1 / 18

Headwater Stream Restoration in Mined Watersheds of the MAH

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 .

adie
Download Presentation

Headwater Stream Restoration in Mined Watersheds of the MAH

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. Observations • We have lost entire watersheds throughout much of the MAH mining districts as a result of AMLs. • MTM/VF is occurring on top of historic impacts. • If we ignore AML impacts we will not: - understand present day impacts of MTM / VF - effectively manage new mine development - successfully restore impacted watersheds • Current stream-by-stream approach to restoration and protection is inefficient and ineffective at the watershed scale. • Progress will not be made until we shift to an approach that integrates AML restoration and new mine permitting at the watershed scale.

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

  4. Watershed Scale Impacts Protection Restoration Neighborhood Effect Cumulative Biological Impact 1:1 # Streams Impacted by AMD

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

  6. Specific Research in our lab • Landscape models in mined Appalachian watersheds (quantifying reach and watershed scale conditions, identifying restoration priorities). • Watershed scale effects of extensive mining impacts on Appalachian stream fish assemblages (quantifying “neighborhood” effects, identifying indicators of watershed condition). • Measuring the effectiveness of acid stream restoration on the Allegheny Plateau (what does and doesn’t work?, what is and isn’t restored?).

  7. Mining and Coal Geology Big Sandy Cheat Lake • Coal Outcrops • Outcrop length • Coal type • Dip direction • Mine information • Surface vs Undergr • Permitted vs AML • Known area Little Sandy Muddy Saltlick Calculating Reachshed MI:

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

  9. Good Stream / Bad Watershed Bad Stream / Bad Watershed Bad Stream / Bad Watershed Bad Stream / Good Watershed Aquatic Neighborhoods

  10. Watershed Scale Impacts Good Stream / Good Watershed Good Stream / Bad Watershed Bad Stream / Bad Watershed f (basin area (80%), spatial position (8%))

  11. Watershed Indicators: Fishes lost from good streams in bad neighborhoods

  12. HARD REF AMD SOFT

  13. Partial Recovery of Biological Assemblages in Restored Acid Streams / Poor Technology or Good Streams in Bad Neighborhoods? Benthic Invertebrates Fishes Log Basin Area (km2)

  14. Conclusions • 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? • 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?

  15. Conclusions • 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)? • 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).

More Related