GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF STREAMS IN THE SULLIVAN BRANCH WATERSHED: EASTERN SOURCE WATERS OF THE EAST BRANCH OF FISHING CREEK, SULLIVAN COUNTY, PA

On September 20^th, 2014, as part of an overall study of the water quality in the East Branch of Fishing Creek, we collected samples and in situ data in the Sullivan Branch watershed as well as both surface and groundwater samples further downstream in the East Branch of Fishing Creek. Surface samples and in situ data were collected at eight sites: one in Sullivan Branch and one in Big Run just above their confluence, one in Sullivan Branch and one in Heberly Run just above their confluence, one in Lead Run (in situ data only, as there was little to no flow), two in the East Branch of Fishing Creek downstream from the confluence with Heberly Run and upstream of the confluence with Lead Run, and one in the East Branch of Fishing Creek just below the confluence with Lead Run, northeast of Jamison City in Sullivan County. We also collected in situ data and groundwater samples from piezometers adjacent to each of the two sites in the East Branch of Fishing Creek between the confluences with Heberly Run and Lead Run. In situ data included pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity. Large samples were collected and put on ice. Triplicate analyses of alkalinity and acidity were run in the field on filtered samples. Turbidity was analyzed on each sample in the field and unfiltered triplicate subsamples collected for later analysis of selected metals. Samples were filtered in the field and triplicate subsamples collected for metal analyses and additional triplicate samples collected and frozen for analysis of major cations and anions. Conductivity was low in all samples, less than 50µS/cm, and pH ranged from 4.8 to 7.1. Conductivity, pH, and alkalinity were highest in the Big Run sample. Chemistry of the two groundwater samples was distinct from the chemistry of the two adjacent surface samples. Low conductivities in all samples indicate that any potential contamination by fracking fluid or production water should be easily detectable in these pristine waters. As values from this study correspond to those from a 2010 study by Yamrich, et al., we conclude that there is as yet no contamination of this watershed from local fracking activities.