Stream Mitigation and Ecological Function in Mined

Watersheds

Todd Petty, PhD

Division of Forestry and Natural Resources

March 31, 2009

Jennifer FultonGretchen Gingerich

Eric MerriamMegan Minter

Jenny Newland (CVI)Mariya Schilz

Paul Ziemkiewicz

OSMUSGS

USEPAMagnum

ConsolArgus

Acknowledgments

The MTM DebateExtensive alteration of

headwater catchments from surface mines

Best available technologies are used to mitigate for necessary environmental impacts.

Reclamation effectiveness in recovering lost headwater functions is unclear.

Headwater FunctionsWater Retention and Flood controlAquifer rechargeSoil retention Organic Matter retention and

processingNutrient retention and cyclingSupport of vertebrate and

invertebrate communitiesTransport of dilute freshwater and

processed detritus, nutrients, and biomass to downstream systems

Pre-mining Function – Post-mining Function

=Mitigation Requirement

- =

- =

• What functions are being lost from the native catchments?• To what extent, if any, are reclaimed areas functioning as

headwater catchments?• What are the remaining functional deficits?• Can deficits be met on-site through improved reclamation?• Can remaining deficits be met and justified through off-site

restoration actions?

Functional Value of Reclaimed HWs

5 Reclaimed HWs5 Paired Native HWs• Compare and contrast

functions• Identify opportunities

for improvement

Newly Reclaimed Perimeter Complex (2 yrs)

Established Perimeter Complex (20 yrs)

Typical Perimeter Outflow

Structural and Functional Measures of Aquatic Ecosystems

-Water Chemistry*

-OM Retention*

-OM Decomposition*

-Nutrient Uptake

-Biotic Productivity and Diversity*

-Dissolved Carbon*

-Discharge*

-Canopy*

-Gradient*

-Amphibian Assemblage*

-Invertebrate Assemblage*

-Sediment Composition*

-Habitat Quality*

-Vegetation*

-Canopy*

-Gradient*

-Amphibian Assemblage*

-Invertebrate Assemblage*

-Sediment Composition*

-Habitat Quality*

-Vegetation*

Perimeter Channels

Reference Channels

Structural Differences

Site Code Site TypeAge(Yrs)

Elevation(m)

Gradient(%)

Canopy Cover

(%)

Emergent Vegetation

(%)

Average depth (cm)

Mean Particle

Size

WHOK Mine 3 1427 6 0 7 6 silt/clay

ARG Mine 5 1082 1 1 100 85 silt/clay

STBR Mine 10 1148 1 20 100 22 silt/clay

SUTR Mine 10 1018 1 0 95 7 silt/clay

BIHO Mine 20 1183 1 1 100 9 silt/clay

UTHC Ref - 1004 17 89 0 1 cobble

UTLF Ref - 962 6 93 0 1 cobble

UTMCE Ref - 1028 16 92 0 1 gravel

UTMCW Ref - 959 8 92 0 10 gravel

UTWO Ref - 973 7 90 0 7 cobble

Water ChemistryAverage Seasonal Measurements

ParameterMined Reference

Mean Range Mean Range

Conductivity (μS/m) 2712.00 912 - 5820 583.00 59 - 3064

DO (ppm) 11.0 2.1 - 18.1 8.8 4.6 - 20.5

pH 7.29 6.19 - 8.06 6.36 4.35 - 8.2

Q (cfs) 0.008 0.000 - 0.034 0.003 0.000 - 0.021

Temperature (°C) 15.5 4.4 - 32.2 13.4 7.4 - 19.3

Al (mg/L) 0.11 0.07 - 0.16 0.40 0.06 - 1.60

Ca (mg/L) 151 39 - 248 27 3 - 114

Fe (mg/L) 0.6 0.1 - 2.5 0.1 0.06 - 0.12

Mg (mg/L) 145 75 - 255 12 2 - 28

Mn (mg/L) 1.7 0.1 - 4.9 0.4 0.1 - 1.3

NO3 (mg/L) 22.0 0.2 – 104.3 0.9 0.2 - 1.4

Se (mg/L) 0.05 0.045 - 0.056 0.05 0.045 - 0.054

TP (mg/L) 0.03 0.02 - 0.04 0.05 0.03 - 0.07

AmphibiansTotal Number of Individuals Encountered

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

WHO

K3

ARG1

STBR1

SUTR1

BIHO

1

UTHCUTLF

UTMCE

UTMCW

UTWO

Site Code

# in

div

idu

als

Adults

Larva

Mined Reference

P. Channel Amphibian Species Composition

Red Spotted Newt11%

Green Frog52%

Gray Tree Frog24%

Total Number of Species Encountered

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Site Code

# sp

ecie

s

Adults

Larva

Mined Reference

Reference Amphibian Species Composition

N. Dusky Salamander

42%

Seal Salamander

47%

S. Two-lined Salamander

9%

MacroinvertebratesMacroinvertebrate Survey Total Count

0

50

100

150

200

250

WHO

K3

ARG1

STBR1

SUTR1

BIHO

1

UTHCUTLF

UTMCE

UTMCW

UTWO

Site Code

# in

div

idu

als

Mined ReferenceMacroinvertebrate Species Count

0

5

10

15

20

WHO

K3

ARG1

STBR1

SUTR1

BIHO

1

UTHCUTLF

UTMCE

UTMCW

UTWO

Site Code

# sp

ecie

s

Mined Reference

Daphnia, 5% Copepod,

4%

Fly, 78%

P. Channels Invert Species Reference Invert Species

Mayfly39%

Stonefly34%

Fly18%

OM Retention

Artificial Sticks

Average Distance Traveled (m)

0

5

10

15

20

WHO

K3

ARG1

STBR1

SUTR1

BIHO

1

UTHCUTLF

UTMCE

UTMCW

UTWO

Site Code

Dis

tan

ce (

m) P. Channel Reference

OM Decomposition

Decomposition Rate

WHOK3

ARG1STBR1

SUTR1

BIHO1

UTHC

UTLFUTLF

UTMCE

UTMCW

UTWO

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

e^

-kt

P. Channel Reference

OM Processing Power*

100 g of detritus enters into a 100 m channel segment on day 0

Processing Power = total amt decomposed within the 100 m segment over some period of time (400 days).

Over a period of 400 days:•64 g of OM are processed within the reference channel •54 g of OM are processed within the reclaimed channel•Leaves a “functional deficit” of 10 g OM processing power per 100 m per 400 days

*Highly Preliminary!!!

Dissolved Carbon

Average Total Carbon

05

10152025303540

WHO

K3

ARG1

STBR1

SUTR1

BIHO

1

UTHCUTLF

UTMCE

UTMCW

UTWO

Site Code

TC

(p

pm

)

Dissolved Organic Carbon

0

2

4

6

8

10

WHO

K3

ARG1

STBR1

SUTR1

BIHO

1

UTHCUTLF

UTMCE

UTMCW

UTWO

Site Code

Avg

DO

C (

pp

m)

P. Channel

P. Channel

Reference

Reference• WHOK is a young mine – all C is

inorganic (bicarbonate)

• DOC tends to increase with mine age (except for BIHO?)

• DOC lower in reference streams, but dominates TC (no bicarbonate)

• Dissolve carbon paints a good picture of ecosystem processes.

• OM “stewing” in mined channels.

• OM “chewed up and spit out” of reference channels.

• Reclaimed HWs are fully transformed and differ markedly from native catchments with regard to structure, vegetation, and sediments.

• Reclaimed catchments support altered, but productive, invertebrate and vertebrate communities.

• The OM processing functions of reclaimed HWs are altered but largely retained – there is a measurable functional deficit that may be addressed through off-site mitigation.

• High TDS and elevated conductivity of outflows from reclaimed catchments may be the most important difference between reclaimed and native HWs.

Reclaimed HWs Take Home

Focus on maximizing the wetland functions of reclaimed catchments vs. rebuilding lotic structures– Plant diversity, bird habitat, nutrient and OM processing, water

and sediment storage

Functional losses related to OM processing may be best addressed through off-site mitigation– Increasing OM retentiveness in small perennial streams nearby

TDS problem is a big issue, and HW catchment protection may be necessary to maintain clean, freshwater sources in mined watersheds.

Connections to downstream systems remain unknown.

Improvements to Reclamation?

Newly Reclaimed Perimeter Complex (2 yrs)

OM Retention=

fn (drainage area, gradient, structural complexity)

Low Retentiveness High Retentiveness

Pigeon Creek: Tools Needed to ID Off-Site Mitigation Opportunities and Put Into a Currency Transferable to

the Impacted HW Catchments

30 Sites• Drainage Area• Gradient• Habitat Quality• Channel

Complexity• OM Retention• OM Decomp

Relationship Between OM Retention and Stream Channel Complexity

Makes it possible to predict the “functional lift” of a stream restoration project

Pre-mining Function - Post-mining Function=

Mitigation Requirement

- =

Calculation of Recoverable OM EcoUnits Associated with Stream Restoration Projects

SITE NAME LENGTHRecoverable OM EcoUnit

Elk Creek 1 1.60 0.38RF Oldfield Br 1.20 0.42Rockhouse Cr 2 0.50 0.12Pigeon Cr 4 0.73 0.08CVI-Universal Coal 0.50 0.08CVI-Oldfield Br Mouth 0.45 0.16LF Oldfield Br 0.42 0.15CVI-Oldfield Br Below Forks 0.35 0.12CVI-PC RR Bridge 1.10 0.00Pigeon Cr DS Rockhouse Cr 0.67 0.00CVI-High School 0.60 0.05Hell Creek Lower Mouth 0.42 0.08TOTALS 1.64

What is the Functional Value of a Mitigation Project?

1.24 km stream length 0.68 km OM Retention Units

• Reclaimed HW catchments are functioning very well in some ways, and not so well in other ways.

• OM processing Ecological Units can be used to make objective decisions about acceptable functional deficits from mining and functional lift from off-site mitigation.

• We must begin to address the TDS issue in intensively mined watersheds, which will require integration of HW protection into the decision making process.

• We have proposed a 4 Phase mitigation process, which can ensure the protection of HW catchment functions and maximize watershed scale ecological values.

Conclusions

A Watershed Scale Mitigation Process for WV Minelands

Fix It!