Transcript Title

Muddy Creek Targeted Watershed
Initiative:
Strategic AMD Restoration
Rick Herd, Jennifer Fulton and Paul Ziemkiewicz
West Virginia Water Research Institute
WV Mine Drainage Task Force Symposium
April 10, 2007
Overview
•
•
•
•
Targeted Watershed Grant Objectives
Background
Technical Approach
Implications
EPA Targeted Watershed Grants Program
• Purpose- encourages innovative solutions to
achieving measurable water quality
improvements at watershed scale
• Objective- to restore and preserve water
resources through strategic planning and
coordinated project management that draw in
public and private sector partners
• Goal- advance successful partnerships and
coalitions to implement technically sound
watershed restoration/protection plans
Partners
•
•
•
•
•
Friends of the Cheat
River of Promise
WVDEP Special Rec and AML
OSM
WVU--NMLRC and Watershed Technical
Assistance Center (WTAC)
Implementation of the Watershed Based Plan for AMD
Remediation in the Cheat River Watershed, WV
• Primary objective- restore 27 stream miles ( six
303(d) listings) in Muddy Creek and Lower
Cheat Watersheds
• Secondary objective- evaluate and compare the
efficacy (cost and ecological benefit) of four
approaches for remediating AMD:
 Passive at-source
 Active at-source
 Active in-stream
 Combination of above (hybrid)
What We Know About Passive At-Source AMD
Treatment (Traditional Approach)
• Significant number of diffuse and spatially
distributed sources
• Landowner access agreements difficult and
sometimes impossible to obtain
• Individual access roads can be costly
• long-term effectiveness of passive technologies
uncertain
• It will take much longer and cost much more to
restore water quality with passive at-source
treatment alone
What We know About Active In-Stream AMD
Treatment
• Achieves an economy of scale producing
greater benefits, more quickly at less cost
In more stream miles (Ziemkiewicz, 2006)
• Reduces risk by Increasing performance
certainty
• Sacrifices some amount of stream habitat
• Requires long term O&M
• Compatible with EPA’s “Watershed
Approach”
Strategic Approach to Watershed Restoration
• Integrate chemical, biological and habitat data
into GIS watershed modeling framework
• Quantify the ecological value (EUs) in terms of
historic, current and recoverable
• Iterate location and type of least cost projects to
maximize benefits (link EU recovery)
• Design and implement projects
• Monitor and assess outcome
• Adapt and modify if necessary
EcoUnit Concept
= a quantitative measurement of the structural/functional ecological value
of a stream (length or surface area).
***scalable from stream segment to whole watershed
***decision making “currency”
Examples:
Coldwater Fishery EcoUnit
Warmwater Fishery EcoUnit
Organic Matter Processing EcoUnit.
Biological Diversity EcoUnit
Applications:
Strategic Watershed Restoration
Development of Mitigation Offset Credits
Development of Water Quality Trading Credits
EU Applications
Petty, J. T., and D. Thorne. 2005. An ecologically based approach to
identifying restoration priorities in an acid-impacted watershed.
Restoration Ecology 13:348-357.
Developed a coldwater fishery EU to conduct a cost:benefit analysis of
various limestone sand remediation alternatives in the upper Shavers Fork watershed.
Merovich, G. T., Jr., and J. T. Petty. 2007. Interactive effects of multiple
stressors and restoration priorities in a mined Appalachian watershed.
Hydrobiologia 575:13-31.
Developed an invertebrate diversity EU to assess the benefits of AMD treatment as
an alternative offset to impacts from thermal effluent to the Cheat River mainstem.
Poplar-Jeffers, I. and J. T. Petty. 2007. Culvert replacement and stream
restoration: application to brook trout management in an Appalachian
watershed. Restoration Ecology (IN PRESS).
Applied the coldwater fishery EU to identify culvert replacement priorities and assess
the benefits of culvert replacement as a form of mitigation for road related impacts to
streams.
General Equations for EU Calculation
• EU=Stream Surface Area (ac) X Observed
WVSCI/Max WVSCI
• Coldwater EU = fn (drainage area,
elevation, canopy cover, habitat quality,
water quality)
• Warmwater EU = fn (drainage area,
gradient, water quality)
Muddy Creek AML and BF sites
")
<
!( &
")
!(
!(
!( #
* !(
!(
)"")!(
!(
C & A Connor
* Bond Forfeiture
*##
* !(
#
*#
!(
*# #
*
!(
#
*!(!(!(
*
#
*Valley
#
*!(#
Point
!(#
#
*#
*
Gary Connor Site #
!(*#
*!(
*!(*#!(
#
#
*#
*#
*#
*#
* Kingwood Mining
*
(
!
Terrible Seep
#
*
(
!
#
*# #
#
*
*
#
(
!
*
#
#
*
*
#
*
)
"
(
!
#
*!(
*!(
*
#
* #
*#
!(#
#
*
*
#
*
#
*!(
!(
*!( !(
*#
!(
#
*!(!( (! #
!(
#
*
)"!(!(!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
#
*
#
*
§
Ç!(
!(
§ !( #
*!(
§ !(§!(!( !(!(
§
§
§
#
*#
*!(
* !(#
Viking Coal#
*!( BF !(
(!!(!(
#
*!(
#
*#
*
!(
*
!( #
Million$ Bridge
!(
")
#
* Fickey Run
*
Channel !(#
#
* !( Fickey
#
* Portal
#
*
#
*!(!(
Ç *#
#
*
#
*
Dream ")
Mtn
#
*
#
* !(
!( !(
!(
(! !(
#
*
!( ") ")#
#
*
") *#
*")!(#
*
!(
(!!(!(
")
") ") )" !(
!( !(
")
!( ")
(!
!(
!(
(!
!(
(!!(!(
!(
!( (!
EU Loss Within the Targeted Watershed Area
Historic, Current, Lost, and Recoverable EcoUnits in each
12-Digit HUC subwatersheds of the lower Cheat River.
HUC 12
ID
HUC 12
MI
Historic
EUs
Current
EUs
Lost
EUs
Recoverable
EUs
REU
Density
%
EU Loss
%
Recoverable
Muddy
13
372
175
197
69
0.8
53
35
Greens
13
1247
556
692
552
6.7
55
80
Pringle
12
1342
934
407
191
1.4
30
47
Bull
12
621
313
309
192
2.6
50
62
Beaver
10
647
209
438
205
1.4
68
47
MBSan
9
527
333
193
22
0.2
37
11
LBSan
8
711
453
258
164
1.4
36
64
LCheat
5
2345
1497
849
803
4.5
36
95
Roaring
4
1005
690
314
251
21.9
31
80
UBSan
2
341
309
31
4
0.0
9
13
Saltlick
0
682
682
0
0
0.0
0
NA
Total
-
9480
6150
3688
2453
1.8
36
66
EcoUnit Recovery Under Various
Restoration Alternatives in the Upper
Shavers Fork of the Cheat River
Summary
• Traditional AMD restoration is expensive
and time consuming; outcomes uncertain
• A holistic science-based strategic
watershed approach produces greater
benefits more quickly at less cost and risk
• Anticipated Outcome- inform future AMD
restoration policy and demonstrate a
currency for mitigation/WQ trading credits