1. Ecology of Mined WV Watersheds: Monongahela River to Tug Fork J. Todd Petty, PhD Division of Forestry & Natural Resources Surface Mine Drainage Task Force – Morgantown, WV March 31, 2010

2. Acknowledgements Paul Ziemkiewicz Jen Fulton Rick Herd Mike Strager George Merovich Roy Martin Eric Merriam Gretchen Gingerich OSM EPA USGS WVDEP Consol Argus

3. Watershed processes in intensively mined landscapes. Monongahela River Pigeon Creek Aquatic ecosystem functions on reclaimed surface mines. Samples Hobet Argus KEY TOPICS 1.Dominant stressor identification; 2.Landscape indicators of instream condition; 3.Interactions among stressors; 4.Threshold responses (local and regional scale) Functional value of habitat enhancement structures as mitigation for mining related impacts L. Coal River WVU / WVWRI Research Areas

4. Landscape Thresholds A level of activity on the landscape (e.g., mining, development, agriculture) that results in an unacceptable shift from functional to impaired conditions. Non-linear change point thresholds. Abrupt change in community structure Linear functional thresholds. Cross-over to “impaired” conditions Loss of a smallmouth bass fishery WVSCI < 68

5. Landscape Threshold Apps Continuous predictions of stream conditions based on key landscape indicators. Measurement of impact vulnerability. Identification of restoration priorities. Projecting downstream response to a proposed development activity.

6. Mining Intensity Coal Geology (freeport, kittanning, pittsburgh) AMD Chemistry Flow Temperature Habitat Quality Invertebrates Fishes OM decomposition Petty, J. T., Fulton, J. B., Merovich, G. T, Jr., Strager, M. P., Stiles, J., and Ziemkiewicz, P. F. IN REVIEW. Landscape indicators and thresholds of ecological impairment in an intensively mined Appalachian watershed. Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

7. Mining Thresholds - Northern Coalfields Kittanning Freeport Bayesian Change Point Analysis 5% mining – loss of HQ conditions 18% mining –change to “impaired” conditions.

8. Validated at an 85-95% correct classification rate. 100 68 40 Mon Basin Conclusions There are identifiable mining thresholds that produce downstream responses. – 5% mining – shift from high quality to good conditions. – 18% mining – shift from fair conditions to impaired. Thresholds vary depending on coal geology. – Freeport coal geology has lowest “functional” thresholds. Validated models provide the baseline conditions needed for making management decisions (restoration and permitting).

9. Coal Geology Mining IntensityResidences Southern WV Coalfields: 1.Variable coal geology, mining intensity, and population density. 2.People live in the floodplains and wastewater services are “spotty.” 3.Need for technical support for permitting decisions (thresholds, stressor interactions, visual decision support technologies).

10. Pigeon Creek Watershed 41 sites Mining Intensity Residential Development Independent and Interactive effects Effects on wq, hq, and inverts Mining thresholds Off-site mitigation opportunities Directing restoration and mitigation towards dominant limiting stressors Merriam, E., G. T. Merovich, and J. T. Petty. IN REVIEW. Additive effects of mining and residential development on stream conditions in an intensively mined Appalachian watershed. Journal of the NA Benthological Society

11. Pigeon Creek Design Site independence Sampling across mining and development gradient.

12. Correlation with % Mining Variablerp Water Quality Alkalinity*0.740.004 Acidity*-0.83<0.001 Conductivity*0.91<0.0001 Ba*0.680.010 Ca*0.84<0.001 Mg*0.81<0.001 Na*0.790.002 SO4*0.89<0.0001 WQ PC10.90<0.0001 Macroinvertebrate Metrics mWVSCI-0.640.019 EPT Richness-0.580.036 E Richness-0.560.047 %E excluding Baetidae-0.570.041 %Dominant0.580.036 Increased WQ PC1, conductivity and associated dissolved parameters Decreased sensitive taxa (esp. Mayflies) No effect on habitat quality or complexity

13. Variablerp Physical Habiat CV Depth-0.810.004 LWD/m-0.660.037 Retentiveness-0.650.044 %Canopy Cover-0.650.042 Water Quality Alkalinity*0.780.008 Acidity*-0.730.017 Conductivity*0.690.023 NO2*0.630.049 WQ PC10.700.024 Macroinvertebrate Metrics mWVSCI-0.730.017 Total Richness-0.690.027 EPT Richness-0.740.015 E Richness-0.720.019 Total Abundance0.710.020 %EPT excluding Baetidae-0.93<0.001 %E excluding Baetidae-0.850.002 %Tolerant0.640.046 %Dominant0.750.012 %Chironomidae0.650.043 Decreased habitat complexity Increased conductivity and WQ PC1 Decreased sensitive taxa and increased tolerant taxa Correlation with Development

14. Additive Effects of Mining and Residential Development Mining has a measurable negative impact. Worst conditions observed when both stressors are present. The degree of additional impact is proportional to the level of development intensity (i.e., additive). Mining only Mining + Development

15. Impairment Thresholds: Pigeon Creek Bayesian Change Point Analysis 5% mining –loss of HQ conditions 28% mining – change to “impaired” conditions 5 parcels / km 2 – loss of HQ conditions 15 parcels / km 2 – change to “impaired” conditions

16. Impairment Thresholds: Pigeon Creek “Functional” Thresholds The likelihood that mining will produce a downstream impairment depends on the amount of residential development in the watershed. Definitely Impaired Probably Impaired 93% streams “impaired” 0% streams “impaired” 63% streams “impaired”

17. The Pigeon Creek mainstem is a train wreck. How much of the impairment can be attributed to mining? To what extent could the conditions be improved through reduced non-mining stressors? Can the watershed withstand any additional mining?

18. Current Condition Ideal Future Condition - 100% dev / + 0% mining Alt Future Condition 3 - 50% dev / + 0% mining Alt Future Condition 4 - 50% dev / + 10% mining Pigeon Futures Green = Probably not impaired Yellow = Probably impaired Red = Definitely impaired

19. 100,0 50,0 100,10 50,10 10,0 10,10 0,0 0,10 100,50 Ideal Condition Consensus? Unacceptable First # = % reduction in development related stress Second # = % increase in mining related stress Functional Stream Length = streams classified as “green” Pigeon Creek Alternative Futures

20. Pigeon Creek Conclusions o Simply avoiding future mining impacts does not help in dealing with existing degradation. o AFA allows us to visualize a range of future conditions and reach consensus on an acceptable future endpoint to manage towards. o AFA and management of multiple stressors is untenable at the stream segment scale. But… o Effective management of actively developing watersheds is possible at the 10-digit HUC scale. Pigeon Creek Mingo County, WV

21. Final Thoughts o The MTM/VF conflict must be resolved (laws demand that mining occur and that water resources be protected). o A resolution does not exist at the stream scale, but does exist at the watershed scale (12-digit and 10-digit HUC). o A resolution will require: o Allowing localized impacts (development of all types produces localized impacts). o Placing limits on the total amount of mining allowed at the 12- or 10-digit HUC scale (needed to meet state narrative standards). o A regulatory process that enables (facilitates) innovative mitigation (channel restoration, wastewater treatment, etc.)

22. Coal Geology Mining IntensityResidences Need for: 1.Predictive models linking instream conditions to landscape attributes across the full range of coal geology, mining intensity, and residential development. 2.Alternative Futures Analysis for the region. 3.Development of watershed specific management plans for the MTR/VF region.

23. Red watersheds are probably impaired at the outflow. Orange watersheds are highly vulnerable to additional mining impact. Map must be refined and then used to make permitting decisions.