Water Resources

A. Major Tributaries

The mainstem of the Juniata River is formed by three major tributaries: the Raystown Branch, the Frankstown Branch, and the Little Juniata River.  Other major tributaries that feed the Juniata River include Standing Stone Creek, Aughwick Creek, Kishacoquillas Creek, and Tuscarora Creek.  These subbasins, which appear on Map II-2, will be described succinctly below.

The Raystown Branch of the Juniata River begins its journey in Somerset County, on the eastern slopes of the Allegheny Front.  The stream flows east and north for about 120 miles, through the boroughs of Bedford, Everett, and Saxton.  The Raystown Branch subbasin features a drainage area of 964 square miles and a population of approximately 48,200 in the northern half of Bedford County, southwestern Huntingdon County, and a portion of western Fulton County.  This represents 28 percent of the land area in the watershed and 15 percent of the population.  Because it drains the Broad Top plateau, the largest coal field in the entire Juniata River watershed, the Raystown Branch and its tributaries have been severely impacted by acid mine drainage (AMD).  The AMD-impacted fisheries in this subbasin include Hartman Run, Longs Run, Miller Run, Sandy Run, Sixmile Run, and Shoup’s Run (EPA Region III, 1995).  At the northernmost end, Raystown Dam backs up the stream to form Raystown Lake, a popular recreation area and, at 8,300 acres, the largest lake in Pennsylvania.  The Raystown Branch joins the Juniata River a few miles downstream of Huntingdon Borough.

The Frankstown Branch of the Juniata River forms at the confluence of Beaverdam Creek and South Poplar Run in southern Blair County.  Some of the tributaries that originate on the Allegheny Front are impacted by coal mining and AMD.  These fisheries include Burgoon Run, Kittanning Run, and Sugar Run.  The Frankstown Branch flows northeastward for 45 miles past the boroughs of Hollidaysburg, Williamsburg, and Alexandria.  The Frankstown Branch subbasin drains 396 square miles and has a population of approximately 82,900, the majority of which lives in the southern part of Altoona.  This represents 12 percent of the land area in the watershed and 26 percent of the population.

The Little Juniata River begins on the north side of the city of Altoona and flows north to the borough of Tyrone, where it is joined by the South Bald Eagle Creek.  At Tyrone, the Little Juniata turns southeastward and flows a total of 32 miles through northern Blair and northwestern Huntingdon counties.  The drainage area of the river is 342 square miles and the population is approximately 66,200.  This represents 10 percent of the land area in the watershed and 21 percent of the population.  The Little Juniata River joins the Frankstown Branch a few miles upstream of Petersburg Borough to form the official beginning of the mainstem of the Juniata River.

Standing Stone Creek flows into the Juniata River at the eastern edge of Huntingdon Borough.  Standing Stone Creek, along with Shaver Creek, drains the northeastern part of Huntingdon County, flowing southwesterly for 33 miles through sparsely populated territory.  The drainage area of this subbasin is 241 square miles and the population is approximately 19,700.  This represents seven percent of the land area in the watershed and six percent of the population.  Much of this subbasin is designated as high quality cold water fisheries.

Aughwick Creek forms at the confluence of the Little Aughwick Creek and Sideling Hill Creek in southern Huntingdon County.  The subbasin drains 446 square miles in northern Fulton County and southeastern Huntingdon County and features a population of approximately 19,500.  This represents 13 percent of the land area in the watershed and six percent of the population.  After it travels northward for 30 miles, the Aughwick Creek enters the Juniata River a few miles east of Mount Union Borough.

Kishacoquillas Creek starts its 23-mile journey in the upper end of Kishacoquillas Valley, Mifflin County, which features some of the most fertile farmland in the entire watershed.  The subbasin, which includes Jacks Creek and Lost Creek, drains 459 square miles in Mifflin County and northwestern Juniata County.  Containing the county seats of both Mifflin and Juniata County, the population of the Kish Creek subbasin is larger than some of the other subbasins at approximately 52,300.  This represents 13 percent of the land area in the watershed and 17 percent of the population.  Because of its proximity to highly productive farm fields as well as urban industries, Kish Creek is one of the most pollution-stressed streams in the watershed.  A lack of streamside buffers through much of the farmland allows pollutants to run directly into the stream without any filtering.  Kish Creek empties into the Juniata River in the borough of Lewistown, the second largest population center in the Juniata watershed.

Tuscarora Creek’s headwaters flow off the slopes of eastern Huntingdon County and northwestern Franklin County, forming a stream that flows northeastward for 45 miles through southern Juniata County.  The subbasin, which includes Buffalo Creek and Cocolamus Creek, drains 557 square miles throughout Juniata and northern Perry counties and has a population of approximately 28,400.  This represents 16 percent of the land area in the watershed and nine percent of the population.  Tuscarora Creek enters the Juniata River near the borough of Port Royal.

Including the seven primary subbasins described above, there are a total of 24 streams in the Juniata River watershed that drain areas greater than 50 square miles.  Table IV-1 lists these tributaries, along with associated information when available.  Map IV-1 shows the locations of these drainage basins.  Please note that the drainage areas indicated in Table IV-1 correspond directly to the basin boundaries outlined on Map IV-1.  These boundaries are different from the seven major subbasin boundaries outlined on Map II-2.  Thus the Raystown Branch basin on Table IV-1 and Map IV-1 has a drainage area of 499 square miles, but the full basin as outlined on Map II-2 has a drainage area of 964 square miles.

(EPA, 1998b; DEP, 1989)

CWF          Cold Water Fishes
WWF         Warm Water Fishes
TSF            Trout Stocking
HQ-CWF   High Quality CWF
EV              Exceptional Value
MF             Migratory Fishes

B. Protected Water Uses - Streams and Lakes

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania classifies streams and lakes according to the uses for which each water body is most suitable.  Pennsylvania’s Water Quality Standards are identified in Title 25, Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania Code.  The quality of all streams is expected to be high enough to allow for these uses: water supply, recreation, and aquatic life.  Differences in protected water uses exist because of the various kinds of aquatic life that can thrive in different streams.  The Department of Environmental Protection regulates discharges into streams according to the water quality that each protected use demands.  For example, cold-water fisheries require higher levels of dissolved oxygen and colder temperatures than warm-water fisheries.  Waters designated for “special protection” uses, such as “high quality” or “exceptional value,” must be protected at their existing level of use.  New or expanded discharges that threaten the existing quality of special protection streams are prohibited unless the economic or social benefits from the discharge significantly outweigh the costs of degrading the stream (25 PA Code Ch. 93.4(d)(2)).  It must also be noted that streams designated as Class A Wild Trout Waters are also treated as “special protection” waters.

These rules are significant in this region because over one-third of the land area is in high-quality “special protection” watersheds.   Thus the Juniata watershed features a large amount of high quality streams, which is a great benefit for the region.  Yet the special protection designation limits development in these watersheds to a fairly low density.  As a growing population spreads out into rural communities, the challenge of maintaining the quality of these pristine streams while serving the needs of human residents will grow ever greater.  Map IV-2 shows the major streams and lakes and their protected uses.

C. Wetlands

Wetlands make up a small but valuable part of the Juniata watershed ecosystems.  Only 8,885 acres of woody or emergent wetlands are located in the watershed, or 0.4 percent of the total area (USACOE, 1995b).  Wetlands serve many valuable functions.  They provide quality wildlife habitat, filter runoff before it enters streams, and provide natural catchment basins for stormwater runoff.  The natural filtration processes of wetlands have inspired communities and conservation districts to design and construct wetlands for the purposes of acid mine drainage remediation and sewage treatment.

Over the years, wetlands have often been filled or otherwise converted to agricultural or developed uses.  The exact amount of wetlands lost is unknown, but the Army Corps of Engineers notes that the overall loss of natural vegetation in the watershed is estimated to be between 20 and 40 percent (USACOE, 1995a).

Various programs, such as the Wetlands Reserve Program run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, offer incentives to farmers and other landowners to protect existing wetlands.  The DEP streambank fencing program can fund the fencing off of a wet area in a pasture, allowing the area to revert to its natural wetland state.  Along with incentives, present regulations require anyone filling a wetland to mitigate the action by restoring or constructing at least as many acres of new wetlands (EPA, 1990).

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps of wetlands in the Juniata River watershed are available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  However, some concerns exist regarding the accuracy and completeness of these maps.

D. Floodplains

Early settlers in the Juniata watershed established communities along the rivers, as these were the most opportune locations for transportation, trade, and natural resources.  Unfortunately, many of these towns were established in floodplains, leaving some residences prone to frequent flooding.   Flooding in the watershed typically occurs in the early spring as melting snow and rainstorms combine to raise river levels.  Sixteen flood events have been recorded in Newport in this century; the three largest floods occurred in 1889, 1936, and 1972 (USACOE, 1995a).

Approximately 91,000 acres of 100-year floodplains exist in the watershed, making up 4.2 percent of the total area (Penn State University, 1996).  Much of this floodplain area has been developed, so floods are able to do significant damage to homes and other structures.

To reduce the threat of flooding and to protect flood-prone areas, the Army Corps of Engineers, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and local governments have constructed several flood control projects in the watershed.  Raystown Dam is the most prominent project in the region.  A lesser-known Army Corps project is the Tyrone Local Flood Protection Project, which includes an earthen dam, diversion tunnel, and pressure conduit that channels floodwaters away from Tyrone and into the Little Juniata River.  Other non-Corps projects include the Everett Flood Protection Project (FPP) (levee, channel improvements, pumping station, rip-rap), the Huntingdon/Smithfield Township FPP (levee, earth filled dam, pressure conduit, pumping station), the Spring Run Channel Improvement Project in Altoona (channel improvements, bank stabilization, rock deflectors), Shawnee Dam and Canoe Creek Dam (floodwater storage) (USACOE, 1995a).

Twelve communities in the watershed have been identified as flood damage centers.  All of these lie along the Juniata River or one of its three major tributaries.  Annual damage estimates were calculated in the 1970s for the Susquehanna River Basin Flood Control Review Study.  Damages, updated to 1995 dollars, range from $9,000 to $456,000 per year.  Flood damages were also calculated by adding all flood insurance damages actually paid to residents since the entry of the watershed’s municipalities into the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).  Total flood damages over the last seven to 14 years, including buildings and contents, exceed $10 million (USACOE, 1995a).  Table IV-2 lists the major flood damage centers by subbasin.

Non-structural measures are becoming more common in an attempt to reduce the cost of flood protection.  Non-structural measures include flood forecasting and warning systems, stormwater management, and floodplain management/regulations.  Floodplain management is a preventative measure, meant to reduce flood damages by staying out of harm’s way.  The two basic floodplain management approaches involve (1) raising existing structures above a certain flood level (100-year floodplain, for example) or (2) prohibiting new development in the floodplain and relocating existing structures out of the floodplain.  Removing structures from the floodplain has both economic and environmental benefits, for it reduces the costs of flood damage and it allows the floodplain to act as a buffer and “sponge,” reducing the intensity of flooding.

(USACOE, 1995a)

E. Lakes and Ponds

Lakes and reservoirs play important roles in the Juniata watershed; some are used for public drinking water supply, some for flood control, and some for recreation.  A few, like Raystown Lake, fulfill more than one role.  Nearly all the sizable lakes and reservoirs in the watershed are human-made.  See Table IV-3 for a list of major reservoirs.

(DEP, 1998a)

* Trophic Status Index indicates the nutrient levels in the lake. TSI levels from 50 to 65 indicate a eutrophic (nutrient rich) environment.

F. Water Quality

Overall water quality in the watershed is good and is, in fact, improving.  A water quality and biological survey undertaken in the mid-1980s by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) indicated that “all of the major streams [in the Juniata River watershed] and many smaller ones show considerable improvement in water quality and biological conditions compared to stream conditions documented 20 years ago” (McMorran, 1986).  A major exception is the severely contaminated water at the southern end of Raystown Lake flowing from the Broad Top coal field.

In the 1998 Susquehanna River Basin Water Quality Assessment (305(b) Report), over 73 percent of the 675 assessed stream miles in the Juniata River watershed meet designated uses.  Only one percent of the assessed streams are considered non-supporting (Edwards, 1998).  Major sources of impairment include agricultural runoff, urban runoff, industrial waste, and other point sources.

A 1995 follow-up to SRBC’s 1985 study of the Juniata River watershed found that, in general, the biological conditions of most streams had improved.  Of 59 sample sites, 55 percent supported “nonimpaired” biological communities, 31 percent were slightly impaired, and 14 percent were moderately impaired (McGarrell, 1997).  Biological communities were impaired for various reasons, including physical habitat degradation and poor water quality.  See Appendix D, page D-23, for the summary of physical habitat and biological conditions of sample sites in this study.

A few streams have been experiencing pollution stress since at least the late 1970s.  The middle reaches of Frankstown Branch receive wastewater discharges from a paper mill.  Meanwhile, acid mine drainage, poorly treated sewage, urban runoff and industrial discharges pollute its tributary, the Beaverdam Branch.  The upper reaches of the Little Juniata River and the lower reaches of Kishacoquillas Creek also experience considerable pollution stress from urban and industrial areas around Altoona and Lewistown, respectively (McGarrell, 1997).

The DEP Bureau of Watershed Conservation issues a public health advisory related to fish consumption each year.  Two streams in the Juniata watershed are on the 2000 list due to the presence of PCBs.  In the lower reaches of Jacks Creek, people are advised to eat no more than one of these fish per month: brown trout, bluegill, rock bass, fallfish, and white sucker.  In the entire Beaverdam Branch basin, people are advised to eat no more than one white sucker per week (DEP, 2000d). 

The Clean Water Act (Section 303(d)) requires the biennial identification and listing of impaired stream reaches that cannot be improved to the minimum water quality standards by applying existing water treatment technology.  For example, a stream being polluted by an out-of-compliance industrial discharge would not be included on the list (DEP, 1998b).  Table C-4 in Appendix C lists the streams in the watershed that are on the 2000 303(d) list.

1. Point Sources

Point sources of pollution are those sites, such as industries or sewage treatment plants, that discharge wastewater directly into a body of water.  The entry point of the discharge is at one or more discrete locations in the stream and therefore its effects can be readily measured and regulated.  The primary regulatory mechanism of point sources is the National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES), a permitting system set up by the Clean Water Act and enforced by the EPA and DEP.

In the Juniata watershed, a total of 307 facilities have NPDES permits (EPA, 1999c).  Bedford County has the most facilities, with 100.  Fifty-nine of the 307 facilities are sewage treatment plants (USACOE, 1995a).  Table C-5 in Appendix C lists all of the NPDES permitted sites in the watershed.

Because of the highly rural character of the Juniata watershed, only 46 percent of the watershed’s households are connected to public sewer systems.  In at least 47 townships, nearly 100 percent of the households have private septic systems.  Map IV-3 shows the amount of public sewer use by municipality and the locations of sewage treatment plants.

Septic systems can cause pollution problems if they are not maintained periodically.  Even moderately well maintained systems can lead to problems when high levels of usage overload the porous limestone soils of the watershed.  In a survey of watershed municipalities, 33 percent (49) felt that groundwater and/or surface water pollution from septic systems is at least a somewhat serious problem in their area.

In contrast to point source pollution, non-point source pollution comes from diffuse, rather than discrete, sources, such as forestry, agriculture, mining, or sewage and runoff from residential lots.  A logging operation or a farm field may erode, causing sedimentation and perhaps nutrient loading, but the location of this pollution in a stream cannot be clearly pinpointed.  Entry points are many and varied, shifting over time and space.  An on-lot sewage system that is malfunctioning will contaminate both surface and ground water.  Regulation and treatment cannot address the “end of a pipe” in these cases, as they can with point sources.  Thus non-point source pollution is rapidly becoming the most significant and perplexing challenge facing water quality today.

Because of agriculture’s magnitude and importance in this region, farmland is the most significant non-point source in the Juniata watershed.  The use of conservation practices is helping to reduce soil erosion and nutrient pollution, but the sedimentation of streams caused by erosion is still the “greatest contaminant by volume,” according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE, 1995a).  Sedimentation can have severe impacts on fish communities, by smothering their food supply and their spawning beds and suffocating them directly due to high turbidity.  Sediments often carry agricultural fertilizers as well, which can lead to eutrophication and eventual deoxygenation of the stream.  These simple factors, magnified many times over, have been causing a great deal of harm to the Juniata watershed, and hence the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

Pesticides and herbicides from farm fields and residential lawns can leach into ground water or run off into surface water as well, contaminating wells or impacting in-stream organisms.  Great quantities of animal manure from large livestock farms can have such great impacts on water quality that the largest of these operations are actually regulated as point sources under the Clean Water Act.

When rainfall or runoff enters unremediated surface mines or deep mines, the water becomes contaminated and exits as acid mine drainage (AMD).  In the Broad Top region of northern Bedford County and southern Huntingdon County, approximately 40 percent of the stream reaches have been negatively impacted by surface mining and/or AMD (USACOE, 1995a).  Highly acidic conditions eliminate most or all biotic activity in a stream.

The first line of defense against the potential hazards that threaten to degrade water quality in the watershed is to know when they are present.  Monitoring programs allow for the early recognition of problems as well as the assessment of how well remediation programs are working.

Government agencies perform ongoing monitoring, but this monitoring is somewhat infrequent because of the large amount of area it must cover.  For example, the SRBC assesses each subbasin of the Susquehanna River every 10 years.  The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a program that assesses the water quality of every watershed in the United States; the Juniata watershed was included in the Lower Susquehanna River study performed in the mid-1990s.  Presently, the DEP is involved in its Unassessed Waters project, which is focused on monitoring and assessing the quality of all streams in Pennsylvania, especially those that were “unassessed” in prior studies.  Of the seven subbasins in the Juniata watershed, the Aughwick Creek subbasin study has been completed, the Dunning Creek subbasin (part of the Raystown Branch subbasin) Tuscarora, Standing Stone, and Kishacoquillas studies are ongoing, and the Frankstown/Little Juniata and Raystown Branch studies will occur after 1999 (DEP, 1999g).

Because of the limitations that government agencies experience in terms of available personnel, time, and money, DEP has started a program to help get citizens involved in the monitoring process.  The DEP Citizens’ Volunteer Monitoring Program gives watershed groups, school groups, and concerned citizens the tools and the knowledge to begin their own monitoring programs.  Presently, there are a number of active groups in the Juniata watershed.  A biology class at Huntingdon Middle School does periodic monitoring of the Muddy Run.  The Frankstown Outdoor Environmental Education Center tests the Frankstown Branch.  The Juniata Valley Senior Environment Corps has recently formed, and should begin monitoring within the year.  The Alliance for Aquatic Resource Monitoring (ALLARM) is a Dickinson College-based effort that does simple water quality monitoring across the Commonwealth.  Fifty-one present and former ALLARM monitoring sites exist in this watershed (ALLARM, 1999).

G. Water Supply

1. Public / Private

The same conditions that lead to low usage of public sewer (rural character, low-density development) also lead to a relatively low usage of public water supply in the watershed.  Across the watershed, approximately 60 percent of residents (185,680 people) receive their water from community or public water systems (EPA, 1999b).  Public water suppliers withdraw approximately 26.4 million gallons of water per day from both surface water and ground water sources.  Most boroughs provide nearly 100 percent of their population with a community water source, but many township residents get their water from private wells.  Approximately 124,000 residents withdraw about 7.75 million gallons of ground water from private wells daily (USGS, 1999a).

Although community water systems using ground water sources outnumber systems using surface water by more than three to one (93 to 28), community water systems using surface water sources supply 143,350 people, three times more than those supplied by public ground water sources.  Many of the reservoirs listed on Table IV-3 supply drinking water to residents of the watershed.  Maintaining the quality of the water in these reservoirs is crucial to the health of many.  Map IV-4 shows the location of surface water intakes throughout the watershed and the percent public water use by municipality.  Table C-6 in Appendix C lists the water systems, sources, and populations served by these surface water intakes.

Because it is out of sight, ground water is all too often out of mind.  For many of us, we only take notice of well water if it looks, smells, or tastes funny.  But ground water can be contaminated before any obvious signs appear.  Yet it can be difficult to clearly track a ground water pollutant to its source, especially considering the many layers of soil and rock that water seeps through to reach an aquifer.  Cleaning up a contaminated well is also very difficult and costly, and it may not return to potable quality for a relatively long time.  Thus it is important to create a “safe zone” around a wellhead by protecting the surrounding land from any potentially harmful activities.

DEP’s Wellhead Protection Program is predicated on the principle that it is cheaper to protect drinking water sources than it is to clean up after contamination occurs.  Table IV-4 lists the public water systems in the watershed that have initiated wellhead protection programs.  In these programs, water suppliers work with local governments and the Commonwealth to develop regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to protect zones of ground water recharge from possible contamination.  For a radius of 100-400 feet from the wellhead (Zone 1), any potentially contaminating activities must be curtailed in order to protect the quality of the community’s drinking water.  From the outside of this highly protective zone to about a one-half mile radius, two more zones are delineated which protect the overall contributing area to the well (DEP, 1999c).

(DEP, 1999b)

* Public Water Supply ID #

Click here to continue to Chapter V - Biological Resources

Or here to return to the Table of Contents