U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage 

on Streamflow and Water Quality in the 

Shamokin Creek Basin, 

Northumberland and Columbia Counties, 

Pennsylvania, 1999-2001

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4311

In cooperation with the

Northumberland County Conservation District,

Bucknell University

and the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage 

on Streamflow and Water Quality in the 

Shamokin Creek Basin, 

Northumberland and Columbia Counties, 

Pennsylvania, 1999-2001

by Charles A. Cravotta III and Carl S. Kirby 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4311

In cooperation with the

Northumberland County Conservation District,

Bucknell University

and the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

New Cumberland, Pennsylvania

2003
i

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Charles G. Groat, Director

The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute 

endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.

For additional information, Copies of this report may be

contact: purchased from:

District Chief U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services

215 Limekiln Road Box 25286

New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070-2424 Denver, Colorado 80225-0286

Email: dc_pa@usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Internet Address: http://pa.water.usgs.gov
ii
iii

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Purpose and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Geology and mining history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Quality protection and restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Methods of water-quality site selection, sampling, and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Effects of abandoned mine drainage in the Shamokin Creek Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Flow and quality of streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Streamflow variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Contaminant concentrations and loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Aquatic ecology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Characterization and remediation of abandoned mine drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Characteristics of AMD sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Remedial priorities and alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Flow considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

References cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTENTS

Page
iv

Figure 1. Map of Shamokin Creek Basin showing locations of municipalities, coalfield, 

named streams, and corresponding streamwater and mine drainage 

monitoring network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.

2. Shaded relief map showing surface extent of abandoned mine workings within 

the upper Shamokin Creek Basin bounded by Locust Mountain and 

Mahanoy Mountains on the south and Big Mountain on the north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. Flow chart for selection of passive treatment alternatives modified after Hedin 

and others (1994), Skousen and others (1998), and Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection (1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4. Graphs showing relation between flow rates and dissolved constituent 

concentrations at each AMD and streamwater sample site in the Shamokin 

Creek Basin for low-baseflow and high-baseflow conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5. Graphs showing relation between total and dissolved concentrations of iron, 

manganese, and aluminum in high-baseflow AMD and streamwater samples . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6. Graphs showing relation between measured “hot, peroxide” acidity and 

computed acidity; measured “hot, peroxide” acidity and computed net 

alkalinity; and pH and computed net alkalinity on the basis of dissolved 

metals concentrations for high-baseflow AMD samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

7. Maps showing streamflow and concentrations of total acidity, dissolved sulfate, 

dissolved iron, dissolved manganese, and dissolved aluminum in the 

mainstem and tributaries of Shamokin Creek during March 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

8. Graphs showing historical and recent streamflow data for Shamokin Creek 

near Shamokin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

9. Graphs showing relation between instantaneous streamflow and water-quality 

data for Shamokin Creek near Shamokin and Sunbury, 1999-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

10. Bar charts showing contributing area, streamflow yields, metals loading, and 

percentage of AMD metals loading at steam monitoring sites in the Shamokin

Creek Basin during low-baseflow and high-baseflow sampling in 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 26

11. Map of upper Shamokin Creek basin showing abandoned mine discharge locations 

and corresponding flow rates and loading of iron, manganese, and aluminum

during March 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

12. Graphs showing relation between priority AMD ranking and flow rate, acidity,

iron, manganese, and aluminum concentrations for top 25 abandoned mine 

discharge sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

13. Bar charts illustrating priority ranks for top 20 abandoned mine discharge sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page
v

Table 1. Description of abandoned mine drainage sites surveyed in 1999-2000 for the 

Shamokin Creek watershed assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2. Description of stream sites surveyed in 1999-2000 for the Shamokin Creek 

watershed assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3. Values of selected constituents for streamwater and abandoned mine drainage 

samples collected for the Shamokin Creek watershed assessment during 

August 4-6, 1999, and March 14-16, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4. Coliform bacteria and concentrations of dissolved metals and nutrients in water 

samples from selected sites on Shamokin Creek and its tributaries, 

August 4, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5. Fish species identified during annual ecological surveys of Shamokin Creek 

and selected tributary streams in October 1999, 2000, and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6. Metals concentrations in whole white sucker collected in October 1999 from 

Shamokin Creek near Shamokin, Pa., and Swatara Creek at Ravine, Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . 30

7. Rankings and possible remedial alternatives for abandoned mine discharges in 

Shamokin Creek Basin, Pa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

TABLES

Page
vi

Appendix A. Computation of water quality for the Richard’s Shaft discharge using an inverse mixing model with 

upstream and downstream data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

B. Hydrological data for abandoned mine drainage and associated stream monitoring sties in the 

Shamokin Creek Basin, August 1999 to October 2001 (CD rom, only)

C. Digital reproductions of out-of-print reports (CD rom, only)

Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1972, Operation Scarlift project no. SL-113–

Mine drainage abatement measures for the Shamokin Creek Watershed: Harrisburg, 

Pa., Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., Engineers.

Growitz, D.J., Reed, L.A., and Beard, M.M., 1985, Reconnaissance of mine drainage in the 

coal fields of eastern Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 83-4274, 54 p. 

Reed, L.A., Beard, M.M., Growitz, D.J., 1987, Quality of water in mines in the western 

middle coal field, anthracite region, east-central Pennsylvania; U.S. geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4038, 51 p.

Wood, C.R., 1996, Water quality of large discharges in the anthracite region of eastern 

Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-

4243, 68 p.

APPENDIXES

Page
vii

Conversion Factors and Datum

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F = (1.8 × °C) + 32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C = (°F - 32) / 1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). 

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27). 

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or 

micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Specific conductance of water reported as microsiemens per centimeter at 25 °C. 

Symbols are used to indicate less than (<), less than or equal to (<), greater than (>), greater than or equal to (>), 

equal to (=), and approximately equal to (~). 

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3

/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

cubic foot per second (ft3

/s) 1,699 liter per minute (L/min)

gallon per minute (gal/min) 3.785 liter per minute (L/min)

Mass

ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 megagram (Mg)

Application or loading rate

pounds per year (lb/yr) 0.4536 kilograms per year (kg/yr)

pounds per acre per day [(lb/acre)/day] 0.1121

grams per square meter per day [(g/

m2

)/day]

pounds per acre per day [(lb/acre)/day] 1.121

kilograms per hectare per day [(kg/ha)/

day]

pounds per acre per year [(lb/acre)/yr] 1.121

kilograms per hectare per year [(kg/

ha)/yr]
Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage

on Streamflow and Water Quality

in the Shamokin Creek Basin, 

Northumberland and Columbia Counties, Pennsylvania, 

1999-2001

by Charles A. Cravotta III, U.S. Geological Survey, New Cumberland, Pa.,

and Carl S. Kirby, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pa.

Abstract

This report assesses the contaminant loading, effects to 

receiving streams, and possible remedial alternatives for abandoned mine drainage (AMD) within the upper Shamokin Creek 

Basin in east-central Pennsylvania. The upper Shamokin Creek 

Basin encompasses an area of 54 square miles (140 square kilometers) within the Western Middle Anthracite Field, including 

and upstream of the city of Shamokin. Elevated concentrations 

of acidity, metals, and sulfate in the AMD from flooded underground anthracite coal mines and (or) unreclaimed culm (waste 

rock) piles degrade the aquatic ecosystem and water quality of 

Shamokin Creek to its mouth and along many of its tributaries 

within the upper basin. Despite dilution by unpolluted streams 

that more than doubles the streamflow of Shamokin Creek in 

the lower basin, AMD contamination and ecological impairment persist to its mouth on the Susquehanna River at Sunbury, 

20 miles (32 kilometers) downstream from the mined area.

Aquatic ecological surveys were conducted by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with Bucknell University (BU) and the Northumberland County Conservation 

District (NCCD) at six stream sites in October 1999 and 

repeated in 2000 and 2001 on Shamokin Creek below 

Shamokin and at Sunbury. In 1999, fish were absent from 

Quaker Run and Shamokin Creek upstream of its confluence 

with Carbon Run; however, creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) were present within three sampled reaches of Carbon Run. 

During 1999, 2000, and 2001, six or more species of fish were 

identified in Shamokin Creek below Shamokin and at Sunbury 

despite elevated concentrations of dissolved iron and ironencrusted streambeds at these sites. 

Data on the flow rate and chemistry for 46 AMD sources 

and 22 stream sites throughout the upper basin plus 1 stream site 

at Sunbury were collected by the USGS with assistance from 

BU and the Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance (SCRA) during low base-flow conditions in August 1999 and high baseflow conditions in March 2000. The water-quality data were 

used to determine priority ranks of the AMD sources on the 

basis of loadings of iron, manganese, and aluminum and to 

identify possible remedial alternatives, including passive-treatment options, for consideration by water-resource managers. 

The ranking sequence for the top AMD sources based on the 

high base-flow data generally matched that based on the low 

base-flow data. The contaminant loadings generally increased 

with flow, and 10 previously identified intermittent AMD 

sources were not discharging during the low base-flow sampling period. The top 3 AMD sources (SR19, SR12, and SR49) 

on the basis of dissolved metals loading in March 2000 

accounted for more than 50 percent of the metals loading to 

Shamokin Creek, whereas the top 15 AMD sources accounted 

for more than 98 percent of the metals loading. When sampled 

in March 2000, these AMD sources had flow rates ranging from 

0.7 to 19 cubic feet per second (1,138 to 32,285 liters per 

minute) and pH from 3.5 to 6.1 standard units. Only 1 of the top 

15 AMD sources (SR21) was net alkaline (alkalinity > acidity); 

the others were net acidic and will require additional alkalinity 

to facilitate metals removal and maintain near-neutral pH. For 

the top 15 AMD sources, dissolved iron was the principal 

source of acidity and metals loading; concentrations of iron 

ranged from 10 to 57 milligrams per liter. Dissolved manganese 

ranged from 1.9 to 7.4 milligrams per liter. Dissolved aluminum 

exceeded 3.9 milligrams per liter at seven of the sites but was 

less than 0.2 milligram per liter at seven others. 
2 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin

Alkalinity can be acquired by the dissolution of limestone 

and (or) bacterial sulfate reduction within various passive-treatment systems including anoxic or oxic limestone drains, limestone- lined channels, or compost wetlands. Subsequently, the 

gradual oxidation and consequent precipitation of iron and 

manganese can be accommodated within settling ponds or aerobic wetlands. Assuming an iron removal rate of 180 pounds 

per acre per day (20 grams per square meter per day), constructed treatment wetlands at the top 15 AMD sites would 

require a minimum area ranging from 0.7 to 17.8 acres (590 to 

71,670 square meters). Implementation of passive treatment 

would not be feasible at most of the top 15 and many lower priority AMD sites considering the proximity of many discharges 

to streams, roads, or railroads, and the limited availability or 

access to land at the discharge location. The reduction of infiltration and removal of culm waste and (or) the relocation of the 

discharge to nearby areas could decrease the AMD quantities 

and facilitate treatment at some of the priority AMD sites. 

Introduction

Shamokin Creek is a tributary of the Susquehanna River 

that drains 137 square miles (mi2), or 355 square kilometers 

(km2), in east-central Pennsylvania. Shamokin Creek originates 

near Centralia in Columbia County, flows westward approximately 10 mi (16 km) through Northumberland County into the 

city of Shamokin, and then approximately 20 mi (32 km) northward through gaps in Big Mountain and Little Mountain and 

westward to its mouth on the Susquehanna River at Sunbury 

(figs. 1 and 2). The Shamokin Creek Basin includes 1 municipality in Columbia County and 13 municipalities in Northumberland County. Ten of the municipalities, including the city of 

Shamokin, are in the upper 54 mi2 (140 km2) of the Shamokin 

Creek Basin south of Big Mountain. This area is underlain by 

the Western Middle Anthracite coalfield (mining region) (fig. 

1), where anthracite was extensively mined from about 1840-

1950 (Reed and others, 1987). Contaminated runoff and discharges from numerous abandoned anthracite mines throughout 

the upper Shamokin Creek Basin have degraded Shamokin 

Creek and many of its tributaries. Consequently, Shamokin 

Creek is designated a “high priority watershed” on the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection degraded watershed list (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 1996, 1998).

Purpose and Scope

In order to assess the effects of AMD sources and to identify possible remedial alternatives, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PaDEP), Bucknell University (BU), 

and Northumberland County Conservation District (NCCD), 

began a study in 1999. This report assesses the current contaminant loading, effects to receiving streams, and possible remedial alternatives for AMD within the upper Shamokin Creek 

Basin on the basis of data collected during 1999-2001. Data on 

the flow rate and quality of water were collected at all known 

AMD sites and at selected stream sites within the Shamokin 

Creek Basin during low base-flow conditions in August 1999 

and then repeated during high base-flow conditions in March 

2000. The basin-wide synoptic monitoring of flow and water 

quality during stable base-flow conditions was performed to (1) 

identify site-specific characteristics including temporal variability associated with seasonal changes in base flow, (2) indicate spatial variability and relative effects of the AMD throughout the basin, and (3) avoid complications in data collection and 

interpretation associated with rainfall or other short-term 

weather events. Additionally, during October 1999, 2000, and 

2001, data on the diversity and biomass of fish species were collected at a subset of the sampled stream sites, and streamflow of 

Shamokin Creek below Shamokin was recorded continuously. 

The supplemental surveys of streamflow and aquatic ecology 

documented the effects of the AMD on streamwater resources. 

The project data were compiled into a digital database and geographic information system (GIS). The data were used to compute contaminant loading rates, to determine the potential 

effects of the AMD on aquatic ecology, and to identify possible 

remedial priorities and alternatives for watershed rehabilitation. 

The PaDEP, NCCD, and the Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance (SCRA) will use study results for choosing remediation 

alternatives. 

Geology and Mining History

The Western Middle Anthracite coalfield underlies the 

upper Shamokin Creek Basin and parts of the neighboring Mahanoy Creek Basin (Reed and others, 1987). The coalfield is a 

synclinal basin, or “canoe-shaped” structure, that has been subdivided by parallel faults. Sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerate are the dominant lithologies surrounding the coalbeds; limestone has not been mapped within the coalfield (Wood and 

others, 1986; Berg and others, 1989; Eggleston and others, 

1999). In the Shamokin area, a total of 24 coalbeds of the 

Llewellyn and Pottsville Formations of Pennsylvanian Age 

with average thicknesses from 0.6 to 8.3 ft (0.2 to 2.5 m) have 

been identified and mined to depths exceeding 2,500 ft (762 m) 

below land surface (Reed and others, 1987). Most anthracite 

mines were developed as large underground complexes or “collieries” in the valleys, where shafts and tunnels connected mine 

drifts and slopes within multiple coalbeds. Generally, mining 

was conducted by the room-and-pillar method, with barrier pillars left intact between adjacent collieries. 

Anthracite production in Pennsylvania peaked in 1917 at 

more than 100 million short tons, including 6.2 million tons 

from the Shamokin Creek Basin (Gannett Fleming Corddry and 

Carpenter, Inc., 1972; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2001a; Pennsylvania Coal Association, 

2001). During the period of peak production, 95 percent of the 

anthracite was obtained from underground mines. In 2000, less
B

Introduction 3

10 miles

0

0

5 miles

5 kilometers
Figure 2. Shaded relief map showing the upper Shamokin Creek Basin, Pa., bounded by Locust Mountain and Mahanoy Mountains on th

on the north. The surface extent of abandoned mine workings within the basin is apparent at the map scale. Relief based on U.S. Geologi

elevation model (DEM) for the Trevorton, Shamokin, and Mount Carmel quadrangles. 

B GI MOUNTA NI

L TI TLE MOUNTA NI

MAHANOY MOUNTAIN

LO

SHAMOKIN

Mine spoil and pits

Unmined

Mine spoil and pits

0

 20 kilo

10

10 0

5 

N
Introduction 5

than 6 million tons of anthracite were produced in Pennsylvania; only 5.5 percent was obtained from underground mines 

(Pennsylvania Coal Association, 2001). Only a few surface and 

deep mines presently are active in the Shamokin Creek Basin. 

Most mines were closed before 1960 and the mines flooded 

when ground-water pumping ceased.

Within the upper Shamokin Creek Basin, the underground 

mine complexes extended beneath most of the North Branch 

Shamokin Creek, Locust Creek, Quaker Run, and Coal Run, as 

well as extensive parts of Carbon Run and Shamokin Creek 

upstream from Shamokin (Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1972; Reed and others, 1987). Mining-induced 

subsidence and fracturing have promoted leakage of water to 

and from the underground mines. When the mines were active, 

some stream channels were lined artificially to reduce leakage 

and to reduce the costs of pumping ground water from the 

mines. Nevertheless, upon closure of the mines, leakage 

resumed from sections of these channels and elsewhere, and 

large volumes of the mine complexes flooded producing underground “mine pools.” 

Extensive parts of the abandoned underground mines that 

underlie the valley are flooded, and numerous areas within the 

valley and along the valley slopes have not been reclaimed or 

revegetated. Barren, steep banks of spoil and culm and fine coal 

debris in overflowing or incised siltation basins are sources of 

sediment (suspended solids), acidity, metals, and sulfate in 

water that infiltrates or runs off the surface. In parts of the basin, 

surface flow is diverted through subsidence pits, fractures, and 

mine openings to the underground mines (Gannett Fleming 

Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1972; Reed and others, 1987). In 

downstream reaches, the water resurges as “acidic” or “abandoned” mine drainage (AMD) contaminating Shamokin Creek 

and its tributaries, while contributing substantially to streamflow. The AMD constitutes a substantial portion of base flow, 

especially during low-flow or drought conditions (Becher, 

1991). 

Discharges typically emanate from tunnels, slopes, air 

shafts, and other passages, including fractures in stream channels, and other topographically low points overlying the mine 

complex. Many of the same streams that lose water to underground mines in the upper reaches, gain water from mine discharges in their lower reaches. In some cases, the mine complexes extended beyond surface-water divides, enabling the 

transfer of surface and ground water between adjacent stream 

basins. For example, water originating in the Shamokin Creek 

Basin discharges to the Mahanoy Creek Basin from the 

Doutyville, Helfenstein, Locust Gap, and Centralia Mine Discharges, whereas water is conveyed from the Mahanoy Creek 

Basin through interconnected mine complexes to become part 

of the overflow from the Henry Clay Stirling discharge (SR49) 

in the Shamokin Creek Basin (Reed and others, 1987). Because 

the underground mine complexes were extensive, their discharge volumes tend to be substantially greater and more continuous than those from less extensive surface mines or spoil 

piles. 

Land Use

The Shamokin Creek Basin lies in the Appalachian Mountains section of the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province 

(Way, 1999). This area is characterized by complexly deformed 

strata and elongate, northeast-southwest trending ridges that 

bound narrow valleys. Because of their steep slopes and thin 

rocky soils, the ridges tend to be forested and sparsely developed. Urban, industrial, and agricultural land uses predominate 

in the valleys. The northwestern two- thirds, or lower part, of 

the Shamokin Creek Basin is in the Northern Shale Valleys and 

Slopes Ecoregion where agricultural land use predominates 

(Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 

2001a). The southeastern third, or upper part, of the basin is in 

the Anthracite Coal Ecoregion (Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, 2001a). 

Land use in the 137-mi2 (350-km2) Shamokin Creek Basin 

has been classified as 61 percent forested, 32 percent agricultural, and 7 percent “barren, mined” or urban (Myers and 

Bishop, 1999; U.S. Geological Survey, 2000). Nevertheless, 

this land-use classification may be misleading because, in the 

upper basin, abandoned underground mines extend beneath 

much of the surface and “natural” reforestation conceals large 

tracts of unreclaimed spoil. Considering the extent of “spoil” 

and other land-use patterns depicted by USGS topographic 

maps, land use in the upper 54-mi2 (140 km2) Shamokin Creek 

Basin could be classified as 57 percent forested, 38 percent 

“mine spoils,” 5 percent urban, and less than 1 percent agricultural. Hence, although the anthracite industry largely is inactive, 

mining could be considered a major land use within the valley 

of the upper basin. 

Water Quality

The Shamokin Basin contains 413 mi (661 km) of streams, 

of which 113 mi (181 km) or 27 percent are listed as degraded 

by AMD (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 1996, 1998, 2001a, 2001b). The streams affected by AMD 

include the North Branch Shamokin Creek, Locust Creek, 

Quaker Run, Coal Run, and Carbon Run, as well as Shamokin 

Creek (fig. 1). Despite dilution by unaffected tributaries in the 

lower basin, the AMD has degraded the aquatic habitat of 

Shamokin Creek to its mouth on the Susquehanna River (Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1972; Reed and others, 1987; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2001a, 2001d). 

Generally, AMD can have low pH and elevated concentrations (above background) of dissolved sulfate (SO4

2-), iron 

(Fe2+, Fe3+), manganese (Mn2+), aluminum (Al3+), and other 

metals that result from the oxidation of pyrite (FeS2) and the 

dissolution of carbonate, oxide, and aluminosilicate minerals by 

acidic water (Rose and Cravotta, 1998).

FeS2 + 3.5 O2 + H2O → Fe2+ + 2 SO4

2- + 2 H+

(1)
6 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin

Fe2+ + 0.25 O2 + H+ → Fe3+ + 0.5 H2O (2)

Fe3+ + 3 H2O → Fe(OH)3 + 3 H+(3)

Pyrite oxidation (reaction 1) takes place where oxygen (O2) and 

moisture are available. Infiltrating water or surface runoff can 

dissolve and transport the acidic oxidation products. In contrast 

with SO4

2-, which is transported primarily as a dissolved ion, Fe 

can be transported as ferrous (Fe2+) and ferric (Fe3+) ions and 

as suspended Fe(III) solids. In the presence of O2, highly soluble Fe2+ tends to oxidize to relatively insoluble Fe3+ (reaction 

2). At pH >3, concentrations of Fe3+ tend to be limited by the 

formation of Fe(III) oxyhydroxides and related solids (reaction 

3). The complete, stoichiometric oxidation of pyrite is indicated 

by combining reactions 1, 2, and 3. Half of the protons (H+), or 

acid, produced by the complete oxidation of pyrite results from 

the oxidation of pyritic sulfur to SO4

2- (reaction 1) and the other 

half results from the oxidation of Fe2+ to Fe3+ and its consequent precipitation as Fe(OH)3

 (reactions 2 and 3). 

The acid produced by pyrite oxidation or by hydrolysis can 

be neutralized by reaction with calcite (CaCO3), dolomite 

[CaMg(CO3)2], and other calcareous minerals. 

CaCO3 + H+ = Ca2+ + HCO3

-

(4)

CaMg(CO3)2 + 2 H+ = Ca2+ + Mg2+ + 2 HCO3

-

(5)

These calcareous minerals are the dominant components of 

limestone and can occur in nodules, cementing agents, or fractures in sandstone, siltstone, shale, and associated strata of coalbearing rocks. Alkalinity, represented by bicarbonate (HCO3

-

), 

and base cations, including calcium (Ca2+) and magnesium 

(Mg2+), are common products of neutralization by these calcareous minerals. Where absent or deficient at a mine site, the 

addition of limestone or other alkalinity-producing materials to 

mine spoil or mine drainage can be effective for prevention or 

neutralization of AMD and the attenuation of metals transport. 

As the pH increases to near- neutral values, concentrations of 

Fe3+, Al3+, and various other metals in AMD generally will 

decline; however, concentrations of SO4

2-, Fe2+, and Mn2+ generally will not be affected (Blowes and Ptacek, 1994; Cravotta 

and Trahan, 1999; Cravotta and others, 1999).

The pH of AMD at its point of emergence can be unstable 

because of a general tendency for the exsolution of dissolved 

carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S), the dissolution of O2

, and the consequent oxidation and hydrolysis of dissolved iron and manganese (Rose and Cravotta, 1998; Cravotta 

and others, 1999). AMD that initially has near-neutral pH (from 

6 to 7) ultimately could have acidic pH (<4.5) after its complete 

oxidation. The “hot” acidity measures the sum of all acidity that 

must be neutralized to successfully treat the AMD. This 

summed acidity is due to the oxidation and (or) hydrolysis of 

dissolved iron (reactions 2 and 3), manganese, aluminum, and 

other cations (Greenberg and others, 1992; Rose and Cravotta, 

1998). The final pH of a water after oxidation and hydrolysis 

can be estimated by measuring the pH of water after peroxide 

has been added and the sample left open to the atmosphere for 

3 to 5 days. Net-alkaline samples with alkalinity in excess of 

acidity (negative acidity) tend to remain near neutral; however, 

net-acidic samples with acidity in excess of alkalinity (positive 

acidity) tend have acidic pH after complete oxidation. Hence, 

the characterization of AMD as acidic or neutral and the evaluation of appropriate remediation should consider the pH, hot 

acidity, alkalinity, and concentrations of dissolved metals. 

Although sewage-treatment facilities serve the larger 

municipalities in the study area, direct discharges of raw sewage 

and leaky on-lot septic systems degrade local stream sections 

throughout the basin (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2001a, 2001d). A plan to address the large 

number of combined sewer overflows currently is under development for some municipalities in the basin (Leanne Bjorklund, 

Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance, oral commun., 2003). 

Agricultural practices likely affect the quality of streamwater in 

parts of the western subbasin. However, AMD from abandoned 

anthracite mines is the overwhelming source of stream impairment in the upper basin (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2001a, 2001d). 

Quality Protection and Restoration

Pennsylvania has adopted water-quality criteria intended 

to protect the anticipated uses of streams for (1) the maintenance and propagation of cold-water and warm-water fish; (2) 

water supply for domestic, industrial, livestock, wildlife, and 

irrigation purposes; (3) boating, fishing, and water-contact 

sports; (4) power; and (5) treated waste assimilation (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2002). The main stem Shamokin Creek 

is designated a warm-water fishery (WWF) and its tributaries 

are designated cold-water fisheries (CWF) (Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, 2002). To meet the WWF and CWF designations, the following criteria must be met (Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, 2001a, 2002):

• temperature during July and August not to exceed 66°F 

(18.9°C) or 87°F (30.6°C) for CWF and WWF, respectively;

• dissolved oxygen concentration greater than 5.0 mg/L for 

CWF and 4.0 mg/L for WWF;

• alkalinity not less than 20 mg/L as CaCO3, except where 

natural conditions are less;

• pH not less than 6.0 or greater than 9.0;

• total iron concentration not to exceed 1.5 mg/L as 30-day 

average;

• dissolved iron concentration not to exceed 0.3 mg/L;

• total manganese concentration not to exceed 1.0 mg/L; and 

• total aluminum concentration not to exceed 0.75 mg/L.

The above criteria for chemical constituents have been 

incorporated in recently developed “total maximum daily 

loads” (TMDLs) for Shamokin Creek and its tributaries (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2001a, 

2001b). The intent of the TMDLs is to identify the amount of a 

contaminant that a stream can assimilate without exceeding its 
Introduction 7

water-quality standards. TMDLs have been calculated for each 

of the above contaminants documented as causing impairment. 

However, the criteria for TMDLs are limited to only a few of 

the constituents that may have adverse effects to aquatic organisms or humans. Trace metals such as cobalt, nickel, zinc, and 

cadmium commonly are found in AMD at levels that are above 

background concentrations and may be toxic (Elder, 1988; 

Hyman and Watzlaf, 1997; Rose and Cravotta, 1998; Cravotta 

and others, 2001). Guidelines for the protection of freshwater 

aquatic organisms and human health from these trace metals 

and other contaminants have been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997, 2002a, 2002b) and 

adopted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2001b). 

The restoration of water quality in mining affected areas 

generally involves a combination of remining, land reclamation, and AMD treatment. Remining includes reprocessing of 

culm to separate previously uneconomic coal from waste rock 

and surface mining or “daylighting” of old underground mine 

complexes. Such remining currently is done under stricter environmental regulations than in the past, and it can result in 

reduced infiltration to underground mines and (or) improved 

water quality. Land reclamation can involve the filling of open 

pits or shafts, the removal and (or) revegetation of coal spoil or 

culm banks, and the restoration of stream channels and streamflow. Where reclamation of a mine or mining-related surface 

effects is not possible, treatment of AMD may be necessary to 

neutralize acidity and remove dissolved and suspended metals 

from the hydrologic system. The conventional treatment for 

metal-laden effluent that has excess acidity involves aeration 

and the addition of strong alkaline chemicals (Skousen and others, 1998). Although effective, this “active” treatment approach 

can be expensive because of the high cost of chemical reagents, 

operation, and maintenance. Alternative treatment methods for 

AMD include wetlands and limestone-based systems (Hedin 

and others, 1994; Skousen and others, 1998; Watzlaf and others, 

2000). Generally, for net-acidic AMD, limestone-based treatments such as anoxic limestone drains (ALDs), successive alkalinity producing systems (SAPS), or open limestone channels 

(OLCs) could be appropriate to add alkalinity (fig. 3). For netalkaline AMD, oxidation ponds or aerobic wetlands are useful 

to remove metals as solids. These “passive” treatment systems 

generally require little maintenance but are limited by slower 

rates of neutralization and contaminant removal and, consequently, may require larger land area than for conventional 

“active” treatments. Nevertheless, passive systems can be cost 

effective where water chemistry meets suggested criteria and 

land and component materials are available locally (Skousen 

and others, 1998). 

Operation Scarlift project SL-113 (Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1972) identified 54 mine discharges 

and presented 5 possible plans (including preventative measures and active chemical treatment) to remediate AMD and 

erosion problems in the upper Shamokin Creek Basin. The 

report stated that the recommended plan would remove 92 percent of the iron load and 99 percent of the acidity at a cost of 

$13.4 million (1972 dollars). Another proposal to solve the 

problem would flood the entire valley behind a large dam, presumably by preventing acid formation and diluting the contaminated water (Rahn, 1992). However, because these proposals 

were too costly or impractical, little has been done to mitigate 

the AMD. 

Major changes have occurred in the flow and quality of the 

mine discharges and in the quality of Shamokin Creek in the 

decades since the Operation Scarlift report was completed in 

1972 (Reed and others, 1987; Wood, 1996; Kirby, 1995, 1998). 

Furthermore, passive-treatment systems that recently have been 

developed could be lower cost alternatives to remediate AMD 

compared to active treatment methods. An updated assessment 

of the hydrological and chemical characteristics of the AMD 

and hydrological, chemical, and biological characteristics of the 

receiving streams in the basin is needed to determine the relative effects, priorities, and alternatives for AMD remediation. 

Acknowledgments

Jeffrey J. Chaplin and Jeffrey B. Weitzel of the USGS and 

James Koharski, Leanne Bjorklund, and Nick Bjorklund of the 

SCRA assisted with data collection for the assessment. Michael 

D. Bilger and Robin A. Brightbill of the USGS conducted the 

aquatic ecological surveys. BU students, John Iorio, Sarah Donnelly, Michelle Zalewski, Alex Necochea, and Andrew Graham, provided assistance with the development of the GIS for 

the assessment. Stephen E. Ulceski of NCCD, Jennifer Orr of 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and Kevin J. Breen, 

Kim L. Otto, and James I. Sams of USGS provided helpful 

reviews of early drafts of this report.

Determine flow rate

Analyze water chemistry

Calculate loadings

SETTLING

POND

VFCW

DO <1 mg/L,

Fe3+ <1 mg/L,

Al3+ <2 mg/L

DO >1 mg/L,

Fe3+ >5 mg/L,

Al3+ >3 mg/L

Alkalinity

< Acidity

AERATION

& 

SETTLING

POND

Alkalinity

> Acidity

Alkalinity

< Acidity

MEETS EFFLUENT STANDARDS?

AEROBIC 

WETLAND 

OR 

SETTLING 

POND

DISCHARGE

OR OR

DO >1 mg/L,

Fe3+ <5 mg/L,

Al3+ <3 mg/L

Alkalinity

> Acidity

ANAEROBIC

WETLAND OPEN

LIMESTONE

CHANNEL

SETTLING

POND

ANOXIC

LIMESTONE

DRAIN

OXIC

LIMESTONE

DRAIN

OR

Figure 3. Flow chart for selection of passive treatment alternatives 

modified from Hedin and others (1994), Skousen and others (1998), 

and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (1999). 

Vertical flow compost wetland (VFCW), also known as SAPS or 

RAPS. 
8 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin

Methods of Water-Quality Site Selection, 

Sampling, and Analysis

Before the basin-wide synoptic monitoring was initiated, 

precise locations of the AMD sources and previously sampled 

stream sites were determined. Published data on the locations of 

AMD and stream monitoring sites as reported by Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. (1972), Growitz and others 

(1985), Reed and others (1987), and Wood (1996) and unpublished data from SCRA (Kirby, 1995, 1998) were reviewed, 

compiled, and mapped. Then, during May and June 1999, an 

attempt was made to access each AMD site and document its 

location by use of a global positioning system (GPS). Field 

measurements of flow rate, pH, and specific conductance were 

recorded during the preliminary site visit to assist in the identification of AMD sources. Subsequently, plans were developed 

for synoptic sampling at all the AMD and stream sites by two 

teams and for resumption of streamflow gaging on Shamokin 

Creek. 

To determine the range of hydrologic conditions during 

the assessment, continuous streamflow data were collected at 

the USGS gaging station near Shamokin (station 01554500; 

SC15). This station had been maintained during 1932-1992 by 

the USGS but had been discontinued until the present study. 

During the assessment, stream stage was measured continuously using a chart recorder, and streamflow was measured at 

various stages to verify previous stage-discharge relations for 

the computation of discharge (Rantz and others, 1982a, 1982b). 

A total of 60 AMD sites were identified from various documents; however, only 46 AMD sites ultimately could be 

located and surveyed for the assessment (table 1; fig. 1).

1

 Additionally, 23 stream sites were surveyed (table 2; fig. 1). The 

sampled sites that had been surveyed previously for the Scarlift 

investigation are identified by local identification numbers from 

1 to 54 in column 1 of table 1. Some of the Scarlift site identification numbers have been modified by adding a suffix “A” or 

“B” indicating distinctive seeps or discharges at a specific location. A few Scarlift sites are indicated with hyphenated numbers 

because previously distinctive, nearby AMD sources had been 

combined or could no longer be distinguished. Additional sites 

identified by SCRA and not been reported previously were 

assigned local identification numbers greater than 54 in column 

1 of table 1. Those AMD sites that had been sampled and 

reported by the USGS (Growitz and others, 1985; Reed and others, 1987; Wood, 1996) are indicated by the USGS local identification numbers in columns 2 and 3 of table 1. One of the previous USGS sample sites could not be located for this study. 

Finally, a unique USGS station identification number was 

assigned to identify each of the sampled sites in the USGS 

National Water Information System (NWIS) database (column 

4 of tables 1 and 2). Generally, previously published coordinates were used to assign the station numbers for ground-water 

or AMD sites. In some cases, these station numbers differ 

slightly from the reported latitude and longitude because of 

inconsistency between the current GPS measurement and previously mapped locations or published coordinates. Stream or 

other surface-water sites were assigned USGS station numbers 

based on the relative downstream order within a given watershed (table 2). A few AMD sites had been assigned surfacewater station numbers because they appeared as flowing or 

standing water within a channel or pit. Nevertheless, because of 

their brevity and their widely adopted use by the local authorities (PaDEP, SCRA), the local SCRA site identification numbers are used hereafter. 

Water-quality and flow data for the synoptic surveys were 

collected during low base-flow (August 4-6, 1999) and (or) high 

base-flow (March 14-16, 2000) conditions at the AMD and 

stream sites (tables 1 and 2). Three teams of two persons each 

were deployed to assigned sites with identical sets of monitoring equipment. In accordance with standard methods, each team 

measured the flow rate, temperature, specific conductance 

(SC), dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, pH, and redox 

potential (Eh) when samples were collected using field-calibrated instruments (Wood, 1976; Rantz and others, 1982a, 

1982b; U.S. Geological Survey, 1997 to present). Water samples were collected as 1-liter grab samples as close as possible 

to the discharge location or where streamflow was well mixed, 

avoiding bottom sediments and other debris. The grab samples 

immediately were split into subsamples for field filtration and 

preservation as appropriate. Unfiltered samples for analysis of 

alkalinity, acidity, and major anions were stored in samplerinsed polyethylene bottles filled to exclude head space. Samples for dissolved (0.45-μm filter) and total recoverable (wholewater; in-bottle nitric and hydrochloric acid digestion) metal 

analysis were stored in acid-rinsed polyethylene bottles and 

acidified with nitric acid (HNO3). Ferrous iron samples were 

preserved with hydrochloric acid (HCl). Nutrient samples were 

preserved with sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Bacteria samples were 

stored in sterilized, amber glass bottles. All samples were stored 

at 4°C until laboratory analyses could be completed. 

Major ions, metals, and nutrients in the low and high baseflow water samples were analyzed at the USGS National WaterQuality Laboratory in Denver, Colo., and the PaDEP Laboratory in Harrisburg, Pa., respectively, by inductively coupled 

plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES), ion chromatography (IC), colorimetry, and electrometric titration following methods of Greenberg and others (1992), Fishman and 

Friedman (1989), and Fishman (1993). Each of the AMD samples was analyzed for major ions and dissolved metals; the 

1Only 39 of the 54 AMD sites identified in the Scarlift report (Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1972) could be locat ed and sampled for the current assessment. The AMD sites that could not be located had been reported previously to have small flow rates, ranging from 0 to 0.015 ft3

/s (254 L/min). The 

Scarlift site locations were shown on maps; however, the map projections and site coordinates were not provided. Some of the previously reported sites simply 

could not be found; others currently may not exist. 
a. Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance (SCRA) site numbers based on Scarlift report of Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. (1972). Locations of these sites and some additional sites 

from the Scarlift report that were not sampled are shown in figure 1.

b. Reed and others (1987)..

c. Growitz and others (1985). These numbers also were reported by Wood (1996).

d. Watershed areas are shown in figure 1. NBSC=North Branch Shamokin Cr.; USC=Upper Shamokin Cr.; MSC=Middle Shamokin Cr.; LSC=Lower Shamokin Cr.; COR=Coal Run; CR=Carbon 

Run; LC=Locust Cr.; QR=Quaker Run.

e. Water-quality and flow data collected for low base-flow conditions on August 4-6, 1999, and (or) high base-flow conditions on March 14-16, 2000. 

22B 97 90 404657076320502 404656.5 763206.1 Royal Oak Mine seep at Marshallton (SR22A) MSC Yes Yes

23 98 91 404619076321901 404617.0 763215.4 Big Mtn Mine No 1 Slope at Big Mountain (SR23) MSC Yes Yes

28 -- -- 404634076322301 404634 763223 Henry Clay Stirling Mine seepage nr Big Mountain (SR27) MSC Yes Yes

29 -- -- 404643076323801 404643.6 763238.0 Royal Oak Mine discharge at Shamokin (SR29) MSC Yes Yes

30 -- -- 404641076323701 404641 763238 Royal Oak Mine seep at Shamokin (SR30) MSC Yes Yes

31-32 -- -- 404838076281001 404838.4 762810.1 Greenough Mine discharge nr Marion Heights (SR31-32) QR Yes Yes

31A -- -- -- 404840 762810 Natalie Mine drift nr Marion Heights QR Nof

f. Natalie Mine drift not found; presumably combined with Greenough Mine discharge as site 31-32.

No

36 99 -- 404728076340901 404728 763409 Nielson Mine Drainage Tunnel at Shamokin (SR36) COR No No

36A -- -- 404725076323501 404725.8 763235.1 Luke Fiddler Mine discharge at Shamokin (SR36A) COR Dry Dryg

g. Luke Fiddler Mine discharge not flowing when visited in August 1999 and March 2000. However, substantial flow was sampled in April 2000 by Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance. 

36B -- -- 404724076324201 404725.0 763242.7 Royal Oak Mine discharge at Shamokin (SR36B) COR Yes Yes

37 -- -- 404631076373001 404631.9 763731.0 Bear Valley Mine discharge nr Kulps (SR37) CR Yes Yes

38A 109 101 404754076372801 404654.3 763732.0 Bear Valley Mine seep nr Kulps (SR38A) CR Yes Yes

39 110 102 404642076373001 404642.5 763729.1 Bear Valley strip pool overflow nr Kulps (SR39) CR Yes Yes

40B -- -- 404636076373501 404637.4 763735.7 Bear Valley Mine discharge nr Kulps (SR40B) CR Yes Yes

40C -- -- 404637076373401 404637.8 763734.0 Bear Valley Mine discharge nr Kulps (SR40C) CR Yes Yes

41 -- -- 404622076364601 404622.7 763646.4 KMK Coal Co. No. 14, vein s, nr Kulps (SR41) CR Yes Yes

42 108 100 404618076365901 404619.3 763656.4 Bear Valley Mine, N Mtn Tunnel nr Kulps (SR42) CR Yes Yes

43 -- -- 404618076361001 404618.3 763610.8 Bear Valley Mine discharge nr Shamokin (SR43) CR Yes Yes

44 -- -- 404628076361201 404628.5 763613.0 Bear Valley Mine discharge nr Kulps (SR44) CR No Yes

45 -- -- 404625076352701 404625.3 763527.1 Henry Clay Stirling Mine discharge nr Shamokin (SR45) CR Yes Yes

46 107 99 404614076351101 404615.4 763513.1 Bear Valley Mine seep at Bear Valley (SR46) CR Yes Yes

47 -- -- 404614076351001 404614.7 763510.2 Bear Valley Mine discharge at Bear Valley (SR47) CR Yes Yes

48 106 98 404643076344701 404644.4 763444.1 Henry Clay Stirling Mine seep at Shamokin (SR48) CR Yes Yes

49 105 97 404637076340701 404638.2 763405.0 Henry Clay Stirling Mine Pump Slope at Shamokin (SR49) CR Yes Yes

50 103 95 404730076335201 404730 763352 Cameron Mine seepage at Shamokin (SR50) LSC No No

51 104 96 404731076334601 404737.7 763353.9 Cameron Mine discharge at Shamokin (SR51) LSC Yes Yes

51A 101 93 404737076335501 404737.7 763353.1 Cameron Mine Drift at Shamokin (SR51A) LSC Yes Yes

52 102 94 404735076335401 404738.1 763354.1 Cameron Mine discharge at Shamokin (SR52) LSC No Yes

53 100 92 404744076335901 404746.9 763356.4 Cameron Mine Air Shaft at Shamokin (SR53) LSC Yes Yes

54 -- -- 404748076335701 404748.3 763357.7 Cameron Mine seep at Shamokin (SR54) LSC Yes Yes

55 -- -- 404817076261201 404817 762612 Richard's Shaft Mine Drift nr Atlas (SR55) NBSC Dry Yesh

h. Sample was not collected but was estimated on the basis of samples from upstream and downstream sites (SC3B, SC3D) on North Branch Shamokin Creek.

56 -- -- 404848076241801 404848.2 762418.9 Mid Valley Mine discharge at Wilburton (SR56) NBSC Yes Yes

election, Sampling, and Analysis 9
Table 2. Description of stream sites surveyed in 1999-2000 for the Shamokin Creek watershed assessment, Pennsylvania

[n.a., not applicable; latitude and longitude listed without degree, minute, and second symbols; 404821.1 represents 40°48'21.1" north latit

represents 76°25'48.2" west longitude]

SCRA Site 

Number

a

a. Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance (SCRA) site numbers based on Scarlift report of Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. (1972) .

AMD Sources

b

b . AMD sources identified by SCRA site numbers in table 1. If the site is downstream from another stream monitoring site, the AMD a ssociated with that site, in 

USGS 

Station 

Identification 

Number

Latitude Longitude Site Name

c. Water-quality and flow data collected for low base-flow conditions on August 4-6, 1999, and (or) high base-flow conditions on March 14-16, 2000. Aquatic ec

normal base-flow conditions October 6, 1999. 

SC1 None n.a. 404757 762312 Shamokin Creek nr Mount Carmel (SC1) 

SC2 6-7 01554300 404729 762626.8 Shamokin Creek at Atlas (SC2) 

SC3A 1-4,5A-B,56 01554270 404821.1 762548.2 North Branch Shamokin Cr at Mount Carmel (SC3

SC3B (SC3A) 01554271 404821 762546 North Branch Shamokin Cr at Mount Carmel (SC3

SC3C (SC3B) 01554273 404814 762606 North Branch Shamokin Cr at Mount Carmel (SC3

SC3D (SC3C),55 01554280 404755.5 762611.4 North Branch Shamokin Cr nr Mount Carmel (SC3

LC4 8-10 01554452 404651 762652.6 Locust Creek at Locust Gap (LC4) 

EX5 13,14 01554456 404620.6 762946.6 Unnamed tributary to Shamokin Cr at Excelsior (

SC6 (SC3D,SC2,LC4,EX5),11,12,15 01554460 404700.6 763120 Shamokin Creek at Ranshaw (SC6) 

QR7 None 01554462 404713 763000 Quaker Run nr Kulpmont (QR7) 

QR8 (QR7),16-21 01554465 404701.4 763120.6 Quaker Run at Ranshaw (QR8) 

BM9 23-28 01554469 404636.1 763223.3 Big Mountain Mine (Buck Run), nr Shamokin (BM

SC10 (SC6,QR8,BM9),22A-B,29,30 01554471 404729.7 763311.4 Shamokin Creek at Shamokin ( SC10) 

COR11 31-35,36A-B,57 01554478 404729.8 763311.4 Coal Run at Shamokin (COR11) 

SC11 (SC10,COR11) 01554479 404721.4 763346.3 Shamokin Creek ab Carbon Run at Shamokin (SC

TR41 37-41 01554481 404622.7 763646.4 Unnamed tributary to Carbon Run nr Shamokin (T

CR1 None 01554482 404614.7 763732.2 Carbon Run nr Trevorton (CR1) 

CR2 None 01554483 404620 763643 Carbon Run ab unnamed tributary nr Shamokin (C

BU Pond

d

d . Treated effluent from vertical-flow compost wetland system at SR42 is discharged to BU Pond.

42 01554484 404619.3 763641.2 Unnamed pond along Carbon Run nr Shamokin 

CR4 (CR2, TR41), 42-44 01554486 404625.5 763527.8 Carbon Run nr Shamokin (CR4) 

CR5 (CR4),45-48 01554488 404637.7 763408.2 Carbon Run at Shamokin (CR5) 

CR12 (CR5),49 01554489 404721.4 763346.4 Carbon Run at Shamokin (CR12) 

FR13 None 01554490 404721.4 763346.5 Furnace Run at Shamokin (FR13) 

SC14 (SC ab CR, CR12, FR13), 50-54 01554492 404808 763403 Shamokin Creek at Uniontown (SC14) 

SC15 (SC14) 01554500 404837 763504 Shamokin Creek nr Shamokin (SC15) 

SC16 (SC15) 01554578 405145 764636 Shamokin Creek nr Sunbury ( SC16) 
Methods of Water-Quality Site Selection, Sampling, and Analysis 11

high base-flow samples also were analyzed for total recoverable 

metals. The streamwater samples were analyzed for the same 

suite of constituents as the AMD samples plus inorganic nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite) and phosphorus. Charge 

imbalances were calculated as the difference between cation 

and anion equivalents relative to the mean of cation and anion 

equivalents, and routinely were less than 10 percent. Duplicates 

and USGS Standard Reference Water Samples that were submitted with each set of samples indicated overall precision and 

accuracy within 5 percent for all constituents. Deionized water 

blanks and filter blanks routinely indicated concentrations 

below detection for all analytes. 

Selected low base-flow samples were analyzed simultaneously for total coliform and Escherichia coli bacteria using 

standard membrane-filtration techniques and the m-ColiBlue24 

Broth nutritive medium (Hach Company, 1999). Commercially 

sterilized and individually wrapped 0.45-μm gridded filters, 

media, and petri dishes were used. Samples were collected 

using glass bottles and stainless-steel filtration apparatus that 

had been sterilized by autoclaving. A 100-ml sample was vacuum filtered, and the filter immediately was placed on the nutritive media in a disposable petri dish, covered, inverted, and 

stored at 4°C for up to 5 hours. After collection, the inverted 

samples were incubated at 35°C for 24 hours in a portable incubator. Red colonies were counted as total coliform and blue colonies were counted as E. coli. 

Fish were collected by electrofishing over a 500-ft (150-

m) reach consisting of mixed riffle, run, and pool habitats at 

selected stream sites, held for measurement and identification, 

checked for anomalies, and then released in accordance with 

methods described by Meador and others (1993a, 1993b), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (1993), and Bilger and others (1999). In 1999, selected large specimens (>25-cm) of white 

sucker (Catostomus commersoni) from the reach below the 

USGS streamflow-gaging station on Shamokin Creek below 

Shamokin were sacrificed for analysis of trace metals in whole 

fish. Six specimens were frozen for transport to the laboratory 

in accordance with preparation protocols (Hoffman, 1996). The 

whole-fish samples were homogenized to form a single composite, and a subsample was dried and acid-extracted for analysis of trace metals by ICP-AES, inductively coupled plasmamass spectrometry, or cold vapor-atomic absorption spectrophotometry at the USGS NWQL in Denver, Colo. (Hoffman, 

1996). 

The data assembled for the assessment were incorporated 

into digital databases, including the USGS NWIS, spreadsheets, 

and a GIS. These data are summarized by site in appendix B. 

The water-quality data also are accessible on the World Wide 

Web as an organized project on Pennsylvania Spatial Data 

Access (PASDA; http://www.pasda.psu.edu/access/shamcrk.shtml) or for selected stations and dates on the USGS NWIS 

(http://wwwpah2o.er.usgs.gov/).

Relative ranks of AMD sites were determined and compared on the basis of ranks of contaminant loads during low and 

high base-flow conditions. Because acidity of AMD is largely a 

function of the pH and dissolved metal concentrations, prioritization methods evaluated acidity or metals loading for ranking 

the AMD sources using an approach similar to that of Williams 

and others (1996, 1999). The metals loading was computed as 

the product of flow rate and the sum of concentrations of the 

metals as

Metal load (Mg/yr) = f.Q

.

(CFe + CMn + CAl), (6)

where Q is the instantaneous flow rate in cubic feet per second 

and C with a subscript Fe, Mn, or Al indicates iron, manganese, 

or aluminum concentration, respectively, in milligrams per 

liter. For these units of measure, the conversion factor, f = 

0.894, yields annual loading in kilograms, whereas f = 1.97 

yields annual loading in pounds. 

Although acidity was measured on refrigerated, tightly 

sealed samples by hot peroxide titration for the high base-flow 

samples (Greenberg and others, 1992) and by cold peroxide 

titration for the low base-flow samples (Fishman and Friedman, 

1989), the interpretation of these measured acidities for AMD 

can be debated (Kirby, 2002). Therefore, acidity for all the samples was computed from pH and dissolved metals concentrations in milligrams per liter as

Aciditycomputed (mg/L CaCO3) = 50.(10(3-pH) + 2.CFe/55.85 + 

2

.CMn/54.94 + 3.CAl/26.98). (7)

The computed acidity avoids issues of different analytical 

methods, the lack of reporting negative values, or an assumed 

value of zero for near-neutral pH samples. However, it also 

involves assumptions regarding valence or speciation of the dissolved metals.2

 The net alkalinity was computed by subtracting 

the computed acidity from measured alkalinity as

Net alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3) = Alkalinity - Aciditycomputed.(8)

The net alkalinity on the basis of computed acidity (equations 7 

and 8) should be similar to the measured “hot” acidity where 

acid added at the start of the titration is subtracted from the total 

base consumed and negative values of the acidity for high-pH 

samples are reported. 

The physical setting (area available for treatment, slope), 

maximum measured flow, and specific water-quality data for 

2Equivalents as H+

 (OH- neutralizing capacity) of 2 per mole of Fe and Mn and 3 per mole of Al were assumed considering the potential for the dissolved metals to hydrolyze over a pH range from 2.5 to 8.0, on the basis of hydrolysis constants, pK1 and pK2, at 25 °C from Ball and Nordstrom (1991). Uncomplexed ferrous (Fe2+) and manganous (Mn2+) ions have 2 equivalents per mole and tend to be dominant species in AMD with pH <9 (pK1

 = 9.5, Fe2+ → Fe(OH)+; pK1 = 

10.6, Mn2+ → Mn(OH)+). At pH >2.2, dissolved ferric iron has less than 3 equivalents per mole because of the tendency for Fe3+ to form hydroxyl complexes 

(pK1 = 2.2, Fe3+ → Fe(OH) 2+; pK2 = 3.5, Fe(OH)2+ → Fe(OH)2

+

). At pH <5, uncomplexed aluminum (Al3+) ions, with 3 equivalents per mole, are prevalent 

(pK1 = 5.0, Al3+ → Al(OH) 2+; pK2 = 5.2, Al(OH)2+ → Al(OH)2

+

). 
12 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin

each AMD source including minimum net alkalinity (equation 

8) and maximum concentrations of dissolved oxygen and metals for the low and high base-flow samples were used to determine feasibility of remediation. Guidelines similar to those 

introduced by Hedin and others (1994) and modified by 

Skousen and others (1998) were used for the identification of 

appropriate remedial alternatives (fig. 3). Consideration was 

given to remining or removal of culm banks, various passivetreatment technologies, active treatment, and the “no-action” 

alternative. Computed wetland size, based on the 180 lb/acre/

day (20 g/m2/d) iron-loading rate criteria of Hedin and others 

(1994), was compared with available land area to indicate feasibility for implementation of passive treatment at each site. 

Effects of Abandoned Mine Drainage in the 

Shamokin Creek Basin

Data for flow rate, pH, acidity, alkalinity, and metals concentrations in samples from each AMD and stream site surveyed for the Shamokin Creek watershed assessment during 

low base-flow conditions in August 1999 and high base-flow 

conditions in March 2000 are summarized in table 3 and figure 

4. All data on the concentrations of major ions, nutrients, and 

additional constituents are documented in appendix B. 

Instantaneous streamflow ranged from 0 to 301 ft3/s (0 to 

511,459 L/ min); the medians for the low and high base-flow 

surveys were 2.7 and 7.4 ft3/s (4,587 to 12,574 L/min), respectively (table 3, fig. 4). Corresponding flow rates of AMD ranged 

from 0 to 19 ft3/s (0 to 32,285 L/min); the medians for the low 

and high base-flow surveys were 0.01 and 0.18 ft3/s (17 to 306 

L/min), respectively. With few exceptions, the flow rate at each 

stream and AMD site during March 2000 exceeded that during 

August 1999 (fig. 4). Despite differences in flow rates, the pH 

and other chemical characteristics of water at a given AMD or 

stream site generally were similar for low and high base-flow 

conditions (table 3, fig. 4). Furthermore, the concentrations of 

“dissolved” metals in 0.45-μm-filtered high base-flow samples 

were similar to the concentrations of “total recoverable” metals 

in corresponding unfiltered samples (fig. 5). 

Sulfate concentrations in the low and high base-flow AMD 

samples ranged from 8 to 800 mg/L (fig. 4). Sulfate concentrations in streamwater samples did not exceed 630 mg/L. The 

maximum concentration of sulfate in AMD or streamwater 

samples was recorded for high base-flow conditions. Median 

concentrations of sulfate for AMD or streamwater samples for 

low and high base-flow conditions were equivalent. Generally, 

sulfate concentrations for a particular site were similar or 

greater during high base-flow than low base-flow conditions

(fig. 4). Greater sulfate concentration at high base-flow than at 

low base-flow conditions indicates that recharge during the 

winter 1999 and spring 2000 was effective mobilizing pyrite 

oxidation products and was not effective as a diluting agent. 

Iron concentrations in the low and high base-flow AMD 

samples ranged from 0.02 to 57.4 mg/L, and in streamwater 

samples ranged from 0.07 to 22.0 mg/L (fig. 4, table 3). Generally, iron concentrations for a particular site were similar or 

greater during high base-flow than low base-flow conditions. 

For samples containing more than 1.0 mg/L (1,000 μg/L) dissolved iron, the concentrations of dissolved and total iron were 

equivalent (fig. 5). More than two-thirds of streamwater samples exceeded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2002) 

instream criteria for total recoverable iron (1.5 mg/L) and dissolved iron (0.3 mg/L). Most streamwater samples also 

exceeded continuous exposure criteria for protection of aquatic 

life from dissolved iron (1 mg/L) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002a). Approximately half the AMD samples 

exceeded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1998a, 1998b) 

criteria for maximum concentration of iron in effluent from an 

active mine (6 mg/L).

Manganese concentrations in the low and high base-flow 

AMD samples ranged from <0.01 to 10 mg/L, and in streamwater samples ranged from 0.05 to 7.6 mg/L (fig. 4, table 3). Generally, manganese was present as a dissolved constituent in the 

streamwater and AMD samples (dissolved = total), and concentrations for a particular site were similar during high base-flow 

and low base-flow conditions. More than two-thirds of the 

streamwater samples exceeded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2002) instream criteria for total recoverable manganese 

(1.0 mg/L) (fig. 5). About one-fifth of the AMD samples 

exceeded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1998a, 1998b) 

criteria for maximum concentration of manganese in effluent 

from an active mine (4.0 mg/L).

Aluminum concentrations in the low and high base-flow 

AMD samples ranged from <0.01 to 57 mg/L, and in streamwater samples ranged from 0.01 to 7.0 mg/L (fig. 4, table 3). Generally, aluminum concentrations for a particular site were similar during high base-flow and low base-flow conditions. 

Maximum and highest median concentrations were associated 

with AMD at low base-flow conditions. For samples containing 

more than 1.0 mg/L (1,000 μg/L) dissolved aluminum, the concentrations of dissolved and total aluminum were equivalent 

(fig. 5). More than three-fourths of the streamwater samples and 

three-fourths of the AMD samples exceeded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2002) instream criteria for total recoverable aluminum (0.75 mg/L). Most streamwater samples also 

exceeded continuous exposure criteria for protection of aquatic 

life from dissolved aluminum (0.087 mg/L) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002a). 

Although criteria for water-quality protection apply to the 

total metals concentrations (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

1998a, 1998b, 2001a, 2002), the dissolved concentrations generally are considered to be bioavailable (Elder, 1988; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002a). Thus, the “dissolved 

concentration” data for the 0.45-μm filtered samples can be 

evaluated directly with respect to aquatic-toxicity criteria. Furthermore, the dissolved metals loading is required for the selection and sizing of AMD treatment systems (fig. 3) and, as indicated by equations 7 and 8, the dissolved metals concentrations 

are included in the measurement and evaluation of acidity and 

net alkalinity. Thus, hereinafter, dissolved metals concentra-
a. Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance (SCRA) site numbers based on Scarlift report of Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. (1972). Site descriptions are given in tables 1 and 2. Site 

locations are shown in figure 1. Complete data for sampled sites are given in appendix A.

b . For convenience, flow rate is given in English and metric units; 1 ft

3

/s = 1,699 L/min.

c. Net alkalinity = measured alkalinity - computed acidity per equations 7 and 8. 

d . Total nitrogen = ammonia + nitrate + nitrite in filtered sample; expressed as nitrogen. 

e. Metals loading computed per equation 6.

Abandoned Mine Drainage (GW)

1 0.01 0.2 17 340 10.0 9.4 3.0 3.3 -384 -111 6.5 2.1 57. 14. 2.9 1.1 540 220 0.52 0.43 0.59 3.27

2 .04 .1 68 170 8.0 7.1 3.1 2.9 -198 -265 2.9 4.0 26. 33. 4.7 5.4 390 710 .15 n.d. 1.2 3.39

3 .01 .08 10 136 .4 .2 3.5 3.2 -206 -275 15. 20. 28. 36. 4.4 5.1 490 760 n.d. n.d. .25 4.28

4 .5 1.3 850 2,209 8.4 9.1 3.6 3.5 -41 -52 1.1 3.7 4.3 4.6 1.8 1.9 99 150 n.d. n.d. 3.22 11.5

5A 0 1.4 0 2,379 n.d. .5 n.d. 3.8 n.d. -51 n.d. 10. n.d. 3.9 n.d. 2.2 n.d. 160 n.d. .12 0 24.7

5B 2.7 5 4,588 8,496 .4 .7 4.0 3.8 -54 -51 12. 9.9 4.3 3.9 2.2 2.2 140 160 n.d. n.d. 44.6 85.2

6 n.d. .02 n.d. 34 n.d. 5.2 n.d. 4.7 n.d. -6 n.d. .97 n.d. .42 n.d. 1.6 n.d. 16 n.d. n.d. n.d. .03

8 0 .68 0 1,155 5.9 11.5 3.3 3.4 -120 -52 1.6 .25 15. 5.3 5.0 1.3 360 160 n.d. n.d. 0 3.63

10 .01 .04 9 68 5.1 11.2 2.6 2.6 -373 -305 14. 16. 38. 26. 6.0 3.6 690 630 n.d. n.d. .26 1.59

11 0 .25 0 425 n.d. 12.6 n.d. 3.5 n.d. -115 n.d. .25 n.d. 17.1 n.d. 2.2 n.d. 370 n.d. n.d. 0 3.92

12 7.2 14 12,234 23,789 4.1 6.5 5.8 5.7 -8 -31 28. 30. .06 <.20 2.9 3.2 230 240 n.d. .40 199. 464.

13 n.d. .02 n.d. 34 n.d. 3.0 n.d. 4.7 n.d. -2 n.d. .20 n.d. .35 n.d. .36 n.d. 25 n.d. n.d. n.d. .01

15 .92 2.5 1,563 4,248 2.3 4.8 4.2 4.4 -123 -138 35. 46. 8.6 8.3 5.0 4.8 380 510 n.d. n.d. 40. 130.

19 9.4 19 15,972 32,285 1.9 1.4 5.9 5.8 -20 -20 24. 30. .09 <.20 3.5 3.7 230 270 n.d. n.d. 232. 520.

20 1.9 1.6 3,228 2,719 .3 7.9 6.0 6.0 -18 -23 26. 30. .05 <.20 3.7 3.7 260 270 n.d. n.d. 50.5 50.3

21 .56 4.3 952 7,307 4.1 5.6 6.1 6.4 45 69 18. 23. .01 <.20 2.6 2.8 230 240 n.d. n.d. 10.3 88.8

22A .01 .22 17 374 .8 .6 5.8 5.8 -4 16 16. 13. .04 <.20 2.5 2.4 260 240 .15 n.d. .17 2.73

22B .01 .9 9 1,529 2.3 2.8 5.8 5.9 4 13 14. 11. .01 <.20 2.3 2.2 240 230 .28 n.d. .07 9.89

23 .51 3.6 867 6,117 4.0 .1 3.7 4.1 -112 -106 25. 28. 7.8 7.0 7.4 7.1 470 630 n.d. n.d. 18.3 134.

28 .01 .14 17 238 6.5 5.2 3.4 3.4 -72 -67 .27 .13 6.9 6.2 7.1 6.9 440 560 n.d. n.d. .13 .8

29 .5 .26 850 442 1.1 .7 5.4 5.5 -10 -11 9.5 11. .07 <.20 2.4 2.7 190 200 .20 n.d. 5.35 3.76

30 .01 .01 9 17 7.0 9.8 3.6 3.6 -28 -53 1.5 4.0 1.2 4.9 3.6 3.7 450 460 .15 n.d. .03 .11

31-32 .01 .04 17 68 7.7 7.9 3.4 3.5 -48 -77 .08 .18 4.5 10. 1.4 1.7 160 270 n.d. n.d. .05 .4

36A 0 0 0 0 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 0 0

36B .01 .02 9 34 1.6 2.4 5.4 4.4 -26 -8 13. .04 .04 .69 1.1 1.1 170 200 .95 n.d. .06 .02

37 0 .01 0 17 n.d. 6.6 n.d. 5.1 n.d. -5 n.d. .32 n.d. .48 n.d. 1.2 n.d. 83 n.d. n.d. 0 .01

38A .04 .03 68 51 6.4 8.0 6.5 6.7 18 21 .02 .08 .01 <.20 <.01 .01 32 34 n.d. n.d. 0 .01

39 .01 .07 9 119 4.9 4.8 6.2 6.0 18 6 .05 10. .01 <.20 .08 3.3 66 100 n.d. n.d. 0 .74

40B 0 .04 0 68 n.d. 5.8 n.d. 5.8 n.d. 6 n.d. .19 n.d. <.20 n.d. .25 n.d. 68 n.d. n.d. 0 .04

40C .01 .08 17 136 40.0 5.9 6.2 6.0 15 6 .24 .10 <.01 <.20 .54 .16 73 68 n.d. n.d. .01 .03

41 0 .01 0 17 n.d. 4.4 n.d. 5.9 n.d. 1 n.d. 3.7 n.d. <.20 n.d. 1.2 n.d. 30 n.d. n.d. 0 .05

42 .4 1.1 680 1,869 1.4 4.4 5.2 5.9 -8 -14 6.7 14. .01 <.20 1.9 1.8 160 150 n.d. n.d. 3.08 15.6

43 0 .04 0 68 n.d. 9.0 n.d. 4.2 n.d. -17 n.d. .14 n.d. 1.61 n.d. 2.8 n.d. 220 n.d. n.d. 0 .07

44 n.d. .02 n.d. 34 n.d. 8.4 n.d. 5.8 n.d. 4 n.d. 1.5 n.d. <.20 n.d. .22 n.d. 8 n.d. n.d. n.d. .04

45 0 .01 0 17 n.d. 8.9 n.d. 4.6 n.d. -4 n.d. .12 n.d. .62 n.d. .83 n.d. 110 n.d. n.d. 0 .01

46 .01 .2 9 340 .6 7.2 3.3 3.8 -50 -58 .21 .10 3.7 8.0 2.0 3.1 180 320 n.d. n.d. .03 1.47

47 0 .03 0 51 n.d. 5.2 n.d. 3.2 n.d. -117 n.d. .68 n.d. 14. n.d. 2.8 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 0 .4

48 .02 .2 34 340 6.0 .2 6.4 6.4 44 62 .82 11. .03 <.20 .26 1.1 42 45 n.d. n.d. .02 2.32

49 1.6 13 2,719 22,090 .3 .4 5.8 6.1 -19 17 25. 24. .04 <.20 3.2 2.8 350 350 n.d. n.d. 40.4 295.

51 .02 .67 34 1,138 10.0 7.1 3.8 5.8 -34 -23 .25 17. 3.9 .29 1.9 3.5 210 570 n.d. n.d. .11 12.2

51A 1.2 2.3 2,039 3,908 .3 .2 5.3 5.5 -75 -56 54. 47. .07 <.20 5.5 4.5 740 800 n.d. n.d. 63.9 106.

52 n.d. .14 n.d. 238 n.d. 5.8 n.d. 6.1 n.d. -3 n.d. 23. n.d. <.20 n.d. 3.8 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 3.58

53 2.3 5 3,908 8,496 2.4 3.4 4.0 4.2 -134 -145 49. 57. 5.4 5.2 6.1 5.6 510 660 n.d. n.d. 124. 301.

54 n.d. .01 n.d. 17 5.3 3.1 2.9 3.2 n.d. -154 7.8 5.6 16. 18. 10. 5.4 680 640 n.d. n.d. 0 .25

55 0 6.6 0 11,215 n.d. 2.0 n.d. 5.5 n.d. -11 n.d. 22. n.d. .90 n.d. 2.4 n.d. 160 n.d. n.d. 0 135.

56 0 .01 0 17 n.d. .1 n.d. 3.5 n.d. -54 n.d. 7.0 n.d. 4.0 n.d. 2.0 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 0 .14

g

e in the

Shamokin Creek Basin 13
14 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Flow Rate (Mar. 2000), in cubic feet per second

Flow Rate (Aug. 1999),

in cubic feet per second GWSW

4A

Line of equality

0

50

100150

200250300350400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Acidity, comp. (Mar. 2000), in millgrams per liter

Acidity, computed (Aug. 1999),

in millgrams per liter as CaCO3 GWSW

4C

Line of equality

2345678

2345678

pH (Mar. 2000), in standard units

pH (Aug. 1999), in standard units GWSW Line of equality bounded by +/- 0.5 pH

4B

0

100

200300400500600700800900

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Sulfate (Mar. 2000), in milligrams per liter

Sulfate (Aug. 1999), in

milligrams per liter

GW

SW

4D

Line of equality

0

10,000

20,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,000

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

Dissolved Iron (Mar. 2000), in micrograms per liter

Dissolved Iron (Aug. 1999),

in micrograms per liter GW

SW

4E

Line of equality

0

2000400060008000

10000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Dissolved Manganese (Mar. 2000), mg/L

Diss. Manganese (Aug. 1999),

in micrograms per liter GW

SW

4F

Line of equality

10,000

100,000

Aug. 1999),

er liter 

tion limit

4G
Figure 5. Comparison of total and dissolved concentr

ganese, and (C) aluminum in high base-flow abando

GW) and streamwater (HI-SW) samples collected in 

Pa., March 2000. PACODE indicates effluent limitatio

derground coal mine in Pennsylvania (Commonweal

2001a); TMDL indicates total maximum daily load str

monwealth of Pennsylvania, 1998a, b); and CCCF indi

nant concentration exposure tolerated by freshwate

without unacceptable effect (U.S. Environmental Pro

Iron 

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Dissolved Concentration, in micrograms per liter

Total Concentration,

in micrograms per liter

HI-GW

HI-SW

PACODE

TMDL

CCCF

5A

Manganese

10

100

1,000

10,000

10 100 1

Dissolved Concentration, in mic

Total Concentration,

in micrograms per liter

PACODE

TMDL

5B

Line of equality

Aluminum

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Dissolved Concentration, in micrograms per liter

Total Concentration,

in micrograms per liter

HI-GW

HI-SW

Detection 

Limit

PACODE = TMDL

Detection Limit

CCCF

5C
16 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin

tions and corresponding computed values for metals loading, 

acidity, and net alkalinity will be emphasized. 

Computed acidity (equation 7) of AMD ranged from 0 to 

384 mg/L. Median acidities for low and high base-flow conditions were equivalent for AMD samples and for streamwater 

samples. With few exceptions, acidity at a particular site was 

similar during low and high base-flow conditions. In contrast, 

the highest alkalinity concentration for the AMD or streamwater samples was less than 75 mg/L (fig. 6). 

Plots of measured “hot” acidity relative to computed acidity, net alkalinity, and pH indicate (a) the pH and dissolved metals concentrations adequately explain the acidity and (b) the pH 

has a bimodal frequency distribution for the water-quality data 

as a whole as described by Cravotta and others (1999) (fig. 6). 

Approximately half of the samples had near-neutral pH (>5.5), 

whereas the other half had acidic pH (<4.5). The minimum pH 

value of 2.6 for AMD was observed during both low and high 

base-flow conditions. Few AMD or streamwater samples for 

this survey had pH less than 3. The maximum pH value for 

AMD samples was 6.7 for high base-flow and 6.5 for low baseflow conditions. The minimum and maximum pH values for 

streamwater samples were greater than those for AMD samples, 

but consistent with the bimodal frequency distribution. Notably, 

two stream sites, North Branch Shamokin Creek (SC3D) and 

Shamokin Creek at Sunbury (SC15), and one AMD site, the 

Cameron Mine discharge (SR51), had acidic pH during low 

base-flow conditions but near-neutral pH during high base-flow 

conditions. The low pH at these sites for low base-flow conditions can be attributed to various possible factors, including the 

concentration of solutes by evaporation, increased rate of pyrite 

oxidation associated with increased air flow to the subsurface as 

the water table declined during drought, increased rate of Fe2+

oxidation associated with warmer temperature, and more complete oxidation and hydrolysis associated with longer transport 

or detention times at slower flow rates. 

Acidity was measured in the laboratory on refrigerated, 

tightly sealed samples by hot peroxide titration for the high 

base-flow survey and by cold peroxide titration for the low 

base-flow survey. Assuming a charge of +3 on dissolved aluminum and +2 on dissolved iron and manganese per equation 7, 

computed acidity and corresponding values of net alkalinity 

generally agree well with the “hot” peroxide acidity measured 

for high base-flow samples (fig. 6). Most AMD sources consistently were acidic (alkalinity < acidity) or net alkaline (alkalinity > acidity) on the basis of samples collected during low and 

high base-flow conditions (figs. 4 and 6, appendix B). A majority of the samples that had pH >4.5 was “net acidic” because of 

the elevated concentrations of Fe2+ and Mn2+. Many of the net 

acidic, high-pH samples had elevated concentrations of sulfate, 

indicating their origin as acidic AMD that had been neutralized. 

Although a majority of samples that had pH greater than 6 had 

positive net alkalinity, a few AMD and streamwater samples 

with high pH were net acidic. Generally, samples that had pH 

less than 5.6 were net acidic. 

Note that some samples with field pH greater than 5.6 were 

reported to have “hot” acidity concentration of zero (acidity was 

not measured); however, the actual acidity, if as computed, 

could be as much as 50 mg/L for one or more of these near-neutral samples (fig. 6). The negative value of computed net alkalinity is similar to the hot acidity for samples with pH less than 

5.6. Larger values of cold acidity than computed acidity result 

from temporary acidity from CO2 and H2S that is included in 

the cold acidity measurement but that largely will be eliminated 

by aeration and exsolution of these dissolved gases under atmospheric conditions in the environment or by boiling during hot 

acidity titration. 

In summary, a majority of base-flow streamwater samples 

during the study met Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2001b, 

2002) water-quality standards for pH (6.0 to 9.0); however, few 

met criteria for net alkalinity (20 mg/L as CaCO3) and concentrations of dissolved iron (0.3 mg/L) and total manganese (1.0 

mg/L) (figs. 4, 5, and 6). The characteristics at individual 

streamwater sites and specific source(s) of impairment are summarized in the next section. 

Flow and Quality of Streams

The flow and quality of low and high base-flow samples 

for each of the primary stream monitoring locations are 

described below, in approximate downstream order, by the 

local site identification number and the corresponding TMDL 

site identification number (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2001a, 2001b), if applicable. The dominant upstream AMD sources and selected water-quality data are 

listed in tables 1, 2, and 3 and figure 7. 

SC2 (TMDL-SC1) is on Shamokin Creek upstream of the 

confluence with North Branch Shamokin Creek and includes 

the Sayre-Sioux Mine discharge (SR6) and drainage from the 

borough of Mount Carmel. In August 1999, the sampled reach 

for SC2 was dry. However, in March 2000, water was flowing 

at 0.54 ft3/s (918 L/min) through the grass-and shrub-choked 

channel. The water had pH of 6.6, net alkalinity of 25 mg/L, and 

a relatively small load of dissolved metals (0.6 Mg/yr) (table 3; 

fig. 7). The concentration of dissolved nitrogen in Shamokin 

Creek at SC2 was 1.2 mg/L (table 3). These data indicate that 

the area sampled by SC2 is affected by losses of flow, but the 

water quality largely is unaffected by AMD. 

SC3D (TMDL-NB1) is on North Branch Shamokin Creek 

0.8 mi (1.3 km) upstream of its confluence with Shamokin 

Creek and includes discharges from the Mid Valley Mine (SR2; 

SR4; SR5A,B; SR56) and Richard’s Shaft (SR55). In August 

1999, the sampled reach for SC3D was flowing at 2.2 ft3/s 

(3,738 L/min) with pH of 3.2, net alkalinity of -64 mg/L, and a 

relatively large metal load (18.3 Mg/yr) accentuated by elevated 

concentration of aluminum (4.2 mg/L) but relatively low concentration of iron (2.7 mg/L) (table 3). The entire streamflow 

and metals loading could have originated from the Mid Valley 

Mine tunnel discharge (SR5B); associated discharges had substantially lower flow rates and metals loading. The Richard’s 

Shaft Mine Drift near Atlas (SR55), immediately upstream 

from SC3D, was not flowing in August 1999. However, in
y = 0.9945x + 2.7646

R2

 = 0.9775

0

50

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Acidity, computed, in milligrams per liter as CaCO3

"Hot" acidity, measured,

3 in milligrams per liter as CaCO

HI-GW

pH<5.6

pH>5.6

6A

y = -0.9825x + 6.9619

R2

 = 0.9886

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100

Net Alkalinity, computed, in milligra

-100

-50

0

50

350

300

250

200

150

100

"Hot" acidity, measured,

3 in milligrams per liter as CaCO

6B

-100

-200

-300

-400

0

100

2345678

pH, field measured

Net Alkalinity,

3 in milligrams per liter as CaCO

HI-GW

LO-GW

6C

Net Alkaline

Net Acidic

Near-Neutral

Figure 6. Comparison of (A) measured “hot, peroxide

acidity, (B) measured “hot, peroxide” acidity and co

(C) pH and computed net alkalinity on the basis of dis

tions for high base-flow AMD (HI-GW) samples, Mar

Basin, Pa. In 6C, data also are plotted for low base-f

ples, August 1999; reference lines at pH of 6 and net 

distinguish net acidic and net alkaline or near-neutra
Figure 7. Maps of Shamokin Creek, Pa., showing: (A) streamflow in cubic feet per second, (B) acidity, (C) dissolved sulfate, (D) dissolved iro

manganese, and (F) dissolved aluminum in the mainstem and tributaries March 2000.

St

in cub

“H

in 

0

0

5 miles

5 kilometers
Figure 7. Maps of Shamokin Creek, Pa., showing: (A) streamflow in cubic feet per second, (B) acidity, (C) dissolved sulfate, (D) dissolved iro

manganese, and (F) dissolved aluminum in the mainstem and tributaries March 2000 (continued).

0

0

5 miles

5 kilometers

Diss

 conc

Di

conc
Figure 7. Maps of Shamokin Creek, Pa., showing: (A) streamflow in cubic feet per second, (B) acidity, (C) dissolved sulfate, (D) dissolved iro

manganese, and (F) dissolved aluminum in the mainstem and tributaries March 2000 (continued).

0

0

5 miles

5 kilometers

Diss

 

D

 conc
Effects of Abandoned Mine Drainage in the Shamokin Creek Basin 21

March 2000, all the upstream AMD sources including SR55 

were flowing, contributing to the flow rate at SC3D of 14 ft3/s 

(23,789 L/min) with pH of 5.2 and elevated concentration of 

iron (10.6 mg/L) and moderate concentration of aluminum (1.5 

mg/L) (table 3, fig. 7). Discharge from SR55 was not visible at 

its presumed location 0.5 mi (0.8 km) upstream of SC3D 

because the discharge and surrounding area of the stream channel were inundated by a beaver pond. Nevertheless, just above 

the ponded area, at SC3B on North Branch Shamokin Creek, the 

flow rate was only 7.4 ft3/s with pH of 3.9 and elevated aluminum (3.4 mg/L) (table 3). The large increase in flow and change 

in quality between SC3B and SC3D resulted from the ironladen, intermediate-pH water from SR55. Following the synoptic survey, the beaver dam was found to be breached and the discharge from SR55 was confirmed at the location indicated. 

Dissolved nitrogen concentration was less than 0.2 mg/L at 

SC3B and SC3D (table 3). The data for North Branch Shamokin 

Creek indicate that the area sampled by SC3D is affected both 

by losses of flow and by loading of acidity and metals from continuous and intermittent AMD sources. 

LC4 is near the mouth of Locust Creek. Various small 

AMD sources collectively referred to as the Locust Gap Mine 

discharges (SR8-SR10) contribute flow to this intermittent 

stream. In August 1999, the sampled reach for LC4 was dry, 

despite small flows from upstream AMD sources. In March 

2000, water sampled at LC4 flowed at rate of 1.8 ft3/s (3,059 L/

min) with pH of 3.9, net alkalinity of -30 mg/L, and moderate 

metals loading accentuated by elevated concentration of aluminum (3.8 mg/L) (table 3, fig. 7). The concentration of dissolved 

nitrogen was 0.5 mg/L in the high base-flow samples at LC4 

(table 3). These data indicate that the area sampled by LC4 is 

affected by decreases in flow and by loading of acidity and metals from small, intermittent AMD sources.

EX5 is near the mouth of an unnamed tributary to 

Shamokin Creek at Excelsior. Various small AMD sources 

(SR13-SR14) contribute flow to this intermittent stream, which 

is concrete-lined along its lower reach. In August 1999, the 

sampled reach for EX5 was dry. In March 2000, water sampled 

at EX5 had a flow rate of 1.9 ft3/s (3,228 L/min) with pH of 4.9, 

net alkalinity of -1 mg/L, and low concentrations of metals 

(table 3). The concentration of dissolved nitrogen was 0.1 mg/

L in the high base-flow samples at EX5 (table 3). These data 

indicate that the area sampled by EX5 is affected by losses of 

flow and by minor loading of acidity and metals from small, 

intermittent AMD sources.

SC6 is on Shamokin Creek west of Ranshaw, upstream of 

Quaker Run and downstream of Locust Creek and North 

Branch Shamokin Creek. In addition to the flows from these 

tributaries, Shamokin Creek at SC6 receives substantial contributions from the Excelsior Mine Pit overflow (SR12) and the 

Corbin Water Level Drift discharge (SR15) plus various small 

seeps. In August 1999 and March 2000, flows were 12 and 34 

ft3/s (20,390 and 57,773 L/min), respectively (table 3). The 

quality of these low and high base-flow samples was relatively 

constant with pH of 6.3 and 6.1, net alkalinity of -28 and -32 

mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 16 mg/L, manganese of 2.9 and 2.5 mg/L, and aluminum of <0.2 mg/L (table 3, 

fig. 7). The large loads of metals at SC6 result mainly from 

SR12. The concentration of dissolved nitrogen in Shamokin 

Creek at SC6 was 1.0 mg/L during low and high base-flow conditions (table 3).

QR8 (TMDL-QR1) is at the mouth of Quaker Run west of 

Ranshaw. Most water flowing from Quaker Run to Shamokin 

Creek originates at three discharges, the Scott Ridge Mine Tunnel (SR19) and Colbert Mine Breach discharges (SR20), which 

become a tributary locally called Dark Run, and the Maysville 

Mine Borehole discharge (SR21) that flows into lower Quaker 

Run after its confluence with Dark Run. Although discrete 

AMD sources had not been identified in its upper watershed 

area before its confluence with Dark Run, the upper reach of 

Quaker Run at QR7 had relatively high concentrations of iron 

(22 mg/L) and was net acidic (pH 6.2; net alkalinity -45 mg/L) 

(table 3). The upper reaches of Quaker Run and Dark Run also 

receive effluent from the Borough of Kulpmont Wastewater 

Treatment Plant and the Borough of Marion Heights. In August 

1999 and March 2000, flows at QR8 were 7.5 and 22 ft3/s 

(12,744 and 37,382 L/min), respectively (table 3). The quality 

of the low and high base-flow samples at QR8 was relatively 

constant with pH of 6.3 and 6.5, net alkalinity of -25 and -17 

mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 17 and 19 mg/L, 

manganese of 3.4 and 3.3 mg/L, and aluminum of <0.2 mg/L 

(table 3, fig. 7). The concentration of dissolved nitrogen was 0.9 

mg/L during low and high base-flow conditions (table 3). 

According to reports from SCRA, this stream channel loses 

water but regains flow upstream of the sewage-treatment plant. 

BM9 is at the mouth of the unnamed tributary, locally 

called Buck Run, south of the city of Shamokin. Buck Run is 

formed almost entirely of AMD discharged from the Big Mountain Mine No. 1 slope (SR23) approximately 2,100 ft (640 m) 

upstream. In August 1999 and March 2000, flows were 0.93 and 

4.1 ft3/s (1,580 and 6,967 L/min), respectively (table 3). With 

the exception of dissolved iron, the quality of the low and high 

base-flow samples was relatively constant with pH of 3.3 and 

3.7, net alkalinity of -101 and -99 mg/L, and concentrations of 

dissolved iron of 13 and 21 mg/L, manganese of 7.6 and 7.2 mg/

L, and aluminum of 7.0 and 6.8 mg/L (table 3, fig. 7). The concentration of dissolved nitrogen was <0.3 mg/L during low and 

high base-flow conditions (table 3). Wide variations in the flow 

rate of the SR23 discharge recently documented by the SCRA 

(Leanne Bjorklund, Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance, oral 

commun., 2003) may have resulted in greater fluctuations in 

flow and chemistry at BM9 than indicated by the data reported 

above.

SC10 (TMDL-SC2) is on Shamokin Creek near the eastern 

limit of the city of Shamokin, downstream of sites SC6, QR8, 

and BM9 and upstream of Coal Run. In August 1999 and March 

2000, flows were 19 and 59 ft3/s (32,285 and 100,253 L/min), 

respectively (table 3). With the exception of dissolved iron, the 

quality of the low and high base-flow samples was relatively 

constant with pH of 6.5 and 6.3, net alkalinity of -19 and -28 

mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 8.2 and 15 mg/L, 

manganese of 3.4 and 2.9 mg/L, and aluminum of <0.2 mg/L 
22 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin

(table 3, fig. 7). The concentration of dissolved nitrogen was 0.9 

mg/L during low and high base-flow conditions (table 3). 

COR11 is at the mouth of Coal Run. Water flowing in Coal 

Run originates from various small mine discharges including 

the Greenough Mine discharge (SR31-32) and the Nielson 

Mine (SR36A) and Luke Fiddler Mine (SR36B) discharges. In 

August 1999 and March 2000, flows were 0.1 and 1.5 ft3/ s (170 

and 2,549 L/min), respectively (table 3). The quality of the low 

and high base-flow samples was relatively constant with pH of 

6.4 and 6.5, net alkalinity 72 and 51 mg/L, and concentrations 

of dissolved iron of 0.9 and 2.9 mg/L, manganese of 1.5 and 1.3 

mg/L, aluminum of <0.2 mg/L, and nitrogen of 1.4 and 1.9 mg/

L (table 3, fig. 7). Coal Run is the largest of surveyed streams 

that had consistently net-alkaline water quality. Nevertheless, 

as described below, this stream tends to lose water along its 

lower reaches by leakage to underground mines. 

SC11 (TMDL-SC3) is on Shamokin Creek upstream of the 

mouth of Carbon Run and downstream of Coal Run. This section includes effects from the city of Shamokin. Water- quality 

samples were collected at this site only during the ecological 

survey in October 1999 and the high base-flow survey in March 

2000. In March 2000, flow was 64 ft3/s (108,749 L/ min), with 

pH of 6.4, net alkalinity of -27 mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 15 mg/L, manganese of 3.1 mg/L, aluminum of 

<0.2 mg/L, and nitrogen of 1.0 mg/L (table 3, fig. 7). 

CR12 (TMDL-CAR1) is on Carbon Run upstream of its 

confluence with Shamokin Creek and downstream of all known 

AMD sources in the Carbon Run subbasin. Much of the Carbon 

Run watershed is composed of spoil piles and abandoned surface mines. The stream disappears underground at various 

points in its headwaters area and reemerges downstream. The 

Henry-Clay Stirling Mine Pump Slope discharge (SR49) is the 

largest AMD source in the Carbon Run watershed, contributing 

half or more of the total flow and associated AMD contaminants. In August 1999 and March 2000, flows at CR12 were 3.2 

and 18 ft3/s (5,437 and 30,586 L/min), respectively (table 3). 

The quality of the low and high base-flow samples was relatively constant with pH of 6.5 and 6.6, net alkalinity of -9 and -

7 mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 11 and 14 mg/

L, manganese of 3.9 and 2.5 mg/L, aluminum of 0.01 and 1.4 

mg/L, and nitrogen of 1.0 and 0.9 mg/L (table 3, fig. 7). 

SC14 (TMDL-SC4) is on Shamokin Creek near the Glen 

Burn Colliery at the southern base of Big Mountain, downstream of Carbon Run (CR12), Furnace Run (FR13), the city of 

Shamokin, and the Cameron Drift (SR51A) and the Cameron 

Air Shaft (SR53) discharges. In August 1999 and March 2000, 

flows at SC14 were 30 and 85 ft3/s (50,976 and 144,432 L/ 

min), respectively (table 3). The quality of the low and high 

base-flow samples was relatively constant with pH of 5.9 and 

6.2, net alkalinity of -34 and -30 mg/L, and concentrations of 

dissolved iron of 15 and 19 mg/L, manganese of 3.8 and 3.1 mg/

L, aluminum of <0.2 mg/L, and nitrogen of 1.0 and 1.0 mg/L 

(table 3, fig. 7). 

SC15 (TMDL-SC6) is at the USGS gaging station on 

Shamokin Creek downstream of the city of Shamokin and Big 

Mountain and Little Mountain and downstream of the unimpaired tributaries Trout Run, Eagle Run, Benny’s Run, and 

Millers Run. Water-quality samples were collected at this site 

during the ecological surveys in October 1999-2001 and the 

high base-flow survey in March 2000. Generally, the quality of 

streamwater is similar to that at SC14, however, concentrations 

of acidity and metals are slightly lower at SC15 because of dilution by the unimpaired tributaries and precipitation of metals. 

The quality of streamwater at SC15 varied considerably during 

the assessment and is discussed in detail below. 

SC16 (TMDL-SC8) is near the mouth of Shamokin Creek 

in the city of Sunbury downstream of Little Shamokin Creek 

and various unnamed tributaries. Some of these tributaries historically have been affected by agricultural activities and carry 

large loads of nutrients and sediment (Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection, 2001a, 2001b). In August 1999 

and March 2000, flows at SC16 were 34 and 301 ft3/s (57,773 

and 511,459 L/min), respectively (table 3). The quality of 

streamwater at SC16 varied considerably during the assessment 

and is discussed in detail below. 

Streamflow Variability

Wide ranges in flow rates at water-quality sampling sites 

during 1999-2001 resulted from leakage to and discharge from 

abandoned mines in the upper Shamokin Creek Basin. These 

interactions were amplified by drought conditions during the 

study period (figs. 8 and 9). During August 1999, a total of 41 

of the 50 AMD sites were surveyed; 12 of the 41 surveyed 

AMD sources were “dry,” including the Richard’s Shaft Mine 

Drift near Atlas that was the fourth largest AMD source sampled during March 2000 (tables 1 and 3). Four stream survey 

sites on Shamokin Creek at Atlas (SC2), Locust Creek at Locust 

Gap (LC4), the unnamed tributary at Excelsior (EX5), and Carbon Run near Trevorton (CR1) also were dry in August 1999 

(table 2, appendix B). In contrast, during the high base-flow survey in March 2000, all the stream survey sites were flowing and 

only 1 of the 46 sampled AMD sources, the Luke Fiddler Mine 

discharge (SR36A) was dry (table 3, fig. 4). Shortly after the 

high base-flow survey was completed, the SCRA sampled a 

large flow from SR36A (Leanne Bjorklund, Shamokin Creek 

Restoration Alliance, oral commun., 2003). Four of the 50 

AMD sites listed in table 2 could not be located and were not 

sampled during the study. 

To provide context for the data collected for the assessment, the long-term streamflow data for Shamokin Creek at the 

USGS gaging station near Shamokin (SC15; USGS station 

01554500) during 1940-1992 and 1999-2001 were examined 

(figs. 8 and 9). During the 1999-2001 study period, the average 

streamflow of Shamokin Creek generally was lower than normal because of drought conditions in 1999 and 2001. 

The low base-flow survey in August 1999 was conducted 

during drought conditions (figs. 8 and 9). Little to no flow in the 

undermined tributaries to Shamokin Creek and the lack of flow 

at a many of the AMD sites during the low base-flow conditions 

are consistent with previous investigations. Of the 54 AMD
Figure 8. Historical (1940-1992) and recent (1999-2001) streamflow data for Shamokin Creek near Shamokin, Pa. (SC15; USGS station 0155

were used to generate the hydrographs and to compute the mean and standard deviation (st.dev.) of the long-term average streamflow. 

80

60

40

160

140

120

100

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 

Year

Flow rate, in cubic feet per second (ft

3/s)

Yearly average 1940-1992

5-year smoothed average

Long-term average 1940-1992

+/- 1 st.dev. 1940-1992 average

1999-2001 averages

Mean Daily Flo

0

400

300

200

100

Oct-99 Mar-00 Sep

Flow rate, ft

3/s

missing
Figure 9. Comparison of instantaneous streamflow and water-quality data for Shamokin Creek near Shamokin (SC15) and 

Sunbury (SC16), Pa., 1999-2001: (A) streamflow, (B) net alkalinity, (C) sulfate, (D) pH, (E) dissolved iron, and (F) dissolved manganese. Data for SC15 in August 1999 were not available; data for SC14 were substituted for this station on this date. 

Streamflow,

in cubic feet per second

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320

Shamokin Cr nr Shamokin (SC15)

Shamokin Cr nr Sunbury (SC16)

Aug 05, 1999

Oct 06, 1999

Mar 14, 2000

Oct 04, 2000

Oct 03, 2001

9A

Net Alkalinity,

in milligrams per liter as CaCO3

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20

Shamokin Cr nr Shamokin (SC15)

Shamokin Cr nr Sunbury (SC16)

9B

Line of equality

Sulfate, in milligrams per liter

0

100

200

300

400

0 100 200 300 400

Shamokin Cr nr Shamokin (SC15)

Shamokin Cr nr Sunbury (SC16)

9C

pH

3

4

5

6

7

3 4 5 6 7

Shamokin Cr nr Shamokin (SC15)

Shamokin Cr nr Sunbury (SC16)

9D

Iron, in micrograms per liter

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000

Shamokin Cr nr Shamokin (SC15)

Shamokin Cr nr Sunbury (SC16)

9E

Manganese, in micrograms per liter

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Shamokin Cr nr Shamokin (SC15)

Shamokin Cr nr Sunbury (SC16)

9F

24 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin
Effects of Abandoned Mine Drainage in the Shamokin Creek Basin 25

sites reported from the Scarlift investigation, 20 had been identified previously as intermittently flowing; the other 34 were 

identified as continuous (Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1972). Heavy rains associated with tropical storms 

during mid to late September 1999 abruptly ended the drought. 

The stream ecological survey during October 1999 followed 

these tropical storms. Normal rainfall and corresponding 

recharge resumed through the winter 1999 and spring 2000. 

During the high base-flow survey in March 2000, streamflow of Shamokin Creek at the USGS gaging station was equivalent to the long-term average at this location (figs. 8 and 9). 

Generally, the flow rate of Shamokin Creek increased downstream, from Shamokin (SC15) to Sunbury (SC16), because of 

inflows from various tributaries in the lower basin that were not 

affected by mining. However, during August 1999 and October 

2000, flow rates increased only marginally downstream (fig. 9). 

Despite dilution and the addition of alkalinity by the tributaries in the lower Shamokin Basin, the effects of AMD were 

not mitigated, particularly during August 1999 and October 

2000 when streamflow at SC16 was similar to that at SC15. 

Dilution and alkalinity loading would have been least for these 

flow conditions. The pH at SC15 consistently was near neutral, 

ranging from 5.9 to 6.4. However, the pH at SC16 ranged from 

4.0 to 6.6; the lowest pH and highest sulfate concentrations 

were associated with low base-flow conditions. The decline in 

pH from SC15 to SC16 can be attributed to the oxidation and 

hydrolysis of dissolved iron and a corresponding deficiency of 

alkalinity necessary to buffer the acid generated by these processes. Streamwater quality at Shamokin was relatively constant during the study. However, streamwater quality at Sunbury varied greatly by sample date, with a large range in pH and 

concentrations of sulfate and metals associated with ecological 

surveys in October 1999, 2000, and 2001. This observation is 

supported by the periodic changes in the appearance (ranging 

from colorless to orange) of the water at SC16 that have been 

noted for several years.

To determine the magnitude and effects of interbasin 

ground-water or surface-water diversions, streamflow at points 

along Shamokin Creek and its tributaries within the upper basin 

was compared to the drainage area defined by upstream topography. Streamflow values were normalized as the yield, or discharge divided by the contributing area (fig. 10). Streamflow 

yields for Shamokin Creek near Sunbury (SC16) were larger 

during the high base-flow and smaller during the low base-flow 

survey than those for Shamokin Creek near Shamokin (SC15). 

This result indicates that AMD is a substantial, sustained source 

of base flow in the upper basin and is consistent with interpretations by Becher (1991). Becher noted that streamflow from 

the upper Shamokin Creek Basin was sustained at higher levels 

during drought and had dampened peak flows compared to the 

nearby basins. A hydrologic budget for the upper Shamokin 

Creek Basin was computed by Becher (1991) on the basis of 

long-term streamflow record (1932-1992) for Shamokin Creek 

near Shamokin (SC15; USGS station 01554500). Becher concluded that streamflow in the upper Shamokin Creek Basin is 

sustained by discharges from water stored in the mines and, 

consequently, is less variable than that for nearby unmined 

basins with equivalent watershed areas but greater proportions 

of runoff contributing to the streamflow. 

Compared to Shamokin Creek near Shamokin (SC15) or 

Sunbury (SC16) during low and high base-flow conditions, various upper tributaries, including North Branch Shamokin Creek 

(SC3D), Quaker Run (QR8), and Big Mountain or Buck Run 

(BM9), had high yields (fig. 10). These high yields could result 

from the interbasin gain of ground water and potentially large 

effect of AMD. At least one large AMD source was present 

immediately upstream of each of these stream monitoring stations (sites 55, 21, and 23, respectively) (table 1, fig. 7). In contrast, various other tributaries had consistently smaller yields 

than those for Shamokin Creek near Shamokin or near Sunbury

(fig. 10). These tributaries likely were affected by leakage to 

underground mines, including Upper Shamokin Creek (SC2), 

Locust Creek (LC4), the unnamed tributary at Excelsior (EX5), 

Coal Run (COR11), and tributaries in the upper part of Carbon 

Run (CR1, TR41). 

Contaminant Concentrations and Loads

In addition to the toxicity of dissolved metals, such as aluminum, the metals associated with AMD degrade the aquatic 

habitat because of their tendency to precipitate on the streambed. The measured dissolved load of metals in streamwater 

samples typically was less than the sum of metals load from 

each of the AMD sources upstream of stream survey points during both low and high base-flow conditions (fig. 10). This difference in loading of dissolved metals results from the precipitation of iron, aluminum, and, to a lesser extent, manganese 

within the stream channel during base-flow conditions. However, the accumulation of metals in the streambed may only 

temporarily reduce the downstream metal loading. The scour 

and resuspension of the precipitated metals during high-flow 

events can result in the non-attainment of water-quality criteria 

in downstream reaches. This condition has been documented on 

the basis of stormflow sampling on Swatara Creek (Cravotta 

and Bilger, 2001). Generally, the non-conservative transport of 

metals from the AMD sources to downstream monitoring sites 

invalidates simple computations of load reductions required for 

TMDL attainment. Correction factors are needed to relate the 

load reduced from an AMD source to the corresponding downstream load. 

Low and high base-flow streamwater samples indicate less 

mass of metals in transport than had been added by upstream 

AMD sources. However, various stream sites (SC2, LC4, EX5, 

BM9, COR11) have greater metals loads, as percentage of total 

sum of known AMD sources, indicating additional AMD 

sources in these watersheds (fig. 10). Because these streams 

have greater metals loading at high base flow compared to low 

base-flow conditions, the additional AMD sources are likely to 

be intermittent or ephemeral. 

The one AMD sample and eight low base-flow streamwater samples that were analyzed for coliform bacteria had posi-
Figure 10. (A) Contributing area, (B) streamflow yields, (C) metals loading, and (D) percentage of AMD metals loading at stream monitorin

Creek Basin, Pa., 1999-2000. In 10D, the scale on the ordinate (Y) axis was truncated; values greater than 100 percent indicate the metals 

was greater than the sum of metals loading from known AMD sources indicated in figure 1 and tables 1 and 2. 

0%

75%

50%

25%

225%

200%

175%

150%

125%

100%

SC3B

SC3D

SC2LC4

EX5

SC6

QR8

BM9

SC10

COR11

SC1

Local Site Numb

Metal in Stream as percent of AMD Load

10D

1,300% 1,650% 1,240

0

500

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

SC3B

SC3D

SC2

LC4

EX5

SC6QR8BM9

SC10

COR11

SC11

TR41

CR12SC14SC15SC16

Local Site Number

Dissolved Metal Load (Fe+Mn+Al),

in megagrams per year

AMD load, Aug. 1999

Stream load, Aug. 1999

AMD load, Mar. 2000

Stream load, Mar. 2000

10C

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

SC3BSC3D

SC2

LC4EX5

SC6

QR8

BM9

SC10

COR11

SC11

TR

Streamflow Yield, in cubic feet

per second per square mile

10B

0

80

60

40

20

140

120

100

SC3B

SC3D

SC2LC4

EX5

SC6

QR8

BM9

SC10

COR11

SC11TR41

CR1

CR12

FR13SC15SC16

Drainage Area, in square miles

10A
Effects of Abandoned Mine Drainage in the Shamokin Creek Basin 27

tive counts for total coliform and other sewage-related contaminants, in addition to contaminants associated with coal-mine 

sources (table 4). The AMD sample (SR23) and upstream 

sample on Shamokin Creek (SC3D) had relatively low counts 

for total coliform compared to other sites and did not contain E. 

coli. These samples also had low pH and low concentrations of 

inorganic nitrogen, chloride, and sodium compared to downstream samples (table 4). In contrast, the streamwater samples 

from downstream reaches in the watershed contained total 

coliform and E. coli and had near-neutral pH and moderate concentrations of nitrogen, chloride, and sodium. Although raw and 

(or) treated sewage effluent can be a source alkalinity, nitrogen, 

chloride, and sodium, bacteria generally are killed by chlorination or ozonation of treated sewage effluent. The presence of 

viable coliform bacteria in the streamwater samples indicates 

that raw sewage from combined sewer overflows, leaky sewer 

pipes, or residences could be a source of contamination. Mixing 

sewage with AMD has not negated the effect of raw sewage on 

water quality. Although concentrations of sewage-related contaminants were low in the streamwater compared to typical 

sewage effluent, a plan to address the combined sewer overflows is under development (Leanne Bjorklund, Shamokin 

Creek Restoration Alliance, oral commun., 2003). Further study 

is needed on determining bacteria and nitrogen sources. 

Aquatic Ecology

Aquatic ecological surveys were conducted by the USGS 

at six of the stream sites in October 1999 and repeated annually 

in 2000 and 2001 on Shamokin Creek below Shamokin and at 

Sunbury. In 1999, fish were absent from Quaker Run and 

Shamokin Creek upstream of its confluence with Carbon Run; 

however, creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) were present 

within three sampled reaches of Carbon Run (table 5). During 

1999, 2000, and 2001, six or more fish species were identified 

in Shamokin Creek below Shamokin and at Sunbury, despite 

elevated metals concentrations and iron-encrusted streambeds 

at these sites (table 5, fig. 9). Various tributary streams in 

Shamokin Creek’s middle and lower reaches, including Trout 

Run, Buddys Run, Millers Run, Lick Creek (fig. 1), and those 

locally known as Kulps Run, Sunnyside Run, and Elysburg Run 

historically have supported healthy aquatic communities (Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1972). 

The mainstem of Shamokin Creek downstream of the 

mined area supports fish species that have a range of tolerances 

of pollution and low pH (table 5). In 1999, 6 species of fish 

(spotfin shiner, creek chub, fallfish, white sucker, brown bullhead, and pumpkinseed) were captured downstream of the 

USGS gaging station at SC15, and 10 species of fish (spotfin 

shiner, fallfish, white sucker, gizzard shad, spottail shiner, 

northern hog sucker, rock bass, green sunfish, pumpkinseed, 

and smallmouth bass) were captured at SC16 near Sunbury 

(table 5). The streamwater at these sites had pH greater than 6 

during the October 1999 survey. However, in August 1999, 

when the low base-flow synoptic survey was completed, and in 

October 2000, when another ecological survey was conducted, 

the pH was 4.2 for Shamokin Creek at Sunbury (table 5; fig. 9). 

Few, if any, fish species had been documented previously in 

other freshwater bodies with this water quality (Butler and others, 1973; Earle and Callaghan, 1998; Barbour and others, 

1999). Nevertheless, during the October 2000 survey, seven and 

eight species of fish were identified at the Shamokin and Sunbury sites, respectively. One or more individuals of acid-intolerant (Butler and others, 1973), but moderately pollution tolerant (Barbour and others, 1999), species were found, including 

fallfish, bluegill, and walleye (Butler and others, 1973; Barbour 

and others, 1999). Presumably, the fish migrate into and out of 

Shamokin Creek in response to prevailing water quality or find 

refuge in noncontaminated influents from tributaries or ground 

water. 

Little macroinvertebrate life is supported by Shamokin 

Creek and its more severely mining-affected tributaries because 

of the iron-rich coating of the bottom surfaces (Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection, 2001b). Although 

macroinvertebrate kick-net samples were collected during the 

ecological surveys in October 1999, identification of specimens 

has not been completed. Nevertheless, in October 2001, only a 

single caddisfly (hydropsychid) specimen was found in 

Shamokin Creek at SC15, whereas none were found at SC16 

(Martin Friday, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection, oral commun., 2001). Chironomids have been 

observed in more acidic waters in the mining region (Robbins 

and others, 2000) and have been tentatively identified in samples collected from the Shamokin Creek Basin (M.D. Bilger, 

U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2002). Eidem and 

Moffe (1998) and Casselggio (2001) sampled macroinvertebrates in Carbon Run and its tributaries.

Metal concentrations in the streambed of mining-affected 

streams could become elevated in the tissue of inhabitant fish 

and other aquatic organisms (Winterbourn and others, 2000; 

Cravotta and Bilger, 2001). Concentrations of metals in the 

whole-fish (white sucker) sample from Shamokin Creek near 

Shamokin were similar to those for an equivalent sample collected during the same week in October 1999 from Swatara 

Creek at Ravine, Pa. (table 6). Iron, manganese, aluminum, 

strontium, and zinc concentrations were elevated compared to 

other metals in these whole-fish samples (table 6). In general, 

because of metals in gut contents and in organs such as the liver, 

concentrations of most metals in whole fish will be greater than 

those in fish prepared for consumption (Campbell and others, 

1988; Cravotta and Bilger, 2001). None of the metals in the 

whole white sucker samples exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997) screening values for human consumption (table 6). The following elements were not detected in the 

fish samples: Sb, As, Be, Cd, Mo, Ag, U, and V (table 6). Nevertheless, the concentrations of zinc exceeded the national average for whole-fish samples (Lowe and others, 1985). Copper 

and selenium were similar to the national averages, and mercury 

and lead were lower than the national averages (Lowe and others, 1985). 
Table 4. Coliform bacteria and concentrations of dissolved metals and nutrients in water samples from selected sites on Shamokin Creek and its tributaries,

August 4, 1999[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; L/min, liters per minute; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; colonies/100 ml, colonies per 100 milliliters]

SCRA Site 

Identification 

Numbera

a Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance (SCRA) site numbers based on Scarlift report of Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. (1972). Site locations are shown in figure 1. Complete data 

for sampled sites are given in appendix A.

Flow 

rateb

b For convenience, flow rate is given in English units, only; 1 ft3/s = 1,699 L/min.

Temperature Oxygen pH Acidityc

c Acidity computed using equation 7. 

Alkalinity Iron Manga- nese Alumi- num Sulfate Sodium Chlo- ride Phos- phorus

Inorganic Nitrogen Bacteria

Totald

d Total inorganic nitrogen computed as sum of ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite, all expressed as nitrogen. 

Ammonia Nitrite + Nitrate Total Coli- form E. coli

(ft3/s) (°C) (mg/L) (stan- dard 

units)

(mg/L as CaCO3) (mg/L) (colonies/100 ml)

SR23 0.51 11.5 1.8 3.5 123 0 29 7.4 7.6 520 2.9 3.1 0.005 0.25 0.25 <0.05 23 0SC3D 2.2 20.5 8.9 3.2 64 0 2.7 2.4 4.2 160 4.8 5.8 <.004 .08 .08 <.05 210 0SC6 12 16.0 9.9 6.3 34 6 16 2.9 .018 220 8.5 12 <.004 .96 .90 .06 >250 25QR7 2.0 13.5 9.8 6.2 46 1 22 3.6 .022 260 7.9 12 n.a. .63 .39 .24 >300 23QR8 7.5 14.5 10.0 6.3 37 12 17 3.4 .069 250 8.4 13 .094 .88 .39 .49 220 200SC10 19 18.0 9.3 6.5 21 2 8.2 3.4 .034 250 7.8 11 .006 .86 .56 .30 >500 97COR11 .1 15.5 7.1 6.5 4 76 .92 1.5 .012 170 18 37 .008 1.4 1.2 .18 >1,000 >100CR12 3.2 17.5 9.5 6.5 37 18 11 3.9 .012 350 5.8 5.8 <.004 .96 .96 <.05 >500 >500FR13 .1 21.5 8.9 7.0 0 64 .07 .082 .010 24 33 55 .039 1.2 .19 1.00 >3,000 >3,000

28 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin
Table 5. Fish species identified during annual ecological surveys of Shamokin Creek, Pennsylvania, October 1999, 2000, and 

2001a

[pollution tolerance: I (intolerant), M (moderate), T (tolerant); pH at time of survey shown in column heading for annual 

species counts at Shamokin and Sunbury, Pa.]

a. Fish collected by electrofishing, identified, and released by M. D. Bilger and R. A. Brightbill of the U.S. Geological Survey on October 6, 1999, 

October 4, 2000, and October 3, 2001. 

Taxa Minimum 

pH in 

Pa.b

b. Minimum pH of occurrence in freshwater in Pennsylvania as reported by Butler and others (1973).

Pollution 

Tolerancec

c. Pollution tolerance adapted from Barbour and others (1999)

Shamokin Sunbury

ORDER

Family

Genus species

Common Name 1999d

pH 6.2

d. In 1999, electrofishing surveys were conducted at the above stations on Shamokin Creek below Shamokin (SC15) and at Sunbury (SC16) plus 

seven other stations. No fish were found at North Branch Shamokin Creek (SC3D), Shamokin Creek at Ranshaw (SC6), Quaker Run at Ranshaw (QR8), 

and Shamokin Creek above Carbon Run at Shamokin (SC11). Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) were the only species found at Carbon Run at the 

confluence with Shamokin Creek (CR12; 7 individuals), Carbon Run at unnamed tributary near Shamokin (CR ab TR41; 67 individuals), and unnamed 

tributary to Carbon Run near Shamokin (TR41; 73 individuals).

2000

pH 6.2

2001

pH 6.4

1999

pH 6.6

2000

pH 4.2

2001

pH 5.5

CLUPEIFORMES

Clupeidae

Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad 6.5 M 0 0 0 1 0 0

CYPRINIFORMES

Cyprinidae

Campostoma anomalum Stoneroller 6.0 M 0 0 1 0 0 0

Cyprinella analostana Spotfin shiner 6.4 M 33 0 31 88 0 5

Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner 4.6 T 0 2 0 0 0 0

Notropis hudsonius Spottail shiner 6.4 M 0 0 0 2 0 0

Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub 5.2 T 32 9 48 0 0 1

Semotilus corporalis Fallfish 6.1 M 2 0 0 6 2 24

Catostomidae

Catostomus commersoni White sucker 4.6 T 29 64 74 16 3 14

Hypentelium nigricans Northern hog sucker 6.0 I 0 0 0 1 0 0

SILURIFORMES

Ictaluridae

Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead 6.5 T 0 0 2 0 0 0

Ameiurus nebulosus Brown bullhead 4.6 T 2 10 0 0 1 2

Noturus insignis Margined madtom 5.9 M 0 0 0 0 0 3

SALMONIFORMES

Esocidae

Esox niger Chain pickerel 4.6 M 0 0 0 0 0 5

Salmonidae

Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout 6.5 M 0 0 1 0 0 0

Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout 5.0 M 0 1 0 0 0 0

PERCIFORMES

Centrarchidae

Ambloplites rupestris Rock bass 6.0 M 0 1 0 1 1 2

Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish 6.2 M 0 8 0 0 1 0

Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 6.4 T 0 0 5 2e

e. One of the two fish counted as green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) was identified as a green sunfish hybrid.

0 1

Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed 4.6 M 2 0 7 1 1 6

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 6.5 M 0 0 0 0 2 1

Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass 6.0 M 0 0 0 35 0 46

Percidae

Etheostoma olmstedi Tessellated darter 5.9 M 0 0 0 0 0 1

Stizostedion vitreum Walleye 6.5 M 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total number of individuals collected: 100 95 169 153 12 112

Total number of species identified: 6 7 8 10 8 14

Effects of Abandoned Mine Drainage in the Shamokin Creek Basin 29
Table 6. Metals concentrations for whole white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) collected in October 1999 from Shamokin 

Creek near Shamokin and Swatara Creek at Ravine, Pa. 

[concentrations reported as micrograms per gram (μg/g) dry and wet weight for six-fish composite sample; water and solids 

content in weight percent (%); <, less than; --, not applicable]

Constituent Element

Symbol

Shamokin Cr. nr Shamokina

a. Shamokin Creek near Shamokin, Pa. (SC15); site described in table 2. Swatara Creek at Ravine, Pa. (U.S. Geological Survey station 01571820); 

site described by Cravotta and Bilger (2001). 

Swatara Cr. at Ravinea

Consumption 

Advisoryb

b. Human consumption advisory screening levels from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997a). Note that concentrations are on dry weight 

basis. 

National Geometric Mean 

Concentration,c

Wet Weight

c. National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program data for 1978-81 from Lowe and others (1985). Note that concentrations are on wet weight basis.

White Sucker, Whole White Sucker, Whole

Dry Wet Dry Wet 1978-79 1980-81

Aluminum Al 44.72 13.92 46.90 11.07 -- -- --

Antimony Sb <.15 <.05 <.20 <.05 -- -- --

Arsenic As <.15 <.05 <.20 <.05 3.0 -- --

Barium Ba 1.73 .54 4.20 .99 -- -- --

Beryllium Be <.15 <.05 <.20 <.05 -- -- --

Boron B .37 .12 .40 .09 -- -- --

Cadmium Cd <.15 <.05 <.20 <.05 10.0 -- --

Chromium Cr .97 .30 1.90 .45 -- -- --

Cobalt Co .23 .07 .80 .19 -- -- --

Copper Cu 2.45 .76 3.60 .85 -- 0.86 0.68

Iron Fe 186.84 58.16 103.00 24.31 -- -- --

Lead Pb .37 .12 .20 .05 -- .19 .17

Manganese Mn 15.78 4.91 70.60 16.66 -- -- --

Mercury Hg .068 .021 .100 .024 .6 .11 .11

Molybdenum Mo <.15 <.05 <.20 <.05 -- -- --

Nickel Ni .44 .14 1.20 .28 -- -- --

Selenium Se 1.56 .49 2.30 .54 50.0 .46 .47

Silver Ag <.15 <.05 <.20 <.05 -- -- --

Strontium Sr 37.92 11.81 62.80 14.82 -- -- --

Uranium U <.15 <.05 <.20 <.05 -- -- --

Vanadium V <.15 <.05 <.20 <.05 -- -- --

Zinc Zn 39.89 12.42 70.00 16.52 -- .26 .24

Water/Solids -- 68.9% 31.1% 76.4% 23.6% -- -- --

30 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin
Characterization and Remediation of Abandoned Mine Drainage 31

Characterization and Remediation of 

Abandoned Mine Drainage

Numerous AMD sources have been identified as sources 

of acidity, metals, and other contaminants in Shamokin Creek 

and its tributaries in the upper basin. However, the effects on 

streamwater quality can vary depending on the characteristics 

of the AMD sources and the receiving stream. Hence, the primary goals of this study were to assess and rank the effects of 

individual AMD sources and to identify possible remedial alternatives, including passive treatment options that could be 

applied in the basin.

Characteristics of Abandoned Mine Drainage Sources

The water-quality data for low base-flow samples collected in August 1999 and high base-flow samples collected in 

March 2000 are summarized below for the largest AMD 

sources on the basis of flow volume, in approximate east-towest (or downstream) order. The large discharges are identified 

by site number and distinguished by larger symbols in figure 11 

on the basis of their metal loadings.3 The TMDL report identified the AMD sources by name and not site identification number (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 

2001a, 2001b). Most of the large AMD sources are along the 

valley bottom near perennial streams. Many AMD sources contribute substantially to base flow of the receiving stream. The 

tributary stream basin that receives the AMD is identified in

table 2. On the basis of previous reports by Gannett Fleming 

Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. (1972) or Reed and others (1987), 

the approximate recharge area for each of the AMD sources has 

been delineated along with other mine features as part of the 

GIS developed for the project (http://www.pasda.psu.edu/

access/ shamcrk.shtml). Possible treatment alternatives on the 

basis of the AMD water quality (fig. 3) and the proximity of the 

AMD source to nearby streams, roads, and other land-use features have been noted below for consideration by resource managers and land owners that may be involved in decisions to 

implement remediation. No attempt has been made in this study 

to evaluate the feasibility for remediation or treatment of the 

AMD sources. 

Mid Valley Tunnel (SR5B) and Mid Valley overflow 

(SR5A) discharges are at Wilburton No. 1, approximately 2.8 mi 

(4.5 km) upstream of the mouth of North Branch Shamokin 

Creek and 2.1 mi (3.4 km) upstream from SC3D. In August 

1999 and March 2000, flows at SR5B were 2.7 and 5.0 ft3/s 

(4,588 and 8,496 L/min), respectively; the flows at SR5A were 

0 and 1.4 ft3/s (4,588 and 8,496 L/min), respectively (table 3). 

When both discharges were flowing in March 2000, the quality 

of AMD from SR5B and SR5A was nearly identical (table 3), 

implying a common source. The quality of the low and high 

base-flow AMD from SR5B was relatively constant with pH of 

4.0 and 3.8, net alkalinity of -54 and -51 mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 12 and 9.9 mg/L, manganese of 2.2 

mg/L, aluminum of 4.3 and 3.9 mg/L, and oxygen of 0.4 and 0.7 

mg/L (table 3, fig. 11). Various smaller discharges from the Mid 

Valley Mine, including SR56 and SR4, also have water quality 

similar to that at SR5B. The large flow and high concentrations 

of aluminum and iron coupled with the remote location of SR5B 

could complicate the implementation of passive treatment. 

Flushable limestone-based systems and active treatment could 

be considered. Ideally, the flow rate and metals loading could be 

reduced by remining or reprocessing of culm and restoration of 

streamflow in the recharge area. 

Richard’s Shaft Mine Drift (SR55) is near Atlas, approximately 2.4 mi (3.8 km) upstream of the confluence of North 

Branch Shamokin Creek and Shamokin Creek. Although the 

Richard’s Mine shaft location was shown on mine maps compiled for the assessment, this intermittent discharge was not 

reported previously by Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. (1972) or Reed and others (1987). In August 1999, 

SR55 was not flowing, and a nearby shaft along the streambank 

below SR55 and above SC3D was intercepting streamwater. In 

March 2000, the nearby shaft was discharging a small volume 

of water with quality identical to that in the stream. Downstream of SR55, the North Branch Shamokin Creek at SC3D 

had a flow rate of 14 ft3/s, pH of 5.2, concentrations of dissolved iron of 11 mg/L and aluminum of 1.5 mg/L. However, 

upstream from SR55, the flow rate at SC3B was only 7.4 ft3/s 

with pH of 3.9, concentrations of dissolved iron of 6.6 mg/L and 

aluminum of 3.4 mg/L. On the basis of these upstream and 

downstream measurements, the flow rate at SR55 was computed to be 6.6 ft3

/s (11,215 L/min), with pH of 5.5, net alkalinity of -11 mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 22 mg/

L, manganese of 2.4 mg/L, and aluminum of 0.9 mg/L (table 3, 

appendix A)4. Additional hydrologic data are needed to document flow and water-quality variations relevant for the selection and design of remediation. 

Excelsior Mine Strip Pit Overflow discharge (SR12) 

receives drainage from the Reliance, Alaska, Enterprise, and 

Excelsior-Corbin Collieries and is one of the largest discharges 

in the Shamokin Creek watershed. The discharge floods an 

3

In figures and tables, the prefix “SR” was omitted from AMD site numbers. The prefix is used in text to distinguish AMD sites from stream sites, dates, and 

data values. 

4A mixing model using the data for SC3B and SC3D and the geochemical program PHREEQCI (Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999) was developed to estimate the 

pH, alkalinity, and other solute concentrations of SR55 considering nonconservative transport of metals (appendix A). The pH, alkalinity, and Ca2+ were assumed 

to be controlled by dissolution of calcite and the concentrations of dissolved Fe3+ and Al to be limited by equilibrium with goethite (FeOOH) and amorphous 

Al(OH)3, respectively. Generally, the concepts and approach used for this model could be applicable throughout the basin to explain cha nges in solute concentrations as AMD mixes and reacts with streamwater of varying quality. 
Figure 11. Maps of upper Shamokin Creek Basin, Pa., showing: (A) abandoned mine discharge locations and corresponding flow rates and 

and aluminum, March 2000. 

0

0

5 miles

5 kilometers
Figure 11. Maps of upper Shamokin Creek Basin, Pa., showing: (A) abandoned mine discharge locations and corresponding flow rates and 

and aluminum, March 2000 (continued). 

0

0

5 miles

5 kilometers
34 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin

abandoned strip pit forming a 2.9-acre (11,936 m2) pond that 

spills directly into Shamokin Creek. The flow from SR12 is 

similar to that of Shamokin Creek at their confluence. In August 

1999 and March 2000, flows at SR12 were 7.2 and 14 ft3/s 

(12,234 and 23,789 L/min), respectively (table 3). The water 

quality of the AMD was relatively constant with pH of 5.8 and 

5.7, net alkalinity of -8 and -31 mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 28 and 30 mg/L, manganese of 2.9 and 3.1 mg/L, 

aluminum of <0.2 mg/L, and oxygen of 4.1 and 6.5 mg/L (table 

3, fig. 11). The AMD samples were collected at the pond overflow and had been aerated. Unpublished data indicates that dissolved oxygen concentrations are <0.3 mg/L where mine pool 

water enters the strip pit (Carl Kirby, Bucknell University, written commun., 2003). Because of its large size and its proximity 

to Shamokin Creek, remediation of SR12 could be difficult. An 

alternative remediation involves the in-situ addition of limestone (or other alkalinity source) to the flooded pit and subsequent aeration of water to promote the oxidation, hydrolysis, 

and settling of iron solids prior to its discharge to the creek. 

Corbin Water Level Drift discharge (SR15) is at Ranshaw 

and drains the Excelsior-Corbin Colliery into Shamokin Creek 

upstream of its confluence with Quaker Run. In August 1999 

and March 2000, flows at SR15 were 0.92 and 2.5 ft3/s (1,563 

and 4,248 L/min), respectively (table 3). The quality of the 

AMD was relatively constant with pH of 4.2 and 4.4, net alkalinity of -123 to -138 mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron 

of 35 and 46 mg/L, manganese of 5.0 and 4.8 mg/L, aluminum 

of 8.6 and 8.3 mg/L, and oxygen of 2.3 and 4.8 mg/L (table 3, 

fig. 11). Although space for treatment is limited, a vertical-flow 

wetland system such as that constructed at SR42 may be appropriate for treatment of SR15. The SCRA obtained approval for 

installation of a system in 2003-2004 (Carl Kirby, Bucknell 

University, written commun., 2003).

Scott Ridge Mine Tunnel discharge (SR19) is at Kulpmont, 

approximately 1.2 mi (1.9 km) upstream of the mouth of Quaker 

Run and drains the Morris Ridge, Sayre, Stuartsville, Sioux, 

Richards, Greenough, Pennsylvania, Scott, and Natalie Collieries. This discharge had the largest flow rate of any AMD source 

in the watershed during 1999-2000. The discharge from SR19 

surfaces through two different openings and drains into an 

unnamed tributary locally known as Dark Run. In August 1999 

and March 2000, discharge at SR19 was 9.4 and 19 ft3/s (15,972 

and 32,285 L/min), respectively (table 3). The quality of the 

AMD was relatively constant with pH of 5.9 and 5.8, net alkalinity of -20 mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 24 

and 30 mg/L, manganese of 3.5 and 3.7 mg/L, aluminum of 

<0.2 mg/L, and oxygen of 1.9 and 1.4 mg/L (table 3, fig. 11). 

Because the metals loading is large and space for a treatment 

system is limited by proximity of the discharge to streams and 

roads, consideration could be given to active treatment options 

such as heterogeneous catalysis of iron oxidation by ferric 

hydroxide (Dietz and Dempsey, 2002).

Colbert Mine Breach discharge (SR20) is approximately 

1.0 mi (1.6 km) upstream of the mouth of Quaker Run near 

Kulpmont and drains the Morris Ridge, Sayre, Stuartsville, 

Sioux, Richards, Greenough, Pennsylvania, Scott, and Natalie 

Collieries. AMD from SR20 discharges directly into Dark Run. 

In August 1999 and March 2000, flows at SR20 were 1.9 and 

1.6 ft3/s (3,228 and 2,719 L/min), respectively (table 3). The 

quality of the AMD was relatively constant with pH of 6.0, net 

alkalinity of -23 to -18 mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved 

iron of 26 and 30 mg/L, manganese of 3.7 mg/L, aluminum of 

<0.2 mg/L, and oxygen of 0.3 and 7.9 mg/L (table 3, fig. 11). 

The quality of AMD at SR20 is similar to that at SR19; however, because the flow rate is much smaller at SR20 than at 

SR19, passive treatment by anoxic or oxic limestone drains at 

SR20 may be feasible. 

Maysville Mine Borehole discharge (SR21) is approximately 0.3 mi (0.5 km) upstream of the mouth of Quaker Run at 

Ranshaw and drains the Maysville Colliery. The discharge 

emerges through a pipe and flows directly into Quaker Run. In 

August 1999 and March 2000, flows at SR21 were 0.56 and 4.3 

ft3/s (952 and 7,307 L/min), respectively (table 3). The quality 

of the AMD was relatively constant with pH of 6.1 and 6.4, net 

alkalinity 45 and 69 mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron 

of 18 and 23 mg/L, manganese of 2.6 and 2.8 mg/L, aluminum 

of <0.2 mg/L, and oxygen of 4.1 and 5.6 mg/L (table 3, fig. 11). 

This is the largest AMD source in the Shamokin Creek watershed that was consistently net alkaline. AMD with this quality 

could be treated passively with aerobic ponds. However, the 

discharge is on the bank of Quaker Run. Anecdotal information 

suggests that this discharge intentionally has been moved to its 

current location (Carl Kirby, Bucknell University, written commun., 2003). The discharge possibly could be relocated away 

from the bank of the stream to enable its passive treatment. 

Big Mountain Mine No. 1 slope discharge (SR23) at Big 

Mountain drains the Big Mountain, Burnside, and Enterprise 

Collieries and forms the headwaters of an unnamed tributary 

locally called Buck Run. In August 1999 and March 2000, 

flows at SR23 were 0.51 and 3.6 ft3/s (867 and 6,117 L/min), 

respectively (table 3). The quality of the AMD was relatively 

constant with pH of 3.7 and 4.1, net alkalinity of -112 and -106 

mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 25 and 28 mg/L, 

manganese of 7.4 and 7.1 mg/L, aluminum of 7.8 and 7.0 mg/L, 

and oxygen of 4.0 and 0.1 mg/L (table 3, fig. 11). Although 

flowing during August 1999 and March 2000, this discharge is 

intermittent (Leanne Bjorklund, Shamokin Creek Restoration 

Alliance, oral commun., 2003). During 2001, the SCRA 

reported the discharge at SR23 stopped flowing, while the same 

quality water began to flow from a nearby capped shaft. Subsequently, the “new” shaft overflow chemistry changed various 

times, evidenced by alternating precipitation of iron or aluminum hydroxide solids. The SCRA also measured appreciable 

pH variations. In the late spring of 2003, the SCRA reported 

that the shaft and the original SR23 discharge were flowing following extensive rains. In the fall1998, PaDEP data on this permitted discharge also showed a distinct increase in iron and pH 

associated with aluminum concentration near zero. This discharge probably is connected hydrologically to an active strip 

mine operation (Blaschak Coal) that uses lime amendments 

during the reclamation process. The lime amendments could 

cause the chemistry fluctuations; however, changes in flow 
Characterization and Remediation of Abandoned Mine Drainage 35

have not been explained. Undeveloped land below the discharge could be available for construction of a treatment system. However, additional hydrologic data are needed to document flow and chemistry variations that would be relevant for 

the selection and design of remediation. A vertical-flow wetland system or flushable oxic limestone drain could be considered.

Royal Oak Mine discharge (SR22A,B) at Marshallton is 

approximately 0.7 mi (1.1 km) upstream of the mouth of Coal 

Run and drains the Buck Ridge #1 and Luke Fidler Collieries. 

The flow rate at SR22B exceeds or equals that at SR22A; otherwise, the quality is similar (table 3). In August 1999 and 

March 2000, flows at SR22B were 0.01 and 0.9 ft3/s (9 and 

1,529 L/min), respectively (table 3). The quality of the AMD 

was relatively constant with pH of 5.8 and 5.9, net alkalinity 4 

and 13 mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 14 and 11 

mg/L, manganese of 2.3 and 2.2 mg/L, aluminum of <0.2 mg/

L, and oxygen of 2.3 and 2.8 mg/L (table 3, fig. 11). AMD with 

this quality could be treated passively with aerobic ponds. However, the proximity of the discharge to the stream could limit 

installation of a passive-treatment system.

Henry Clay Stirling Mine Pump Slope discharge (SR49) is 

southwest of Shamokin approximately 1.5 mi (2.4 km) 

upstream of the mouth of Carbon Run and drains the Henry 

Clay, Stirling, Neilson, Bear Valley, Burnside, Royal Oak, and 

Buck Ridge Collieries. The Henry Clay Stirling Mine Slope discharge is the largest discharge in the Carbon Run watershed and 

one of the largest in the Shamokin Creek watershed. In August 

1999 and March 2000, flows at SR49 were 1.6 and 13 ft3/s 

(2,719 and 22,090 L/min), respectively (table 3). With the possible exception of alkalinity, the quality of the AMD was relatively constant with pH of 5.8 and 6.1, net alkalinity of -19 and 

17 mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 25 and 24 mg/

L, manganese of 3.2 and 2.8 mg/L, aluminum of <0.2 mg/L, and 

oxygen of 0.3 and 0.4 mg/L (table 3, fig. 11). Land probably is 

not available for construction of a treatment system. However, 

additional hydrologic data are needed to document flow and 

chemistry variations, particularly the alkalinity and acidity, that 

would be relevant for the selection and design of remediation 

systems. Direct placement of limestone into the flooded slope 

could be considered. Alternatively, limestone screenings might 

be emplaced down an upgradient borehole (USGS NU 146 or 

NU 147 in Reed and others, 1987). The cover to borehole NU 

147 is in a private driveway on State Route 125 right-of-way, 

and it was recently paved over, presumably by the landowner. 

Borehole NU 146 has not been located recently.

Cameron Air Shaft discharge (SR53) is the first of a pair of 

discharges flowing from the Glen Burn Colliery Complex near 

the northern limit of the city of Shamokin. This discharge also 

receives drainage from the Hickory Ridge, Colbert, Hickory 

Swamp, Cameron, Glen Burn, Natalie, and Luke Fidler Collieries. In August 1999 and March 2000, flows at SR53 were 2.3 

and 5.0 ft3/s (3,908 and 8,496 L/min), respectively (table 3). 

The quality of the AMD was relatively constant with pH of 4.0 

and 4.2, net alkalinity of -134 and -145 mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 49 and 57 mg/L, manganese of 6.1 and 

5.6 mg/L, aluminum of 5.4 and 5.2 mg/L, and oxygen of 2.4 and 

3.4 mg/L (table 3, fig. 11). Because SR53 is situated in the flood 

plain between State Route 61 and Shamokin Creek, land area is 

constrained for construction of a treatment system. In this situation, active treatment alternatives warrant consideration. 

Cameron Drift discharge (SR51A), a drift opening, is the 

second in a pair of discharges flowing from the Glen Burn Colliery. This discharge receives drainage from the Hickory Ridge, 

Colbert, Hickory Swamp, Cameron, Glen Burn, Natalie, and 

Luke Fidler Collieries. In August 1999 and March 2000, flows 

at SR51A were 1.2 and 2.3 ft3/s (2,039 and 3,908 L/ min), 

respectively (table 3). The quality of the AMD was relatively 

constant with pH of 5.3 and 5.5, net alkalinity of -75 and -56 

mg/L, and concentrations of dissolved iron of 54 and 47 mg/L, 

manganese of 5.5 and 4.5 mg/L, aluminum of <0.2 mg/L, and 

oxygen of 0.3 and 0.2 mg/L (table 3, fig. 11). Although the adjacent land is constrained by its proximity to State Route 61 and 

Shamokin Creek, an underground, anoxic limestone drain could 

be considered for treatment of SR51A. 

Remedial Priorities and Alternatives

Flow and concentration data for the high base-flow samples collected in March 2000 were used to determine priority 

ranks of the AMD sources on the basis of loads of dissolved 

iron, manganese, and aluminum and to indicate the possible size 

of wetlands for iron removal. The AMD source with the highest 

loading was assigned a rank of 1, with successively higher ranks 

assigned to AMD sources in descending order of dissolved 

metal loading (table 7). To provide context for comparing the 

AMD sources, the dissolved metals loading at each AMD 

source was expressed as a percentage of cumulative dissolved 

metals loading for all the AMD sources in the watershed (table 

7). Generally, the AMD sources with the largest flow rates and 

iron concentrations were ranked among the top 20 AMD 

sources (fig. 12). However, the AMD ranking generally did not 

correlate with the acidity or aluminum concentration. The top 

three AMD sources, SR19, SR12, and SR49, accounted for 

more than 50 percent of the dissolved metals loading to 

Shamokin Creek, whereas the top 15 AMD sources accounted 

for more than 98 percent of the dissolved metals loading (table 

7). 

The March 2000 high base-flow, dissolved-metal data 

were considered useful in the evaluation of AMD priorities 

because (1) flow rates in March 2000 likely were near normal, 

(2) 10 previously identified intermittent AMD sources were not 

discharging during the August 1999 low base-flow survey, and 

(3) acidity is determined largely by dissolved metals concentrations. Ideally, loadings and associated AMD priorities should 

be determined on the basis of long-term averages, but these data 

were not available. Data for pH were not used for the ranking 

computations because pH tends to be an unstable parameter that 

does not indicate the ultimate potential for acidic conditions, 

and when pH or hydrogen ion loadings were included in the 

ranking computations, results were not changed appreciably. 
acidic; suboxic. 

conditions. Access difficult because upwells within ponded area on North Branch 

Shamokin Creek. However, area may be available for treatment. 

23 6 3 5 5.5 77.0

Large flow; very high Fe, 

Mn; very high Al; net 

acidic; oxic.

1 2 1

Additional hydrologic data are needed to understand flow changes. Will be 

difficult keeping surface runoff out of treatment system. Diminished source of 

metals during low-flow conditions.

3.1

15 7 5 7 5.3 82.3

Large flow; very high Fe, 

Mn; very high Al; net 

acidic; oxic. 1 2 1 3

Area on south side of Shamokin Creek alone insufficient for complete passive 

treatment; flows as of December 2001 (170 gpm) much lower than those 

measured during March 2001. As of July 2002, a VFCW and aerobic pond are 

under construction. 

3.5

51A 8 7 6 4.3 86.6

Large flow; very high Fe, 

Mn; moderate Al; net 

acidic; anoxic.

1 2

Small area for passive treatment before discharges reaches Shamokin Creek. 

Substantial source of metals during low-flow conditions. 3.8

21 9 43* 9 4.0 90.6

Large flow; high Fe, Mn; 

moderate Al; net alkaline; 

oxic. 2? 1

Discharges immediately into Quaker Run; no area for passive treatment unless 

discharge relocated; discharge was apparently relocated in the past to reduce 

flooding in Ranshaw. Consider active treatment with no alkaline addition, but 

using heterogeneous catalysis of iron oxidation by ferric hydroxide.

3.0

05B 10 6 10 2.9 93.5

Very large flow; high Fe, 

Mn; high Al; net acidic; 

anoxic. ? ? ? ?

Site is remote, making active treatment difficult; difficult area for passive 

treatment; may be able to lower Al concentration by preventing water infiltration 

up-gradient (Site 1). Water quality similar to Site 5A. Consider treatment within 

deep mine pool. Substantial source of metals during low-flow conditions.

1.8

20 11 11 11 1.9 95.4

Large flow; high Fe, Mn; 

moderate Al; net acidic; 

oxic. 1 1 2

May be anoxic; extreme water turbulence at monitored pipe outlet and sulfide 

odor makes it uncertain as to whether dissolved oxygen is high at pipe inlet. 

Water quality similar to Site 19. Marginally net acidic; small additional alkalinity 

needed for treatment. Substantial source of metals during low-flow conditions.

1.7

05A 12 9 13 0.8 96.2

Intermittent flow; high Fe, 

Mn; high Al; net acidic; 

anoxic.

? ? ?

Site is remote, making active treatment difficult; difficult area for passive 

treatment; may be able to lower Al concentration by preventing water infiltration 

up-gradient (Site 1). Water quality similar to Site 5B.

0.4

42 13 18 16 0.6 96.8

Large flow; moderate Fe, 

Mn; moderate Al; net 

acidic; oxic.

* *

Treated successfully using VFCW followed by settling ponds. 

Monitor and maintain treatment; flush VFCW periodically; check erosion 

problems along Carbon Run.

0.5

51 14 17 12 0.5 97.3

Moderate flow; moderate 

Fe, Mn; moderate Al; net 

acidic; oxic.

? ?

Unusually high dissolved oxygen for deep mine discharge. Water chemistry 

changes substantially with time and flow rate. Small area for treatment unless 

discharge relocated.

0.3

04 15 10 15 0.5 97.8

Large flow; moderate Fe, 

Mn; very high Al; net 

acidic; oxic.

2 1 3 1

Unusually high dissolved oxygen for deep mine discharge implies subsurface 

aeration. Remote location. Limited area for passive treatment. 0.1

22B 16 42 14 0.4 98.2

Moderate flow; high Fe, 

Mn; moderate Al; net 

alkaline?; oxic.

? ?

Remote location. Same water chemistry as 22A. No area for treatment; relocation 

of discharge unlikely. 0.4

03 17 16 23 0.2 98.4

Small flow; very high Fe, 

Mn; very high Al; net 

acidic; anoxic.

1 3 2 4 2

Substantial Al loading to North Branch of Shamokin Creek. Remote location; 

removal of large culm bank could eliminate source. Ponds could be constructed 

in old silt pond from which coal fines could be recovered.

<.1

11 18 13 19 0.2 98.6

Intermittent flow; 

moderate Fe, Mn; very 

high Al; net acidic; oxic.

1 2 3 4 2

Substantial Al loading to Locust Creek; intermittent to moderate flow; removal of 

large culm bank could eliminate source. <.1

29 19 24 24 0.2 98.8

Moderate flow; high Fe, 

Mn; moderate Al; net 

acidic; suboxic.

3? 2? 1? 2?

Railroad tracks limit space for treatment.

0.2

08 20 12 17 0.2 99.0

Intermittent flow; 

moderate Fe, Mn; very 

high Al; net acidic; oxic.

1 3 2 4 2

Substantial Al loading to Locust Creek; intermittent to moderate flow; removal of 

large culm bank could eliminate source. <.1

52 21 29 18 0.2 99.2

Moderate flow; high Fe, 

Mn; moderate Al; net 

acidic; oxic.

2? 1? ?

Small area for treatment unless discharge relocated.

0.1

02 22 14 21 0.2 99.4

Moderate flow; moderate 

Fe, Mn; very high Al; net 

acidic; oxic.

1 2 3 4 1

Remote location; removal of large culm bank could substantially remediate site. 

Ponds could be constructed in old silt pond from which coal fines could be 

recovered.

<.1

01 23 15 26 0.1 99.5

Moderate flow; moderate 

Fe, Mn; very high Al; net 

acidic; oxic. 1 3 2 2

Water apparently infiltrates into deep mine pool, contributing substantial Al 

loading to North Branch of Shamokin Creek at Site 5. Remote location; removal 

of large culm bank could eliminate source. Stream restoration needed: stream 

infiltrates completely at low flow.

<.1

okin Creek Basin
47 30 22 29 <.1 100moderate Fe, Mn; very 

high Al; net acidic; oxic.

1 ? ?

room for passive treatment <.1

31-32 31 23 28 <.1 100

Small flow; moderate Fe, 

Mn; very high Al; net 

acidic; oxic.

2 1 3 1

Main source of water for upper Coal Run; all water at low flow infiltrates into a 

downflow strip pit; stream restoration needed in addition to water treatment. <.1

54 32 25 33 <.1 100

Small flow; moderate Fe, 

Mn; very high Al; net 

acidic; oxic.

1 ? 2 ?

Low-flow seepage from spoils piles; small area for passive treatment.

<.1

56 33 27 38 <.1 100

Intermittent flow; high Fe, 

Mn; very high Al; net 

acidic; anoxic.

1 2

Anaerobic wetland could be appropriate for this water quality, which is similar to 

adjacent Site 5A. If possible, treat with Site 5A. <.1

30 34 28 35 <.1 100

Small flow; moderate Fe, 

Mn; moderate Al; net 

acidic; oxic.

3 1 2 1

Flushable oxic limestone drain could be appropriate for this water quality, 

provided that space and access are available. <.1

43 35 26 31 <.1 100

Intermittent flow; 

moderate Fe, Mn; 

moderate Al; net acidic; 

oxic.

2 3 1 1

Water enters wetland downstream of emanation; intermittently a substantial 

source of Al to Carbon Run; water could be diverted into present downstream 

water-filled strip pit; vertical flow wetland may have to be upflow type. <.1

41 36 35 43* <.1 100

Intermittent flow; 

moderate Fe, Mn; 

moderate Al; net alkaline?; 

oxic.

? ? ?

Very small; marginally net alkaline; no treatment suggested.

<.1

44 37 36 43* <.1 100

Small flow; low Fe, Mn; 

moderate Al; net alkaline?; 

oxic.

? ? ?

Very small; no treatment suggested.

<.1

40B 38 37 37 <.1 100

Intermittent flow; low Fe, 

Mn; moderate Al; net 

alkaline; oxic.

?

No treatment suggested.

<.1

40C 39 39 34 <.1 100

Small flow; low Fe, Mn; 

moderate Al; net alkaline; 

oxic.

?

No treatment suggested.

<.1

06 40 31 43* <.1 100

Small flow; moderate Fe, 

Mn; moderate Al; net 

acidic; oxic.

2 3 1 1

Water flows through wetland that could be used for treatment; would need to 

keep excess runoff from entering treatment system. <.1

36B 41 30 36 <.1 100

Small flow; moderate Fe, 

Mn; moderate Al; net 

acidic; oxic.

? ? ?

Not reported in Scarlift; water quality substantially different from Site 36A.

<.1

13 42 32 42 <.1 100

Small flow; low Fe, Mn; 

moderate Al; net acidic; 

oxic.

2? 1

Likely anoxic as indicated by high Fe concentration and intermediate pH.

<.1

37 43* 33 41 <.1 100 Intermittent flow 2? 1 OLC would increase alkalinity of tributary.

36A 43* 43* 43* <.1 100

Intermittent flow; 

moderate Fe, Mn; 

moderate Al; net acidic; 

oxic.

2 1 1

Flow alternates between no flow and very high flow, complicating treatment 

options. Discharge not flowing during USGS sampling in March 2000, but SCRA 

sampled large flow (2 ft3/s) during April 2000. <.1

38A 43* 40 40 <.1 100

Small flow; low Fe, Mn; 

moderate Al; net alkaline; 

oxic.

2 1

Alternative treatment: add alkaline material to present pond.

<.1

45 43* 34 39 <.1 100

Intermittent flow; low Fe, 

Mn; moderate Al; net 

acidic; oxic.

? ?

Small flow immediately adjacent to Carbon Run; no treatment suggested.

--

7 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 Intermittent flow. Discharge not flowing during study. --

9 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 -- Discharge not located. --

14 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 Intermittent flow. Discharge not flowing during study. --

16 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 Intermittent flow. Discharge not flowing during study. --

17 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 Intermittent flow. Discharge not flowing during study. --

18 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 Intermittent flow. Discharge not flowing during study. --

24 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 -- Not found during sampling; seep located adjacent to or in stream. --

25 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 -- Not found during sampling; seep located adjacent to or in stream. --

26 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 -- Not found during sampling; seep located adjacent to or in stream. --

f Abandoned Mine Drainage 37
Table 7. Rankings and possible remedial alternatives for abandoned mine drainage (AMD) in Shamokin Creek Basin, Pennsylvania (contin

[AMD rank based on instantaneous dissolved metals, net-alkalinity, or sulfate loading during March 14-16, 2000. Remedial alternatives iden

preference; any treatment design would require additional data and specific analysis; VFCW, vertical-flow compost wetland; ALD, anoxic lim

flushable oxic limestone drain; OLC, open limestone channel; ft3

/s, cubic feet per second; L/min, liters per minute; mg/L, milligrams per lite

ranked 43rd are not distinguished from one another by rank because of insufficient data. SCRA Site Identification Numbera

a. Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance (SCRA) site numbers based on Scarlift report of Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. (1972). AMD Metals Rankb

b. Rankings for AMD metals and net-alkalinity considered the instantaneous loading of dissolved iron, aluminum, and manganese; net alkalinity = measured alkalinity 

7 and 8.

Net Alkalinity Rank

Sulfate Rank

Percentage Dissolved

Fe, Al, and Mn load

Cumulative Percentage

Fe, Al, and Mn load Principal Characteristicsc

c. Principal characteristics based on maxima and minima for flow rate and concentrations of alkalinity, dissolved metals, and oxygen (in mg/L) for samples collected 

Flow (ft3/s): ‘very large’ if minimum > 2.0; ‘large’ if maximum < 2.0; ‘moderate’ if maximum < 1.0; ‘small’ if maximum < 0.1; ‘Intermittent’ if maximum or minimum = 

‘very high’ if minimum Fe > 12 and minimum Mn > 4; ‘high’ if minimum Fe < 12 and minimum Mn < 4; ‘moderate’ if minimum Fe < 6 and minimum Mn < 2; ‘low’ if ma

< 1. Aluminum (mg/L): ‘very high’ if maximum > 4; ‘high’ if maximum > 2; ‘moderate’ if maximum < 2; ‘low’ if maximum < 0.2. Net alkalinity (alkalinity - computed a

acidic?’ if maximum < 5; ‘net acidic’ if maximum < 0; ‘net alkaline?’ if minimum > 0 or if missing and minimum pH > 6.4; ‘net alkaline’ if minimum > 5. Dissolved oxyg

< 1; ‘suboxic’ if maximum < 2; ‘oxic’ if minimum > 2. 

Remedial Alternativesd

d. Remedial alternatives initially identified on the basis of maxima and minima for flow rate and water quality (in mg/L): ‘Remove culmbank’ if maximum pH < 4

net alkalinity > 5; ‘VFCW and aerobic pond’ if minimum net alkalinity < 5, maximum dissolved oxygen > 1, maximum Al > 2, and maximum Qcfs < 6.5; ‘ALD and aerobi

< 5, maximum dissolved oxygen < 1, maximum Al < 2, and maximum flow < 6.5; ‘OLD and aerobic pond’ if minimum net alkalinity < 5, maximum dissolved oxygen > 1, 

flow < 6.5; ‘OLC’ if minimum net alkalinity < 5, maximum Fe < 10, maximum Al < 5, and maximum flow < 10; ‘Active Treatment’ if minimum flow > 2 or maximum ne

Comments

e. Minimum wetland size computed by dividing the product of maximum flow rate and maximum iron concentration, in grams per day, by 20 g/m2/day (180 lb/ac

R.W., and Kleinmann, R.L.P. (1994). 

Remove Culm bank

VFCW

ALDOLD

OLC

Aerobic Pond(s)

Active Treatment

27 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 -- Not found during sampling; seep located adjacent to or in 

33 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 -- Discharge not located. 

34 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 -- Discharge not located. 

35 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 -- Discharge not located. 

40A 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 -- Small flow during study; no treatment suggested. 

50 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 -- Discharge not located. 

57 43* 43* 43* <.1 100 -- 1? Undetermined small flow immediately adjacent to Coal Ru

determining remedial alternatives. 
Figure 12. Relation between priority ranking on the basis of dissolved metals loading in March 2000 for top 25 abandoned mine discharge 

acidity, (C) pH, (D) iron, (E) manganese, and (F) aluminum concentrations for high base-flow (HI-GW) and low base-flow (LO-GW) AMD s

y = -26.78x + 5948.5

R

2

 = 0.0016

0

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 

AMD Rank

Aluminum, micrograms per liter

HI-GW

LO-GW

12F

y = -69.648x + 4309.8

R

2

 = 0.2727

0

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111213 14 1516 17 1819 20 212223 24 25

AMD Rank

Manganese, in micrograms per 

liter

HI-GW

LO-GW

12E

y = -828.

R

2

 = 

0

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

Iron, micrograms per liter

12D

y = -0.0038x + 4.8512

R

2

 = 0.0018

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

pH

HI-GW

LO-GW

12C

y = -1.7436x + 105.78

R

2

 = 0.1091

0

400

300

200

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

Acidity, in milligrams per liter

3 as CaCO

HI-GW

LO-GW

12B

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Flow Rate,

in cubic feet per second

HI-GW

LO-GW

12A
40 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin

Estimates of the metals loads and corresponding rankings 

of AMD priorities were similar on the basis of the metals in 

whole-water (total) and 0.45-μm filtered (dissolved) subsamples (fig. 13). Furthermore, the ranking sequence for the top 

AMD sources based on the high base-flow data generally 

matched that based on the low base-flow data (fig. 13). However, 4 of the top 20 AMD sources, SR55, SR5A, SR11, and 

SR8 (ranked 5, 12, 18, and 20, respectively) were not flowing 

in August 1999 (table 3, fig. 13). With the exception of SR11, 

the concentration of dissolved iron typically exceeded that of 

the other metals, indicating iron was the predominant source of 

acidity (fig. 13). Nevertheless, because the proportions of dissolved iron, manganese, and aluminum in the AMD varied from 

site to site, different rankings could result by weighting the metals with different factors such as dividing the concentration by 

regulatory standards. 

The AMD priority ranking could have been developed 

using various other constituents or computational methods. 

Cherry and others (2001) and Herlihy and others (1990) used 

various biological and chemical constituents to assess AMD 

effects on a watershed scale. Williams and others (1996, 1999) 

used flow and chemical constituents including acidity, metals, 

and sulfate to develop a ranking scheme based primarily on contaminant loading; pH was used as a “tie-breaker.” For the current assessment, rankings on the basis of sulfate were similar to 

those computed on the basis of dissolved metals (table 7). When 

“hot” acidity or net-alkalinity (alkalinity - computed acidity) 

loading was considered, the ranks for most AMD sources were 

similar to those based on their metals loading; however, ranks 

for various AMD sources with substantial alkalinity and metals 

loading shifted (table 7). For example, SR49 and SR21 had netalkalinity rankings of 44 and 45 (shown as 43* in table 7) compared with their dissolved-metal rankings of 3 and 9, respectively. These rankings indicate that acidity loading from SR49 

and SR21 is less than that from other top-ranked AMD sources; 

their treatment is likely to be more feasible than other large 

AMD sources. Another option would be a ranking of AMD 

sources based on the feasibility for their treatment or remediation. Ultimately, the feasibility of remediation of a particular 

discharge must consider the AMD quality and loading rates, if 

space is accessible for treatment, and if funding, construction 

permits, and other resources can be obtained for implementation. Comments were added to table 7 indicating possible remedial alternatives and other issues with respect to treatability for

consideration by resource managers and land owners that may 

be involved in decisions to implement remediation. No attempt 

has been made in this study to evaluate the feasibility for remediation or treatment of the AMD sources.

Generally, to meet water-quality criteria for 0.3 mg/L dissolved iron, nearly all the AMD sources would require construction of some sort of settling basin or wetland to facilitate 

iron oxidation, hydrolysis, and deposition. Hence, to provide a 

basis for evaluating the feasibility of constructing a passive 

treatment at the sites, the minimum wetland size for each AMD 

source was computed using the data for maximum flow rate and 

maximum iron concentration for the August 1999 and March 

2000 data and considering abandoned mine criteria of Hedin 

and others (1994) for an iron removal rate of 180 lb/acre/day 

(20 g/m2/day) (table 7). The computed wetland sizes ranged 

from 17.8 acres for SR19 to <0.1 acre for SR3, which were 

ranked 1 and 17, respectively. Many of the smaller AMD 

sources also were identified as requiring only small wetlands 

(<0.1 acre). Small wetland acreages were computed for sites 

with low flow rates and low concentrations of dissolved iron; 

however, many of these AMD sources, such as SR3, could have 

high concentrations of dissolved aluminum (table 7). 

In the Shamokin Creek watershed, the primary water-quality concerns that result from AMD are low pH, high concentrations of aluminum and possibly other toxic metals, and thick 

iron-hydroxide coatings on streambeds. Low pH coupled with 

high concentrations of dissolved aluminum and other metals, 

such as nickel and zinc, can be toxic to many aquatic organisms 

(Burrows, 1977; Burton and Allan, 1986; Hyman and Watzlaf, 

1997; Earle and Callaghan, 1998; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002a). Although dissolved iron is not acutely 

toxic at the concentrations documented in this watershed (<60 

mg/L), thick accumulations of iron hydroxide effectively can 

eliminate the habitat of aquatic macroinvertebrates that serve as 

food sources for organisms at higher trophic levels. Manganese 

loading was incorporated in the AMD prioritization because 

manganese concentrations in streamwater and in effluent from 

active mines are regulated by Federal and State law (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1998a, 1998b, 2001). Kleinmann and 

Watzlaf (1986) and Hyman and Watzlaf (1997) explained that 

the manganese regulation is in force not because of its toxicity, 

but rather because of the potentially flawed assumption that 

manganese concentration serves as a proxy for toxic trace metals. 

An inherent assumption in the three-metal assessment used 

for this study is that “If the instream loadings of iron, manganese, and aluminum are decreased to acceptable levels by 

appropriate treatment or natural processes, other chemical, 

physical, and biological parameters will be within a range that 

should support normal aquatic populations.” For pH, acidity, 

and alkalinity, this assumption should be valid because the 

AMD treatments appropriate for removal of iron, manganese, 

and aluminum also will increase the pH and alkalinity while 

decreasing acidity in receiving streams. Because trace-metal 

concentrations in streamwater and sediments tend to be controlled by their adsorption to precipitated Fe(III) and Mn(IV) 

hydroxides, trace-metal toxicity also can be reduced by treatments that effectively remove acidity and promote the formation of the metal hydroxides. Dissolved oxygen concentrations 

in flowing streams should be adequate to support warm-water 

fish populations once the chemical-oxygen demand associated 

with Fe(II) and Mn(II) loadings is reduced. Although SO4

2-

concentrations will be little affected by AMD treatment, the 

SO4

2- concentrations in this watershed are not expected to negatively affect biological recovery. 

Once streamwater chemistry improves, the remaining 

obstacle to ecosystem improvement could be lack of adequate 

aquatic habitat or stream substrate. Most stream substrates in
Figure 13. (A) Comparison of priority ranks for top 20 abandoned mine discharge (AMD) sites, Shamokin Creek Basin, Pa., on the basis of 

minum, and manganese in whole-water and filtered samples collected in March 2000 and filtered samples collected in August 1999. (B) 

dissolved iron, manganese, and aluminum to the dissolved metals loading for top 20 AMD sites, March 2000.

5%

0%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

SR19SR12SR49SR53SR55SR23SR15

SR51A

SR21

SR05B

SR20

SR05A

SR42SR51SR04

SR22B

SR03SR11

Percentage of Cumulative Metals

(Fe+Al+Mn) Load

Total Metal

Dissolved M

Dissolved M

13A

0

600

500

400

300

200

100

SR19SR12SR49SR53SR55SR23SR15

SR51A

SR21

SR05B

SR20

SR05A

SR42SR51SR04

SR22B

SR03SR11

Local Site Number in order of AMD Rank (based on dissolved Fe+Al+Mn load)

Dissolved Load,

in megagrams per year

13B 
42 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin

the Shamokin Creek watershed are coated by relatively loose 

iron-hydroxide flocculents rather than “armored” by tightly 

bound iron-hydroxide cements. Much of the loose flocculent 

could be scoured away by fast-flowing water following treatment installation. Evidence of such scouring is observed downstream of the SR42 passive-treatment system in the Carbon Run 

subwatershed (Kirby, 2001) and in Swatara Creek (Cravotta 

and Bilger, 2001). At least two major remaining substrate or 

habitat problems will not be addressed by AMD treatment 

alone. First, during high-flow events, the erosion of coal and 

waste-rock particles from numerous mine roads and waste-rock 

piles into streams periodically will disturb stream habitats. Second, a few stream reaches (especially North Branch Shamokin 

Creek, Locust Creek, and Coal Run) are ephemeral (always dry 

except during high flow events) because water is lost to deep 

mine complexes. The three-metal dissolved load ranking for 

base-flow conditions does not address these problems.

A variety of restoration activities could be considered to 

mitigate the AMD contamination in the upper Shamokin Creek 

Basin. Because many of the AMD sources are extremely large 

or have insufficient land area for construction of active or passive-treatment systems, emphasis could be placed on the prevention of infiltration through mine spoil or into the underground mines. Ideally, flow rates and metals loading from 

AMD sources can be reduced by the restoration of streamflow. 

If surface reclamation or streamflow restoration is planned or 

completed, the design of any AMD treatment system should 

consider additional monitoring to document potential changes 

in flow and loading rates. The following examples of restoration 

activities were reported as strategies to meet TMDLs in the 

Shamokin Creek Basin (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2001a, 2001b). 

• Reclamation of abandoned surface mines, including 

removal of abandoned highwalls and spoil banks and filling abandoned surface-mine pits. Reclamation would eliminate surface-water accumulations that become 

contaminated with mine drainage because of contact with 

exposed acid-producing strata and greatly reduce the 

amount of surface runoff directed into the mine-pool systems by promoting surface drainage. The regrading of disturbed areas would provide a more natural flow pattern for 

runoff and prevent surface flows from percolating through 

abandoned refuse and entering underground mine pools 

and emerging as mine discharges. 

• Removal, regrading and replanting of abandoned coalrefuse piles would reduce the amount of sediments, silt, and 

coal-waste runoff into surface streams and eliminate a 

source of AMD. 

• Restoration of surface channels and flow of streams that 

now disappear into spoil banks and enter deep-mine pools. 

The reduction of recharge to the deep mines could lessen 

the volume of water discharged by AMD sources. 

• Site-specific assessments to determine whether passive 

treatment is practical and which systems are best suited for 

specific discharges. Assessments should include discharge 

water quality and flow, topographical setting, construction 

costs, and long-term operation and maintenance costs. The 

technology may not be available to passively treat many of 

these high-volume discharges. 

Flow Considerations

The evaluation of contaminant loading rates and the use of 

these data for the development of TMDLs or design of treatment systems requires sufficient samples to characterize the 

average values and extremes in flow rates and quality at each of 

the AMD sources. The low and high base-flow data collected 

for this study were collected with the intent to bracket average 

conditions and indicate some of the variability in flow and 

chemistry (fig. 7). Average conditions generally are not known, 

however, because continuous records or data on the extremes 

for flow or chemistry for individual mine discharges in the 

watershed are not available. Considering the long-term streamflow data for Shamokin Creek at the USGS streamflow-gaging 

station near Shamokin (figs. 7 and 8), data collected for the high 

base-flow survey in March 2000 are likely to be consistent with 

long-term average flow conditions and presumably representative of current water quality. Thus, these data were considered 

useful for ranking of AMD remediation priorities. For the computation of wetland size (table 7), the maximum flow rate and 

maximum iron concentration documented for the low and high 

base-flow surveys were used to indicate a conservative estimate 

of wetland size. Nevertheless, specific, detailed treatment 

design at any AMD site would require additional data on the 

range of flow rates and corresponding variations in water quality. Furthermore, bench-scale testing of the feasible treatment 

alternatives such as that by Cravotta (2002, 2003), Cravotta and 

Watzlaf (2002), and Dietz and Dempsey (2002), probably 

would be required prior to selecting an alternative. 

Although cost estimates were not determined for the remedial alternatives, the flow and water-quality data collected for 

this study can be used to estimate and compare the relative sizes 

and costs (capital and annual maintenance) for different activetreatment and passive-treatment alternatives. The flow, acidity, 

alkalinity, and metals concentration data are critical data for 

such computations because they determine the quantities of 

neutralizing agents, the overall size of the treatment system, and 

the quantities of sludge that may require disposal. Given the 

estimated size and cost for a treatment system, its feasibility can 

be evaluated based on analysis with a computer program such 

as AMDTreat (U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, 2002). The comparison of alternatives becomes 

complicated, however, considering different assumptions about 

capital and long-term maintenance costs, replacement frequency, inflation rates, and interest growth. For example, data 

collected in March 2000 for SR19 were used with AMDTreat 

version 3.1 and default settings for unit costs (U.S. Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 2002). Active 

treatment of SR19 with caustic soda or pebble quick lime was 

estimated to have a capital cost of approximately $300,000 and 

annual maintenance cost of approximately $200,000. Alterna-
Summary 43

tively, a passive system, such as an ALD coupled with aerobic 

ponds and assuming 20 g/m2/day iron loading rate (Hedin and 

others, 1994), is estimated to have a capital cost of approximately $3,100,000 and negligible annual maintenance costs. 

For a design life of 20 years, annual inflation rate of 3 percent, 

and annual interest growth rate of 2.5 percent, AMDTreat indicates the net present cost for treatment of SR19 would be 

approximately $3,400,000 for the active systems compared to 

$3,100,000 for the passive system. If inflation remained at 3 

percent and the interest growth rate were 8 percent or more, the 

net present costs for the active treatments would be less than 

that for passive treatment. This example illustrates “high capital, but low maintenance cost” for passive treatment compared 

to active treatment of large discharges and how these costs are 

considered in future planning. Nevertheless, land for installation of a passive system may not be available, and the best treatment alternative may not have been considered. Any treatment 

design would require additional site-specific data. 

Summary

Shamokin Creek is a tributary of the Susquehanna River in 

east-central Pennsylvania. Contaminated runoff and discharges 

from abandoned anthracite mines in the upper 54 mi2 (140 km2) 

basin degrade the aquatic ecosystem and water quality of 

Shamokin Creek to its mouth and along many of its tributaries 

within the upper basin. In order to assess the effects of AMD 

sources and to identify possible remedial alternatives, the 

USGS, in cooperation with the PaDEP, BU, and NCCD began 

a study in 1999. Data on the flow rate and quality of water were 

collected at all known AMD sites and at selected stream sites 

within the Shamokin Creek Basin during low base-flow conditions in August 1999 and then repeated during high base-flow 

conditions in March 2000. The basin-wide synoptic monitoring 

of flow and water quality during stable base-flow conditions 

was performed to (1) identify site-specific characteristics 

including temporal variability associated with seasonal changes 

in base flow, (2) indicate spatial variability and relative effects 

of the AMD throughout the basin, and (3) avoid complications 

in data collection and interpretation associated with rainfall or 

other short-term weather events. Additionally, during October 

1999, 2000, and 2001, data on the diversity and biomass of fish 

species were collected at a subset of the sampled stream sites, 

and streamflow of Shamokin Creek below Shamokin was 

recorded continuously. 

The results of this assessment indicate the streamwater in 

Shamokin Creek as it exits the mining region upstream of SC15 

has near-neutral pH. However, this streamwater has elevated 

concentrations of dissolved iron and acidity compared to alkalinity. Repeated sampling of Shamokin Creek below Shamokin 

and at Sunbury during 1999 to 2001 indicates the acidity loading and neutralization were not consistent. The pH below 

Shamokin ranged from 6.2 to 6.5 but at Sunbury ranged from 

4.2 to 6.6; lowest and highest values were in August and October 1999, respectively. The acidic character of most AMD 

sources and tributaries within the upper Shamokin Creek Basin 

will require the addition of alkalinity to buffer the acid load. 

Furthermore, the reduction of metals loading will require the 

installation of dedicated wetland areas or settling basins.

The quantity and quality of water in Shamokin Creek to its 

mouth at Sunbury and in tributaries in the upper Shamokin 

Creek Basin above the city of Shamokin are affected by leakage 

to abandoned underground mines and by metal-contaminated 

discharges from tunnels, slopes, shafts, and unreclaimed spoil 

associated with abandoned mines in the Western Middle 

Anthracite Field. Low base-flow samples collected in August 

1999 and high base-flow samples collected in March 2000 provided information on the current water-quality characteristics 

and the relative differences among AMD sources and stream 

sampling sites. Because as much as one-fourth of the known 

AMD sources were not flowing during August 1999, the data 

for March 2000 were used as the primary basis for characterizing aquatic quality at each site and distinguishing AMD priorities. Generally, concentrations of sulfate, iron, manganese, and 

aluminum for a particular AMD site were similar or greater during high base-flow than low base-flow conditions. Greater concentrations of these constituents at high base-flow than at low 

base-flow conditions indicate that recharge during the winter 

1999 and spring 2000 was effective mobilizing pyrite oxidation 

products and was not effective as a diluting agent.

Although pH of approximately half the AMD sources was 

near neutral (pH 6 to 7), the majority of AMD sources was 

acidic, with negative values of net alkalinity, indicating that pH 

ultimately could decline to values less than 4.5 after complete 

oxidation and hydrolysis of dissolved metals. The predominant 

source of acidity in most streamwater samples was dissolved 

iron. Some streamwater and AMD samples, mainly in the North 

Branch Shamokin Creek and Locust Creek subbasins, had low 

pH and elevated concentrations of aluminum. Most of the 

streamwater and associated AMD sources exceeded waterquality criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life. In 

October 1999, no fish were found in Shamokin Creek above 

Shamokin, Quaker Run, and North Branch Shamokin Creek. 

Although a few fish were found in Carbon Run and Shamokin 

Creek below Shamokin, these fish populations were diminished 

compared to similar size streams in unmined areas. Fish tissue 

had elevated concentrations of metals, notably zinc. 

The concentrations of dissolved metals provided a consistent basis for evaluation of acidity and contaminant loading and 

were similar to concentrations of total metals in AMD water 

samples. The computed, cumulative metals loading from AMD 

sources upstream of stream-monitoring sites generally 

exceeded the measured load at the stream site. The difference 

between the computed and measured loads indicates that metals 

accumulate in upstream segments. This accumulation of metals 

in the stream degrades the aquatic habitat and indicates that a 

greater quantity of metal would need to be removed at the AMD 

source to achieve similar load reduction at a downstream location. 
44 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin

Flow and concentration data for the high base-flow samples collected in March 2000 were used to determine priority 

ranks of the AMD sources on the basis of loads of dissolved 

iron, manganese, and aluminum. The AMD source with the 

highest loading was assigned a rank of 1, with successively 

higher ranks assigned to AMD sources in descending order of 

dissolved metal loading. The top 15 AMD sources on the basis 

of dissolved metals loading in March 2000 accounted for more 

than 98 percent of the dissolved metals loading to Shamokin 

Creek. When sampled in March 2000, these AMD sources had 

flow rates ranging from 0.7 to 19 ft3

/s (1,138 to 32,285 L/ min) 

and pH from 3.5 to 6.1. Only 1 of the top 15 AMD sources was 

net alkaline (alkalinity > acidity); the others were net acidic and 

will require additional alkalinity to facilitate metals removal 

and maintain near-neutral pH. Dissolved iron ranged from 10 to 

57 mg/L. Dissolved manganese ranged from 1.9 to 7.4 mg/L. 

Dissolved aluminum exceeded 3.9 mg/L at seven of the sites but 

was less than 0.2 mg/L at seven others. The estimated aluminum 

concentration at SR55 was approximately 0.9 mg/L. 

Alkalinity can be acquired by the dissolution of limestone 

and (or) bacterial sulfate reduction within various passive-treatment systems including anoxic or oxic limestone drains, limestone- lined channels, or compost wetlands. Subsequently, the 

gradual oxidation and consequent precipitation of iron and 

manganese can be accommodated within settling ponds or aerobic wetlands. For example, AMD at SR42 (ranked 13) currently is treated by a vertical-flow wetland system that consists 

of layered compost and limestone beds in the first cell followed 

by two oxidation/settling ponds. Additionally, at SR48, a series 

of three oxidation/settling ponds was constructed in 2001-2003 

by the SCRA. These ponds divert all of a stream (essentially a 

mine discharge) at low flow and successfully remove most of 

the iron (the only constituent of concern) in this high-pH alkaline discharge. Assuming an iron removal rate of 180 lb/acre/

day (20 g/m2/day), a minimum area of 0.7 to 17.8 acres (590 to 

71,670 m2) would be needed for constructed wetlands at the 

other priority AMD sites. Considering this requirement, the 

proximity of many discharges to streams, roads, or railroads, 

and the limited availability or access to land at the discharge 

location, the implementation of passive treatment would not be 

feasible at most of the top 15 and many lower priority AMD 

sites. The reduction of infiltration and removal of culm waste 

and (or) the relocation of the discharge to nearby areas could 

decrease the AMD quantities and facilitate treatment at some of 

the priority AMD sites. 

References Cited

Ball, J.W., and Nordstrom, D.K., 1991, User's manual for 

WATEQ4F with revised data base: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 91-183, 189 p. 

Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, J.B., 

1999, Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and 

wadeable rivers--periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and 

fish (2d ed.): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 

841-B-99-002, 11 chapters, 4 appendixes. 

Becher, A.E., 1991, Groundwater resources in and near the 

anthracite basins of Schuylkill and adjacent counties, 

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th Series, 

Water Resources Report 64, 59 p., 1 plate.

Berg, T.M., Barnes, J.H., Seven, W.D., Skema, V.K., 

Wilshusen, J.P., and Yannicci, D.S., 1989, Physiographic 

provinces of Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 

4th Series, Map 13, scale 1:2,000,000. 

Bilger, M.D., Brightbill, R.A., and Campbell, H.L., 1999, 

Occurrence of organochlorine compounds in whole fish 

tissue from streams of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, 

Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4065, 17 p. 

Blowes, D.W., and Ptacek, C.J., 1994, Acid-neutralization 

mechanisms in inactive mine tailings, in Jambor, J.L, and 

Blowes, D.W., eds., Environmental geochemistry of sulfide 

mine-wastes: Mineralogical Association of Canada, Short 

Course Handbook, v. 22, p. 271-292. 

Burrows, W.D., 1977, Aquatic aluminum--chemistry, 

toxicology, and environmental prevalence: CRC Critical 

Reviews in Environmental Controls, v. 7, p. 167-216.

Burton, T.M., and Allan, J.W., 1986, Influence of pH, 

aluminum, and organic matter on stream invertebrates: 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 43, p. 

1285-1289. 

Butler, R.L., Cooper, E.L., Crawford, J.K., Hales, D.C., 

Kimmel, W.G., and Wagner, C.C., 1973, Fish and food 

organisms in acid mine waters of Pennsylvania: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency EPA-R3-73-032, 158 p.

Campbell, P.G.C., Lewis, A.G., Chapman, P.M., Crowder, 

A.A., Fletcher, W.K., Imber, B., Luoma, S.N., Stokes, P.M., 

and Winfrey, M.,1988, Biologically available metals in 

sediments. National Research Council Canada Publication 

No. NRCC 27694, 298 p.

Casselggio, S.E., 2001, Geochemical and biological study of 

the first passive mine drainage treatment system in the 

Shamokin Creek Watershed: Lewisburg, Pa., Bucknell 

University Senior Thesis.

Cherry, D.S., Currie, R.J., Soucek, D.J., Latimer, H.A., and 

Trent, G.C., 2001, An integrative assessment of a watershed 

impacted by abandoned mined land discharges: 

Environmental Pollution, v. 111, p. 377-388.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1998a, Chapter 87. Surface 

mining of coal. Pennsylvania Code, Title 25. Environmental 

Protection: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, p. 87.1-87.122. 

——— 1998b, Chapter 89. Underground mining of coal and 

coal preparation facilities. Pennsylvania Code, Title 25. 

Environmental Protection: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, p. 89.1-89.96. 

——— 2001a, Chapter 96. Water quality standards 

implementation. Pennsylvania Code, Title 25. 

Environmental Protection: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, p. 96.1-96.8. 
References Cited 45

——— 2001b, Chapter 16. Water Quality Toxics Management 

Strategy--Statement of policy. Pennsylvania Code, Title 25. 

Environmental Protection: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, p. 16.1-16.46.

——— 2002, Chapter 93. Water Quality Standards. 

Pennsylvania Code, Title 25. Environmental Protection: 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

p. 93.1-93.226. 

Cravotta, C.A. III, 2002, New method to estimate longevity of 

anoxic limestone drains (poster), in Proceedings of the 19th 

Annual Meeting of American Society of Mining & 

Reclamation, Lexington, Kentucky, June 9-13, 2002: 

American Society of Mining & Reclamation, p. 1062- 1064.

——— 2003, Size and performance of anoxic limestone drains 

to neutralize acidic mine drainage: Journal of Environmental 

Quality, v. 32, p. 1277-1289. 

——— and Bilger, M.D., 2001, Water-quality trends for a 

stream draining the Southern Anthracite Field, Pennsylvania: 

Geochemistry-Exploration, Environment, Analysis, v. 1, p. 

33- 50.

——— and Trahan, M.K., 1999, Limestone drains to increase 

pH and remove dissolved metals from acidic mine drainage: 

Applied Geochemistry, v. 14, no. 5, p 581-606.

——— and Watzlaf, G.R., 2002, Design and performance of 

limestone drains to increase pH and remove metals from 

acidic mine drainage, in Naftz, D.L., Morrison, S.J., Fuller, 

C.C., and Davis, J.A., eds., Handbook of groundwater 

remediation using permeable reactive barriers--Application 

to radionuclides, trace metals, and nutrients: San Diego, Ca., 

Academic Press, p. 19-66.

——— Brady, K.B.C., Rose, A.W., and Douds, J.B., 1999, 

Frequency distribution of the pH of coal-mine drainage in 

Pennsylvania, in Morganwalp, D.W., and Buxton, H., eds., 

U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology 

Program--Proceedings of the technical meeting: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

99-4018A, p. 313- 324.

——— Breen, K.J., and Seal, R., 2001, Arsenic is ubiquitous 

but not elevated in abandoned coal-mine discharges in 

Pennsylvania (abs.), in U.S. Geological Survey Appalachian 

Region Integrated Science Workshop Proceedings, 

Gatlinburg, Tennessee, October 22-26, 2001: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-406, p. 105.

Dietz, J.M., and Dempsey, B.A., 2002, Innovative treatment of 

alkaline mine drainage using recirculated iron oxides in a 

complete mix reactor, in Proceedings of the 19th Annual 

Meeting of American Society of Mining & Reclamation, 

Lexington, Kentucky, June 9-13, 2002: American Society of 

Mining & Reclamation, p. 496-516. 

Earle, J., and Callaghan, T., 1998. Effects of mine drainage on 

aquatic life, water uses, and man- made structures, in Brady, 

K.B.C., Smith, M.W., and Schueck, J.H., eds., Coal Mine 

Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in 

Pennsylvania: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, 5600-BK-DEP2256, p. 4.1-4.10. 

Eggleston, J.R., Kehn, T.M., and Wood, G.H., Jr., 1999, 

Anthracite, in Schultz, C.H., ed., The geology of 

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th series, 

Special Publication 1, p. 458-469. 

Eidem, J. and Moffe, M., 1998, Pretreatment assessment of the 

Carbon Run subwatershed: Lewisburg, Pa., Bucknell 

University Internal Working Document 002 (on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/kirby/

CarbRunInfo.html). 

Elder, J.F., 1988, Metal biogeochemistry in surface-water 

systems--a review of principles and concepts: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1013, 43 p.

Fishman, M.J., 1993, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory--

Determination of inorganic and organic constituents in water 

and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 93-125, 217 p.

Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., eds., 1989, Methods for 

determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial 

sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 545 p.

Friedman, L.C., and Erdmann, D.E., 1982, Quality assurance 

practices for the chemical and biological analyses of water 

and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A6, 181 p.

Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1972, Operation 

Scarlift project no. SL-113: Mine drainage abatement 

measures for the Shamokin Creek Watershed: Harrisburg, 

Pa., Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. Engineers.

Greenberg, A.E., Clesceri, L.S., Eaton, A.D., and Franson, 

M.A.H., eds., 1992, Standard methods for the examination of 

water and wastewater (18th): Washington, D.C., American 

Public Health Association.

Growitz, D.J., Reed, L.A., and Beard, M.M., 1985, 

Reconnaissance of mine drainage in the coal fields of eastern 

Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resource 

Investigations Report 83-4274, 54 p.

Hach Company, 1999, Coliforms--membrane filtration 

(simultaneous detection): Hach Company, Analytical 

Procedures 8433, 12 p.

Hedin, R.S., Nairn, R.W., and Kleinmann, R.L.P., 1994, 

Passive treatment of coal mine drainage: U.S. Bureau of 

Mines Information Circular 9389, 35 p.

Herlihy, A.T., Kaufmann, P.R., Mitch, M.E., and Brown, D.D., 

1990, Regional estimates of acid mine drainage impact on 

streams in the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States: 

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, v. 50, p. 91-107.

Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1988, Rapid field assessment of organic 

pollution with family-level biotic index: Journal of North 

American Benthological Society, v. 7, p. 65-68. 

Hoffman, G.L., 1996, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory--

Preparation procedure for aquatic biological material 

determined for trace metals: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 96-362, 42 p. 
46 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin

Hyman, D.M., and Watzlaf, G.R., 1997, Metals and other 

components of coal mine drainage as related to aquatic life 

standards, in Proceedings of the 1997 National Meeting of 

the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, 

May 10-15, 1997, Austin, Texas: Princeton, W.V., American 

Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, p. 531-545. 

Kirby, C.S., 1995, Shamokin Creek Watershed Acid Mine 

Drainage Assessment: Bucknell University, Internal 

Working Document 001 (unpublished).

——— 1998, Recent results from a preliminary assessment of 

water quality (accessed December 15, 2002, on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/kirby/ 

SCRAblurb.html).

——— 2001, Carbon Run Abandoned Mine Drainage 

Treatment Project – Final Report, submitted to the 

Northumberland County Conservation District, October 22, 

2001.

——— 2002, Problems in acidity and alkalinity measurements 

in mine drainage, in Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting 

of American Society of Mining & Reclamation, Lexington, 

Kentucky, June 9-13, 2002: American Society of Mining & 

Reclamation, p. 1072- 1100.

Kleinmann, R.L.P., and Watzlaf, G.R., 1986, Should the 

discharge standards for manganese be reexamined?, in

Proceedings 1986 Symposium on Mining, Hydrology, 

Sedimentology, and Reclamation: Lexington, Kentucky, 

University of Kentucky Office of Engineering Services, p. 

173-179.

Lowe, T.P., May, T.W., Brumbaugh, W.G., and Kane, D.A., 

1985, National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program--

concentration of seven elements in freshwater fish, 1978-

1981: Archives of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology, v. 14, p. 363-388. 

Meador, M.R., Hupp, C.R., Cuffney, T.F., and Gurtz, M.E., 

1993a, Methods for characterizing stream habitat as part of 

the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-408, 48 p. 

——— Cuffney, T.F., and Gurtz, M.E., 1993b, Methods for 

sampling fish communities as part of the National WaterQuality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 93-104, 40 p. 

Myers, W.L, and Bishop, J.A., 1999, Vegetative land cover for 

Pennsylvania, 30 meter resolution: University Park, Pa., The 

Pennsylvania State University, Environmental Resources 

Research Institute, Pennsylvania Gap Analysis Program, 

map. 

Parkhurst, D.L., and Appelo, C.A.J., 1999, User's guide to 

PHREEQC (Version 2)--A computer program for speciation, 

batch-reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse 

geochemical calculations: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 99-4259, 312 p.

Pennsylvania Coal Association, 2001, Pennsylvania coal data 

2000: Harrisburg, Pa., Pennsylvania Coal Association, 36 p.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 1996, 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1996 Water Quality 

Assessment: Division of Assessment and Standards: 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 

Bureau of Water Quality Management, April, 1996, 94 p.

——— 1998, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1998 Water 

Quality Assessment: Division of Assessment and Standards: 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 

Bureau of Water Quality Management, April, 1998 (accessed 

December 15, 2002, on the World Wide Web at http://

www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/WC/Subjects/

WQStandards/ 305_wq98_narr.htm#PART3).

——— 1999, Pennsylvania’s nonpoint source management 

program, 1999 Update: Harrisburg, Pa., Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection, 394-2000-002, p. 

42-51. 

——— 2000, Proposed Section 303(d) list: Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water 

Quality Management (accessed December 15, 2002, on the 

World Wide Web at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/

deputate/watermgt/WC/Subjects/WQStandards/ 

303_water00_narr.htm).

——— 2001a, Watershed Restoration Action Strategy 

(WRAS) Subbasin 06B Mahanoy Creek and Shamokin 

Creek Watersheds (Susquehanna River) Northumberland and 

Schuylkill Counties, PA: Harrisburg, Pa., Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection, 19 p. 

——— 2001b, Shamokin Creek Watershed TMDL: 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 

Bureau of Watershed Management, March 2, 2001 (accessed 

December 15, 2002 on World Wide Web at http:// 

www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wqp/

wqstandards/tmdl/Shamokin_TMDL.pdf).

Rahn, P.H., 1992, A method to mitigate acid-mine drainage in 

the Shamokin area, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.: Environmental 

Geology and Water Science, v. 19, p. 47-53. 

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982a, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow--1. Measurement of stage and discharge: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 284 p.

——— 1982b, Measurement and computation of streamflow--

2. Computation of discharge: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 2175, 631 p.

Reed, L.A., Beard, M.M., Growitz, D.J., 1987, Quality of water 

in mines in the western middle coal field, anthracite region, 

east-central Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 85-4038, 51 p.

Robbins, E.I., Anderson, J.E., Cravotta, C.A., III, Nord, G.L., 

Jr., and Slonecker, E.T., 2000, Multispectral signature 

variations in acidic versus near-neutral contaminated coal 

mine drainage in Pennsylvania, in Proceedings Fifth 

International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage: Littleton, 

Colo., Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., 

v. 2, p. 1551-1559.

Rose, A.W., and Cravotta, C.A., III, 1998, Geochemistry of 

coal-mine drainage, in Brady, K.B.C., Smith, M.W., and 

Schueck., J., eds., Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and 

Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania: Harrisburg, Pa., 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 

5600-BK-DEP2256, p. 1.1-1.22 
References Cited 47

Skousen, J.G., Rose, A.W., Geidel, G., Foreman, J., Evans, R., 

Hellier, W., and others, 1998, Handbook of technologies for 

avoidance and remediation of acid mine drainage: 

Morgantown, W.V., National Mine Land Reclamation 

Center, 131 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993, Fish field and 

laboratory methods for evaluating the biological integrity of 

surface waters: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 

600/R-92/ 111, 348 p. 

——— 1997, Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant 

data for use in fish advisories--Volume 2, Risk assessment 

and fish consumption limits (2d ed.): Philadelphia, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency EPA 823-B-97-009 

(accessed December 15, 2002, on the World Wide Web at 

http://www.epa.gov/ OST/fish/volume2.htm). 

——— 2002a, National recommended water quality criteria--

2002: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 822-R02-047, 33 p.

——— 2002b, National primary drinking water standards: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency EPA 816-F-02-013, July 

2002, 7 p. (accessed December 15, 2002, on the World Wide 

Web at http://www.epa.gov/ safewater). 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1997 to present, National field manual 

for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

9, chaps. A1-A9, 2 vols., variously paged (accessed 

December 15, 2002, on the World Wide Web at http://

pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A).

——— 2000, Land cover: U.S. Geological Survey Map 66, 

scale 1:500,000 (accessed December 15, 2002, on the World 

Wide Web at http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/programs/lccp/

nationallandcover.html). 

U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

2002, AMDTreat 3.1: Washington, D.C., U.S. Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (accessed 

June 15, 2003, on the World Wide Web at http://

amd.osmre.gov). 

Watzlaf, G.R., Schroeder, K.T., and Kairies, C., 2000, Longterm performance of alkalinity- producing passive systems 

for the treatment of mine drainage, in Proceedings of the 

2000 National Meeting of the American Society for Surface 

Mining and Reclamation: Princeton, West Virginia, 

American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, p. 

262-274.

Way, J.H., 1999, Appalachian Mountain section of the Ridge 

and Valley province, in Schultz, C.H., ed., The geology of 

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th series, 

Special Publication 1, p. 352-361.

Webster, J.G., Swedlund, P.J., and Webster, K.S., 1998, Trace 

metal adsorption onto an acid mine drainage iron(III) oxy 

hydroxy sulfate: Environmental Science & Technology, v. 

32, no. 10, p. 1361-1368.

Williams, D.R., Sams, J.I., III, and Mulkerrin, M.E., 1996, 

Effects of coal-mine discharges on the quality of Stonycreek 

River and its tributaries, Somerset and Cambria Counties, 

Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 96-4133, 95 p.

——— Clark, M.E., Brown, J.B., 1999, Stream water quality in 

coal-mined areas of the Lower Cheat River Basin, West 

Virginia and Pennsylvania, during low-flow conditions, July 

1997: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 98-4258, 8 p.

Winterbourn, J.J., McDiffett, W.R., and Eppley, S.J., 2000, 

Aluminium and iron burdens of aquatic biota in New Zealand 

streams contaminated by acid mine drainage--effects of 

trophic level: The Science of the Total Environment, v. 254, 

p. 45-54. 

Wood, C.R., 1996, Water quality of large discharges in the 

anthracite region of eastern Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4243, 68 

p.

Wood, G.H., Jr., Kehn, T.M., and Eggleston, J.R., 1986, 

Deposition and structural history of the Pennsylvania 

Anthracite region, in Lyons P.C. and Rice C.L., eds., 

Paleoenvironmental and tectonic controls in coal-forming 

basins of the United States: Geological Society of America 

Special Paper 210, p. 31-47. 

Wood, W.W., 1976, Guidelines for the collection and field 

analysis of ground-water samples for selected unstable 

constituents: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 1, chap. D2, 24 p.
48 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin

Appendix A. 

COMPUTATION OF WATER QUALITY FOR THE RICHARD’S SHAFT 

DISCHARGE (SR55) USING AN 

INVERSE MIXING MODEL WITH 

UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM 

DATA

The discharge from the Richard’s Shaft Mine Drift near 

Atlas (SR55) emerges in a ponded area between sampled sites 

on North Branch Shamokin Creek (SC3B and SC3D) and could 

not be sampled directly. Therefore, its composition is not 

directly known. Its volume is known by difference in flow rates 

of SC3B (upstream) and SC3D (downstream). Its composition 

can be computed using the flow rates and compositions of the 

upstream and downstream samples. Then, given its volume and 

composition, we can compare the metal loading rates at SR55 

with other AMD sources in the watershed and estimate the cost 

of its treatment considering various remedial alternatives. 

For a mixture of two end-member solutions, conservation 

of mass of water and one or more elements in solution can be 

described as

Q1 = Q2 + Q3 (B1)

Ci,1Q1 = Ci,2Q2 + Ci,3Q3 (B2)

Li,1 = Li,2 + Li,3 (B3)

where Qn is the volumetric flow rate of solution n, Ci,n is the 

concentration of solute element i in solution n, and Li,n is the 

load or mass of the solute computed as product of the concentration and flow rate, Li,n = Ci,n.

Qn. To apply these equations for 

the computation of SR55 water quality, 

• Solution 1 = Base flow in N. Br. Shamokin at SC3D downstream from SR55 and SC3B,

• Solution 2 = Base flow in N. Br. Shamokin at SC3B, 

upstream of SR55, and

• Solution 3 = Discharge water from Richard’s Shaft Mine 

Drift near Atlas at SR55. 

The concentration of a conservative solute in solution 3, 

Ci,3, can be computed by dividing equation B2 by Q1 resulting 

in

Ci,1 = (Ci,2.Q2)/Q1 + (Ci,3.Q3)/Q1. (B4)

Substituting proportions of end member solutions in the mixture, f2 = Q2/Q1 and f3 = Q3/Q1, and rearranging as

Ci,1 = Ci,2.f2 + Ci,3.f3 (B5)

Ci,3 = (Ci,1 - Ci,2.f2)/f3. (B6)

An inverse mixing model with PHREEQCI (Parkhurst and 

Appelo, 1999) that involved mixing and mineral dissolution and 

precipitation reactions was used to compute the composition of 

solution 3 on the basis of equation B6. The model involves five 

steps for the computations, described below, ultimately assuming equilibrium control of Fe and Al concentrations by goethite 

and amorphous aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3 am), respectively. 

• Step 1: Adjust Ci,2 by diluting with pure water (Ci,2.f2 = 

Ci,2*).

• Step 2: Compute mole transfers to create Ci,1 from Ci,2* 

(Ci,1 = Ci,2* + Pi,d - Pi,p), where Pi,d is the number of moles 

of phase containing element i that dissolves, increasing 

concentration of the solute; Pi,p is the number of moles of 

phase that precipitates or exsolves, decreasing concentration of the solute.

• Step 3: Add computed mole transfers for dissolved phases, 

adjusted for mixing Ci,2 and Ci,3, in 1 liter pure water (Ci,3* 

= Pi,d / f3).

• Step 4: Allow precipitation of nonconservative solutes (Fe, 

Al) if saturated with respect to selected phases and to indicate the corresponding equilibrium solute concentrations 

and pH of solution (Ci,3 = Ci,3* - Pi,p). Different equilibrium concentrations and pH can result for different controlling phases, for example ferrihydrite vs. schwertmannite or 

amorphous aluminum hydroxide vs. basaluminite. 

• Step 5: Compare results of measured mixture, solution 1, 

with that computed by mixing the known and computed 

end members, solutions 2 and 3, respectively. 

A sample PHREEQCI program to compute the composition of solution 3 (SR55) in accordance with the above steps follows below. This program used the thermodynamic data base of 

WATEQ4F (Ball and Nordstrom, 1991). 

References Cited

Ball, J.W., and Nordstrom, D.K., 1991, User's manual for 

WATEQ4F with revised data base: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 91-183, 189 p. 

Parkhurst, D.L., and Appelo, C.A.J., 1999, User's guide to 

PHREEQC (Version 2)--A computer program for speciation, 

batch-reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse 

geochemical calculations: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 99-4259, 312 p.
Example PHREEQCI Program 49

Example PHREEQCI Program

DATABASE C:\Program Files\USGS\Phreeqc Interactive 2.8\wateq4f.dat

SELECTED_OUTPUT

 -file SR55calAl(OH)3.sel

 -reset false

 -simulation false

 -solution true

 -ph true

 -reaction false

 -totals Ca Mg Alkalinity S(6) Fe Al Mn 

 -user_punch true

USER_PUNCH

-headings Ca.mg Mg.mg Alk.mg SO4.mg Fe.ug Al.ug Mn.ug 

10 PUNCH TOT("Ca")*1000*40.08

20 PUNCH TOT("Mg")*1000*24.305

30 PUNCH ALK*1000*50

40 PUNCH TOT("S(6)")*1000*96.0

50 PUNCH TOT("Fe")*1000000*55.8

60 PUNCH TOT("Al")*1000000*27.0

70 PUNCH TOT("Mn")*1000000*54.9

END

PHASES

Schwert(1.75)

 Fe8O8(OH)4.5(SO4)1.75 + 20.5H+ = 8 Fe+3 + 1.75 SO4-2 + 12.5H2O 

 log_k 18

# Bigham and others (1996, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 60:2111-2121)

SOLUTION 1 SC3D_3/16/00_1215

 temp 9.7

 pH 5.2

 pe 4

 redox pe

 units mg/l

 density 1

 Ca 19

 Mg 18.7

 K 1.3

 Alkalinity 10

 S(6) 153 charge

 Al 1510 ug/l

 Fe 10600 ug/l

 Mn 2240 ug/l

 -water 1 # kg

SOLUTION 2 SC3B_3/16/00_1245

 temp 10.5

 pH 3.9

 pe 4

 redox pe

 units mg/l

 density 1

 Ca 13.9
50 Example PHREEQCI Program

 Mg 15.6

 K 1.3

 Alkalinity 0

 S(6) 127 charge

 Al 3400 ug/l

 Fe 430 ug/l

 Mn 2100 ug/l

 -water 1 # kg

SOLUTION 3 PURE_WATER

 temp 10

 pH 7

 pe 4

 redox pe

 units mmol/kgw

 density 1

 -water 1 # kg

END

USE solution 3

USE solution 2

MIX 1

 2 0.53

 3 0.47

SAVE SOLUTION 4

END

INVERSE_MODELING 1

 -solutions 4 1

 -uncertainty 0.05 0.05

 -phases

 O2(g) dis

 CO2(g)

 Melanterite dis

 Calcite dis

 Dolomite dis

 Epsomite dis

 Al(OH)3(a)

 AlumK

 Basaluminite

 Pyrolusite

 Goethite

# Fe(OH)3(a)

# Schwert(1.75)

 -balances

 Mn 0.02 0.02

 -tolerance 1e-010 

 -mineral_water true

SAVE solution 5

END

USE SOLUTION 3

REACTION 1

 O2(g) 2.318e-005

 CO2(g) 3.182e-003
Example PHREEQCI Program 51

 Melanterite 3.195e-004

 Calcite 2.903e-004

 Epsomite 4.292e-004

# Al(OH)3(a) -2.645e-005

 AlumK 1.563e-005

 Pyrolusite 2.052e-005

# Goethite -1.337e-004

 2.128 moles in 1 steps

# Moles based on proportion mixed below, 2.128 = 1/0.47

EQUILIBRIUM_PHASES 1

# Gypsum 0 0

# Gibbsite 0 0 

 Al(OH)3(a) 0 0

# Fe(OH)3(a) 0 0

 Goethite

# Basaluminite 0 0

# Schwert(1.75) 0 0

SAVE SOLUTION 3

END

USE solution 3

USE solution 2

MIX 1

 2 0.53

 3 0.47

EQUILIBRIUM_PHASES 1

# Gypsum 0 0

# Gibbsite 0 0 

 Al(OH)3(a) 0 0

# Fe(OH)3(a) 0 0

 Goethite

# Basaluminite 0 0

# Schwert(1.75) 0 0
52 Appendix B. Hydrological data for abandoned mine drainage and associated stream monitoring sites in the Shamokin 

Appendix B. 

Hydrological data for abandoned mine drainage and associated stream monitoring sites in 

the Shamokin Creek Basin, August 1999 to October 2001 (CD rom, only)
Appendix C. Digital reproductions of out-of-print reports (CD rom, only) 53

Appendix C. 

Digital reproductions of out-of-print reports (CD rom, only)

Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1972, Operation Scarlift project no. SL-113: Mine drainage abatement measures for 

the Shamokin Creek Watershed: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. Engineers, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Growitz, D.J., Reed, L.A., and Beard, M.M., 1985, Reconnaissance of mine drainage in the coal fields of eastern Pennsylvania: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resource Investigations Report 83-4274, 54 p.

Reed, L.A., Beard, M.M., Growitz, D.J., 1987, Quality of water in mines in the western middle coal field, anthracite region, eastcentral Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 64, 51 p.

Wood, C.R., 1996, Water quality of large discharges in the anthracite region of eastern Pennsylvania, U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4243, 68 p.
54 Effects of Abandoned Coal-Mine Drainage on Streamflow and Water Quality in the Shamokin Creek Basin
Appendix C. Digital reproductions of out-of-print reports (CD rom, only) 55