Headwater Stream Restoration in Mined Watersheds of the MAH

Todd Petty, Mike Strager WVU Division of Forestry and Natural Resources

Paul Ziemkiewicz WV Water Research Institute

USEPA Eastern Regional Scientist Meeting

June 20-21, 2006

Observations

1. We have lost entire watersheds throughout much of the MAH mining districts as a result of AMLs.

2. MTM/VF is occurring on top of historic impacts.

3. If we ignore AML impacts we will not:- understand present day impacts of MTM / VF- effectively manage new mine development- successfully restore impacted watersheds

4. Current stream-by-stream approach to restoration and protection is inefficient and ineffective at the watershed scale.

5. Progress will not be made until we shift to an approach that integrates AML restoration and new mine permitting at the watershed scale.

Important Questions

1. Are there watershed scale consequences that emerge from extensive mining related impacts (“neighborhood” effects)?

- eutrophication of downstream waterbodies because of reduced nutrient uptake capacity of mined headwater watersheds

- reduced diversity of fishes that depend on watershed scale connectivity of stream reaches

2. If so, what are the mechanisms, are there indicators, and can we find thresholds of impairment below which watershed scale losses can be avoided?

Watershed Scale Impacts

# Streams Impacted by AMDCu

mu

lati

ve B

iolo

gic

al I

mp

act

1:1

Protection Restoration

Neighborhood Effect

Important Questions

4. To what extent can restoration be used to recover reach and watershed scale conditions?

- all restoration projects are not successful, but improvements can be made by coupling projects together; some will be more effective than others

- importance of restoration technology and strategic design- value of stream restoration depends on the quality of the

“neighborhood.”

5. What modeling, assessment, and administrative frameworks are needed to manage for watershed scale conditions (move to a “neighborhood planning” approach)?

Specific Research in our lab

1. Landscape models in mined Appalachian watersheds (quantifying reach and watershed scale conditions, identifying restoration priorities).

2. Watershed scale effects of extensive mining impacts on Appalachian stream fish assemblages (quantifying “neighborhood” effects, identifying indicators of watershed condition).

3. Measuring the effectiveness of acid stream restoration on the Allegheny Plateau (what does and doesn’t work?, what is and isn’t restored?).

Saltlick

Muddy

Little Sandy

Big Sandy

Cheat Lake

•Coal Outcrops

•Outcrop length

•Coal type

•Dip direction

•Mine information

•Surface vs Undergr

•Permitted vs AML

•Known area

Mining and Coal Geology

1002maxmax

COD

CODi

CMD

CMDiMI

Calculating Reachshed MI:

Effects of Mining Intensity, Mine Position, and Coal Geology on Bug Condition in the Cheat River

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Reachshed Mining Intensity

12 D

igit

HU

C M

inin

g In

ten

sity

Good Stream / Bad Watershed

Bad Stream / Bad Watershed

Bad Stream / Good Watershed

Bad Stream / Bad Watershed

Aquatic Neighborhoods

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

Expected Species Richness

Obs

erve

d Sp

ecie

s R

ichn

ess

Good Stream / Good Watershed

Good Stream / Bad Watershed

Bad Stream / Bad Watershed

Watershed Scale Impacts

f (basin area (80%), spatial position (8%))

Watershed Indicators: Fishes lost from good streams in bad neighborhoods

REF

SOFT

HARD

AMD

y = 4.4x - 4.3R2 = 0.739p = 0.006

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5

Fis

h s

pe

cie

s ri

chn

ess

A

C

T

Log Basin Area (km2)

Partial Recovery of Biological Assemblages in Restored Acid Streams / Poor Technology or Good Streams in Bad Neighborhoods?

y = 862.9x - 2606.1R2 = 0.560p = 0.004

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.5

Log distance to treatment (m)

Bio

ma

ss (

gD

M/m

2 )

3 km

Benthic Invertebrates Fishes

Conclusions

1. It is possible to predict instream conditions (chemical and biological) continuously on the basis of geology, mining intensity, and mine placement.

Can we predict the consequences of a given mining activity?

2. Extensive mining impairment produces watershed scale impacts to fish assemblages.

Can we identify thresholds of mining intensity below which watershed scale losses are avoided?

Can fishes be used as indicators of watershed conditions?

Conclusions

3. Acid stream restoration is effective in recovering local physical and chemical conditions, but biological recovery is incomplete.

Can restoration effectiveness be improved through “watershed design” (systems vs. chemical engineers)?

4. Full recovery and sustainable development in mined watersheds of the MAH will require watershed approaches that integrate restoration, land conservation, and permitting (specific needs may vary from watershed to watershed).