Stream Recovery from Abandoned Mine Drainage in a Western Pennsylvania Watershed

Alexa M. Hershberger, David J. Janetski, Thomas J. Clark

Department of Biology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA
Susquehanna River Basin Commission

Introduction Study Area Results Model Selection

● Acid mine drainage (AMD) impairs at least 12,000 km of
streams in eastern USA
● Process: groundwater enters abandoned mines and a
geochemical reaction with pyrite/sulfur bearing rocks to
produce a sulfuric acid and iron loaded runoff
4FeS2(s) + 14H2O (l) + 15O2(aq) → 4Fe(OH)3(s) + 8SO42- + 16H+ (aq)
Pyrite Yellow boy Sulphate
Water Oxygen
Precipitate
● In 2005, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission
conducted a nine-phase AMD restoration project in the Bear
Run Watershed (Figure 1).
● Restoration resulted in improved water quality; however,
recovery of the macroinvertebrate community has been slow,
perhaps due to poor habitat quality.
Bear Run Watershed is in northwest Indiana County,
Pennsylvania. It is one of the largest AMD impacts to the
headwaters section of the West Branch of the Susquehanna
River. The Watershed is monitored under the Susquehanna
River Basin Commission. Samples were taken at 9 control
sites and 7 AMD impaired sites (Figure 1).
Acid
Model Selection Results
ANOVA Results
• Model selection ‘glmulti’ R package
• No difference between the site types for pH, conductivity, TDS, all
• Dependent Variables: Macroinvertebrate abundance,
sediment metals, stream embeddedness, chlorophyll a abundance, &
EPT abundance macroinvertebrate richness, EPT abundance, EPT
richness, Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
• Macroinvertebrate abundance (p = 0.018) & EPT taxonomic richness (p
• Independent Variables: pH, specific conductivity,
= 0.03) were higher in reference than impaired streams
• Macroinvertebrate taxonomic richness was higher reference streams (p TDS, embeddedness, chlorophyll a abundance,
= 0.007) and artificial substrate (p = 0.043) sediment metals (Pb, Cu, Zn, Mg, Fe, Mn, Al)
• Regression p-values and R2 were used to evaluate
model fit
• Most independent variables DID NOT explain
macroinvertebrate dependent variables
• Streams with higher sediment lead concentrations had
lower EPT abundance (Figure 10)

Study Questions:
1) What is impairing the recovery of the macroinvertebrates?
2) Assess the role of substrate on macroinvertebrate recovery.
Figure 1. Map of the nine remediation phases and study sites in the Bear Run
Prediction: Aquatic recovery is slow because of a residue left Watershed (Clark 2013; PADEP, 2020).

of the substrate and resulting substrate embeddedness.

Figure 10. Linear plot of determined top model with lead detection in sediment for EPT
abundance in the Bear Run Watershed, Pennsylvania, 2021.

• There was no distinct difference in macroinvertebrate

Water Quality Methods Macroinvertebrate abundance and EPT abundance across substrate types
but a slight distinction across site types (Figure 11).
• Measured in May & • Artificial (Hester-
Macroinvertebrate EPT community
December 2021 Stream Embeddedness Chlorophyll a Dendy Samplers) vs. composition
community composition
• Handheld multi-probe Natural (Hess
meter Sampling)
• pH, total dissolved • Modification of EPA Field • 2 subsamples per site
• Artificial (ceramic pavers) • Hester-Dendy Samplers
solids (TDS), & Rapid Habitat
conductivity Bioassessment vs. Natural (rocks) Deployed May 2021 &
• 1-m2 PVC plot was substrate collected in October Figure 8. Boxplot of macroinvertebrate abundance, macroinvertebrate richness, EPT abundance, and
• 3 pavers & rocks per site 2021 EPT richness in the Bear Run Watershed, 2021.
scored based on Stream
Sediment Embeddedness category
• Deployed in May 2021 & • Identified to the lowest
collected in October 2021 confident taxonomic • Although pH, specific conductivity, TDS, Cu, Zn, and Mn showed no Figure 11. Study sites showing macroinvertebrate richness in the Bear Run Watershed,
in EPA Bioassessment statistical difference between site type, multiple sites exceeded EPA Pennsylvania, 2021.
• Collected in October • 3 subplots per site to level
guidelines for pollution, including some reference sites (Figure 9)
2021 compute average score
• Top 3 centimeters of • Sampled October 2021
streambed collected Metal Concentrations in
Water Quality
• Processed with ICP- Sediment
Conclusions
OES (IUP Chemistry Figure 4. Concrete paver with ceramic tiles in
Department) stream.
• Iron had the highest detection in the sediment, but it
• Aluminum, Copper, Laboratory did not influence macroinvertebrate recovery.
Iron, Lead, • Chlorophyll a abundance Figure 6. Hester-Dendy Sampler used in
• Recovery within the watershed may be site-specific
study.
Magnesium, • Vacuum filtration because of the difference remediation efforts and
Manganese, & Zinc • Spectrophotometric years since remediation (Figure 1; Figure 12).
Analysis

Figure 3. PVC stream embeddedness plot

example.

Figure 5. Whatman GF filters after vacuum Figure 7. Hess Sampling used in study.
Figure 2. Sediment Collection filtration.
October 2021.

Acknowledgements
Figure 12. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling ordination plot (Bray- Curtis) distances
for spatial comparisons of macroinvertebrate and EPT communities in the Bear Run
Watershed, 2021.
I would like thank the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the
Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP) Biology Department, and
the IUP Chemistry Department for the necessary equipment, funding,

and lab space for this project. I would like to thank undergraduate
students: J. Toki, H. Sammour, J. Delmonte, J. Burwell, J. Hunte, B.
Brost, S. Adams, M. Schambura, A. Clark, S. Earle and graduate
students: M. Can, M. Eytchenson, N. Christensen, and C. Moyer for
their help in the field and lab. Biggest thank you to R. Barnhart for your
chemistry input, motivation, and support. Thank you, Project Manager
Tom Clark of SRBC, for your help in site selection, thought stimulation,
and project formulation. I would also like to thank my committee
members, Dr. T. Simmons and Dr. J. Larkin, for their advice and
guidance. Thank you, Dr. J. Lewis of the IUP Geochemistry
Department for insight in sediment analyses. Finally, I would like to give
my sincerest thank you to my thesis advisor, Dr. D. Janetski. I would
not be where I am today in this project, as a student, or as a researcher
without your guidance, support, and challenges. Thank you!
Figure 9. Variables in the study that exceeded EPA guidelines in the water and
sediment parameters. The dashed lines are EPA guidelines for moderately
polluted and highly polluted. Red circles indicated impaired sites. Blue circles
indicate reference sites.
References
Akcil, A. & Koldas, S. 2006. Acid mine drainage (AMD): causes, treatment and case
studies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14(2006): 1139-1145.
Clark, T. 2013. Bear Run Watershed Renaissance Mine Drainage Restoration Project.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission. 290: 1-8.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2022. Secondary drinking water standards:
guidance for nuisance chemicals.
Hauer FR, Lamberti GA. 2006. Methods in stream ecology. Academic Press, San
Diego.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2020. Integrated Water Quality
Report. 
Thomas, C. 2018. Evaluation of macroinvertebrate community structure in response to
fracking and abandoned mine drainage in Pennsylvania streams.