on average annual flow

The statistical analysis described below can be applied to situations where all of the pollutant loading is from non-point sources as well as those where there are both point and non-point sources The following defines what are considered point sources and non-point sources for the purposes of our evaluation point sources are defined as permitted discharges or a discharge that has a responsible party non-point sources are then any pollution sources that are not point sources For situations where all of the impact is due to non-point sources the equations shown below are applied using data for a point in the stream The load allocation made at that point will be for all of the watershed area that is above that point For situations where there are point-

9

source impacts alone or in combination with non-point sources the evaluation will use the point-source data and perform a mass balance with the receiving water to determine the impact of the point source

Allowable loads are determined for each point of interest using Monte Carlo simulation Monte Carlo simulation is an analytical method meant to imitate real-life systems especially when other analyses are too mathematically complex or too difficult to reproduce Monte Carlo simulation calculates multiple scenarios of a model by repeatedly sampling values from the probability distribution of the uncertain variables and using those values to populate a larger data set Allocations were applied uniformly for the watershed area specified for each allocation point For each source and pollutant it was assumed that the observed data were log-normally distributed Each pollutant source was evaluated separately using Risk3 by performing 5000 iterations to determine the required percent reduction so that the water quality criteria as defined in the Pennsylvania Code Title 25 Environmental Protection Department of Environmental Protection Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be met instream at least 99 percent of the time For each iteration the required percent reduction is

PR = maximum 0 (1-CcCd) where (1)

PR = required percent reduction for the current iteration

Cc = criterion in mgl

Cd = randomly generated pollutant source concentration in mgl based on the observed data

Cd = RiskLognorm(Mean Standard Deviation) where (1a)

Mean = average observed concentration

Standard Deviation = standard deviation of observed data

The overall percent reduction required is the 99th percentile value of the probability distribution generated by the 5000 iterations so that the allowable long-term average (LTA) concentration is

LTA = Mean (1 ndash PR99) where (2)

LTA = allowable LTA source concentration in mgl

Once the allowable concentration and load for each pollutant is determined mass-balance accounting is performed starting at the top of the watershed and working down in sequence This mass-balance or load tracking is explained below

3 Risk ndash Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-in for Microsoft Excel Palisade Corporation Newfield NY 1990-1997

10

Load tracking through the watershed utilizes the change in measured loads from sample location to sample location as well as the allowable load that was determined at each point using the Risk program

There are two basic rules that are applied in load tracking rule one is that if the sum of the measured loads that directly affect the downstream sample point is less than the measured load at the downstream sample point it is indicative that there is an increase in load between the points being evaluated and this amount (the difference between the sum of the upstream and downstream loads) shall be added to the allowable load(s) coming from the upstream points to give a total load that is coming into the downstream point from all sources The second rule is that if the sum of the measured loads from the upstream points is greater than the measured load at the downstream point this is indicative that there is a loss of instream load between the evaluation points and the ratio of the decrease shall be applied to the load that is being tracked (allowable load(s)) from the upstream point

Tracking loads through the watershed gives the best picture of how the pollutants are affecting the watershed based on the information that is available The analysis is done to insure that water quality standards will be met at all points in the stream The TMDL must be designed to meet standards at all points in the stream and in completing the analysis reductions that must be made to upstream points are considered to be accomplished when evaluating points that are lower in the watershed Another key point is that the loads are being computed based on average annual flow and should not be taken out of the context for which they are intended which is to depict how the pollutants affect the watershed and where the sources and sinks are located spatially in the watershed

For pH TMDLs acidity is compared to alkalinity as described in Attachment B Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and hot acidity Statistical procedures are applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for streams affected by low pH from AMD may not be a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Information for the TMDL analysis performed using the methodology described above is contained in the ldquoTMDLs by Segmentrdquo section of this report

11

TMDL Endpoints

One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of an instream numeric endpoint which is used to evaluate the attainment of applicable water quality An instream numeric endpoint therefore represents the water quality goal that is to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL The endpoint allows for a comparison between observed instream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses The endpoint is based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in water quality standards

Because the pollution sources in the watershed are nonpoint sources the TMDLs component makeup will be load allocations (LAs) with waste load allocations (WLAs) for permitted discharges All allocations will be specified as long-term average daily concentrations These long-term average concentrations are expected to meet water-quality criteria 99 of the time as required in PA Title 25 Chapter 963(c) The following table shows the applicable water-quality criteria for the selected parameters

Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Parameter Criterion Value

(mgl) Total

RecoverableDissolved Aluminum (Al) 075 Total Recoverable

Iron (Fe) 150 Total Recoverable Manganese (Mn) 100 Total Recoverable

pH 60-90 NA The pH values shown will be used when applicable In the case of freestone streams with little or no buffering capacity the TMDL endpoint for pH will be the natural background water quality

TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A TMDL equation consists of a waste load allocation (WLA) load allocation (LA) and a margin of safety (MOS) The waste load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to point sources The load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to non-point sources The margin of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the computational process The margin of safety may be expressed implicitly (documenting conservative processes in the computations) or explicitly (setting aside a portion of the allowable load) The TMDL allocations in this report are based on available data Other allocation schemes could also meet the TMDL

Allocation Summary

These TMDLs will focus remediation efforts on the identified numerical reduction targets for each watershed The reduction schemes in Table 3 for each segment are based on the assumption that all upstream allocations are implemented and take into account all upstream reductions Attachment D contains the TMDLs by segment analysis for each allocation point in a detailed discussion As changes occur in the watershed the TMDLs may be re-evaluated to reflect current conditions An implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the analysis is included in the TMDL calculations

12

The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the average flow and a conversion factor at each sample point The allowable load is the TMDL at that point

Waste load allocations have also been included at some points for future mining operations The difference between the TMDL and the WLA at each point is the load allocation (LA) at the point The LA at each point includes all loads entering the segment including those from upstream allocation points The percent reduction is calculated to show the amount of load that needs to be reduced from nonpoint sources within a segment in order for water quality standards to be met at the point

In some instances instream processes such as settling are taking place within a stream segment These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points

Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC5 ndash Peters Creek at bridge upstream of Finleyville Aluminum (lbsday) 3113 1121 056 1065 1992 64

Iron (lbsday) 2012 2012 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 1352 1352 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -251751 -251751 NA NA NA NA PCTR1 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek Stoneybridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

Aluminum (lbsday) 026 007 - 007 019 73 Iron (lbsday) 021 015 - 015 006 29

Manganese(lbsday) 002 002 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -9426 -9426 NA NA NA NA

PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge crossing in Gastonville Aluminum (lbsday) 387 077 - 077 310 80

Iron (lbsday) 198 198 NA NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 095 084 - 084 011 12

Acidity (lbsday) -35475 -35475 NA NA NA NA PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek from mined area upstream of PC4

Aluminum (lbsday) 1956 039 028 011 1917 98 Iron (lbsday) 317 048 0564 0 269 85

Manganese(lbsday) 453 118 075 043 335 74 Acidity (lbsday) 27346 273 - 273 15652 99

4 The waste load allocation for total iron is calculated assuming discharges at PA Chapter 93 water quality criteria of 15 mgL Maintaining this discharge concentration assures that the discharge will not contribute to water quality impairment in downstream segments

13

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 6: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Resource Extraction=RE Trout Stocked Fish = TSF Surface Water Monitoring Program = SWMP Abandoned Mine Drainage = AMD See Attachment D Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and the 2004 and 2006 Integrated Water Quality Report The use designations for the stream segments in this TMDL can be found in PA Title 25 Chapter 93

Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed

The Peters Creek Watershed is located in Allegheny and Washington Counties in southwestern Pennsylvania The watershed can be accessed by traveling Route 70 west from New Stanton until its intersection with Route 51 north Route 51 crosses Peters Creek upstream of its mouth Additional access is provided by a number of smaller roads including Route 88 SR3014 SR3015 SR3017 and SR1007

Watershed Characteristics

The Peters Creek Watershed is located in southwestern Allegheny County and northeastern Washington County in Southwestern Pennsylvania The watershed is located on the US Geological Survey maps covering portions of the Bridgeville Glassport Monongahela and Hackett 75 minute quadrangles The area within the watershed encompasses approximately 50 miles2 The political subdivisions represented in the watershed include Baldwin Bethel Park Clairton Jefferson Hills Pleasant Hills South Park Township West Mifflin and Whitehall Borough in Allegheny County and Finleyville Nottingham Township North Strabane Peters Township and Union Township in Washington County South Park County Park is a 2000 acre multi-use park located entirely within the watershed This park is managed by Allegheny County and is comprised of parts of Bethel Park and South Park Township Land use in the watershed includes forestland cropland rural residential low density urban and abandoned mine land uses

Most of the Peters Creek Watershed is underlain with high-quality easily-mined coal deposits that outcrop on the slopes of many of the stream valleys The close proximity of these valuable deposits to the many Pittsburgh area coke ovens and steel mills has led to extensive mining throughout the watershed The Pittsburgh coal bed has been mined since the early 1900rsquos by underground methods and has resulted in many parts of the watershed being prone to surface subsidence The Redstone coal bed which overlies the Pittsburgh coal bed was mined subsequently by surface methods before environmental laws were enacted requiring reclamation of mined lands The resulting spoil piles have remained largely un-reclaimed and are scattered throughout the watershed

Despite the impact of mining and mine drainage areas of high biodiversity in the watershed remain Two areas in the watershed have been identified as significant biodiversity areas by the Natural Heritage Inventory the Peters Creek Wetland Biodiversity Area in Jefferson Hills (one of the few remaining robust emergent marsh communities in Allegheny County) and the Wrights Woods Biodiversity Area in Nottingham Township

6

Segments addressed in this TMDL

Peters Creek is affected by pollution from AMD This pollution has caused high levels of metals in the watershed The TMDLs will be expressed as long-term average loadings Due to the nature and complexity of mining effects on the watershed expressing the TMDL as a long-term average gives a better representation of the data used for the calculations See Table 3 for TMDL calculations and see Attachment C for TMDL explanations

This AMD TMDL document contains one or more future mining Waste Load Allocations (WLA) These WLAs were requested by the Greensburg District Mining Office (DMO) to accommodate one or more future mining operations The District Mining Office determined the number of and location of the future mining WLAs This will allow speedier approval of future mining permits without the time-consuming process of amending this TMDL document All comments and questions concerning the future mining WLAs in this TMDL are to be directed to the appropriate DMO Future wasteload allocations are calculated using the method described for quantifying pollutant load in Attachment C

The following are examples of what is or is not intended by the inclusion of future mining WLAs This list is by way of example and is not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive

1 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs is not intended to exclude the issuance of future non-mining NPDES permits in this watershed or any waters of the Commonwealth

2 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs in specific segments of this watershed is not intended to exclude future mining in any segments of this watershed that does not have a future mining WLA

3 The inclusion of future mining WLAs does not preclude the amending of this AMD TMDL to accommodate additional NPDES permits

Clean Water Act Requirements

Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act requires states territories and authorized tribes to establish water quality standards The water quality standards identify the uses for each waterbody and the scientific criteria needed to support that use Uses can include designations for drinking water supply contact recreation (swimming) and aquatic life support Minimum goals set by the Clean Water Act require that all waters be ldquofishablerdquo and ldquoswimmablerdquo

Additionally the federal Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPA) implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 130) require

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

7

bull States to establish priority rankings for waters on the lists based on severity of pollution and the designated use of the waterbody states must also identify those waters for which TMDLs will be developed and a schedule for development

bull States to submit the list of waters to EPA every two years (April 1 of the even numbered years)

bull States to develop TMDLs specifying a pollutant budget that meets state water quality standards and allocate pollutant loads among pollution sources in a watershed eg point and nonpoint sources and

bull EPA to approve or disapprove state lists and TMDLs within 30 days of final submission

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

In the cases that have been settled to date the consent agreements require EPA to backstop TMDL development track TMDL development review state monitoring programs and fund studies on issues of concern (eg AMD implementation of nonpoint source Best Management Practices (BMPs) etc)

These TMDLs were developed in partial fulfillment of the 1997 lawsuit settlement of American Littoral Society and Public Interest Group of Pennsylvania v EPA

Section 303(d) Listing Process

Prior to developing TMDLs for specific waterbodies there must be sufficient data available to assess which streams are impaired and should be on the Section 303(d) list With guidance from the EPA the states have developed methods for assessing the waters within their respective jurisdictions

The primary method adopted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for evaluating waters changed between the publication of the 1996 and 1998 Section 303(d) lists Prior to 1998 data used to list streams were in a variety of formats collected under differing protocols Information also was gathered through the Section 305(b)2 reporting process DEP is now using the Statewide Surface Waters Assessment Protocol (SSWAP) a modification of the EPArsquos 1989 Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II (RBP-II) as the primary mechanism to assess Pennsylvaniarsquos waters The SSWAP provides a more consistent approach to assessing Pennsylvaniarsquos streams

2 Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires a biannual description of the water quality of the waters of the state

8

The assessment method requires selecting representative stream segments based on factors such as surrounding land uses stream characteristics surface geology and point source discharge locations The biologist selects as many sites as necessary to establish an accurate assessment for a stream segment the length of the assessed stream segment can vary between sites All the biological surveys included kick-screen sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat evaluations Benthic macroinvertebrates are identified to the family level in the field

After the survey is completed the biologist determines the status of the stream segment The decision is based on habitat scores and a series of narrative biological statements used to evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate community If the stream is determined to be impaired the source and cause of the impairment is documented An impaired stream must be listed on the statersquos Section 303(d) list with the source and cause A TMDL must be developed for the stream segment and each pollutant In order for the process to be more effective adjoining stream segments with the same source and cause listing are addressed collectively and on a watershed basis

Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL

Although all watersheds must be handled on a case-by-case basis when developing TMDLs there are basic processes or steps that apply to all cases They include

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

2 Calculating the TMDL for the waterbody using EPA approved methods and computer models

3 Allocating pollutant loads to various sources 4 Determining critical and seasonal conditions 5 Public review and comment and comment period on draft TMDL 6 Submittal of final TMDL and 7 EPA approval of the TMDL

AMD Methodology

A two-step approach is used for the TMDL analysis of AMD impaired stream segments The first step uses a statistical method for determining the allowable instream concentration at the point of interest necessary to meet water quality standards This is done at each point of interest (sample point) in the watershed The second step is a mass balance of the loads as they pass through the watershed Loads at these points will be computed based on average annual flow

The statistical analysis described below can be applied to situations where all of the pollutant loading is from non-point sources as well as those where there are both point and non-point sources The following defines what are considered point sources and non-point sources for the purposes of our evaluation point sources are defined as permitted discharges or a discharge that has a responsible party non-point sources are then any pollution sources that are not point sources For situations where all of the impact is due to non-point sources the equations shown below are applied using data for a point in the stream The load allocation made at that point will be for all of the watershed area that is above that point For situations where there are point-

9

source impacts alone or in combination with non-point sources the evaluation will use the point-source data and perform a mass balance with the receiving water to determine the impact of the point source

Allowable loads are determined for each point of interest using Monte Carlo simulation Monte Carlo simulation is an analytical method meant to imitate real-life systems especially when other analyses are too mathematically complex or too difficult to reproduce Monte Carlo simulation calculates multiple scenarios of a model by repeatedly sampling values from the probability distribution of the uncertain variables and using those values to populate a larger data set Allocations were applied uniformly for the watershed area specified for each allocation point For each source and pollutant it was assumed that the observed data were log-normally distributed Each pollutant source was evaluated separately using Risk3 by performing 5000 iterations to determine the required percent reduction so that the water quality criteria as defined in the Pennsylvania Code Title 25 Environmental Protection Department of Environmental Protection Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be met instream at least 99 percent of the time For each iteration the required percent reduction is

PR = maximum 0 (1-CcCd) where (1)

PR = required percent reduction for the current iteration

Cc = criterion in mgl

Cd = randomly generated pollutant source concentration in mgl based on the observed data

Cd = RiskLognorm(Mean Standard Deviation) where (1a)

Mean = average observed concentration

Standard Deviation = standard deviation of observed data

The overall percent reduction required is the 99th percentile value of the probability distribution generated by the 5000 iterations so that the allowable long-term average (LTA) concentration is

LTA = Mean (1 ndash PR99) where (2)

LTA = allowable LTA source concentration in mgl

Once the allowable concentration and load for each pollutant is determined mass-balance accounting is performed starting at the top of the watershed and working down in sequence This mass-balance or load tracking is explained below

3 Risk ndash Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-in for Microsoft Excel Palisade Corporation Newfield NY 1990-1997

10

Load tracking through the watershed utilizes the change in measured loads from sample location to sample location as well as the allowable load that was determined at each point using the Risk program

There are two basic rules that are applied in load tracking rule one is that if the sum of the measured loads that directly affect the downstream sample point is less than the measured load at the downstream sample point it is indicative that there is an increase in load between the points being evaluated and this amount (the difference between the sum of the upstream and downstream loads) shall be added to the allowable load(s) coming from the upstream points to give a total load that is coming into the downstream point from all sources The second rule is that if the sum of the measured loads from the upstream points is greater than the measured load at the downstream point this is indicative that there is a loss of instream load between the evaluation points and the ratio of the decrease shall be applied to the load that is being tracked (allowable load(s)) from the upstream point

Tracking loads through the watershed gives the best picture of how the pollutants are affecting the watershed based on the information that is available The analysis is done to insure that water quality standards will be met at all points in the stream The TMDL must be designed to meet standards at all points in the stream and in completing the analysis reductions that must be made to upstream points are considered to be accomplished when evaluating points that are lower in the watershed Another key point is that the loads are being computed based on average annual flow and should not be taken out of the context for which they are intended which is to depict how the pollutants affect the watershed and where the sources and sinks are located spatially in the watershed

For pH TMDLs acidity is compared to alkalinity as described in Attachment B Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and hot acidity Statistical procedures are applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for streams affected by low pH from AMD may not be a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Information for the TMDL analysis performed using the methodology described above is contained in the ldquoTMDLs by Segmentrdquo section of this report

11

TMDL Endpoints

One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of an instream numeric endpoint which is used to evaluate the attainment of applicable water quality An instream numeric endpoint therefore represents the water quality goal that is to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL The endpoint allows for a comparison between observed instream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses The endpoint is based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in water quality standards

Because the pollution sources in the watershed are nonpoint sources the TMDLs component makeup will be load allocations (LAs) with waste load allocations (WLAs) for permitted discharges All allocations will be specified as long-term average daily concentrations These long-term average concentrations are expected to meet water-quality criteria 99 of the time as required in PA Title 25 Chapter 963(c) The following table shows the applicable water-quality criteria for the selected parameters

Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Parameter Criterion Value

(mgl) Total

RecoverableDissolved Aluminum (Al) 075 Total Recoverable

Iron (Fe) 150 Total Recoverable Manganese (Mn) 100 Total Recoverable

pH 60-90 NA The pH values shown will be used when applicable In the case of freestone streams with little or no buffering capacity the TMDL endpoint for pH will be the natural background water quality

TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A TMDL equation consists of a waste load allocation (WLA) load allocation (LA) and a margin of safety (MOS) The waste load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to point sources The load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to non-point sources The margin of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the computational process The margin of safety may be expressed implicitly (documenting conservative processes in the computations) or explicitly (setting aside a portion of the allowable load) The TMDL allocations in this report are based on available data Other allocation schemes could also meet the TMDL

Allocation Summary

These TMDLs will focus remediation efforts on the identified numerical reduction targets for each watershed The reduction schemes in Table 3 for each segment are based on the assumption that all upstream allocations are implemented and take into account all upstream reductions Attachment D contains the TMDLs by segment analysis for each allocation point in a detailed discussion As changes occur in the watershed the TMDLs may be re-evaluated to reflect current conditions An implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the analysis is included in the TMDL calculations

12

The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the average flow and a conversion factor at each sample point The allowable load is the TMDL at that point

Waste load allocations have also been included at some points for future mining operations The difference between the TMDL and the WLA at each point is the load allocation (LA) at the point The LA at each point includes all loads entering the segment including those from upstream allocation points The percent reduction is calculated to show the amount of load that needs to be reduced from nonpoint sources within a segment in order for water quality standards to be met at the point

In some instances instream processes such as settling are taking place within a stream segment These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points

Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC5 ndash Peters Creek at bridge upstream of Finleyville Aluminum (lbsday) 3113 1121 056 1065 1992 64

Iron (lbsday) 2012 2012 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 1352 1352 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -251751 -251751 NA NA NA NA PCTR1 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek Stoneybridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

Aluminum (lbsday) 026 007 - 007 019 73 Iron (lbsday) 021 015 - 015 006 29

Manganese(lbsday) 002 002 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -9426 -9426 NA NA NA NA

PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge crossing in Gastonville Aluminum (lbsday) 387 077 - 077 310 80

Iron (lbsday) 198 198 NA NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 095 084 - 084 011 12

Acidity (lbsday) -35475 -35475 NA NA NA NA PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek from mined area upstream of PC4

Aluminum (lbsday) 1956 039 028 011 1917 98 Iron (lbsday) 317 048 0564 0 269 85

Manganese(lbsday) 453 118 075 043 335 74 Acidity (lbsday) 27346 273 - 273 15652 99

4 The waste load allocation for total iron is calculated assuming discharges at PA Chapter 93 water quality criteria of 15 mgL Maintaining this discharge concentration assures that the discharge will not contribute to water quality impairment in downstream segments

13

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 7: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Segments addressed in this TMDL

Peters Creek is affected by pollution from AMD This pollution has caused high levels of metals in the watershed The TMDLs will be expressed as long-term average loadings Due to the nature and complexity of mining effects on the watershed expressing the TMDL as a long-term average gives a better representation of the data used for the calculations See Table 3 for TMDL calculations and see Attachment C for TMDL explanations

This AMD TMDL document contains one or more future mining Waste Load Allocations (WLA) These WLAs were requested by the Greensburg District Mining Office (DMO) to accommodate one or more future mining operations The District Mining Office determined the number of and location of the future mining WLAs This will allow speedier approval of future mining permits without the time-consuming process of amending this TMDL document All comments and questions concerning the future mining WLAs in this TMDL are to be directed to the appropriate DMO Future wasteload allocations are calculated using the method described for quantifying pollutant load in Attachment C

The following are examples of what is or is not intended by the inclusion of future mining WLAs This list is by way of example and is not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive

1 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs is not intended to exclude the issuance of future non-mining NPDES permits in this watershed or any waters of the Commonwealth

2 The inclusion of one or more future mining WLAs in specific segments of this watershed is not intended to exclude future mining in any segments of this watershed that does not have a future mining WLA

3 The inclusion of future mining WLAs does not preclude the amending of this AMD TMDL to accommodate additional NPDES permits

Clean Water Act Requirements

Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act requires states territories and authorized tribes to establish water quality standards The water quality standards identify the uses for each waterbody and the scientific criteria needed to support that use Uses can include designations for drinking water supply contact recreation (swimming) and aquatic life support Minimum goals set by the Clean Water Act require that all waters be ldquofishablerdquo and ldquoswimmablerdquo

Additionally the federal Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agencyrsquos (EPA) implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 130) require

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

7

bull States to establish priority rankings for waters on the lists based on severity of pollution and the designated use of the waterbody states must also identify those waters for which TMDLs will be developed and a schedule for development

bull States to submit the list of waters to EPA every two years (April 1 of the even numbered years)

bull States to develop TMDLs specifying a pollutant budget that meets state water quality standards and allocate pollutant loads among pollution sources in a watershed eg point and nonpoint sources and

bull EPA to approve or disapprove state lists and TMDLs within 30 days of final submission

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

In the cases that have been settled to date the consent agreements require EPA to backstop TMDL development track TMDL development review state monitoring programs and fund studies on issues of concern (eg AMD implementation of nonpoint source Best Management Practices (BMPs) etc)

These TMDLs were developed in partial fulfillment of the 1997 lawsuit settlement of American Littoral Society and Public Interest Group of Pennsylvania v EPA

Section 303(d) Listing Process

Prior to developing TMDLs for specific waterbodies there must be sufficient data available to assess which streams are impaired and should be on the Section 303(d) list With guidance from the EPA the states have developed methods for assessing the waters within their respective jurisdictions

The primary method adopted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for evaluating waters changed between the publication of the 1996 and 1998 Section 303(d) lists Prior to 1998 data used to list streams were in a variety of formats collected under differing protocols Information also was gathered through the Section 305(b)2 reporting process DEP is now using the Statewide Surface Waters Assessment Protocol (SSWAP) a modification of the EPArsquos 1989 Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II (RBP-II) as the primary mechanism to assess Pennsylvaniarsquos waters The SSWAP provides a more consistent approach to assessing Pennsylvaniarsquos streams

2 Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires a biannual description of the water quality of the waters of the state

8

The assessment method requires selecting representative stream segments based on factors such as surrounding land uses stream characteristics surface geology and point source discharge locations The biologist selects as many sites as necessary to establish an accurate assessment for a stream segment the length of the assessed stream segment can vary between sites All the biological surveys included kick-screen sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat evaluations Benthic macroinvertebrates are identified to the family level in the field

After the survey is completed the biologist determines the status of the stream segment The decision is based on habitat scores and a series of narrative biological statements used to evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate community If the stream is determined to be impaired the source and cause of the impairment is documented An impaired stream must be listed on the statersquos Section 303(d) list with the source and cause A TMDL must be developed for the stream segment and each pollutant In order for the process to be more effective adjoining stream segments with the same source and cause listing are addressed collectively and on a watershed basis

Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL

Although all watersheds must be handled on a case-by-case basis when developing TMDLs there are basic processes or steps that apply to all cases They include

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

2 Calculating the TMDL for the waterbody using EPA approved methods and computer models

3 Allocating pollutant loads to various sources 4 Determining critical and seasonal conditions 5 Public review and comment and comment period on draft TMDL 6 Submittal of final TMDL and 7 EPA approval of the TMDL

AMD Methodology

A two-step approach is used for the TMDL analysis of AMD impaired stream segments The first step uses a statistical method for determining the allowable instream concentration at the point of interest necessary to meet water quality standards This is done at each point of interest (sample point) in the watershed The second step is a mass balance of the loads as they pass through the watershed Loads at these points will be computed based on average annual flow

The statistical analysis described below can be applied to situations where all of the pollutant loading is from non-point sources as well as those where there are both point and non-point sources The following defines what are considered point sources and non-point sources for the purposes of our evaluation point sources are defined as permitted discharges or a discharge that has a responsible party non-point sources are then any pollution sources that are not point sources For situations where all of the impact is due to non-point sources the equations shown below are applied using data for a point in the stream The load allocation made at that point will be for all of the watershed area that is above that point For situations where there are point-

9

source impacts alone or in combination with non-point sources the evaluation will use the point-source data and perform a mass balance with the receiving water to determine the impact of the point source

Allowable loads are determined for each point of interest using Monte Carlo simulation Monte Carlo simulation is an analytical method meant to imitate real-life systems especially when other analyses are too mathematically complex or too difficult to reproduce Monte Carlo simulation calculates multiple scenarios of a model by repeatedly sampling values from the probability distribution of the uncertain variables and using those values to populate a larger data set Allocations were applied uniformly for the watershed area specified for each allocation point For each source and pollutant it was assumed that the observed data were log-normally distributed Each pollutant source was evaluated separately using Risk3 by performing 5000 iterations to determine the required percent reduction so that the water quality criteria as defined in the Pennsylvania Code Title 25 Environmental Protection Department of Environmental Protection Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be met instream at least 99 percent of the time For each iteration the required percent reduction is

PR = maximum 0 (1-CcCd) where (1)

PR = required percent reduction for the current iteration

Cc = criterion in mgl

Cd = randomly generated pollutant source concentration in mgl based on the observed data

Cd = RiskLognorm(Mean Standard Deviation) where (1a)

Mean = average observed concentration

Standard Deviation = standard deviation of observed data

The overall percent reduction required is the 99th percentile value of the probability distribution generated by the 5000 iterations so that the allowable long-term average (LTA) concentration is

LTA = Mean (1 ndash PR99) where (2)

LTA = allowable LTA source concentration in mgl

Once the allowable concentration and load for each pollutant is determined mass-balance accounting is performed starting at the top of the watershed and working down in sequence This mass-balance or load tracking is explained below

3 Risk ndash Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-in for Microsoft Excel Palisade Corporation Newfield NY 1990-1997

10

Load tracking through the watershed utilizes the change in measured loads from sample location to sample location as well as the allowable load that was determined at each point using the Risk program

There are two basic rules that are applied in load tracking rule one is that if the sum of the measured loads that directly affect the downstream sample point is less than the measured load at the downstream sample point it is indicative that there is an increase in load between the points being evaluated and this amount (the difference between the sum of the upstream and downstream loads) shall be added to the allowable load(s) coming from the upstream points to give a total load that is coming into the downstream point from all sources The second rule is that if the sum of the measured loads from the upstream points is greater than the measured load at the downstream point this is indicative that there is a loss of instream load between the evaluation points and the ratio of the decrease shall be applied to the load that is being tracked (allowable load(s)) from the upstream point

Tracking loads through the watershed gives the best picture of how the pollutants are affecting the watershed based on the information that is available The analysis is done to insure that water quality standards will be met at all points in the stream The TMDL must be designed to meet standards at all points in the stream and in completing the analysis reductions that must be made to upstream points are considered to be accomplished when evaluating points that are lower in the watershed Another key point is that the loads are being computed based on average annual flow and should not be taken out of the context for which they are intended which is to depict how the pollutants affect the watershed and where the sources and sinks are located spatially in the watershed

For pH TMDLs acidity is compared to alkalinity as described in Attachment B Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and hot acidity Statistical procedures are applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for streams affected by low pH from AMD may not be a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Information for the TMDL analysis performed using the methodology described above is contained in the ldquoTMDLs by Segmentrdquo section of this report

11

TMDL Endpoints

One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of an instream numeric endpoint which is used to evaluate the attainment of applicable water quality An instream numeric endpoint therefore represents the water quality goal that is to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL The endpoint allows for a comparison between observed instream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses The endpoint is based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in water quality standards

Because the pollution sources in the watershed are nonpoint sources the TMDLs component makeup will be load allocations (LAs) with waste load allocations (WLAs) for permitted discharges All allocations will be specified as long-term average daily concentrations These long-term average concentrations are expected to meet water-quality criteria 99 of the time as required in PA Title 25 Chapter 963(c) The following table shows the applicable water-quality criteria for the selected parameters

Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Parameter Criterion Value

(mgl) Total

RecoverableDissolved Aluminum (Al) 075 Total Recoverable

Iron (Fe) 150 Total Recoverable Manganese (Mn) 100 Total Recoverable

pH 60-90 NA The pH values shown will be used when applicable In the case of freestone streams with little or no buffering capacity the TMDL endpoint for pH will be the natural background water quality

TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A TMDL equation consists of a waste load allocation (WLA) load allocation (LA) and a margin of safety (MOS) The waste load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to point sources The load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to non-point sources The margin of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the computational process The margin of safety may be expressed implicitly (documenting conservative processes in the computations) or explicitly (setting aside a portion of the allowable load) The TMDL allocations in this report are based on available data Other allocation schemes could also meet the TMDL

Allocation Summary

These TMDLs will focus remediation efforts on the identified numerical reduction targets for each watershed The reduction schemes in Table 3 for each segment are based on the assumption that all upstream allocations are implemented and take into account all upstream reductions Attachment D contains the TMDLs by segment analysis for each allocation point in a detailed discussion As changes occur in the watershed the TMDLs may be re-evaluated to reflect current conditions An implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the analysis is included in the TMDL calculations

12

The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the average flow and a conversion factor at each sample point The allowable load is the TMDL at that point

Waste load allocations have also been included at some points for future mining operations The difference between the TMDL and the WLA at each point is the load allocation (LA) at the point The LA at each point includes all loads entering the segment including those from upstream allocation points The percent reduction is calculated to show the amount of load that needs to be reduced from nonpoint sources within a segment in order for water quality standards to be met at the point

In some instances instream processes such as settling are taking place within a stream segment These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points

Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC5 ndash Peters Creek at bridge upstream of Finleyville Aluminum (lbsday) 3113 1121 056 1065 1992 64

Iron (lbsday) 2012 2012 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 1352 1352 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -251751 -251751 NA NA NA NA PCTR1 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek Stoneybridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

Aluminum (lbsday) 026 007 - 007 019 73 Iron (lbsday) 021 015 - 015 006 29

Manganese(lbsday) 002 002 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -9426 -9426 NA NA NA NA

PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge crossing in Gastonville Aluminum (lbsday) 387 077 - 077 310 80

Iron (lbsday) 198 198 NA NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 095 084 - 084 011 12

Acidity (lbsday) -35475 -35475 NA NA NA NA PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek from mined area upstream of PC4

Aluminum (lbsday) 1956 039 028 011 1917 98 Iron (lbsday) 317 048 0564 0 269 85

Manganese(lbsday) 453 118 075 043 335 74 Acidity (lbsday) 27346 273 - 273 15652 99

4 The waste load allocation for total iron is calculated assuming discharges at PA Chapter 93 water quality criteria of 15 mgL Maintaining this discharge concentration assures that the discharge will not contribute to water quality impairment in downstream segments

13

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 8: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

bull States to establish priority rankings for waters on the lists based on severity of pollution and the designated use of the waterbody states must also identify those waters for which TMDLs will be developed and a schedule for development

bull States to submit the list of waters to EPA every two years (April 1 of the even numbered years)

bull States to develop TMDLs specifying a pollutant budget that meets state water quality standards and allocate pollutant loads among pollution sources in a watershed eg point and nonpoint sources and

bull EPA to approve or disapprove state lists and TMDLs within 30 days of final submission

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

In the cases that have been settled to date the consent agreements require EPA to backstop TMDL development track TMDL development review state monitoring programs and fund studies on issues of concern (eg AMD implementation of nonpoint source Best Management Practices (BMPs) etc)

These TMDLs were developed in partial fulfillment of the 1997 lawsuit settlement of American Littoral Society and Public Interest Group of Pennsylvania v EPA

Section 303(d) Listing Process

Prior to developing TMDLs for specific waterbodies there must be sufficient data available to assess which streams are impaired and should be on the Section 303(d) list With guidance from the EPA the states have developed methods for assessing the waters within their respective jurisdictions

The primary method adopted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for evaluating waters changed between the publication of the 1996 and 1998 Section 303(d) lists Prior to 1998 data used to list streams were in a variety of formats collected under differing protocols Information also was gathered through the Section 305(b)2 reporting process DEP is now using the Statewide Surface Waters Assessment Protocol (SSWAP) a modification of the EPArsquos 1989 Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II (RBP-II) as the primary mechanism to assess Pennsylvaniarsquos waters The SSWAP provides a more consistent approach to assessing Pennsylvaniarsquos streams

2 Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires a biannual description of the water quality of the waters of the state

8

The assessment method requires selecting representative stream segments based on factors such as surrounding land uses stream characteristics surface geology and point source discharge locations The biologist selects as many sites as necessary to establish an accurate assessment for a stream segment the length of the assessed stream segment can vary between sites All the biological surveys included kick-screen sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat evaluations Benthic macroinvertebrates are identified to the family level in the field

After the survey is completed the biologist determines the status of the stream segment The decision is based on habitat scores and a series of narrative biological statements used to evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate community If the stream is determined to be impaired the source and cause of the impairment is documented An impaired stream must be listed on the statersquos Section 303(d) list with the source and cause A TMDL must be developed for the stream segment and each pollutant In order for the process to be more effective adjoining stream segments with the same source and cause listing are addressed collectively and on a watershed basis

Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL

Although all watersheds must be handled on a case-by-case basis when developing TMDLs there are basic processes or steps that apply to all cases They include

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

2 Calculating the TMDL for the waterbody using EPA approved methods and computer models

3 Allocating pollutant loads to various sources 4 Determining critical and seasonal conditions 5 Public review and comment and comment period on draft TMDL 6 Submittal of final TMDL and 7 EPA approval of the TMDL

AMD Methodology

A two-step approach is used for the TMDL analysis of AMD impaired stream segments The first step uses a statistical method for determining the allowable instream concentration at the point of interest necessary to meet water quality standards This is done at each point of interest (sample point) in the watershed The second step is a mass balance of the loads as they pass through the watershed Loads at these points will be computed based on average annual flow

The statistical analysis described below can be applied to situations where all of the pollutant loading is from non-point sources as well as those where there are both point and non-point sources The following defines what are considered point sources and non-point sources for the purposes of our evaluation point sources are defined as permitted discharges or a discharge that has a responsible party non-point sources are then any pollution sources that are not point sources For situations where all of the impact is due to non-point sources the equations shown below are applied using data for a point in the stream The load allocation made at that point will be for all of the watershed area that is above that point For situations where there are point-

9

source impacts alone or in combination with non-point sources the evaluation will use the point-source data and perform a mass balance with the receiving water to determine the impact of the point source

Allowable loads are determined for each point of interest using Monte Carlo simulation Monte Carlo simulation is an analytical method meant to imitate real-life systems especially when other analyses are too mathematically complex or too difficult to reproduce Monte Carlo simulation calculates multiple scenarios of a model by repeatedly sampling values from the probability distribution of the uncertain variables and using those values to populate a larger data set Allocations were applied uniformly for the watershed area specified for each allocation point For each source and pollutant it was assumed that the observed data were log-normally distributed Each pollutant source was evaluated separately using Risk3 by performing 5000 iterations to determine the required percent reduction so that the water quality criteria as defined in the Pennsylvania Code Title 25 Environmental Protection Department of Environmental Protection Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be met instream at least 99 percent of the time For each iteration the required percent reduction is

PR = maximum 0 (1-CcCd) where (1)

PR = required percent reduction for the current iteration

Cc = criterion in mgl

Cd = randomly generated pollutant source concentration in mgl based on the observed data

Cd = RiskLognorm(Mean Standard Deviation) where (1a)

Mean = average observed concentration

Standard Deviation = standard deviation of observed data

The overall percent reduction required is the 99th percentile value of the probability distribution generated by the 5000 iterations so that the allowable long-term average (LTA) concentration is

LTA = Mean (1 ndash PR99) where (2)

LTA = allowable LTA source concentration in mgl

Once the allowable concentration and load for each pollutant is determined mass-balance accounting is performed starting at the top of the watershed and working down in sequence This mass-balance or load tracking is explained below

3 Risk ndash Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-in for Microsoft Excel Palisade Corporation Newfield NY 1990-1997

10

Load tracking through the watershed utilizes the change in measured loads from sample location to sample location as well as the allowable load that was determined at each point using the Risk program

There are two basic rules that are applied in load tracking rule one is that if the sum of the measured loads that directly affect the downstream sample point is less than the measured load at the downstream sample point it is indicative that there is an increase in load between the points being evaluated and this amount (the difference between the sum of the upstream and downstream loads) shall be added to the allowable load(s) coming from the upstream points to give a total load that is coming into the downstream point from all sources The second rule is that if the sum of the measured loads from the upstream points is greater than the measured load at the downstream point this is indicative that there is a loss of instream load between the evaluation points and the ratio of the decrease shall be applied to the load that is being tracked (allowable load(s)) from the upstream point

Tracking loads through the watershed gives the best picture of how the pollutants are affecting the watershed based on the information that is available The analysis is done to insure that water quality standards will be met at all points in the stream The TMDL must be designed to meet standards at all points in the stream and in completing the analysis reductions that must be made to upstream points are considered to be accomplished when evaluating points that are lower in the watershed Another key point is that the loads are being computed based on average annual flow and should not be taken out of the context for which they are intended which is to depict how the pollutants affect the watershed and where the sources and sinks are located spatially in the watershed

For pH TMDLs acidity is compared to alkalinity as described in Attachment B Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and hot acidity Statistical procedures are applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for streams affected by low pH from AMD may not be a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Information for the TMDL analysis performed using the methodology described above is contained in the ldquoTMDLs by Segmentrdquo section of this report

11

TMDL Endpoints

One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of an instream numeric endpoint which is used to evaluate the attainment of applicable water quality An instream numeric endpoint therefore represents the water quality goal that is to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL The endpoint allows for a comparison between observed instream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses The endpoint is based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in water quality standards

Because the pollution sources in the watershed are nonpoint sources the TMDLs component makeup will be load allocations (LAs) with waste load allocations (WLAs) for permitted discharges All allocations will be specified as long-term average daily concentrations These long-term average concentrations are expected to meet water-quality criteria 99 of the time as required in PA Title 25 Chapter 963(c) The following table shows the applicable water-quality criteria for the selected parameters

Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Parameter Criterion Value

(mgl) Total

RecoverableDissolved Aluminum (Al) 075 Total Recoverable

Iron (Fe) 150 Total Recoverable Manganese (Mn) 100 Total Recoverable

pH 60-90 NA The pH values shown will be used when applicable In the case of freestone streams with little or no buffering capacity the TMDL endpoint for pH will be the natural background water quality

TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A TMDL equation consists of a waste load allocation (WLA) load allocation (LA) and a margin of safety (MOS) The waste load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to point sources The load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to non-point sources The margin of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the computational process The margin of safety may be expressed implicitly (documenting conservative processes in the computations) or explicitly (setting aside a portion of the allowable load) The TMDL allocations in this report are based on available data Other allocation schemes could also meet the TMDL

Allocation Summary

These TMDLs will focus remediation efforts on the identified numerical reduction targets for each watershed The reduction schemes in Table 3 for each segment are based on the assumption that all upstream allocations are implemented and take into account all upstream reductions Attachment D contains the TMDLs by segment analysis for each allocation point in a detailed discussion As changes occur in the watershed the TMDLs may be re-evaluated to reflect current conditions An implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the analysis is included in the TMDL calculations

12

The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the average flow and a conversion factor at each sample point The allowable load is the TMDL at that point

Waste load allocations have also been included at some points for future mining operations The difference between the TMDL and the WLA at each point is the load allocation (LA) at the point The LA at each point includes all loads entering the segment including those from upstream allocation points The percent reduction is calculated to show the amount of load that needs to be reduced from nonpoint sources within a segment in order for water quality standards to be met at the point

In some instances instream processes such as settling are taking place within a stream segment These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points

Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC5 ndash Peters Creek at bridge upstream of Finleyville Aluminum (lbsday) 3113 1121 056 1065 1992 64

Iron (lbsday) 2012 2012 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 1352 1352 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -251751 -251751 NA NA NA NA PCTR1 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek Stoneybridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

Aluminum (lbsday) 026 007 - 007 019 73 Iron (lbsday) 021 015 - 015 006 29

Manganese(lbsday) 002 002 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -9426 -9426 NA NA NA NA

PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge crossing in Gastonville Aluminum (lbsday) 387 077 - 077 310 80

Iron (lbsday) 198 198 NA NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 095 084 - 084 011 12

Acidity (lbsday) -35475 -35475 NA NA NA NA PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek from mined area upstream of PC4

Aluminum (lbsday) 1956 039 028 011 1917 98 Iron (lbsday) 317 048 0564 0 269 85

Manganese(lbsday) 453 118 075 043 335 74 Acidity (lbsday) 27346 273 - 273 15652 99

4 The waste load allocation for total iron is calculated assuming discharges at PA Chapter 93 water quality criteria of 15 mgL Maintaining this discharge concentration assures that the discharge will not contribute to water quality impairment in downstream segments

13

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 9: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

The assessment method requires selecting representative stream segments based on factors such as surrounding land uses stream characteristics surface geology and point source discharge locations The biologist selects as many sites as necessary to establish an accurate assessment for a stream segment the length of the assessed stream segment can vary between sites All the biological surveys included kick-screen sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat evaluations Benthic macroinvertebrates are identified to the family level in the field

After the survey is completed the biologist determines the status of the stream segment The decision is based on habitat scores and a series of narrative biological statements used to evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate community If the stream is determined to be impaired the source and cause of the impairment is documented An impaired stream must be listed on the statersquos Section 303(d) list with the source and cause A TMDL must be developed for the stream segment and each pollutant In order for the process to be more effective adjoining stream segments with the same source and cause listing are addressed collectively and on a watershed basis

Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL

Although all watersheds must be handled on a case-by-case basis when developing TMDLs there are basic processes or steps that apply to all cases They include

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

2 Calculating the TMDL for the waterbody using EPA approved methods and computer models

3 Allocating pollutant loads to various sources 4 Determining critical and seasonal conditions 5 Public review and comment and comment period on draft TMDL 6 Submittal of final TMDL and 7 EPA approval of the TMDL

AMD Methodology

A two-step approach is used for the TMDL analysis of AMD impaired stream segments The first step uses a statistical method for determining the allowable instream concentration at the point of interest necessary to meet water quality standards This is done at each point of interest (sample point) in the watershed The second step is a mass balance of the loads as they pass through the watershed Loads at these points will be computed based on average annual flow

The statistical analysis described below can be applied to situations where all of the pollutant loading is from non-point sources as well as those where there are both point and non-point sources The following defines what are considered point sources and non-point sources for the purposes of our evaluation point sources are defined as permitted discharges or a discharge that has a responsible party non-point sources are then any pollution sources that are not point sources For situations where all of the impact is due to non-point sources the equations shown below are applied using data for a point in the stream The load allocation made at that point will be for all of the watershed area that is above that point For situations where there are point-

9

source impacts alone or in combination with non-point sources the evaluation will use the point-source data and perform a mass balance with the receiving water to determine the impact of the point source

Allowable loads are determined for each point of interest using Monte Carlo simulation Monte Carlo simulation is an analytical method meant to imitate real-life systems especially when other analyses are too mathematically complex or too difficult to reproduce Monte Carlo simulation calculates multiple scenarios of a model by repeatedly sampling values from the probability distribution of the uncertain variables and using those values to populate a larger data set Allocations were applied uniformly for the watershed area specified for each allocation point For each source and pollutant it was assumed that the observed data were log-normally distributed Each pollutant source was evaluated separately using Risk3 by performing 5000 iterations to determine the required percent reduction so that the water quality criteria as defined in the Pennsylvania Code Title 25 Environmental Protection Department of Environmental Protection Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be met instream at least 99 percent of the time For each iteration the required percent reduction is

PR = maximum 0 (1-CcCd) where (1)

PR = required percent reduction for the current iteration

Cc = criterion in mgl

Cd = randomly generated pollutant source concentration in mgl based on the observed data

Cd = RiskLognorm(Mean Standard Deviation) where (1a)

Mean = average observed concentration

Standard Deviation = standard deviation of observed data

The overall percent reduction required is the 99th percentile value of the probability distribution generated by the 5000 iterations so that the allowable long-term average (LTA) concentration is

LTA = Mean (1 ndash PR99) where (2)

LTA = allowable LTA source concentration in mgl

Once the allowable concentration and load for each pollutant is determined mass-balance accounting is performed starting at the top of the watershed and working down in sequence This mass-balance or load tracking is explained below

3 Risk ndash Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-in for Microsoft Excel Palisade Corporation Newfield NY 1990-1997

10

Load tracking through the watershed utilizes the change in measured loads from sample location to sample location as well as the allowable load that was determined at each point using the Risk program

There are two basic rules that are applied in load tracking rule one is that if the sum of the measured loads that directly affect the downstream sample point is less than the measured load at the downstream sample point it is indicative that there is an increase in load between the points being evaluated and this amount (the difference between the sum of the upstream and downstream loads) shall be added to the allowable load(s) coming from the upstream points to give a total load that is coming into the downstream point from all sources The second rule is that if the sum of the measured loads from the upstream points is greater than the measured load at the downstream point this is indicative that there is a loss of instream load between the evaluation points and the ratio of the decrease shall be applied to the load that is being tracked (allowable load(s)) from the upstream point

Tracking loads through the watershed gives the best picture of how the pollutants are affecting the watershed based on the information that is available The analysis is done to insure that water quality standards will be met at all points in the stream The TMDL must be designed to meet standards at all points in the stream and in completing the analysis reductions that must be made to upstream points are considered to be accomplished when evaluating points that are lower in the watershed Another key point is that the loads are being computed based on average annual flow and should not be taken out of the context for which they are intended which is to depict how the pollutants affect the watershed and where the sources and sinks are located spatially in the watershed

For pH TMDLs acidity is compared to alkalinity as described in Attachment B Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and hot acidity Statistical procedures are applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for streams affected by low pH from AMD may not be a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Information for the TMDL analysis performed using the methodology described above is contained in the ldquoTMDLs by Segmentrdquo section of this report

11

TMDL Endpoints

One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of an instream numeric endpoint which is used to evaluate the attainment of applicable water quality An instream numeric endpoint therefore represents the water quality goal that is to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL The endpoint allows for a comparison between observed instream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses The endpoint is based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in water quality standards

Because the pollution sources in the watershed are nonpoint sources the TMDLs component makeup will be load allocations (LAs) with waste load allocations (WLAs) for permitted discharges All allocations will be specified as long-term average daily concentrations These long-term average concentrations are expected to meet water-quality criteria 99 of the time as required in PA Title 25 Chapter 963(c) The following table shows the applicable water-quality criteria for the selected parameters

Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Parameter Criterion Value

(mgl) Total

RecoverableDissolved Aluminum (Al) 075 Total Recoverable

Iron (Fe) 150 Total Recoverable Manganese (Mn) 100 Total Recoverable

pH 60-90 NA The pH values shown will be used when applicable In the case of freestone streams with little or no buffering capacity the TMDL endpoint for pH will be the natural background water quality

TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A TMDL equation consists of a waste load allocation (WLA) load allocation (LA) and a margin of safety (MOS) The waste load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to point sources The load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to non-point sources The margin of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the computational process The margin of safety may be expressed implicitly (documenting conservative processes in the computations) or explicitly (setting aside a portion of the allowable load) The TMDL allocations in this report are based on available data Other allocation schemes could also meet the TMDL

Allocation Summary

These TMDLs will focus remediation efforts on the identified numerical reduction targets for each watershed The reduction schemes in Table 3 for each segment are based on the assumption that all upstream allocations are implemented and take into account all upstream reductions Attachment D contains the TMDLs by segment analysis for each allocation point in a detailed discussion As changes occur in the watershed the TMDLs may be re-evaluated to reflect current conditions An implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the analysis is included in the TMDL calculations

12

The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the average flow and a conversion factor at each sample point The allowable load is the TMDL at that point

Waste load allocations have also been included at some points for future mining operations The difference between the TMDL and the WLA at each point is the load allocation (LA) at the point The LA at each point includes all loads entering the segment including those from upstream allocation points The percent reduction is calculated to show the amount of load that needs to be reduced from nonpoint sources within a segment in order for water quality standards to be met at the point

In some instances instream processes such as settling are taking place within a stream segment These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points

Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC5 ndash Peters Creek at bridge upstream of Finleyville Aluminum (lbsday) 3113 1121 056 1065 1992 64

Iron (lbsday) 2012 2012 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 1352 1352 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -251751 -251751 NA NA NA NA PCTR1 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek Stoneybridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

Aluminum (lbsday) 026 007 - 007 019 73 Iron (lbsday) 021 015 - 015 006 29

Manganese(lbsday) 002 002 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -9426 -9426 NA NA NA NA

PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge crossing in Gastonville Aluminum (lbsday) 387 077 - 077 310 80

Iron (lbsday) 198 198 NA NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 095 084 - 084 011 12

Acidity (lbsday) -35475 -35475 NA NA NA NA PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek from mined area upstream of PC4

Aluminum (lbsday) 1956 039 028 011 1917 98 Iron (lbsday) 317 048 0564 0 269 85

Manganese(lbsday) 453 118 075 043 335 74 Acidity (lbsday) 27346 273 - 273 15652 99

4 The waste load allocation for total iron is calculated assuming discharges at PA Chapter 93 water quality criteria of 15 mgL Maintaining this discharge concentration assures that the discharge will not contribute to water quality impairment in downstream segments

13

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 10: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

source impacts alone or in combination with non-point sources the evaluation will use the point-source data and perform a mass balance with the receiving water to determine the impact of the point source

Allowable loads are determined for each point of interest using Monte Carlo simulation Monte Carlo simulation is an analytical method meant to imitate real-life systems especially when other analyses are too mathematically complex or too difficult to reproduce Monte Carlo simulation calculates multiple scenarios of a model by repeatedly sampling values from the probability distribution of the uncertain variables and using those values to populate a larger data set Allocations were applied uniformly for the watershed area specified for each allocation point For each source and pollutant it was assumed that the observed data were log-normally distributed Each pollutant source was evaluated separately using Risk3 by performing 5000 iterations to determine the required percent reduction so that the water quality criteria as defined in the Pennsylvania Code Title 25 Environmental Protection Department of Environmental Protection Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards will be met instream at least 99 percent of the time For each iteration the required percent reduction is

PR = maximum 0 (1-CcCd) where (1)

PR = required percent reduction for the current iteration

Cc = criterion in mgl

Cd = randomly generated pollutant source concentration in mgl based on the observed data

Cd = RiskLognorm(Mean Standard Deviation) where (1a)

Mean = average observed concentration

Standard Deviation = standard deviation of observed data

The overall percent reduction required is the 99th percentile value of the probability distribution generated by the 5000 iterations so that the allowable long-term average (LTA) concentration is

LTA = Mean (1 ndash PR99) where (2)

LTA = allowable LTA source concentration in mgl

Once the allowable concentration and load for each pollutant is determined mass-balance accounting is performed starting at the top of the watershed and working down in sequence This mass-balance or load tracking is explained below

3 Risk ndash Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-in for Microsoft Excel Palisade Corporation Newfield NY 1990-1997

10

Load tracking through the watershed utilizes the change in measured loads from sample location to sample location as well as the allowable load that was determined at each point using the Risk program

There are two basic rules that are applied in load tracking rule one is that if the sum of the measured loads that directly affect the downstream sample point is less than the measured load at the downstream sample point it is indicative that there is an increase in load between the points being evaluated and this amount (the difference between the sum of the upstream and downstream loads) shall be added to the allowable load(s) coming from the upstream points to give a total load that is coming into the downstream point from all sources The second rule is that if the sum of the measured loads from the upstream points is greater than the measured load at the downstream point this is indicative that there is a loss of instream load between the evaluation points and the ratio of the decrease shall be applied to the load that is being tracked (allowable load(s)) from the upstream point

Tracking loads through the watershed gives the best picture of how the pollutants are affecting the watershed based on the information that is available The analysis is done to insure that water quality standards will be met at all points in the stream The TMDL must be designed to meet standards at all points in the stream and in completing the analysis reductions that must be made to upstream points are considered to be accomplished when evaluating points that are lower in the watershed Another key point is that the loads are being computed based on average annual flow and should not be taken out of the context for which they are intended which is to depict how the pollutants affect the watershed and where the sources and sinks are located spatially in the watershed

For pH TMDLs acidity is compared to alkalinity as described in Attachment B Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and hot acidity Statistical procedures are applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for streams affected by low pH from AMD may not be a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Information for the TMDL analysis performed using the methodology described above is contained in the ldquoTMDLs by Segmentrdquo section of this report

11

TMDL Endpoints

One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of an instream numeric endpoint which is used to evaluate the attainment of applicable water quality An instream numeric endpoint therefore represents the water quality goal that is to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL The endpoint allows for a comparison between observed instream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses The endpoint is based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in water quality standards

Because the pollution sources in the watershed are nonpoint sources the TMDLs component makeup will be load allocations (LAs) with waste load allocations (WLAs) for permitted discharges All allocations will be specified as long-term average daily concentrations These long-term average concentrations are expected to meet water-quality criteria 99 of the time as required in PA Title 25 Chapter 963(c) The following table shows the applicable water-quality criteria for the selected parameters

Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Parameter Criterion Value

(mgl) Total

RecoverableDissolved Aluminum (Al) 075 Total Recoverable

Iron (Fe) 150 Total Recoverable Manganese (Mn) 100 Total Recoverable

pH 60-90 NA The pH values shown will be used when applicable In the case of freestone streams with little or no buffering capacity the TMDL endpoint for pH will be the natural background water quality

TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A TMDL equation consists of a waste load allocation (WLA) load allocation (LA) and a margin of safety (MOS) The waste load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to point sources The load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to non-point sources The margin of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the computational process The margin of safety may be expressed implicitly (documenting conservative processes in the computations) or explicitly (setting aside a portion of the allowable load) The TMDL allocations in this report are based on available data Other allocation schemes could also meet the TMDL

Allocation Summary

These TMDLs will focus remediation efforts on the identified numerical reduction targets for each watershed The reduction schemes in Table 3 for each segment are based on the assumption that all upstream allocations are implemented and take into account all upstream reductions Attachment D contains the TMDLs by segment analysis for each allocation point in a detailed discussion As changes occur in the watershed the TMDLs may be re-evaluated to reflect current conditions An implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the analysis is included in the TMDL calculations

12

The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the average flow and a conversion factor at each sample point The allowable load is the TMDL at that point

Waste load allocations have also been included at some points for future mining operations The difference between the TMDL and the WLA at each point is the load allocation (LA) at the point The LA at each point includes all loads entering the segment including those from upstream allocation points The percent reduction is calculated to show the amount of load that needs to be reduced from nonpoint sources within a segment in order for water quality standards to be met at the point

In some instances instream processes such as settling are taking place within a stream segment These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points

Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC5 ndash Peters Creek at bridge upstream of Finleyville Aluminum (lbsday) 3113 1121 056 1065 1992 64

Iron (lbsday) 2012 2012 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 1352 1352 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -251751 -251751 NA NA NA NA PCTR1 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek Stoneybridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

Aluminum (lbsday) 026 007 - 007 019 73 Iron (lbsday) 021 015 - 015 006 29

Manganese(lbsday) 002 002 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -9426 -9426 NA NA NA NA

PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge crossing in Gastonville Aluminum (lbsday) 387 077 - 077 310 80

Iron (lbsday) 198 198 NA NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 095 084 - 084 011 12

Acidity (lbsday) -35475 -35475 NA NA NA NA PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek from mined area upstream of PC4

Aluminum (lbsday) 1956 039 028 011 1917 98 Iron (lbsday) 317 048 0564 0 269 85

Manganese(lbsday) 453 118 075 043 335 74 Acidity (lbsday) 27346 273 - 273 15652 99

4 The waste load allocation for total iron is calculated assuming discharges at PA Chapter 93 water quality criteria of 15 mgL Maintaining this discharge concentration assures that the discharge will not contribute to water quality impairment in downstream segments

13

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 11: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Load tracking through the watershed utilizes the change in measured loads from sample location to sample location as well as the allowable load that was determined at each point using the Risk program

There are two basic rules that are applied in load tracking rule one is that if the sum of the measured loads that directly affect the downstream sample point is less than the measured load at the downstream sample point it is indicative that there is an increase in load between the points being evaluated and this amount (the difference between the sum of the upstream and downstream loads) shall be added to the allowable load(s) coming from the upstream points to give a total load that is coming into the downstream point from all sources The second rule is that if the sum of the measured loads from the upstream points is greater than the measured load at the downstream point this is indicative that there is a loss of instream load between the evaluation points and the ratio of the decrease shall be applied to the load that is being tracked (allowable load(s)) from the upstream point

Tracking loads through the watershed gives the best picture of how the pollutants are affecting the watershed based on the information that is available The analysis is done to insure that water quality standards will be met at all points in the stream The TMDL must be designed to meet standards at all points in the stream and in completing the analysis reductions that must be made to upstream points are considered to be accomplished when evaluating points that are lower in the watershed Another key point is that the loads are being computed based on average annual flow and should not be taken out of the context for which they are intended which is to depict how the pollutants affect the watershed and where the sources and sinks are located spatially in the watershed

For pH TMDLs acidity is compared to alkalinity as described in Attachment B Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and hot acidity Statistical procedures are applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for streams affected by low pH from AMD may not be a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Information for the TMDL analysis performed using the methodology described above is contained in the ldquoTMDLs by Segmentrdquo section of this report

11

TMDL Endpoints

One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of an instream numeric endpoint which is used to evaluate the attainment of applicable water quality An instream numeric endpoint therefore represents the water quality goal that is to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL The endpoint allows for a comparison between observed instream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses The endpoint is based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in water quality standards

Because the pollution sources in the watershed are nonpoint sources the TMDLs component makeup will be load allocations (LAs) with waste load allocations (WLAs) for permitted discharges All allocations will be specified as long-term average daily concentrations These long-term average concentrations are expected to meet water-quality criteria 99 of the time as required in PA Title 25 Chapter 963(c) The following table shows the applicable water-quality criteria for the selected parameters

Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Parameter Criterion Value

(mgl) Total

RecoverableDissolved Aluminum (Al) 075 Total Recoverable

Iron (Fe) 150 Total Recoverable Manganese (Mn) 100 Total Recoverable

pH 60-90 NA The pH values shown will be used when applicable In the case of freestone streams with little or no buffering capacity the TMDL endpoint for pH will be the natural background water quality

TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A TMDL equation consists of a waste load allocation (WLA) load allocation (LA) and a margin of safety (MOS) The waste load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to point sources The load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to non-point sources The margin of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the computational process The margin of safety may be expressed implicitly (documenting conservative processes in the computations) or explicitly (setting aside a portion of the allowable load) The TMDL allocations in this report are based on available data Other allocation schemes could also meet the TMDL

Allocation Summary

These TMDLs will focus remediation efforts on the identified numerical reduction targets for each watershed The reduction schemes in Table 3 for each segment are based on the assumption that all upstream allocations are implemented and take into account all upstream reductions Attachment D contains the TMDLs by segment analysis for each allocation point in a detailed discussion As changes occur in the watershed the TMDLs may be re-evaluated to reflect current conditions An implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the analysis is included in the TMDL calculations

12

The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the average flow and a conversion factor at each sample point The allowable load is the TMDL at that point

Waste load allocations have also been included at some points for future mining operations The difference between the TMDL and the WLA at each point is the load allocation (LA) at the point The LA at each point includes all loads entering the segment including those from upstream allocation points The percent reduction is calculated to show the amount of load that needs to be reduced from nonpoint sources within a segment in order for water quality standards to be met at the point

In some instances instream processes such as settling are taking place within a stream segment These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points

Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC5 ndash Peters Creek at bridge upstream of Finleyville Aluminum (lbsday) 3113 1121 056 1065 1992 64

Iron (lbsday) 2012 2012 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 1352 1352 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -251751 -251751 NA NA NA NA PCTR1 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek Stoneybridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

Aluminum (lbsday) 026 007 - 007 019 73 Iron (lbsday) 021 015 - 015 006 29

Manganese(lbsday) 002 002 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -9426 -9426 NA NA NA NA

PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge crossing in Gastonville Aluminum (lbsday) 387 077 - 077 310 80

Iron (lbsday) 198 198 NA NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 095 084 - 084 011 12

Acidity (lbsday) -35475 -35475 NA NA NA NA PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek from mined area upstream of PC4

Aluminum (lbsday) 1956 039 028 011 1917 98 Iron (lbsday) 317 048 0564 0 269 85

Manganese(lbsday) 453 118 075 043 335 74 Acidity (lbsday) 27346 273 - 273 15652 99

4 The waste load allocation for total iron is calculated assuming discharges at PA Chapter 93 water quality criteria of 15 mgL Maintaining this discharge concentration assures that the discharge will not contribute to water quality impairment in downstream segments

13

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 12: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

TMDL Endpoints

One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of an instream numeric endpoint which is used to evaluate the attainment of applicable water quality An instream numeric endpoint therefore represents the water quality goal that is to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL The endpoint allows for a comparison between observed instream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses The endpoint is based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in water quality standards

Because the pollution sources in the watershed are nonpoint sources the TMDLs component makeup will be load allocations (LAs) with waste load allocations (WLAs) for permitted discharges All allocations will be specified as long-term average daily concentrations These long-term average concentrations are expected to meet water-quality criteria 99 of the time as required in PA Title 25 Chapter 963(c) The following table shows the applicable water-quality criteria for the selected parameters

Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Parameter Criterion Value

(mgl) Total

RecoverableDissolved Aluminum (Al) 075 Total Recoverable

Iron (Fe) 150 Total Recoverable Manganese (Mn) 100 Total Recoverable

pH 60-90 NA The pH values shown will be used when applicable In the case of freestone streams with little or no buffering capacity the TMDL endpoint for pH will be the natural background water quality

TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A TMDL equation consists of a waste load allocation (WLA) load allocation (LA) and a margin of safety (MOS) The waste load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to point sources The load allocation is the portion of the load assigned to non-point sources The margin of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the computational process The margin of safety may be expressed implicitly (documenting conservative processes in the computations) or explicitly (setting aside a portion of the allowable load) The TMDL allocations in this report are based on available data Other allocation schemes could also meet the TMDL

Allocation Summary

These TMDLs will focus remediation efforts on the identified numerical reduction targets for each watershed The reduction schemes in Table 3 for each segment are based on the assumption that all upstream allocations are implemented and take into account all upstream reductions Attachment D contains the TMDLs by segment analysis for each allocation point in a detailed discussion As changes occur in the watershed the TMDLs may be re-evaluated to reflect current conditions An implicit MOS based on conservative assumptions in the analysis is included in the TMDL calculations

12

The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the average flow and a conversion factor at each sample point The allowable load is the TMDL at that point

Waste load allocations have also been included at some points for future mining operations The difference between the TMDL and the WLA at each point is the load allocation (LA) at the point The LA at each point includes all loads entering the segment including those from upstream allocation points The percent reduction is calculated to show the amount of load that needs to be reduced from nonpoint sources within a segment in order for water quality standards to be met at the point

In some instances instream processes such as settling are taking place within a stream segment These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points

Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC5 ndash Peters Creek at bridge upstream of Finleyville Aluminum (lbsday) 3113 1121 056 1065 1992 64

Iron (lbsday) 2012 2012 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 1352 1352 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -251751 -251751 NA NA NA NA PCTR1 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek Stoneybridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

Aluminum (lbsday) 026 007 - 007 019 73 Iron (lbsday) 021 015 - 015 006 29

Manganese(lbsday) 002 002 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -9426 -9426 NA NA NA NA

PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge crossing in Gastonville Aluminum (lbsday) 387 077 - 077 310 80

Iron (lbsday) 198 198 NA NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 095 084 - 084 011 12

Acidity (lbsday) -35475 -35475 NA NA NA NA PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek from mined area upstream of PC4

Aluminum (lbsday) 1956 039 028 011 1917 98 Iron (lbsday) 317 048 0564 0 269 85

Manganese(lbsday) 453 118 075 043 335 74 Acidity (lbsday) 27346 273 - 273 15652 99

4 The waste load allocation for total iron is calculated assuming discharges at PA Chapter 93 water quality criteria of 15 mgL Maintaining this discharge concentration assures that the discharge will not contribute to water quality impairment in downstream segments

13

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 13: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

The allowable LTA concentration in each segment is calculated using Monte Carlo Simulation as described previously The allowable load is then determined by multiplying the allowable concentration by the average flow and a conversion factor at each sample point The allowable load is the TMDL at that point

Waste load allocations have also been included at some points for future mining operations The difference between the TMDL and the WLA at each point is the load allocation (LA) at the point The LA at each point includes all loads entering the segment including those from upstream allocation points The percent reduction is calculated to show the amount of load that needs to be reduced from nonpoint sources within a segment in order for water quality standards to be met at the point

In some instances instream processes such as settling are taking place within a stream segment These processes are evidenced by a decrease in measured loading between consecutive sample points It is appropriate to account for these losses when tracking upstream loading through a segment The calculated upstream load lost within a segment is proportional to the difference in the measured loading between the sampling points

Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC5 ndash Peters Creek at bridge upstream of Finleyville Aluminum (lbsday) 3113 1121 056 1065 1992 64

Iron (lbsday) 2012 2012 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 1352 1352 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -251751 -251751 NA NA NA NA PCTR1 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek Stoneybridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

Aluminum (lbsday) 026 007 - 007 019 73 Iron (lbsday) 021 015 - 015 006 29

Manganese(lbsday) 002 002 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -9426 -9426 NA NA NA NA

PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad bridge crossing in Gastonville Aluminum (lbsday) 387 077 - 077 310 80

Iron (lbsday) 198 198 NA NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 095 084 - 084 011 12

Acidity (lbsday) -35475 -35475 NA NA NA NA PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek from mined area upstream of PC4

Aluminum (lbsday) 1956 039 028 011 1917 98 Iron (lbsday) 317 048 0564 0 269 85

Manganese(lbsday) 453 118 075 043 335 74 Acidity (lbsday) 27346 273 - 273 15652 99

4 The waste load allocation for total iron is calculated assuming discharges at PA Chapter 93 water quality criteria of 15 mgL Maintaining this discharge concentration assures that the discharge will not contribute to water quality impairment in downstream segments

13

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 14: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Parameter

Existing Load

(lbsday)

TMDL Allowable Load

(lbsday) WLA

(lbsday) LA (lbsday)

NPS Load Reduction (lbsday) NPS Reduction

PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR644 bridge Aluminum (lbsday) 6029 723 056 667 1068 60

Iron (lbsday) 1791 1576 225 1351 0 0 Manganese(lbsday) 1343 1208 150 1058 0 0

Acidity (lbsday) -356059 -356059 NA NA NA NA PF1 ndash Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 3628 2688 056 2632 994 27 Iron (lbsday) 2103 2103 225 NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 2493 2493 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -916830 -916830 NA NA NA NA

PC3 ndash Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road Aluminum (lbsday) 6939 1180 056 1124 1276 52

Iron (lbsday) 4087 3025 225 2800 847 22 Manganese(lbsday) 1818 1818 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -1339263 -1339263 NA NA NA NA PCTR4 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 043 024 - 024 019 44 Iron (lbsday) 031 031 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 009 009 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -11101 -11101 NA NA NA NA

LR1 ndash Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing Aluminum (lbsday) 2521 580 056 524 1941 77

Iron (lbsday) 830 830 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 560 560 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -363509 -363509 NA NA NA NA PC2 ndash Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

Aluminum (lbsday) 13592 1495 056 1439 4378 75 Iron (lbsday) 7214 3319 225 3094 5136 61

Manganese(lbsday) 1895 1895 150 NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -1345729 -1345729 NA NA NA NA

LW1 ndash Lewis Run downstream of bridge on Old Clairton Road at Route 51 intersection Aluminum (lbsday) 1363 504 056 448 859 63

Iron (lbsday) 761 761 225 NA NA NA Manganese(lbsday) 517 517 150 NA NA NA

Acidity (lbsday) -124571 -124571 - NA NA NA PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road

Aluminum (lbsday) 067 046 - 046 021 31 Iron (lbsday) 072 072 NA NA NA NA

Manganese(lbsday) 014 014 NA NA NA NA Acidity (lbsday) -38444 -38444 NA NA NA NA

NA = not applicable ND = not detected Takes into account load reductions from upstream sources

14

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 15: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Recommendations

Watershed-Specific Remediation Efforts

The Peters Creek Watershed Association (PCWA) is active in the watershed and has a number of projects planned and underway to address issues in the watershed

Watershed Assessment amp Protection Plan

bull PCWA applied for a 2006 Growing Greener Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to perform a Watershed Assessment and develop a Watershed Protection amp Restoration Plan

bull PCWA received a $350000 grant from The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Program to support comprehensive watershed planning for the Peters Creek watershed

Environmental Education

bull PCWA was awarded a 2006 Water Resources Education Network Watershed Protection Grant from the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in the amount of $460000 These funds will be used to

bull Develop a pamphlet that promotes a watershed perspective educates about non-point source pollution and provides simple ways that citizens can decrease their contribution to the problem

bull Partner with Jefferson Hills and Gateway Engineers to place an educational sign along The Montour Trail near the site of a natural stream bank stabilization project completed in 2005 Fluvial Geomorphology (FGM) design was utilized instead of a traditional hard-armor technique to protect the boroughs sewer line while maintaining the natural aesthetics of the area

bull Partner with Jennifer Cramer 7th grade science teacher at the Pleasant Hills Middle School to develop web-based materials to educate her students about non-point source pollution

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

bull PCWA received a grant from the Washington County Community Foundation via the Washington County Watershed Alliance to purchase equipment to be used to initiate a water quality sampling program

Remediation

bull PCWA is supporting Jefferson Hills efforts to obtain a 2006 Growing Greener Grant using FGM to rehabilitate a section of Peters Creek downstream of the 2005 site

15

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 16: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

bull PCWA is also working with the Pennsylvania Resource Council to develop a riparian buffer of native plants along the banks of Peters Creek at the site of the recent stabilization project

Statewide Remediation Efforts

Since the 1960s Pennsylvania has been a national leader in establishing laws and regulations to ensure mine reclamation and well plugging occur after active operation is completed Mine reclamation and well plugging refer to the process of cleaning up environmental pollutants and safety hazards associated with a site and returning the land to a productive condition similar to PADEPrsquos Brownfields Program Pennsylvania is striving for complete reclamation of its abandoned mines and plugging of its orphan wells These concepts include legislative policy and land management initiatives designed to enhance mine operatorvolunteerPADEP reclamation efforts

Various methods to eliminate or treat pollutant sources provide a reasonable assurance that the proposed TMDLs can be met These methods include PADEPrsquos primary efforts to improve water quality through reclamation of abandoned mine lands (for abandoned mining) and through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (for active mining) Funding sources that are currently being used for projects designed to achieve TMDL reductions include the USEPA 319 grant program and Pennsylvaniarsquos Growing Greener Program Federal funding is through the Department of the Interiorrsquos Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for reclamation and mine drainage treatment through the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative and through Watershed Cooperative Agreements

The PADEP Bureau of District Mining Operations (DMO) administers an environmental regulatory program for all mining activities including mine subsidence regulation mine subsidence insurance and coal refuse disposal PADEP DMO also conducts a program to ensure safe underground bituminous mining and protect certain structures from subsidence administers a mining license and permit program administers a regulatory program for the use storage and handling of explosives and provides for training examination and certification of applicantsrsquo blasterrsquos licenses In addition PADEP Bureau of Mining amp Reclamation administers a loan program for bonding anthracite underground mines and for mine subsidence the Small Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (SOAP) and the Remining Operatorrsquos Assistance Program (ROAP)

Regulatory programs are assisting in the reclamation and restoration of Pennsylvaniarsquos land and water PADEP has been effective in implementing the NPDES program for mining operations throughout the Commonwealth This reclamation was done through the use of remining permits that have the potential for reclaiming abandoned mine lands at no cost to the Commonwealth or the federal government Long-term agreements were initialized for facilitiesoperators that need to assure treatment of post-mining discharges or discharges they degraded These agreements will provide for long-term treatment of discharges According to OSM ldquoPADEP is conducting a program where active mining sites are with very few exceptions in compliance with the approved regulatory programrdquo Acidity loads from abandoned discharges have been observed to decrease by an average of 61 percent when remined (Smith Brady and Hawkins 2002

16

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 17: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

ldquoEffectiveness of Pennsylvaniarsquos remining program in abating abandoned mine drainage water quality impactsrdquo in Transactions of the Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Volume 312 p 166-170)

PADEP BAMR which administers the program to address the Commonwealthrsquos abandoned mine reclamation program has established a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation throughout the Commonwealth to prioritize and guide reclamation efforts for throughout the state to make the best use of valuable funds (wwwdepstatepausdepdeputateminresbamrcomplan1htm) In developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for abandoned mine reclamation the resources (both human and financial) of the participants must be coordinated to insure cost-effective results The following set of principles is intended to guide this decision making process

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

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

bull Preferential consideration for the development of AML reclamation or AMD abatement projects will be given to watersheds or areas for which there is an approved rehabilitation plan (guidance is given in Attachment G)

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

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

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

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

bull No plan is an absolute occasional deviations are to be expected

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

17

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 18: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

The Commonwealth is exploring all identified options to address its abandoned mine problem During 2000-2006 many new approaches to mine reclamation and mine drainage remediation have been explored and projects funded to address problems in innovative ways These include

bull Awards of grants for (1) proposals with economic development or industrial application as their primary goal and which rely on recycled mine water andor a site that has been made suitable for the location of a facility through the elimination of existing Priority 1 or 2 hazards and (2) new and innovative mine drainage treatment technologies that provide waters of higher purity that may be needed by a particular industry at costs below conventional treatment costs as in common use today or reduce the costs of water treatment below those of conventional lime treatment plants Eight contracts totaling $4075 M were awarded in 2006 under this program

bull Projects using water from mine pools in an innovative fashion such as the Shannopin Deep Mine Pool (in southwestern Pennsylvania) the Barnes amp Tucker Deep Mine Pool (the Susquehanna River Basin into the Upper West Branch Susquehanna River) and the Wadesville Deep Mine Pool (Exelon Generation in Schuylkill County)

Candidate or federally-listed threatened and endangered species may occur in or near the watershed While implementation of the TMDL should result in improvements to water quality they could inadvertently destroy habitat for candidate or federally-listed species TMDL implementation projects should be screened through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) early in their planning process in accordance with the Departments policy titled Policy for Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Coordination During Permit Review and Evaluation (Document ID 400-0200-001)

Public Participation

Public notice of the draft TMDL was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on October 25 2008 to foster public comment on the allowable loads calculated The public comment period on this TMDL was open from October 25 2008 to December 26 2008 A public meeting was held on October 29 2008 at California District Mining Office to discuss the proposed TMDL

Future TMDL Modifications

In the future the Department may adjust the load andor wasteload allocations in this TMDL to account for new information or circumstances that are developed or discovered during the implementation of the TMDL when a review of the new information or circumstances indicate that such adjustments are appropriate Adjustment between the load and wasteload allocation will only be made following an opportunity for public participation A wasteload allocation adjustment will be made consistent and simultaneous with associated permit(s) revision(s)reissuances (ie permits for revisionreissuance in association with a TMDL revision will be made available for public comment concurrent with the related TMDLs availability for public comment) New information generated during TMDL implementation may include among other things monitoring data BMP effectiveness information and land use information All changes in the TMDL will be tallied and once the total changes exceed 1 of the total

18

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 19: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

original TMDL allowable load the TMDL will be revised The adjusted TMDL including its LAs and WLAs will be set at a level necessary to implement the applicable WQS and any adjustment increasing a WLA will be supported by reasonable assurance demonstration that load allocations will be met The Department will notify EPA of any adjustments to the TMDL within 30 days of its adoption and will maintain current tracking mechanisms that contain accurate loading information for TMDL waters

Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval

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

Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval

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

implementation is demonstrated (a complianceimplementation plan and schedule) bull Changes among WLAs with no other changes TMDL public notice concurrent with

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

19

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 20: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Attachment A Peters Creek Watershed Maps

20

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 21: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

21

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 22: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

22

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 23: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

23

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 24: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

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

24

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 25: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH

There has been a great deal of research conducted on the relationship between alkalinity acidity and pH Research published by the Pa Department of Environmental Protection demonstrates that by plotting net alkalinity (alkalinity-acidity) vs pH for 794 mine sample points the resulting pH value from a sample possessing a net alkalinity of zero is approximately equal to six (Figure 1) Where net alkalinity is positive (greater than or equal to zero) the pH range is most commonly six to eight which is within the USEPArsquos acceptable range of six to nine and meets Pennsylvania water quality criteria in Chapter 93

The pH a measurement of hydrogen ion acidity presented as a negative logarithm is not conducive to standard statistics Additionally pH does not measure latent acidity For this reason and based on the above information Pennsylvania is using the following approach to address the stream impairments noted on the 303(d) list due to pH The concentration of acidity in a stream is at least partially chemically dependent upon metals For this reason it is extremely difficult to predict the exact pH values which would result from treatment of abandoned mine drainage When acidity in a stream is neutralized or is restored to natural levels pH will be acceptable Therefore the measured instream alkalinity at the point of evaluation in the stream will serve as the goal for reducing total acidity at that point The methodology that is applied for alkalinity (and therefore pH) is the same as that used for other parameters such as iron aluminum and manganese that have numeric water quality criteria

Each sample point used in the analysis of pH by this method must have measurements for total alkalinity and total acidity The same statistical procedures that have been described for use in the evaluation of the metals is applied using the average value for total alkalinity at that point as the target to specify a reduction in the acid concentration By maintaining a net alkaline stream the pH value will be in the range between six and eight This method negates the need to specifically compute the pH value which for mine waters is not a true reflection of acidity This method assures that Pennsylvaniarsquos standard for pH is met when the acid concentration reduction is met

Reference Rose Arthur W and Charles A Cravotta III 1998 Geochemistry of Coal Mine Drainage Chapter 1 in Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania Pa Dept of Environmental Protection Harrisburg Pa

25

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 26: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Figure 1 Net Alkalinity vs pH Taken from Figure 12 Graph C pages 1-5 of Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania

26

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 27: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Attachment C Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment

Facilities from Surface Mines

27

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 28: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load

Calculating Waste Load Allocations for Active Mining in the TMDL Stream Segment

The end product of the TMDL report is to develop Waste Load Allocations (WLA) and Load Allocations (LA) that represent the amount of pollution the stream can assimilate while still achieving in-stream limits The LA is the load from abandoned mine lands where there is no NPDES permit or responsible party The WLA is the pollution load from active mining that is permitted through NPDES

In preparing the TMDL calculations are done to determine the allowable load The actual load measured in the stream is equal to the allowable load plus the reduced load

Total Measured Load = Allowed Load + Reduced Load

If there is active mining or anticipated mining in the near future in the watershed the allowed load must include both a WLA and a LA component

Allowed Load (lbsday) = WLA (lbsday) + LA (lbsday)

The following is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits

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

Standard Treatment Pond Effluent Limits Alkalinity gt Acidity

60 lt= pH lt= 90 Fe lt 30 mgl Mn lt 20 mgl

Discharge from treatment ponds on a mine site is intermittent and often varies as a result of precipitation events Measured flow rates are almost never available If accurate flow data are available they can be used to quantify the WLA The following is an approach that can be used

28

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 29: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

to determine a waste load allocation for an active mining operation when treatment pond flow rates are not available The methodology involves quantifying the hydrology of the portion of a surface mine site that contributes flow to the pit and then calculating waste load allocation using NPDES treatment pond effluent limits

The total water volume reporting to ponds for treatment can come from two primary sources direct precipitation to the pit and runoff from the unregraded area following the pitrsquos progression through the site Groundwater seepage reporting to the pit is considered negligible compared to the flow rates resulting from precipitation

In an active mining scenario a mine operator pumps pit water to the ponds for chemical treatment Pit water is often acidic with dissolved metals in nature At the treatment ponds alkaline chemicals are added to increase the pH and encourage dissolved metals to precipitate and settle Pennsylvania averages 414 inches of precipitation per year (Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center National Weather Service State College PA 1961-1990 httpwwwdepstatepausdepsubjecthotopicsdroughtPrecipNormhtm) A maximum pit dimension without special permit approval is 1500 feet long by 300 feet wide Assuming that 5 percent of the precipitation evaporates and the remaining 95 percent flows to the low spot in the active pit to be pumped to the treatment ponds results in the following equation and average flow rates for the pit area

414 in precipyr x 095 x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min =

= 210 galmin average discharge from direct precipitation into the open mining pit area

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

414 in precipyr x 3 pit areas x 1 ft12in x 1500rsquox300rsquopit x 748 galft3 x 1yr365days x 1day24hr x 1hr60 min x 15 in runoff100 in precipitation =

= 99 galmin average discharge from spoil runoff into the pit area

29

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 30: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

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

Total Average Flow = Direct Pit Precipitation + Spoil Runoff

Total Average Flow = 210 galmin + 99 galmin = 309 galmin

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

Allowable Iron Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 3 mgl x 001202 = 11 lbsday

Allowable Manganese Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 2 mgl x 001202 = 07 lbsday

Allowable Aluminum Waste Load Allocation 309 galmin x 075 mgl x 001202 = 03 lbsday

(Note 001202 is a conversion factor to convert from a flow rate in galmin and a concentration in mgl to a load in units of lbsday)

There is little or no documentation available to quantify the actual amount of water that is typically pumped from active pits to treatment ponds Experience and observations suggest that the above approach is very conservative and overestimates the quantity of water creating a large margin of safety in the methodology County specific precipitation rates can be used in place of the long-term state average rate although the margin of safety is greater than differences from individual counties It is common for many mining sites to have very ldquodryrdquo pits that rarely accumulate water that would require pumping and treatment

Also it is the goal of DEPrsquos permit review process to not issue mining permits that would cause negative impacts to the environment As a step to insure that a mine site does not produce acid mine drainage it is common to require the addition of alkaline materials (waste lime baghouse lime limestone etc) to the backfill spoil materials to neutralize any acid-forming materials that may be present This practice of lsquoalkaline additionrsquo or the incorporation of naturally occurring alkaline spoil materials (limestone alkaline shale or other rocks) may produce alkaline pit water with very low metals concentrations that does not require treatment A comprehensive study in 1999 evaluated mining permits issued since 1987 and found that only 22 percent resulted in a post-mining pollution discharge (Evaluation of Mining Permits Resulting in Acid Mine Drainage 1987-1996 A Post Mortem Study March 1999) As a result of efforts to insure that acid mine drainage is prevented most mining operations have alkaline pit water that often meets effluent limits and requires little or no treatment

While most mining operations are permitted and allowed to have a standard 1500rsquo x 300rsquo pit most are well below that size and have a corresponding decreased flow and load Where pit dimensions are greater than the standard size or multiple pits are present the calculations to define the potential pollution load can be adjusted accordingly Hence the above calculated

30

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 31: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Waste Load Allocation is very generous and likely high compared to actual conditions that are generally encountered A large margin of safety is included in the WLA calculations

The allowable load for the stream segment is determined by modeling of flow and water quality data The allowable load has a potential Waste Load Allocation (WLA) component if there is active mining or anticipated future mining and a Load Allocation (LA) So the sum of the Load Allocation and the Waste Load Allocation is equal to the allowed load The WLA is determined by the above calculations and the LA is determined by the difference between the allowed load and the WLA

Allowed Load = Waste Load Allocation + Load Allocation Or

Load Allocation = Allowed Load ndash Waste Load Allocation

This is an explanation of the quantification of the potential pollution load reporting to the stream from permitted pit water treatment ponds that discharge water at established effluent limits This allows for including active mining activities and their associated Waste Load in the TMDL calculations to more accurately represent the watershed pollution sources and the reductions necessary to achieve in-stream limits When a mining operation is concluded its WLA is available for a different operation Where there are indications that future mining in a watershed may be greater than the current level of mining activity an additional WLA amount may be included in the allowed load to allow for future mining

31

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 32: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Attachment D TMDLs By Segment

32

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 33: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Peters Creek

The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5 PC4 PC3 and PC2) six sites on unnamed tributaries to Peters Creek (PCTR1-6) one site on Lewis Run (LW1) one site on Lick Run (LR1) and one site on Piney Fork (PF1) Sample data sets were collected in 2007 and 2008 All sample points are shown on the maps included in Attachment A as well as on the loading schematic presented on the following page

Peters Creek is listed on the 1996 PA Section 303(d) list for metals from AMD as being the cause of the degradation to this stream Although this TMDL will focus primarily on metal loading to the Peters Creek Watershed acid loading analysis will be performed The objective is to reduce acid loading to the stream which will in turn raise the pH to the desired range (between 6 amp 9) 99 of the time The result of this analysis is an acid loading reduction that equates to meeting standards for pH (see TMDL Endpoint section in the report Table 2) The method and rationale for addressing pH is contained in Attachment B

An allowable long-term average in-stream concentration was determined at each sample point for metals and acidity The analysis is designed to produce an average value that when met will be protective of the water-quality criterion for that parameter 99 of the time An analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation to determine the necessary long-term average concentration needed to attain water-quality criteria 99 of the time The simulation was run assuming the data set was log normally distributed Using the mean and standard deviation of the data set 5000 iterations of sampling were completed and compared against the water-quality criterion for that parameter For each sampling event a percent reduction was calculated if necessary to meet water-quality criteria A second simulation that multiplied the percent reduction times the sampled value was run to insure that criteria were met 99 of the time The mean value from this data set represents the long-term average concentration that needs to be met to achieve water-quality standards Following is an explanation of the TMDL for each allocation point

33

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 34: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Peters Creek Sampling Station Diagram Arrows represent direction of flow Diagram not to scale

PC2

LW1

PCTR5

LR1

PC4

PCTR3

PC5

PC3

PF1

PCTR1

PCTR2

PCTR4

BR1

34

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 35: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC5 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D1 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations ndash PC5 ndash Peters Creek upstream of bridge in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PC5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC5 (3096 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC5 shows pH ranging between 725 and 817 pH not will be addressed because water quality standards are being met Table D2 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC5 Table D3 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PC5

Table D2 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 121 3113 043 1121

Iron 078 2012 078 2012 Manganese 052 1352 052 1352

Acidity -9750 -251751 -9750 -251751 Alkalinity 13543 349676

Table D3 Allocations PC5 PC5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PC5 3113 Allowable Load PC5 1121 Load Reduction PC5 1992 Reduction required PC5 64

35

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 36: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

TMDL calculations- PCTR1 - Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Stonebridge Drive near Giant Eagle in Finleyville

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR1 (00504 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR1 shows pH ranging between 784 and 913 pH will not be addressed Table D4 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR1 Table D5 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR1

Table D4 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 061 026 017 007

Iron 049 021 036 015 Manganese 006 002 006 002

Acidity -24425 -9426 -24425 -9426 Alkalinity 27355 11498

Table D5 Allocations PCTR1 PCTR1 Al (Lbsday) Iron (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR1 026 021 Allowable Load PCTR1 007 015 Load Reduction PCTR1 019 006 Reduction required PCTR1 73 29

TMDL calculations- PCTR2 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing in Gastonville

The TMDL for sample point PCTR2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR2 (0604 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 764 and 839 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum and manganese has been calculated at this site

Table D6 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR2 Table D7 shows the percent reductions for aluminum and manganese

36

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 37: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Table D6 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 077 387 015 077

Iron 039 198 039 198 Manganese 019 095 071 084

Acidity -7038 -35475 -7038 -35475 Alkalinity 9835 49577

Table D7 Allocations PCTR2 PCTR2 Al (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR2 387 095 Allowable Load PCTR2 077 084 Load Reduction PCTR2 310 011 Reduction required PCTR2 80 12

Waste Load Allocation ndashUSA South Hills Landfill Inc

The USA South Hills Landfill (SMP0200102 NPDES PA0591980) has two mine drainage treatment facilities requiring treatment Outfalls 003A and 004B are discharges from treatment facilities One discharge can be operational receiving water from one standard size pit (1500rsquoX300rsquo) in addition iron must be discharged at a concentration of equal to or less than 15 mgL These discharges do not have effluent limits for aluminum currently a concentration of 075 mgL was assigned to the discharge for aluminum in the effluent The following table shows the waste load allocation for this discharge

Table D8 Waste load allocations at USA South Hills Landfill Parameter Monthly Avg

Allowable Conc (mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) 003A or 004B

Al 075 0045 028 Fe 15 0045 056 Mn 20 0045 075

TMDL calculations- PCTR3 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek draining mined area upstream of PC4

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of the point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR3 (0207 MGD) is used for these computations

37

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 38: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Sample data at point PCTR3 shows pH ranging between 412 and 495 pH will be addressed A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PCTR3 has been calculated

Table D9 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR3 Table D10 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PCTR3

Table D9 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 1131 1956 023 039

Iron 183 317 027 048 Manganese 262 453 068 118

Acidity 15810 27346 158 273 Alkalinity 745 1289

Table D10 Allocations PCTR3

PCTR3 Al (Lbsday) Fe (Lbsday) Mn (Lbsday) Acidity

(Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR3 1956 317 453 15810 Allowable Load PCTR3 039 048 118 158 Load Reduction PCTR3 1917 269 335 15652 Reduction required PCTR3 98 85 74 99

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC4 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D11 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC4 ndash Peters Creek downstream of TR844 bridge

The TMDL for sampling point PC4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC5 and PC4 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC4 (4897 MGD) is used for these computations

38

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 39: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Sample data at point PC4 shows pH ranging between 730 and 804 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met A TMDL for aluminum iron and manganese at PC4 has been calculated

Table D12 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC4 Table D13 shows the percent reduction for aluminum iron manganese and acidity needed at PC4

Table D12 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 148 6029 018 723

Iron 044 1791 039 1576 Manganese 033 1343 030 1208

Acidity -8718 -356059 -8718 -356059 Alkalinity 11280 460722

The measured and allowable loading for point PC4 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC4

Table D13 Allocations PC4 PC4 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday) Mn (lbsday)

Existing Load PC4 6029 1791 1343 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC4 547 1453 099 Additional load tracked from above samples 1244 063 202 Total load tracked between PCTR1PCTR2PCTR3PC5 and PC4 1791 1516 301 Allowable Load PC4 723 1576 1208 Load Reduction PC4 1068 0 0 Reduction required at PC4 60 0 0

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PF1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

39

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 40: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Table D14 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PF1- Piney Fork upstream of railroad underpass on Piney Fork Road

The TMDL for sampling point PF1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Piney Fork was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PF1 The average flow measured at the sampling point PF1 (10820 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PF1 shows pH ranging between 723 and 869 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D15 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PF1 Table D16 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PF1

Table D15 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 041 3682 030 2688

Iron 023 2103 023 2103 Manganese 028 2493 028 2493

Acidity -10160 -916830 -10160 -916830 Alkalinity 13105 1182584

Table D16 Allocations PF1 PF1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PF1 3682 Allowable Load PF1 2688 Load Reduction PF1 994 Reduction required PF1 27

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC3 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

40

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 41: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Table D17 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC3- Peters Creek downstream of abandoned bridge on Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sample point PC3 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC4 and PC3 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC3 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC3 (11739 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC3 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 735 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D18 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC3 Table D19 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron and manganese

Table D18 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 071 6939 012 1180

Iron 042 4087 031 3025 Manganese 019 1818 019 1818

Acidity -13680 -1339263 -13680 -1339263 Alkalinity 16170 1583033

The measured and allowable loading for point PC3 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC3 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PC4PF1 and PC3 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC3 and PC4PF1 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC3

41

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 42: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Table D19 Allocations PC3 PC3 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC3 6939 4087 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC3 -2772 2296 Additional load tracked from above samples 3411 1576 Total load tracked between PC4PF1 and PC3 2456 3872 Allowable Load PC3 1180 3025 Load Reduction PC3 1276 847 Reduction required at PC3 52 22

TMDL calculations- PCTR4- Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at Old Snowden Road

The TMDL for sampling point PCTR4 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR4 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR4 (0136 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR4 shows pH ranging between 789 and 889 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D20 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR4 Table D21 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at PCTR4

Table D20 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 038 043 021 024

Iron 027 031 027 031 Manganese 008 009 008 009

Acidity -9760 -11101 -9760 -11101 Alkalinity 11545 13131

Table D21 Allocations PCTR4 PCTR4 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR4 043 Allowable Load PCTR4 024 Load Reduction PCTR4 019 Reduction required PCTR4 44

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LR1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

42

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 43: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Table D22 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LR1- Lick Run upstream of Piney Fork Road crossing

The TMDL for sampling point LR1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of this point shown in Attachment A The load allocation for Lick Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LR1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LR1 (5258 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LR1 shows pH ranging between 775 and 870 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D23 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LR1 Table D24 shows the load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards at LR1

Table D23 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 058 2521 013 580

Iron 019 830 019 830 Manganese 013 560 013 560

Acidity -8290 -363509 -8290 -363509 Alkalinity 11660 511281

Table D24 Allocations LR1 LR1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LR1 2521 Allowable Load LR1 580 Load Reduction LR1 1941 Reduction required LR1 77

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at PC2 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

43

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 44: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Table D25 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- PC2- Peters Creek at open metal grate bridge downstream of Beam Run

The TMDL for sample point PC2 consists of a load allocation to all of the area between PC3 and PC2 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PC2 The average flow measured at the sampling point PC2 (17511 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PC2 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 766 and 871 pH will not be addressed as water quality standards are being met

Table D26 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PC2 Table D27 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D26 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 093 13592 010 1495

Iron 049 7214 023 3319 Manganese 013 1895 013 1895

Acidity -9215 -1345729 -9215 -1345729 Alkalinity 11645 1700598

The measured and allowable loading for point PC2 for aluminum iron and manganese was computed using water-quality sample data collected at the point This was based on the sample data for the point and did not account for any loads already specified from upstream sources The additional load from points PC2 shows the total load that was permitted from upstream sources This value was added to the difference in existing loads between points PCTR4LR1PC3 and PC2 to determine a total load tracked for the segment of stream between PC2 and PCTR4LR1PC3 This load will be compared to the allowable load to determine if further reductions are needed to meet the calculated TMDL at PC2

44

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 45: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Table D27 Allocations PC2 PC2 Al (lbsday) Fe (lbsday)

Existing Load PC2 13592 7214 Difference in measured loads between the loads that enter and existing PC2 4089 5430 Additional load tracked from above samples 1784 3025 Total load tracked between PC3LR1PCTR4 and PC2 5873 8455 Allowable Load PC2 1495 3319 Load Reduction PC2 4378 5136 Reduction required at PC2 75 61

A waste load allocation for future mining was included at LW1 allowing for two operations with two active pits (1500rsquo x 300rsquo) to be permitted in the future on this segment

Table D28 Waste load allocations for future mining operations Parameter Allowable Conc

(mgL) Average Flow

(MGD)

Allowable Load

(lbsday) Future Operation 1

Al 075 0090 056 Fe 30 0090 225 Mn 20 0090 150

TMDL calculations- LW1- Lewis Run downstream of Bridge on Old Clairton Road near intersection with Route 51

The TMDL for sample point LW1 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of LW1 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of Lewis Run was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point LW1 The average flow measured at the sampling point LW1 (3608 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point LW1 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 785 and 864 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D29 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at LW1 Table D30 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

45

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 46: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Table D29 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 045 1363 017 504

Iron 025 761 025 761 Manganese 017 517 017 517

Acidity -4140 -124571 -4140 -124571 Alkalinity 6105 183697

Table D30 Allocations LW1 LW1 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load LW1 1363 Allowable Load LW1 504 Load Reduction LW1 859 Reduction required LW1 63

TMDL calculations- PCTR5 ndash Unnamed tributary to Peters Creek at bridge on Peters Creek Road off of Route 51

The TMDL for sample point PCTR5 consists of a load allocation to all of the area upstream of PCTR5 shown in Attachment A The load allocation for this segment of the unnamed tributary to Peters Creek was computed using water-quality sample data collected at point PCTR5 The average flow measured at the sampling point PCTR5 (0226 MGD) is used for these computations

Sample data at point PCTR5 shows that this segment has a pH ranging between 801 and 875 pH will not be addressed because water quality standards are being met

Table D31 shows the measured and allowable concentrations and loads at PCTR5 Table D32 shows the percent reductions for aluminum iron manganese and acidity

Table D31 Measured Allowable Concentration Load Concentration Load

mgL lbsday mgL lbsday Aluminum 035 067 024 046

Iron 038 072 038 072 Manganese 007 014 007 014

Acidity -20360 -38444 -20360 -38444 Alkalinity 23430 44241

46

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 47: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Table D32 Allocations PCTR5 PCTR5 Al (Lbsday) Existing Load PCTR5 067 Allowable Load PCTR5 046 Load Reduction PCTR5 021 Reduction required PCTR5 31

Margin of Safety

For this study the margin of safety is applied implicitly A MOS is implicit because the allowable concentrations and loadings were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques and employing the Risk software Other margins of safety used for this TMDL analysis include the following

bull An additional MOS is provided because that the calculations were done with a daily Fe average instead of the 30-day average

Seasonal Variation

Seasonal variation is implicitly accounted for in these TMDLs because the data used represents all seasons

Critical Conditions

The reductions specified in this TMDL apply at all flow conditions A critical flow condition could not be identified from the data used for this analysis

47

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 48: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Attachment E Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002

Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)

48

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 49: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

The following are excerpts from the Pennsylvania DEP Section 303(d) narratives that justify changes in listings between the 1996 1998 2002 2004 and 2006 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2006) The Section 303(d) listing process has undergone an evolution in Pennsylvania since the development of the 1996 list

In the 1996 Section 303(d) narrative strategies were outlined for changes to the listing process Suggestions included but were not limited to a migration to a Global Information System (GIS) improved monitoring and assessment and greater public input

The migration to a GIS was implemented prior to the development of the 1998 Section 303(d) list As a result of additional sampling and the migration to the GIS some of the information appearing on the 1996 list differed from the 1998 list Most common changes included

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

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

watershed listing

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

Migration to National Hydrography Data (NHD)

New to the 2006 report is use of the 124000 National Hydrography Data (NHD) streams GIS layer Up until 2006 the Department relied upon its own internally developed stream layer Subsequently the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) developed 124000 NHD streams layer for the Commonwealth based upon national geodatabase standards In 2005 DEP contracted with USGS to add missing streams and correct any errors in the NHD A GIS contractor transferred the old DEP stream assessment information to the improved NHD and the old DEP streams layer was archived Overall this marked an improvement in the quality of the streams layer and made the stream assessment data compatible with national standards but it necessitated a change in the Integrated Listing format The NHD is not attributed with the old DEP five digit stream codes so segments can no longer be listed by stream code but rather only by stream name or a fixed combination of NHD fields known as reachcode and ComID The NHD is aggregated by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds so HUCs rather than the old State Water Plan (SWP) watersheds are now used to group streams together The map in

49

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 50: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Appendix E illustrates the relationship between the old SWP and new HUC watershed delineations A more basic change was the shift in data management philosophy from one of ldquodynamic segmentationrdquo to ldquofixed segmentsrdquo The dynamic segmentation records were proving too difficult to mange from an historical tracking perspective The fixed segment methods will remedy that problem The stream assessment data management has gone through many changes over the years as system requirements and software changed It is hoped that with the shift to the NHD and OITrsquos (Office of Information Technology) fulltime staff to manage and maintain SLIMS the systems and formats will now remain stable over many Integrated Listing cycles

50

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 51: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Attachment F Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations

51

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 52: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Site Name

PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1 PCTR1

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

00144 00072 01441

003603

pH (Lab)

82 82 83 83

pH (Field)

784 805 913 858

Acidity (mgL)

-196 -2674 -2036

-230

Alkalinity (mgL)

258 2972 2664 2726

Conductivity (uS)

1033 998 589 920

TDS (mgL)

513 504 293 460

TSS (mgL)

20 15 18

6

Al (mgL)

138 025

0576 025

Fe (mgL)

0707 015

0962 015

Mn (mgL)

0079 0054 0065 0025

Average

StDev

005 006

825 006

840 058

-22425 3225

27355 1686

88500 20291

44250 10232

1138 903

061 053

049 041

006002

Site Name

PC5 PC5 PC5 PC5

Date

882007 1042007 3272007 6262008

Flow (MGD)

087 06

809 282

pH (Lab)

79 76 77 78

pH (Field)

762 725 817

8

Acidity (mgL)

-776 -76

-1254 -111

Alkalinity (mgL)

1412 1221 1458 1326

Conductivity (uS)

1082 1149 664 798

TDS (mgL)

541 574 332 398

TSS (mgL)

18 12

15 16

Al (mgL)

0928 0998 1534 1363

Fe (mgL)

0906 0694 0506 1011

Mn (mgL)

0436 0677 0539 0442

Average

StDev

310 347

775 013

776 041

-9750 2462

13543 1043

92325 23026

46125 11515

1188 735

121 029

078 022

052011

Site Name

PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2 PCTR2

Date

882007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

032 017 128 065

pH (Lab)

805 79 78 79

pH (Field)

787 764 839 816

Acidity (mgL)

-509 -648 -912 -746

Alkalinity (mgL)

1024 844 112 946

Conductivity (uS)

1123 1105 684 845

TDS (mgL)

556 548 339 422

TSS (mgL)

15 15

4 8

Al (mgL)

025 025

1833 0739

Fe (mgL)

0302 015

0678 0442

Mn (mgL)

0063 0025 054

0125

Average

StDev

061 049

791 010

802 033

-7038 1695

9835 1171

93925 21235

46625 10470

375 307

077 075

039 022

019024

Site Name

PCTR3 PCTR3 PCTR3

Date

882007 1042007 3272008

Flow (MGD)

004 00288

063

pH (Lab)

5 44 45

pH (Field)

47 412 495

Acidity (mgL)

50 127

3498

Alkalinity (mgL)

9 78 98

Conductivity (uS)

1213 1265

945

TDS (mgL)

605 628 473

TSS (mgL)

15 15 10

Al (mgL)

179 123

1574

Fe (mgL)

132 015

4805

Mn (mgL)

205 302

2462

52

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 53: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

PCTR3 6262008 014 4 43 1056 32 1157 575 8 15401 105 2939

Average

StDev

021 028

448 041

452 038

15810 13186

745 295

11450014044 57025 6837

525 441

1131 653

183 204

262045

Site Name

PC4 PC4 PC4 PC4

Date

882007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

174 084

1235 466

pH (Lab)

82 77

765 79

pH (Field)

797 73

801 804

Acidity (mgL)

-716 -676

-1065 -103

Alkalinity (mgL)

1154 938

1242 1178

Conductivity (uS)

1097 1133 701 823

TDS (mgL)

547 565 351 409

TSS (mgL)

15 15 26 10

Al (mgL)

0584 0752 325

1318

Fe (mgL)

0319 015

0922 0363

Mn (mgL)

0141 0261 0639 0274

Average

StDev

490 523

786 025

783 035

-8718 2041

11280 1320

93850 21032

46800 10459

975 1155

148 122

044 034

033022

Site Name

PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

599 384

18 1545

pH (Lab)

76 76

8 75

pH (Field)

755 723 869 798

Acidity (mgL)

-98 -95

-1344 -79

Alkalinity (mgL)

1398 1256 1622 966

Conductivity (uS)

1242 1236

988 835

TDS (mgL)

623 618 496 418

TSS (mgL)

15 15 15

9

Al (mgL)

025 025 051

0622

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0482

Mn (mgL)

0366 0273 0319 0147

Average

StDev

1082 695

768 022

786 063

-10160 2340

13105 2747

10752519915 53875 9964

338 375

041 019

023 017

028009

Site Name

LR1 LR1 LR1 LR1

Date

8152007 1042007 3272008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

438 206

1177 2369

pH (Lab)

82 8 8

81

pH (Field)

803 775

87 844

Acidity (mgL)

-798 -582

-1064 -872

Alkalinity (mgL)

1216 1004 1368 1076

Conductivity (uS)

1176 1140 1075 1016

TDS (mgL)

585 571 541 506

TSS (mgL)

15 15 16 25

Al (mgL)

025 025 155 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015 015

0307

Mn (mgL)

0025 0025

039 0071

Average

StDev

514 454

808 010

823 042

-8290 1992

11660 1609

1101757082 55075 3503

538 710

058 065

019 008

013018

53

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 54: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Site Name

LW1 LW1 LW1 LW1

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

197 124

5033 618

pH (Lab)

8 8

79 79

pH (Field)

796 785 864 835

Acidity (mgL)

-42 -376 -424 -436

Alkalinity (mgL)

642 588 614 598

Conductivity (uS)

1952 1916

846 823

TDS (mgL)

972 953 422 413

TSS (mgL)

15 4 8 6

Al (mgL)

025 025

1062 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

0562 015

Mn (mgL)

0149 0156 0304 0078

Average

StDev

361 238

795 006

820 036

-4140 262

6105 236

13842563504 69000 31477

488 278

045 041

025 021

017009

Site Name

PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4 PCTR4

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6262008

Flow (MGD)

004323 0036 0322

01441

pH (Lab)

82 82

8 8

pH (Field)

803 801 875 843

Acidity (mgL)

-1088 -1086

-80 -93

Alkalinity (mgL)

1272 1308

986 1052

Conductivity (uS)

1775 1839 1097 1429

TDS (mgL)

892 924 547 714

TSS (mgL)

15 15 12 12

Al (mgL)

025 025

0775 025

Fe (mgL)

0326 015

0472 015

Mn (mgL)

0064 0025 0151 0073

Average

StDev

014 013

810 012

831 035

-9760 1387

11545 1594

15350034307 76925 17461

675 606

038 026

027 016

008005

Site Name

PC2 PC2 PC2 PC2

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

1394 853

12302 35301

pH (Lab)

8 79

8 8

pH (Field)

791 766 871 833

Acidity (mgL)

-97 -728 -109 -898

Alkalinity (mgL)

1236 1038 1266 1118

Conductivity (uS)

1166 1194 879

1004

TDS (mgL)

584 597 440 500

TSS (mgL)

15 15 40 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2973 025

Fe (mgL)

015 015

1526 015

Mn (mgL)

0081 0025 0322 0091

Average

StDev

1752 1207

798 005

815 046

-9215 1514

11645 1058

10607514729 53025 7395

1138 1909

093 136

049 069

013013

Site Name

PC3 PC3 PC3 PC3

Date

8152007 1042007 3282008 6272008

Flow (MGD)

822 531

24802 8643

pH (Lab)

78 8 8

79

pH (Field)

765 735 87

819

Acidity (mgL)

-99 -252 -102 -942

Alkalinity (mgL)

1296 2738 1284

115

Conductivity (uS)

1136 1225 785

1011

TDS (mgL)

569 612 386 506

TSS (mgL)

15 14 24 25

Al (mgL)

025 025

2085 025

Fe (mgL)

015 035 102 015

Mn (mgL)

023 0025 0326 0162

54

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 55: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Average 1174 793 797 -13680 16170 103925 51825 1050 071 042 019 StDev 883 010 060 7687 7503 19088 9833 1064 092 041 013

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

PCTR5 8152007 0036 8 79 -249 2806 2526 1255 4 025 058 0025 PCTR5 1042007 00216 77 789 -946 1186 2573 1289 15 025 015 0212 PCTR5 3282008 0705 82 889 -2112 2576 859 433 15 025 015 0025 PCTR5 6272008 01441 81 841 -2596 2804 1793 898 20 0665 0645 0025

Average 023 800 827 -20360 23430 193775 96875 675 035 038 007 StDev 032 022 048 7558 7789 80296 39855 891 021 027 009

Site Name Date Flow

(MGD) pH (Lab) pH (Field) Acidity (mgL)

Alkalinity (mgL)

Conductivity (uS)

TDS (mgL)

TSS (mgL) Al (mgL) Fe (mgL) Mn (mgL)

BR1 3282008 1647 75 819 -246 42 734 369 16 2606 0594 0622 BR1 6262008 085 75 775 -342 496 903 452 25 0709 015 0474

Average 125 750 797 -2940 4580 81850 41050 925 166 037 055 StDev 056 000 031 679 537 11950 5869 955 134 031 010

Underlined values are included in the data set at half the detection limit

55

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 56: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Attachment G TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination

56

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 57: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

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

Load Tracking Mechanisms

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

Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds

The Department is working to develop options for mining permits in watersheds with approved TMDLs

Options identified

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

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

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

bull Non-discharge alternative

Other possible options

The following two options have also been identified for use in TMDL watersheds However before recommendation for use as viable implementation options a thorough regulatory (both state and federal) review must be completed These options should not be implemented until the

57

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 58: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

completion of the regulatory review and development of any applicable administrative mechanisms

bull Issue the permit with in-stream water quality criteria values as the effluent limits The in-stream criteria value would represent the monthly average with the other limits adjusted accordingly (eg for Fe the limits would be 15 mgL monthly average 30 mgL daily average and 40 instantaneous max mgL)

bull The applicant would agree to treat an existing source (point or non-point) where there is no responsible party and receive a WLA based on a portion of the load reduction to be achieved The result of using these types of offsets in permitting is a net improvement in long-term water quality through the reclamation or treatment of an abandoned source

58

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 59: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

Attachment H Comment and Response

59

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response
Page 60: Peters Creek Watershed TMDL · 2017. 10. 2. · The TMDL for Peters Creek consists of load allocations to four sampling sites on Peters Creek (PC5, PC4, PC3 and PC2), six sites on

No public comments were received on the Peters Creek Watershed TMDL

60

  • Introduction
    • Table 1 303(d) Listed Segments
      • Directions to the Peters Creek Watershed
      • Watershed Characteristics
      • Segments addressed in this TMDL
      • Clean Water Act Requirements
      • Section 303(d) Listing Process
      • Basic Steps for Determining a TMDL
      • AMD Methodology
      • TMDL Endpoints
        • Table 2 Applicable Water Quality Criteria
          • TMDL Elements (WLA LA MOS)
          • Allocation Summary
            • Table 3 Peters Creek Watershed Summary Table
              • Recommendations
              • Public Participation
              • Future TMDL Modifications
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Require EPA Approval
              • Changes in TMDLs That May Not Require EPA Approval
                • Attachment A
                  • Peters Creek Watershed Maps
                    • Attachment B
                      • Method for Addressing Section 303(d) Listings for pH
                        • Attachment C
                          • Method for Calculating Loads from Mine Drainage Treatment Facilities from Surface Mines
                              • Method to Quantify Treatment Pond Pollutant Load
                                • Attachment D
                                  • TMDLs By Segment
                                    • Attachment E
                                      • Excerpts Justifying Changes Between the 1996 1998 and 2002 Section 303(d) Lists and Integrated ReportList (2004 2006)
                                        • Attachment F
                                          • Water Quality Data Used In TMDL Calculations
                                            • Attachment G
                                              • TMDLs and NPDES Permitting Coordination
                                                  • Load Tracking Mechanisms
                                                  • Options for Permittees in TMDL Watersheds
                                                  • Options identified
                                                  • Other possible options
                                                    • Attachment H
                                                      • Comment and Response