The purpose of this project was to assess mine drainage impacts and to provide a restoration plan for Little Coon Run and Walley Run, tributaries of Coon Creek. Coon Creek is a tributary of Tionesta Creek, classified as watershed 16F by the DEP. Figure 1 shows the study area. The study area is located primarily in Farmington Township, Clarion County. A small part of the western portion of the Little Coon Run watershed lies in Washington Township, Clarion County. In addition, the final 100 meters of Walley Run before the confluence with Coon Creek are located in Green Township, Forest County. Bull Run, a tributary of Coon Creek that lies between Little Coon Run and Walley Run, is not impacted by mine drainage.

No named settlements are located within the watershed, but the villages of Crown, Tylersburg, Frills Corners and Newmansville are located just outside the watershed boundaries. The North Clarion High School is located partially within the watershed. State Game Lands #24 encompasses most of the main stem of Little Coon Run, the area around the mouth of Walley Run, and the entire length of Coon Creek in the study area. Numerous permanent residences and camps are located within the watershed.

The main branch of Walley Run flows 3.7 miles. Walley Run also has 2.3 miles of tributary streams. Little Coon Run is 4.1 miles long and has 6.5 miles of tributary. Therefore, 16.6 miles of streams and tributaries are present in the study area. (Note: All stream lengths measured from blue-line streams on USGS 7.5’ Topographic Maps.)

B. Watershed Geology and History

The study area is located in the northwestern segment of Pennsylvania known as the Allegheny Plateau Section of the Appalachian Plateau Physiographic Province. The topography is typified by broad hilltops at the headwaters of streams with steeply dissected hillsides at the confluence of major tributaries.

The regional structure is controlled by the Leeper Anticline that is located within 2,000 feet of the southeast corner of the County Landfill operations, passing through the town of Leeper, with the axis of the anticline trending in a northeast to southwestern direction. The Frills Corners Syncline accompanies the Leeper Anticline and is situated to the northwest. The axis of the syncline also trends in a northeast to southwestern direction with its axis located to the northwest of Frills Corners. Little Coon Run and Lard Run originate on the northwestern flank of the Leeper Anticline and flow towards the axis of the Frills Corner Syncline, with the main drainage of Little Coon Run following the axis of the syncline closely.

Pennsylvanian age rocks outcrop in the Allegheny and Pottsville Groups in the upper portions of the watersheds, while the Mississippian age Shenango Formation outcrops in the lower reaches of the streams at Coon Creek. Total amount of relief between headwaters of the streams and Coon Creek is approximately 340 feet.

The headwaters of the streams fall near the contact between the base of the Pennsylvania Allegheny Group and the top of the Pennsylvania Pottsville Group. The Clarion coal occurs near the base of the Allegheny group and was widely mined in the study area. The clay beneath the Clarion coal serves as the base of the Allegheny Group.

The topography of the watersheds is moderately steep at their confluence with Coon Creek, while the headwater areas are gently rolling to relatively flat. Little Coon Run and Lard Run originate near the base of the Clarion coal seam. Prior to the mining of the Clarion coal seam, discharges off the coal seam likely produced good water. During the mining of the coal, overburden was placed on the outcrop of the coal seam covering up any sign of the edge of coal. Water draining off of the coal seams currently infiltrates spoil and soil, emerging down gradient of the original location of the coal outcrop. In most instances, water discharging in close proximity to these abandoned mine sites is polluted mine drainage.

Deep mining occurred in the area and was conducted around the time of World War II. Surface mining in this area started in the 1940's and continued until the 1960's. In addition, there were small "house coal" mines that were utilized by local residents for the heating of their homes. The hilltops in the upper reaches of the watersheds contained small patches of coal that were removed using a hilltop removal pattern. Coal crops may have been left in place in some areas. These small abandoned mines and their associated spoil areas appear to be the main source of pollution to these streams. The only coal that remains in the area is at coal outcrop locations and under roadways and cemeteries.

Oil and gas exploration and production has also impacted the study area. Numerous abandoned oil and gas wells are present, some of which discharge mine drainage to the streams. The abandoned wells provide a conduit for contaminated water in lower aquifers to rise to the surface.

A landfilling operation was started on an abandoned strip mine in the headwaters of the stream in the late 1970’s. The landfill was known as the Kinnear Landfill and is located on the watershed divide between Walley Run to the northeast, Little Coon Run to the west and northwest and Toby Creek to the south and southeast. In 1987, County Environmental began operating the landfill, which continues to the present. The leachate from the site is collected and treated. The treatment plant effluent from the landfill forms the headwaters of Lard Run, a tributary to Walley Run.

In 1996, 2.8 miles of Walley Run was added to the EPA’s 303D list of impaired streams and rivers. Contamination from metals, presumably due to AMD, was the reason for the listing. Little Coon Run has not yet been assessed for inclusion on the list. Conversely, in 2001, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission investigated Walley Run. As a result of their investigation, Walley Run was reclassified as a Reproducing Trout Stream (Damariscotta, 2001).

II. Project Description

A. Scope of Work and Schedule

The primary goal of this project was to complete a mine drainage remediation and stream restoration plan for the study area. Table 1 shows major project milestones.

Table 1: Major Project Milestones

Date	Notes
March 9, 2001	Proposal submitted to Growing Greener
July 2001	DEP announced successful proposals
August – September 2001	Field investigations and reconnaissance
October 2001	Sampling Stations Established
November 2001	Monthly Sampling Started
March 21, 2002	Mid-project update meeting with all partners
September 6 and 24, 2002	Biological Sampling by Confluence Ecology
October 2002	Monthly Sampling Ended
December 5, 2002	End of Sampling update meeting with all partners
May 13, 2003	Draft Report Presented at Public Meeting
June 2, 2003	Comments on Draft Report Collected
June 27, 2003	Final Report Submitted to DEP

In August and September 2001, the study area was investigated, historical data were examined and sampling locations were selected. The stream sections were walked in their entirety to locate potential sources of pollution.

In October 2001, 54 sampling locations were established and flow-monitoring equipment was installed where practical (See Figure 2). This equipment consisted of flow measuring flumes or installed pipes to collect the flow, which was then measured with a bucket.

Most sites were sampled monthly for flow and chemistry. Some sites were sampled monthly and measured for flow quarterly using a flow velocity meter. All data were entered into an Access database. This report represents the final report for this project.

B. Sampling Period

Monthly sampling began in November 2001 and continued until October 2002. Biological sampling took place in September 2002. Figure 3 shows the monthly rainfall amounts during the sampling period, as well as the average monthly rainfall amounts. All data were taken from the Clarion weather station, located approximately 13 miles south of the study area. Standard deviation bars are also shown. A total of 48.1 inches of rain fell during the sampling period of 12 consecutive months. The average yearly rainfall is 40.18 inches with a standard deviation of 12.23 inches. Therefore, the rainfall during the sampling period falls within the standard deviation of the average rainfall.

C. Sampling Methods

Hedin Environmental personnel and Farmington Township personnel made monthly measurements of chemistry and flow rate. Biological data were collected and analyzed by Confluence Ecological. Methods used for data collection are described below.

In order to organize the sample data, a simple naming system was used for the points. Each point was given a name consisting of two letters that indicated the stream on which it was located followed by two numbers indicating its location within the watershed. Additionally, the letter “D” was added to discharge sample stations. The letters CC were used to indicate Coon Creek stations, LC was used for Little Coon Run, WR was used for Walley Run, and LR was used for Lard Run, the main tributary to Walley Run. Stations were numbered beginning at the mouth with station number 01. Not all numbers were used in sequence in order to allow the future establishment of more stations between existing points while remaining within the naming system.

Chemistry

Water samples were analyzed for mine drainage parameters. Alkalinity, temperature, and pH were measured in the field. Alkalinity was measured using a Hach digital titration kit. In this method, samples are titrated to a pH of 4.5 using 1.6 N H₂SO₄. If a sample begins at a pH of 4.5 or lower, there is no alkalinity in the sample. Temperature and pH were measured using a Hanna pH meter. The meter was calibrated with pH 4.01 and pH 7.01 buffers prior to use.

All other parameters (conductivity, total acidity, iron, aluminum, manganese, total suspended solids and sulfate) were measured in the laboratory. G&C Laboratories of Brookville, PA performed the analyses using standard methods. Samples for metals were preserved in the field using nitric acid. Field samples were unfiltered, so concentrations of metals reflect total concentrations, not dissolved concentrations. Efforts were made in the field to collect clear samples as close to discharge points as possible, so dissolved and total concentrations should be similar.

For some discharges, ALKast tests were performed by incubating discharge water in limestone. This method was developed by Hedin Environmental and has been shown to accurately predict the alkalinity generating capacity of each unique discharge.

Flow Rate

Several flow measurement techniques were used. At locations where flow could be collected to a common point and was not expected to be above 100 gpm, the flow was directed to a pipe. Flow rate was measured at these sites by capturing the flow in a bucket and timing how long it took to collect a known volume of water. This is called the “timed volume” method.

At sites with higher flow rates where flow could be directed to a single point, H-flumes were installed to measure the flow rate. After installation, flow was determined by measuring the depth of water in the flume and converting the depth to a flow rate using the appropriate flume chart.

At in-stream stations where flow rates were desired, a Swoffer Model 3000 flow velocity meter was used. A cross-section was established and the velocity was measured at several locations along the cross-section. The flow meter automatically calculated the flow rate from these measurements.

At some stations, it was not practical to measure flow rate, so only chemistry was measured.

Fish

Fish surveys were conducted at five locations in the Coon Creek watershed after Confluence Ecological received a permit from the Pennsylvania Game Commission to gain access to State Game Lands #24. Surveys were conducted at the mouths of Little Coon Run (LC01), Bull Run, and Walley Run (WR01). Two samples were taken on Coon Creek, one above the mouth of Walley Run (CC16) and one below the mouth of Little Coon Run (CC10). These stations are shown on Figure 2. Fish samples were located to coincide with water sample locations to maximize the utility of both data sets.

Fish were sampled during base flow conditions in September 2002 to maximize visibility and capture efficiency. Sample stations were approximately 75 - 100 meters in length depending on the size of the stream being sampled. All sampling took place between 10 AM and 6 PM. Electrofishing was conducted with a Smith-Root POW backpack unit (pulsed DC) with 2 hand-held electrodes mounted on fiberglass poles. The sample crew consisted of one member carrying the backpack, operating one electrode, and one dip net and a second crewmember operating the other electrode and a dip net. A third crewmember followed with a net to capture drifting fish that may have eluded forward personnel and a bucket for specimen transport and care. All fish were identified to species in the field and recorded on data sheets. Voucher specimens were retained when appropriate.

Bull Run, Little Coon Run, Walley Run, and Coon Creek were sampled on September 6, 2002. A follow-up survey was conducted on Coon Creek on September 24, 2002. Most of these samples were done on a qualitative basis only (no distinct counts) and dominate species were determined based on observations only. At CC16 (Coon Creek upstream of Walley Run), counts were performed that allow some quantitative analysis (See Appendix B).

Macroinvertebrates

Nine stations were surveyed for macroinvertebrates as part of this project. They included the five stations that were sampled for fish species (CC16, WR01, Bull Run mouth, LC01 and CC10), plus four additional stations. These stations were the mouth of Lard Run (LR01), and three stations at various locations on the main stem of Little Coon Run above the mouth (LC30, LC21 and LC09). These stations are shown on Figure 2.

Macroinvertebrate community surveys were conducted following the benthic macroinvertebrate protocols described in the EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers (Barbour et al. 1999). Three samples were taken at each station from one riffle using a D-frame net (500 m screen). The D-frame was randomly placed in the selected riffle and all substrate 18 inches upstream of the net was disturbed for approximately one minute. Large cobble and boulders were placed in the net and removed to the streams’ edge where they were brushed into a collection pan. The D-frame net was inverted and all contents were placed into the collection pan. Following the initial transfer of material the net was washed into the pan and inspected for specimens clinging to the mesh. Samples were placed in individual containers, labeled, and preserved with 95% ethanol. Preserved samples were delivered to the laboratory for processing and identification. Laboratory procedures also followed EPA protocols (Barbour et al. 1999).

All portions of the sample were carefully examined and organisms were picked from the debris in the laboratory. The picked organisms were transferred to a specimen vial and preserved with 70% ethanol. The contents of the vials were examined under a stereoscopic microscope for identification and enumeration to the lowest taxonomic level practically achievable by experienced biologists practicing in the field.

Taxonomic composition, number of taxa, individual counts, and other metrics for the benthic macroinvertebrate assessment were derived directly from identification and enumeration of macroinvertebrates collected in the three replicate D-frame samples from each station. These metrics have been developed and tested by the USEPA and other agencies and researchers to relate benthic macroinvertebrate community structure to the overall water quality of the aquatic system and as a means of evaluating the nature and magnitude of disturbances to aquatic systems (USEPA 1990a and Barbour et al. 1999).

The following metrics were used to analyze the benthic macroinvertebrate data for this study:

(1) total number of individuals;

(2) richness measures, such as the total number of taxa;

(3) composition measures, such as percent (% EPT); and

(4) tolerance/intolerance measures, including percent of intolerant taxa and percent total numbers of intolerant .

The following section discusses these measures in detail.

Richness, Composition and Tolerance / Intolerance Measures

The total number of individuals was derived from the total count of individuals identified in the three replicate D-frame samples collected from each station. The total number of taxa was derived from the total number of genera identified in the replicate samples. Increasing taxa diversity is correlated with increasing health of the benthic community, and suggests that adequate habitat is available to support the survival and the propagation of many species (Barbour et al. 1999).

The EPT measure is the number of distinct taxa within the orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) compared to the total number of taxa present. The three orders of insects are typically comprised of pollution-sensitive species. The number of EPT taxa increase with improving water quality (USEPA 1990a and Barbour et al. 1999).

The percent total EPT and their individual percentages provide information on the relative contribution of these pollution-intolerant taxa to the total fauna. Generally, increasing abundance and diversity among the taxa are associated with increasing water quality (USEPA 1990a).

The Shannon-Weiner diversity (H) index and Evenness (E) were calculated for each station. Diversity is affected both by the richness of taxa and the distribution of individuals among taxa. Evenness is the component of diversity related to the distribution of individuals among the taxa. Evenness is sensitive to slight physical differences between sample locations (USEPA 1990a). USEPA (1990a) states that evenness values greater than 0.5 are indicative of water not affected by oxygen demand wastes.

Percent intolerant taxa and percent total numbers intolerant taxa provide information on the benthic community’s relative sensitivity to environmental stress. The number of intolerant taxa was determined using regional tolerance values obtained from the PA DEP Bureau of Watershed Conservation’s Tolerance Values for Pennsylvania Macroinvertebrate Taxa. A community dominated by relatively few species or that is dominated by pollution-tolerant species may indicate environmental stress (USEPA 1990a).

III. Problem Identification

A. Chemistry of Walley Run and Tributaries

Table 2 lists and describes the stations on Walley Run and its tributaries. A total of 24 stations were established on Walley Run and its tributaries. Walley Run has one main tributary in the study area, Lard Run. Of the 24 total stations, 17 were on Lard Run. Of these 17 stations, 3 measured in-stream chemistry and 14 measured discharges (stations ending in “D”). Of the 7 stations on Walley Run, 3 measured in-stream chemistry and 4 measured discharges. In addition to chemistry measurements, the mouth of Walley Run (WR01) was also sampled for macroinvertebrates and fish. The mouth of Lard Run (LR01) was sampled for macroinvertebrates. Points are listed beginning in the headwaters and working towards the mouth. See Appendix C for more information on each point.

Table 2: Water Sampling Stations on Walley Run and Tributaries

Name	Description
WR21D	4" Pipe near WR20D
WR20D	36" Pipe Discharge to Walley Run Headwaters from Fuelheart Property
WR12	Walley Run Above Confluence with Lard Run
WR11D	Orange seep to Walley Run just upstream of confluence with Lard Run
WR10	Walley Run Below Confluence with Lard Run
WR05D	Seep alongside small tributary to Walley Run
WR01	Mouth of Walley Run (also sampled for fish and macroinvertebrates)
LR45D	Treatment plan discharge to the headwaters of Lard Run
LR40D	Intermittent orange seep area to Lard Run just north of TP discharge
LR35D	Intermittent seep to Lard Run emerging from northeast corner of landfill spoil
LR33D	Intermittent seep at the corner of Walley and Mealy Roads
LR30D	Intermittent discharge from the east side of Lard Run near corner of field
LR29D	Discharge from spoil piles to Lard Run
LR27	In-stream sampling location approximately 200 feet below LR30D
LR26D	Intermittent seep to Lard Run just south of Aaron Road
LR25D	Road Ditch discharge to Lard Run just south of Aaron Road
LR21D	Spring to Lard Run on just north of Aaron Road
LR20D	Spring to Lard Run on just north of Aaron Road
LR18	Lard Run just above LR17D
LR17D	Primary Discharge from high on hill from west side of Lard Run
LR16D	Smaller Discharge from high on hill from west side of Lard Run (just north of LR17D)
LR15D	Smaller Discharge from high on hill from west side of Lard Run (just north of LR16D)
LR10D	Spring / Tributary to Lard Run from the west (TWP 12)
LR01	Mouth of Lard Run at Walley Run (also sampled for macroinvertebrates)

Table 3 shows the average in-stream chemistry at stations on Walley Run. Lard Run, the largest tributary to Walley Run, enters the stream between WR12 and WR10. The stations are listed beginning in the headwaters and moving towards the mouth.

Table 3: Average Chemistry of In-Stream Stations on Walley Run

Name	Field pH (SU)	Cond (uS)	Field Alk (mg/L as CaCO₃)	Acid (mg/L as CaCO₃)	Iron (mg/L)	Mn (mg/L)	Al (mg/L)	Sulfate (mg/L)
WR12	6.2	90	8	7	1.6	0.3	0.3	28
WR10	6.7	572	27	0	2.4	0.5	0.4	175
WR01	7.1	368	33	0	0.2	0.1	0.1	129

As shown Table 3, the pH and concentrations of alkalinity, conductivity, iron and sulfate of Walley Run all increase significantly due to the inflow of Lard Run. By the time the stream reaches the mouth of Walley Run, water quality is fairly good with only elevated conductivity and sulfate.

Table 4 shows the average chemistry of the in-stream stations on Lard Run.

Table 4: Average Chemistry of In-Stream Stations on Lard Run

Name	Field pH (SU)	Cond (uS)	Field Alk (mg/L as CaCO₃)	Acid (mg/L as CaCO₃)	Iron (mg/L)	Mn (mg/L)	Al (mg/L)	Sulfate (mg/L)	TSS (mg/L)
LR27	8.1	7,171	813	0	1.0	1.9	2.0	2,345	14
LR18	7.2	3,247	280	0	6.2	1.9	1.1	884	7
LR01	7.4	1,482	99	0	1.5	0.8	0.5	418	5

As shown, Lard Run displays water quality that is not typical of natural streams in this area, with elevated pH, greatly elevated alkalinity, conductivity and sulfate and low to moderate metal concentrations.

These water quality parameters are all dictated by the discharge LR45D, which forms the headwaters of Lard Run. This discharge flows from the treatment plant of the landfill, and displays elevated pH, alkalinity, conductivity, sulfate and TSS. Table 23 shows the chemistry and flow rate of this discharge.

B. Chemistry of Little Coon Run and Tributaries

Table 5 lists and describes the stations on Little Coon Run and its tributaries. A total of 26 stations were established on Little Coon Run and its tributaries. Of these 25 stations, 8 measured in-stream chemistry and 18 measured discharges (LC19D and LC20D measured two sources of the same water and are considered one station). In addition to chemistry measurements, the mouth of Little Coon Run (LC01) was also sampled for fish and macroinvertebrates. LC30, LC21 and LC09 were sampled for macroinvertebrates. Points are listed beginning in the headwaters and working towards the mouth. See Appendix C for more information on each point.

Table 6 shows the average chemistry of the in-stream stations on the main stem of Little Coon Run. Stations are listed beginning in the headwaters and moving towards the mouth. Some of these data are also shown graphically on Figure 4. The in-stream stations not listed in Table 6 are located on tributary streams.

Table 5: Water Sampling Stations on Little Coon Run and Tributaries

Name	Description
LC62D	Seep from toe feeding constructed wetland
LC61D	Discharge from Sediment Basin 2
LC60D	Tributary / Discharge to Little Coon Run just east of Marshall Road
LC57D	Intermittent toe-of-spoil discharge to Little Coon Run (Landfill Seep 6)
LC56	Little Coon Run below Seep 6
LC55D	Intermittent discharge from the west to Little Coon Run
LC50	Little Coon Run at Marshall Road
LC47D	Intermittent Spoil Discharge flowing west into field to Little Coon Run
LC46D	Intermittent Spoil Discharge flowing west into field to Little Coon Run (north of LC47D)
LC45D	Intermittent Discharge near the corner of Marshall and Mealy Roads, collected in road ditch
LC40D	Possible gas well discharge with large iron accumulation
LC37D	Flow under township road upstream of LC36
LC36	Unnamed tributary to Little Coon Run at Mealy Road
LC35D	Large seep, possible gas well on Barth property
LC30	Little Coon Run at Saltzgiver Bridge (also sampled for macroinvertebrates)
LC29D	Discharge to tributary of Little Coon Run Above Mealy Spring
LC28D	Discharge to tributary of Little Coon Run Above Mealy Spring
LC27D	Discharge to tributary of Little Coon Run Above Mealy Spring
LC26D	Mealy’s Spring Overflow
LC25	Tributary to Little Coon Run above Mealy’s Spring, just south of Township road.
LC21	Little Coon Run upstream of LC20D (also sampled for macroinvertebrates)
LC20D	Large seep, possibly old well, to Little Coon Run, large kill area
LC19D	Second place to measure water near LC20D (FLOW ONLY)
LC14	Little Coon Run downstream of LC15D and LC20D
LC10D	Discharge to Little Coon Run from high on the hill to the east (spring?)
LC09	Station just downstream of LC10D (sampled for macroinvertebrates only)
LC01	Mouth of Little Coon Run (also sampled for fish and macroinvertebrates)

Table 6: Average Chemistry and Flow of In-Stream Little Coon Run Stations (Main Stem)

Name	Flow (gpm)	Field pH (SU)	Cond (uS)	Field Alk (mg/L as CaCO₃)	Acid (mg/L as CaCO₃)	Iron (mg/L)	Mn (mg/L)	Al (mg/L)	Sulfate (mg/L)
LC56	39	3.59	1,142	0	114	15.5	13.6	5.9	632
LC50	69	3.47	952	0	88	5.3	9.9	4.3	488
LC30	471*	4.04	471	0	38	2.2	3.8	2.0	222
LC21	1,237*	4.96	218	2	12	0.3	1.3	0.8	84
LC14	1,611*	4.50	272	0	16	2.4	1.8	0.8	110
LC01	1,563*	5.27	235	0	10	0.3	1.6	0.7	98

*Represents the average of limited flow data (1, 2 or 3 samples)

As shown in Table 6 and in Figure 4, the water quality of Little Coon Creek is extremely poor in its headwaters and improves as it flows towards the mouth (LC01). The degradation is due to acidic seeps from surface mines, which form the headwaters. The middle reaches of the stream receive larger flows of moderately contaminated water, such as LC20D, which enters the stream between LC21 and LC14. The improvement in water quality is due to dilution from clean surface water and unaffected tributaries. However, the water quality at the mouth is still poor with a low pH, 10 mg/L net acidity and elevated aluminum. LC01 was sampled 8 times and was net acidic each time, with aluminum concentrations as high as 1.7 mg/L.

C. Chemistry of Coon Creek

Table 7 lists the stations on Coon Creek. Stations were established above and below the mouths of Little Coon Run and Walley Run. In addition, biological sampling was conducted at 2 stations on Coon Creek (CC16 and CC10). Points are listed beginning upstream of the study area and working downstream. See Appendix C for more information on each point.

Table 7: Sampling Stations on Coon Creek

Name	Description
CC16	Coon Creek Upstream of the mouth of Walley
CC15	Coon Creek Downstream of the mouth of Walley Run
CC11	Coon Creek Upstream of the mouth of Little Coon Run
CC10	Coon Creek Downstream of the mouth of Little Coon Run

A total of 8 rounds of sampling were performed at these stations. At the start of the project, samples were taken monthly from November 2001 – April 2002. After that point, it was decided that quarterly samples of these points would be sufficient so samples were also taken in July and October 2002.

Table 8 presents average chemistry data for the sampling stations on Coon Creek. Samples are listed starting at the most upstream station (above Walley Run) and proceeding down stream to below Little Coon Run.

Table 8: Average Chemistry of the Coon Creek Stations

Name	Field pH (SU)	Cond (uS)	Field Alk (mg/L as CaCO₃)	Acid (mg/L as CaCO₃)	Net Alk (mg/L as CaCO₃)	Iron (mg/L)	Mn (mg/L)	Al (mg/L)	Sulfate (mg/L)	TSS (mg/L)
CC16	7.0	64	27	0	27	0.3	0.1	0.1	11	3
CC15	7.2	146	27	0	27	0.3	0.1	0.1	63	3
CC11	7.2	125	21	0	21	0.2	0.1	0.1	34	3
CC10	6.7	159	10	2	8	0.3	0.6	0.3	57	3

As shown above, the water quality of Coon Creek above the study area (CC16) is good with neutral pH, excess alkalinity, low metals and low sulfate concentrations. As Coon Creek receives Walley Run (between CC16 and CC15) and Little Coon Run (between CC11 and CC10), some degradation occurs. Net alkalinity decreases an average of 70%, while aluminum and manganese increase slightly. Between CC15 and CC11, Bull Run flows into Coon Creek, providing some dilution of contaminants.

While these data represent averages, Figure 5 graphically presents the data on net alkalinity at these stations for each of the sampling dates as well as the average net alkalinity. On two sampling occasions (March and April 2002), Coon Creek was net acidic (acidity greater than alkalinity) below Little Coon Run, indicating that it was not able to assimilate the pollution from Little Coon Run during that period.

D. In-Stream Biology

Dr. Bruce Dickson of Confluence Ecological conducted sampling and prepared the biological portions of this report. Five stations in the study area were sampled for fish and macroinvertebrates. An additional four stations were sampled for macroinvertebrates only. The fish sampling stations were CC16 (Coon Creek above Walley Run), WR01 (mouth of Walley Run), the mouth of Bull Run, LC01 (mouth of Little Coon Run), and CC10 (Coon Creek below Little Coon Run). Bull Run was sampled near the mouth to serve as a local reference stream. This tributary to Coon Creek is very small (approximately 5 feet wide) and has not been impacted by acid mine drainage.

Fish Results

Table 9 shows the fish species that were identified at each station.

Two stations were surveyed on Coon Creek; Coon Creek downstream of the confluence with Little Coon Run (CC10) and Coon Creek upstream of the confluence of Walley Run (CC16). Coon Creek upstream of the mouth of Walley Run (CC16) is upstream of current or historical influence by acid mine drainage and contained twenty-six species. Of these species, five species are classified by the EPA as tolerant and contributed nearly 50 percent of the total number of fish collected. Twelve species collected at CC16 are classified as intermediate and nine as intolerant. Intermediates accounted for 28.3 percent of total numbers while intolerants accounted for 21.9 percent. Bluntnose Minnow dominated at this station with 27.6 percent of total numbers collected.

Walley Run did not show visible signs of AMD impacts but has a history of surface mining in its watershed. Eleven fish species were collected from the mouth of Walley Run (WR01). The pollution-tolerant Blacknose Dace was dominant at this station. However, several intolerant species were collected, including Mottled Sculpin, Horneyhead Chub, Mimic Shiner, Redside Dace, and Northern Hogsucker.

Blacknose Dace and Brook Trout were co-dominant at the Bull Run station. Of the six species collected from Bull Run two are classified by the EPA as tolerant, two as intermediate, and two as intolerant.

Little Coon Run is visibly impacted by mine drainage. An electrofishing survey was conducted at the mouth of Little Coon Run (LC01) and yielded one species, Blacknose Dace. This species is classified by EPA as tolerant and is often found to dominate unpolluted headwater streams and larger streams where pollutants have eliminated more sensitive species. Blacknose Dace and Creek Chubs are often the dominant species in streams with significant AMD problems in western Pennsylvania.

Table 9: Identified Fish Species and Pollution Tolerance, September 2002

Common Name	Genus, Species	CC16	WR01	Bull Run	LC01	CC10
Pollution Tolerant Species
Blacknose Dace	Rhinichthys atratulus	X	X	X	X	X
Bluntnose Minnow	Pimephales notatus	X				X
Brown Bullhead	Ameiurus nebulosus	X
Creek Chub	Semotilus atromaculatus	X	X	X		X
White Sucker	Catostomus commersoni	X				X
Intermediate Species
Bluegill	Lepomis macrochirus	X
Brook Trout	Salvelinus fontinalis	X	X	X		X
Central Stoneroller	Campostoma anomalum	X
Common Shiner	Luxilus cornutus	X
Fantail Darter	Etheostoma flabellare	X				X
Greenside Darter	Etheostoma blennioides	X
Johnny Darter	Etheostoma nigrum	X	X	X		X
Pumpkinseed	Lepornis gibbosus	X	X
Rock Bass	Ambloplites rupestris	X
Sand Shiner	Notropis ludibundus	X
Smallmouth Bass	Micropterus dolomieu	X
Striped Shiner	Luxilus chrysocephalus	X	X
Pollution Intolerant Species
American Brook Lamprey	Lampetra appendix	X				X
Bigeye Chub	Hybopsis amblops	X
Horneyhead Chub	Nocomis biguttatus	X	X
Longnose Dace	Rhinichthys cataractae	X				X
Mimic Shiner	Notropis volucellus	X	X	X		X
Mottled Sculpin	Cottus bairdi	X	X	X		X
Northern Hog Sucker	Hypentelium nigricans	X	X			X
Redside Dace	Clinostomus elongatus	X	X
River Chub	Nocomis micropogon	X
	TOTAL	26	11	6	1	12

Sampling performed by Dr. Bruce Dickson of Confluence Ecological, on September 6, 2002 with follow-up sampling on Coon Creek on September 24, 2002.

At CC10 (Coon Creek downstream of Little Coon Run), twelve fish species were collected. Creek Chub and Blacknose Dace, both EPA tolerant species, dominated total numbers. Several intolerant species (American Brook Lamprey, Longnose Dace, Mimic Shiner, Mottled Sculpin, and Northern Hogsucker) and intermediate species (Brook Trout, Fantail Darter, Johnny Darter) were also collected at CC10.

These data demonstrate the biological impacts of mine drainage, particularly on Little Coon Run and on Coon Creek. Above mine drainage impacts, Coon Creek supports 26 species of fish, compared with on 12 species of fish below the study area.

Macroinvertebrate Results

Table 10 shows a summary of the macroinvertebrate sampling. Stations are listed beginning in the headwaters and proceeding downstream (See Figure 2).

Seven of the nine sample locations are currently or have been historically subject to impact from acid mind drainage (AMD) discharges. CC16 and Bull Run are not influenced by mining activities, past or current. Taxa richness and the extremely low total number of individuals collected at the four sample stations located on Little Coon Run clearly demonstrate the severity of AMD impacts to this stream. No Ephemeroptera (mayflies), which are sensitive to pollution, were collected from any of the stations on Little Coon Run.

Taxa richness on Lard Run is also depressed and the number of individuals collected at this site is much lower than at stations on Coon Creek, Walley Run and Bull Run. No Ephemeroptera (mayflies) were collected in the samples from Lard Run. Two Plecoptera (stonefly) taxa (Leuctridae g. sp. and Peltoperla sp.), both relatively pollution intolerant, made up 38.5% of the individuals collected at this location. Percent EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) was 61.5%.

Walley Run was sampled upstream of the confluence with Coon Creek. Two hundred sixty-three individuals comprising twenty-four (24) taxa were collected at this site. The EPT (62.5%) was evenly distributed between the three orders, each comprising 20.8% of the total EPT. The dominant taxa, Leuctra sp., is considered pollution intolerant.

Bull Run is a very small stream located between Walley Run and Little Coon Run that has no mining history. One hundred ninety-six individuals were collected at this sampling location representing 30 taxa. The highest EPT value (76.7%) of any of the sampling locations was recorded for Bull Run with all three EPT orders well represented. The occurrence of highly intolerant taxa (53.8%) and the proportion of individuals within these taxa (85.8%) reflect excellent water quality in Bull Run.

Coon Creek was sampled upstream of all areas influenced by mining (CC16) and below the mouth of Little Coon Run (CC10). These locations were chosen to determine the effects of AMD from Walley Run and Little Coon Run on the biology of Coon Creek. CC16 contained 615 individuals in 32 taxa while CC10 samples contained 232 individuals representing 23 taxa. This represents a decrease of 9 taxa (28%) and 383 individuals (62%) between the two stations. Taxa diversity (H = 2.039) and productivity at CC16 are superior to all other sites sampled. Percent EPT values were similar at both sites with CC10 (65.2%) having a marginally higher value than CC16 (53.1%). Tricoptera (caddisflies) were the dominant taxa at both CC10 (30.4%; dominant genus Hydropsyche sp.) and CC16 (28.1%; dominant genus Chimarra sp).

Discussion

Field surveys of the benthic macroinvertebrate community at the nine locations and fish community surveys of five stations show that Little Coon Run is severely impacted by acid mine drainage effluents. Poor taxa richness for both macroinvertebrates and fish, low total numbers collected, and community dominance by pollution-intolerant species indicate that the level of impact in Little Coon Run remains severe long after the cessation of mining activities. Poor water quality (low pH, high acidity, metals) and the deposition of metal precipitates on the substrate of Little Coon Run combine to impair habitat utilization and reproduction by benthic macroinvertebrates and fish.

The landfill treatment plant discharge (LR45D) has resulted in alkaline conditions in Lard Run and Walley Run below Lard Run. Historically, Lard Run and Walley Run have received AMD discharges that impaired water quality and reduced biological productivity (Dickson, 1988). Walley Run has undergone a considerable recovery and now supports an aquatic community. Bull Run, the only stream that is not impacted by AMD, supports a very diverse, pollution intolerant macroinvertebrate community and fishery (Dickson, 1988) and can serve as a model for biotic recovery potential for small, AMD impacted tributaries in this watershed.

Coon Creek upstream of the mouth of Walley Run (CC16) shows no evidence of AMD impacts as it maintains a diverse aquatic community containing a significant number of pollution intolerant macroinvertebrates and fishes. Downstream at CC10, species richness and total numbers are reduced, reflecting the degradation from receiving Little Coon Run. Remediation of AMD sites in the Little Coon Run watershed will reduce the pollution load in Little Coon Run and improve water quality and habitat conditions.

The most significant problem facing Little Coon Run is the occurrence of low pH values in conjunction with elevated concentrations of dissolved aluminum, iron, and manganese. The metal solids physically degrade in-stream substrates by smothering habitat with metal precipitates (i.e., yellow boy) resulting in poor productivity and reproduction by substrate dependent species. Although iron and manganese can have negative effects on aquatic life and precipitate deposition is evident in Little Coon Run, their contribution in this case is probably minor when compared to the impact caused by aluminum.

Aluminum in the dissolved form is the most bio-reactive of the aluminum species and is highly toxic to aquatic life. While generally not encountered in undisturbed aquatic systems, aluminum can be encountered following land disturbance activities. The presence of aluminum- and acid-bearing sandstones and the further production of acid generated during and after surface mining often leads to the mobilization of large quantities of dissolved aluminum and its release to surface waters through ground water, surface seeps, and abandoned wells.

Dissolved aluminum in combination with low pH can be highly toxic in aquatic systems. Elimination of most fish and macroinvertebrate species generally occurs at a combined pH of less than 5.5 and a dissolved aluminum concentration greater than 0.5 mg/l. Water quality in Little Coon Run exceeds this criterion with an average pH of 5.27 and a dissolved aluminum concentration of 0.7 mg/l.

Some aquatic species (i.e., Brook Trout) are even more sensitive to low pH and dissolved aluminum. The threshold for mortality in brook trout appears to occur between 0.10 and 0.20 mg/l (total dissolved aluminum) when combined with pH values between 4.4 and 5.5 (Van Sickle 1996; Gagen and Sharpe 1987; Baldigo and Murdoch 1997). Research on western Pennsylvania streams (DeWalle et al. 1995) reported brook trout mortality from episodic increases in dissolved aluminum and a relationship between aluminum concentrations and stream discharge. Their research showed mortality to occur following an exposure event of 24 – 48 hours with concentrations of total dissolved aluminum between 0.10 and 0.20 mg/l. Fiss and Carline (1993) reported poor brook trout embryo survival when total dissolved aluminum concentrations exceeded 0.06 mg/l.

Periods of high flows and elevated aluminum concentrations combined with low pH values have been directly linked to mortality in brook trout and other fish species. However, the threshold (approximately 0.20 – 0.30 mg/l total dissolved aluminum) is not always reached. These sub-lethal conditions also negatively affect fish populations. In some instances, intermittent spikes in total dissolved aluminum caused greater cumulative mortality and decreased growth rates in sub-adult brook trout than continuous exposure (Siddens et al. 1986). Additionally, sub-lethal exposure can negatively affect brook trout survival and the stress induced by episodic exposure may be additive (Baldigo and Murdoch 1997).

The lack of a diverse, abundant macroinvertebrate and fish community in Little Coon Run is the direct result of the occurrence of low pH and dissolved aluminum concentrations exceeding threshold levels. Biotic conditions in Little Coon Run are likely to improve following the treatment of AMD sites in the Little Coon Run watershed. A positive effect is also anticipated on Coon Creek downstream of the mouth of Little Coon Run (CC10) as water quality improves.

IV. Watershed Goals and Objectives

The following goals have been established for the watershed:

Improve Little Coon Run starting at the mouth. This will also improve Coon Creek and allow fish species present in Coon Creek to begin migrating up into Little Coon Run.
Protect and Improve Coon Creek. This goal will be accomplished by treating discharges anywhere in the study area, but particularly in Little Coon Run. Coon Creek below Little Coon Run still has a biological community, but this goal seeks to make this community more robust and diverse.
Improve Lard Run and Walley Run. These streams are not as badly impacted as Little Coon Run, but still display room for improvement.

The watershed goals will be accomplished by meeting the following objectives:

Inform the public and all agencies (DEP, Army Corps of Engineers, DCNR, County Conservation District, etc.) of the findings and recommendations of this Restoration Plan.
Establish and maintain good communications with those who own land in the areas of the proposed projects.
Pursue funding for high-priority projects through Growing Greener and other sources.
Explore various other ways to accomplish reclamation projects, including coal extraction projects (GFCC), reclamation trading by coal operators, and/or reclamation by the Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR).
Monitor the successes and stream improvements that result from the various projects at least every five years.

V. Introduction to General Source Reduction and Treatment Alternatives

There are several ways to treat mine drainage that vary depending upon the origin, chemistry and geographical surroundings of the discharge. Source reduction (one-time activities that lessen the amount or severity of pollution that is produced) is also an alternative in some cases. Source Reduction is often referred to as “mitigation.” The purpose of this section is to describe the basic treatment and mitigation alternatives that are available for discharges in the study area.

A. Source Reduction Alternatives

Source Reduction targets the amount (flow rate) or severity (pollutant concentration) of mine drainage discharges through a one-time effort. Typical types of mitigation include surface reclamation, revegetation, alkaline addition to the surface or subsurface, and plugging. This section will discuss these mitigation alternatives.

When the source of contaminated mine water is a discrete point source, such as a mine opening or a well, it may be feasible to eliminate the discharge by blocking the flow path. Deep mine entries may be sealed with either wet seals that allow the discharge to flow through the seal or with dry seals that prevent discharges.

Artesian flows from abandoned oil or gas wells can be plugged with concrete. Hundreds of abandoned wells are plugged each year in Pennsylvania to prevent flows of brine water and explosive gases, and to prevent the cross-contamination of aquifers penetrated by the wells. Abandoned wells in the Coon Creek watershed and in many surrounding watersheds in Venango, Clarion and Jefferson Counties act as conduits for AMD flows. Dozens of AMD-producing wells have been plugged in Clarion County in the last two years by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service and other entities.

Before attempting to eliminate a point discharge, it is advisable to evaluate the hydrologic setting and determine where the diverted water is likely to discharge. When successful, plugging can be an inexpensive alternative to treatment. It can also be a “last resort” alternative for discharges that do not allow passive treatment because of location (proximity to the stream or on a steep bank, for instance). When partially successful, plugging can reduce the cost of the treatment system by reducing the flow rate. When plugging is unsuccessful, it can cause the water to emerge in an unwanted location either directly adjacent to the plugged well or some distance away.

If the discharge cannot be eliminated, methods to decrease the contaminant loadings should be considered. Acidity and metals loading can be decreased using several methods, including:

§ Reducing contact between water and acid-producing materials by increasing runoff;

§ Isolating the materials by capping or moving them to a dry location; and

§ Adding alkaline materials to neutralize acid production.

Surface reclamation is common mitigation effort which involves grading spoil piles, identifying and isolating acid-producing spoils, eliminating impounded water and encouraging surface runoff. Surface reclamation to pre-existing contours is now required by mining laws but was not required when many mines were active. Bare soil and spoil contact water and air, causing mine drainage. Reclamation can reduce both the flow rate and the severity of mine drainage.

Reclamation usually includes revegetation and some form of alkaline addition. Establishing good cover vegetation on poor mine spoil or soil typically requires heavy additions of agricultural lime or another alkaline product. Fertilizer and mulch are also used. Vegetation prevents erosion and allows more water to run off a site rather than percolate into the spoil, causing more mine drainage.

Neutralization is increased through the addition of alkaline materials to the site. Limestone (CaCO₃) and lime (Ca(OH)₂ or CaO) products are widely available and are commonly used for alkaline addition. In some cases, low-grade limestone not suitable for commercial mining but suitable for alkaline addition may exist on the site. The remediation plan may include plans to mine the low-grade limestone specifically for alkaline addition. Alkaline waste products can also be used. Examples include fly ash, fluidized bed bottom ash, processed slag, bag house lime, and paper, pulp, or tannery by-products.

Reclamation, alkaline addition and revegetation are most effective for small flows of contaminated drainage that flow directly from the surface of spoils. Reclamation is not as effective for seeps and discharges that may be influenced by groundwater flow or deep mine voids.

Many reclamation projects are supported by state and federal reclamation programs. However, the presence of marketable coal on a site makes reclamation through coal mining activities possible. In this case, the mining company is provided with incentives to “re-mine” the site and thus remove remaining coal and reclaim the abandoned spoils. The result of these activities is usually a reduction in the contaminant production. The mining company pays the costs of the reclamation on a re-mining project. Government Financed Construction Contracts (GFCCs) have been used to encourage re-mining in areas where it will provide benefits to land and/or water problems.

While mitigation is an important component of any restoration plan, the results of mitigation are difficult or impossible to predict. At some sites, reclamation and well plugging have dramatically reduced the amount of pollution to a watershed, while other efforts have had little to no effect. Often, mitigation efforts such as reclamation must be performed over wide areas to be effective and treatment may be a less expensive option. Cost/benefit analyses that include the possible successes and failures of treatment and mitigation should be examined in order to choose the best alternative.

B. Active Treatment Alternatives

Active treatment involves the use of chemicals and mechanical devices to treat mine water. Active treatment methods are well-developed. Sodium-based products such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH, caustic) or sodium carbonate (Na₂CO₃, soda ash) or calcium-based products such as hydrated lime (Ca(OH)₃) and quick lime (CaO) are generally used. The sodium products are more soluble and are easier to use for low flows, in remote locations, and/or where a permit requires manganese removal. The calcium products are less expensive, but generally require mechanical mixing and aeration to be effective. Large flows can usually be treated more cost-effectively with lime. Chemical treatment produces metal sludge that must be periodically collected and disposed of. Disposal usually occurs in an on-site sludge disposal pond or into an underground coal mine. The costs of sludge management are substantial, often exceeding the costs of the chemically treating the contaminated water.

The long-term costs of active treatment make it an unattractive treatment solution. However, there are circumstances where it is the used, often with highly effective results. The quality of the East Branch of the Clarion River Reservoir is maintained through mechanical lime additions to a highly acidic stream (Swamp Creek). Major improvements in the quality of Toby Creek are largely due to installation of several active treatment systems. Active treatment is usually proposed when it is the only feasible alternative, either because the chemistry of the discharge is too severe for passive treatment or because there is not enough land area to achieve treatment using passive methods.

C. Passive Treatment Alternatives

Passive treatment involves the use of natural products, natural processes, ponds and constructed wetlands to remediate mine drainage. Acidity is neutralized by limestone and microbial processes. Metals are precipitated as oxides and hydroxides in sedimentation ponds and wetlands. The chemistry of the mine drainage determines what type of passive system is required. The flow rate of the mine drainage determines the size of the system.

A variety of passive treatment technologies exist. In general, the more acidic the mine water the more problematic passive treatment becomes. Waters with aluminum concentrations less than 20 mg/L are being effectively treated with reasonable O&M requirements. Waters with higher aluminum concentrations can be effectively treated with passive treatment, but the frequency of system renovations is likely to increase. The selection of the appropriate technology is generally dependent on the mine drainage chemistry. Figure 6 is a flow chart that is commonly used to develop the conceptual designs for passive systems.

Ponds and Wetlands

Mine waters that are naturally net alkaline (alkalinity greater than acidity) are usually contaminated with iron (Fe). The iron can be passively precipitated through oxidation and settling in sedimentation ponds and constructed wetlands. The systems are designed to promote aeration (sheet flow and waterfalls) and provide long retention times. Ponds are usually used to decrease iron concentrations to 10-15 mg/L, and wetlands are used to remove the residual iron. The theoretical retention time in effective pond and wetland systems is usually at least 24 hours. Ponds and wetlands are also placed after other passive treatment system components to provide settling and polishing.

Anoxic Limestone Drains

Mine water that is net acidic (acidity greater than alkalinity), contaminated with iron, and has low dissolved oxygen and aluminum concentrations can be treated with an anoxic limestone drain (ALD). An ALD is a buried bed of limestone that is designed to be completely flooded to maintain anoxic conditions throughout. These conditions result in the generation of alkalinity (through limestone dissolution) without the precipitation of iron solids. The alkaline discharge from the anoxic limestone drain is followed by sedimentation ponds and constructed wetlands, where iron precipitates as an iron oxide solid. Properly designed and constructed anoxic limestone drain systems are among the most effective type of passive treatment and have been proven viable for treatment in the long term (over 15 years).

Vertical Flow Ponds

Mine waters that are net acidic and contain aluminum are the most challenging cases for passive treatment. The acidic waters require neutralization, but the tendency for aluminum to precipitate within alkaline substrate and decrease its permeability complicates the treatment. Many passive systems constructed to treat mine water with aluminum fail because they plug, and the acid water cannot flow through the alkaline materials. The plugging problem has been partially mitigated through the design of ponds where water flows vertically through a large bed of limestone. The bed is typically covered with an organic substrate in order to remove oxygen that would otherwise cause the precipitation of iron within the limestone aggregate. These ponds have been referred to as vertical flow ponds (VFP), successive alkalinity producing systems (SAPS), and reducing and alkalinity producing systems (RAPS). While some systems may work well for several years with no maintenance, the accumulation of iron and aluminum solids eventually causes permeability problems that can result in system failure. Renovation typically requires replacement of the organic substrate and a portion of the limestone aggregate. To counter this problem, VFPs are usually constructed with solids flushing capabilities. The flushing systems operate passively and are driven by head designed into the VFPs.

The challenges presented by highly acidic mine drainage have resulted in the development of innovative technologies. There is little consensus among treatment system designers on the details of the flushing systems. A belief that increased flushing frequency results in better removal of aluminum and iron solids has resulted in the incorporation of automatic flushing devices into some passive systems. These devices cause the system to flush whenever the water level reaches a predetermined level. Experimental systems that flush every 3-6 hours have been installed. The observation that aluminum solids tend to accumulate in the upper portion down-flow limestone beds has prompted the installation of flush systems in the top of some limestone beds. Calculations on the velocities needed to move particles suggest the need for closely spaced flush pipes with small flushing orifices. However, many systems that appear to effectively flush solids are designed with widely spaced pipes with numerous large orifices.

Oxic Limestone Beds and Channels

Limestone is not effective for AMD treatment if it plugs or is coated with metal solids. In cases where iron and aluminum concentrations are low, additional alkalinity can be generated with flow through an open bed of limestone aggregate. Oxic limestone beds are increasingly being placed at the end of passive systems to boost pH and promote microbial manganese-removal processes.

In cases where steep gradients exist between the discharge and the receiving stream, it may be feasible to partially treat the water with an open limestone channel. The velocity of water moving through the limestone carries solids out and prevents plugging. Research shows that even though the limestone in open channels is armored with iron, it is still reactive.

Pyrolusite^TM Beds

Manganese precipitates as an oxide under alkaline conditions in the absence of iron. The process is microbially mediated. The Pyrolusite^TM process involves the inoculation of oxic limestone beds with microbes selected for manganese oxidation.

Maintenance of Passive Treatment Systems

Wetlands usually require minimal maintenance. Some maintenance is related to the activities of pests, such as muskrats and beavers, which burrow in berms, plug outlets and destroy vegetation. Wetlands can be designed to minimize the risk of pest damage, but visual inspections and sometimes trapping are necessary. Wetlands have also been damaged by ATVs, which run through the wetlands and cause channels to develop.

The primary maintenance issue with ponds is solids removal. Ponds can also be susceptible to damage by pests. The purpose of ponds is to collect metals that form solids and accumulate. Over time, these solids build up and require removal. The solids are not hazardous and can usually be buried on site. Ponds are typically designed to operate for 15 – 25 years before being cleaned out. The required frequency of cleaning depends upon the flow rate of the discharge, the concentrations of metals, and the size of the pond.

When ALDs are properly constructed and designed to treat water that does not contain oxygen, aluminum or ferric iron (Fe³⁺), they usually require no maintenance. However, ALDs have recently been used to treat discharges that do contain low levels of oxygen, aluminum or ferric iron (Fe³⁺). These drains are equipped with flush plumbing similar to that found in VFPs and require regular flushing. As ALDs neutralize acidity and add alkalinity, the limestone dissolves. ALDs are typically designed with enough limestone to provide full treatment for 25 years. After that period of time, more limestone must be added to the bed.

VFPs require regular flushing to avoid plugging by solids. Few scientific studies have been performed to determine the best flushing frequency, which likely varies widely based on the size of the system, the design of the flush plumbing and the chemistry of the water. Typically, the water level in the VFP is monitored and flushing is recommended when water levels rise, indicating that the VFP is beginning to plug. Alternatively, flushing can be performed on a regular basis before plugging begins. Existing systems are usually flushed once a month to once a year.

VI. General Problem Description

Numerous mine drainage seeps of varying quality were identified and sampled in the study area. In general, the discharges with the worst quality emerge in the headwaters of Little Coon Run and its tributaries and, to a lesser extent, the headwaters of Lard Run. These seeps, which are characterized by very low pH and elevated aluminum levels, originate from surface mines and mine refuse. These flows are typically highly dependant upon precipitation and do not flow during drier months of the year. These discharges are of concern primarily due to the highly toxic nature of aluminum.

Further from the headwaters, the mine drainage pollution is typically from ground water seeps that have larger, more constant flows of water than the surface flows near the headwaters. These discharges typically contain some alkalinity, elevated concentrations of iron and low concentrations of aluminum. The primary concern from this type of discharge is the increased acidity present due to elevated iron.

The following sections will discuss each of the spoil areas and discharges in detail. Section VII describes reclamation projects that may result in improved water quality. Sections VIII and IIX describe treatment recommendations for Walley Run and Little Coon Run, respectively.

VII. Reclamation Alternatives and Recommendations

Several distinct areas of spoil have been identified using the USGS map and field reconnaissance. These spoil areas are located in the headwaters of Little Coon Run and Lard Run and generally occur on the watershed boundary between the study area and streams that flow to the south (Licking Creek and Toby Creek). These spoil areas and watershed boundaries are shown on Figure 7. Watershed boundaries are shown on the figure as well. Table 11 provides information on each spoil area.

Table 11: Spoil Reclamation Area Information

		Watershed
Spoil Area	Total Acres	Walley	Little Coon	Licking	Toby	Landowner(s)	Notes
A	116	26	34		56	County Environmental	Portions used for landfill and not available for reclamation.
B	121		33	47	41	County Environmental	Portions used for landfill-related activities. Landfill may expand here.
C	17	10	7			Various private landowners
D	29		18	11			No distinct discharges found.
E	52		25	27			No distinct discharges found.
F	23		12	11
G	17		17				No distinct discharges found.
Total	375	36	146	96	97

Table 12 shows a matrix of which spoil areas contribute to which discharges. An “X” indicates that the discharge is directly from the spoil. A “?” indicates that the discharge does not flow directly from the spoil but is thought to be flowing indirectly from these spoil areas. These seeps are generally located geographically below spoils and have more steady flow rates than seeps directly from spoil. The seeps likely represent shallow groundwater flow, the principle source of which is infiltration into surface spoils that travels a short distance underground before emerging. Note that some discharges may be influenced by more than one spoil area.

Table 13 summarizes the direct (X) and indirect (?) loadings from each of the spoil areas to streams in the study area. Note that spoil areas A, B, D, E and F straddle the watershed divide and may contribute pollution to Licking Creek and/or Toby Creek, which were not included in this study area. However, the underlying coal structure dips towards the northwest, which probably directs most infiltration and groundwater from the spoil areas towards Walley Run and Little Coon Run.

While Table 13 represents total direct and indirect loadings from each site, the loading reductions expected for each reclamation job will vary depending upon the type, extent and effectiveness of reclamation. Direct loading is more likely to be affected by reclamation than indirect loading, which may not be influenced at all. Also, it is important to realize that not all of Areas A and B are available for further reclamation. Large portions are Areas A and B are being used for landfilling and landfill support activities.

Table 12: Discharges Associated with Spoil Areas

Discharge	A	B	C	D	E	F	G
LR40D	X
LR35D	X
LR33D	X
LR30D	?		?
LR29D			X
LR26D			?
LR25D			?
LR21D			?
LR20D			?
LC62D	?	X
LC61D	X
LC60D		X
LC57D	X
LC55D	X
LC47D			X
LC46D			X
LC45D	X
LC37D						X
LC36		X		?	?	?
LC25						?
LC29D							?
LC28D							?
LC27D							?

X = direct discharge from that spoil area, ? = possibly influenced by it

Table 13: Spoil Area Loading Summary

		Direct Loading (pounds per day)			Indirect Loading (pounds per day)
Area	Total Acres	Acid	Iron	Al	Acid	Iron	Al
A	116	45	2	7	1	0	0.1
B	121	62	1	6	91	1	11
C

Category	Metric	Metric Description	Coon Creek above	Lard Run	Walley Run	Bull Run	Little Coon Run				Coon Creek below
Category	Metric	Metric Description	CC16	LR01	WR01	Mouth	LC30	LC21	LC09	LC01	CC10
Richness Measures	Taxa Richness	Number of distinct genera of organisms.	32	13	24	30	6	5	11	7	23
	Total Numbers	Number of individual organisms counted.	615	240	263	196	24	12	58	52	232
	Taxa Diversity (H)	One measure of diversity, higher numbers indicate greater diversity.	2.039	0.830	0.995	0.985	0.863	0.622	0.438	0.346	0.887
	Evenness (E)	Measures how individuals are distributed among taxa (0.5 and above is desirable)	0.588	0.324	0.313	0.290	0.481	0.387	0.183	0.178	0.283
Composition Measures	% Ephemeroptera	Percent Mayflies	12.5	0	20.8	26.7	0	0	0	0	21.7
	% Plecoptera	Percent Stoneflies	12.5	38.5	20.8	26.7	16.7	20.0	27.3	28.5	13.0
	% Trichoptera	Percent Caddisflies	28.1	23.0	20.8	23.3	0	20.0	27.3	14.3	30.4
	% EPT	Percent total of mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies, three pollution-sensitive groups	53.1	61.5	62.5	76.7	16.7	40.0	54.5	42.8	65.2
	% Chironomidae	Percent total of Chironomidae (a pollution-tolerate family of flies)	14.8	2.5	15.6	3.6	54.2	16.7	20.7	15.4	12.5
Tolerance / Intolerance Measures	% Intolerant Taxa (PADEP: 0, 1, 2)	Indicates the number of pollution-sensitive types of organisms	37.5	37.5	53.3	53.8	16.7	20.0	36.4	28.6	43.5
Tolerance / Intolerance Measures	% Intolerant Numbers (PADEP: 0, 1, 2)	High values indicate a station dominated by high numbers of pollution-sensitive organisms	19.0	66.5	8.2	85.8	29.2	8.3	12.1	7.7	15.5

List of Figures

Appendices (not available online)