United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
EPA 9-03-R-05002
Mountaintop Mining /Valley Fills
in Appalachia
Final Programmatic
&
Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
This Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) has been prepared by
the lead agencies listed below pursuant to the Settlement Agreement entered in Bragg v. Robertson,
Civ. No. 2:98-0636 (S.D. W.V.). That Agreement provided for the preparation of the EIS, but the
agencies did not concede that the EIS was required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). This Final EIS is "programmatic" in that it considers "developing agency policies, guidance,
and coordinated agency decision-making processes to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable,
the adverse environmental effects to waters of the United States and to fish and wildlife resources
affected by mountaintop mining operations, and to environmental resources that could be affected
by the size and location of excess spoil disposal sites in valley fills" within the Appalachian study
area in West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee. The objective is consonant application
of the Clean Water Act and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act to improve the regulatory
process and effect better environmental protection for mountaintop mining and valley fill operations
in steep slope Appalachia.
This FPEIS was prepared in accordance with the provision set forth in 40 CFR 1503.4(c)
of the regulations implementing NEPA, which allow the agencies to attach an errata sheet to the
statement instead of rewriting the draft statement and to circulate the errata, comments, responses,
and the changes, rather than the entire document. The agencies are filing the entire statement with
a new cover sheet as the final. The Draft PEIS and Final PEIS with comments, responses, and errata
are available on the internet at the following address:
http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm
For More Information — Please contact any of the following agency representatives:
John Forren
Katherine Trott
Mike Robinson
Cindy Tibbott
Russell Hunter
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Office of Surface Mining
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WV Department of Environmental Protection
(215) 814-2705
(202) 761-5542
(412) 937-2882
(814) 234-4090
(304) 926-0499
Jam R, Pomponio
4j. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Philadelphia, PA
.**
Brent Wahlquist t
U.S. Office of Surface Mining
Dr. Mark Sudol
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC
Marvin Moriarty
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Had ley, MA
Lewis A, Ha!stead
WV Dept of Environmental Protection
Charleston, WV
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Table of Contents
Section Page
Table of Contents i
1. Summary 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Origin, Background, and Scope 2
1.3 Technical Studies 3
1.4 Actions and Alternatives 5
1.5 Events since the Publication of the Draft EIS 9
2. Public Review Process 10
3. Public Comments Received 11
4. Organization of Public Comments for Review and Response 12
5. Responses to Comments 13
5.1 Organization of Responses 13
5.2 Responses to Comments by Category 14
5.2.1 Comments to Which No Response is Required 14
5.2.2 Category: Alternatives 14
5.2.3 Category: Role of the General Public and Public Involvement 22
5.2.4 Category: Adequacy of the EIS 23
5.2.5 Category: Water Resources 32
5.2.6 Category: Aquatic Fauna and Flora 42
5.2.7 Category: Terrestrial Fauna and Flora 47
5.2.8 Category: Threatened & Endangered, Candidate, and
Species of Concern 53
5.2.9 Category: Cumulative Impacts 56
5.2.10 Category: Social Values 59
5.2.11 Category: Economic Values 62
5.2.12 Category: Government Efficiency 65
5.2.13 Category: Excess Spoil 66
5.2.14 Category: Stream Habitat and Aquatic Functions 68
5.2.15 Category: Air Quality 69
5.2.16 Category: Blasting 70
5.2.17 Category: Flooding 71
5.2.18 Category: Reclamation 75
6. Errata from the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 78
7. List ofPreparers 84
8. Distribution List 85
9. References 96
10. Reader's Guide to Acronyms 98
Appendix — Errata Continuation
Page i October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
1. Summary
1.1 Introduction
This Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) was prepared by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
U.S. Department of Interior's Office of Surface Mining (OSM) and Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) ("the
agencies") as part of a settlement agreement that resolved the Federal claims of the coal mining
court case known as Bragg v. Robertson, Civ. No. 2:98-0636 (S.D. W.V.). That Agreement
provided for the preparation of the PEIS, but the agencies did not concede that the PEIS was
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The purpose of this FPEIS is to evaluate options for improving agency programs under
the Clean Water Act (CWA), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) that will contribute to reducing the adverse environmental
impacts of mountaintop mining operations and excess spoil valley fills (MTM/VF) in
Appalachia. Preparation of this FPEIS involved substantial information gathering, and it
describes relevant historical data, details several possible alternative frameworks, and contains
the results of over 30 scientific and technical studies conducted as a part of this effort.
The agencies identified a preferred alternative that incorporates programmatic
improvements at the state and Federal levels intended to provide enhanced environmental
protection and agency coordination during permit reviews under SMCRA and CWA consistent
with the purpose of the PEIS as outlined below in Section 1.2 of this document. The preferred
alternative enhances environmental protection and improves efficiency, collaboration, division of
labor, benefits to the public and applicants. See Section II.B for a more detailed description of
the benefits of the preferred alternative.
This FPEIS, was developed through an extraordinary inter-agency effort, and is designed
to inform more environmentally sound decision-making for future permitting of MTM/VF. To
this end, this FPEIS includes a substantial amount of environmental and economic data
associated with MTM/VF collected and analyzed by these agencies. They have cooperatively
evaluated their various programs and believe this FPEIS includes much valuable information that
will assist their respective agencies to better coordinate the review necessary under each
agency's mandates. The agencies believe this effort will contribute to more efficient decision-
making by coordinating data collection and environmental analyses by the respective agencies,
resulting in better permit decisions on a watershed basis.
This FPEIS includes the following: the comments received on the DPEIS (only one copy
of each form letter where multiple copies were received); issues identified in the comments;
responses on the issues; and an errata sheet. The FPEIS incorporates by reference the DPEIS
published in June 2003. After considering all the comments received on the DPEIS and
responding, the agencies have determined that the changes required to the DPEIS are minor.
Therefore, the agencies are implementing the provision of the Council on Environmental Quality
Page 1 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(CEQ) regulations for implementing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), at section
1503.4(c), which reads:
(c) If changes in response to comments are minor and are confined to the
responses described in paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this section, agencies may
write them on errata sheets and attach them to the statement instead of rewriting
the draft statement. In such cases only the comments, the responses, and the
changes and not the final statement need be circulated (Sec. 1502.19). The entire
document with a new cover sheet shall be filed as the final statement (Sec.
1506.9).
In accordance with this provision, the agencies will be placing a FPEIS cover sheet on the
DPEIS and, along with the errata sheet and comments/responses, filing it with the EPA as the
FPEIS. Only this document, which includes comments, responses, and errata will be circulated to
the public; the DPEIS was previously circulated to the public. The DPEIS is still available on the
Internet at the following web address: http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm. Hard
copies are no longer available. However, libraries that received CDs of the DPEIS as listed in the
distribution list of the DPEIS may still have those available. Computer disks containing the
DPEIS can be obtained by writing the U.S. EPA.
1.2 Origin, Background, and Scope
On February 5, 1999, the COE, EPA, OSM, FWS, and WVDEP published a Notice of
Intent in the Federal Register [64 FR5778] to develop an EIS with the following stated purpose:
"...to consider developing agency policies, guidance, and coordinated agency
decision-making processes to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the
adverse environmental effects to waters of the United States and to fish and
wildlife resources affected by mountaintop mining operations, and to
environmental resources that could be affected by the size and location of excess
spoil disposal sites in valley fills."
This is a "programmatic" EIS consistent with NEPA in that it evaluates broad Federal
actions such as the adoption of new or revised agency program guidance, policies, or regulations.
"Mountaintop mining" refers to coal mining by surface methods (e.g., contour mining, area
mining, and mountaintop removal mining) in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian
coalfields. The additional volume of broken rock that is often generated as a result of this
mining, but cannot be returned to the locations from which it was removed, is known as "excess
spoil" and is typically placed in valleys adjacent to the surface mine, resulting in "valley fills."
Background on the NEPA process, issues analyzed as part of this PEIS, and relevant historical
information can be found in Chapter I.
The geographic focus of this study involves approximately 12 million acres,
encompassing most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered
areas of eastern Tennessee. The study area contains about 59,000 miles of streams. Some of the
streams flow all year, some flow part of the year, and some flow only briefly after a rainstorm or
Page 2 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
snow melt. Most of the streams discussed in this PEIS are considered headwater streams.
Headwater streams are generally important ecologically because they contain not only diverse
invertebrate assemblages, but some unique aquatic species. Headwater streams also provide
organic energy that is critical to fish and other aquatic species throughout an entire river.
Ecologically, the study area is valuable because of its rich plant life and because it is a suitable
habitat for diverse populations of migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. The
environment affected by MTM/VF is described in Chapter III.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimated in 1998 that 28.5 billion tons of high
quality coal (i.e., high heating value, low sulfur content) remain in the study area. DOE reported
about 280 million tons of coal were extracted by surface and underground mining from the study
area in 1998. Coal produced from the study area continues to provide an important part of the
energy needs of the nation. Regionally, coal mining is a key component of the economy
providing jobs and tax revenue. Almost all of the electricity generated in the area comes from
coal-fired power plants. Although coal production remains high, productivity gains and new
technology have reduced the need for coal miners. Unemployment, poverty, and out migration in
the study area are well above the national average. Mining methods, demographics and
economics are also discussed in Chapter III.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) was enacted by Congress in
1977 to provide a comprehensive program to regulate surface coal mining and reclamation
operations, including MTM/VF. A variety of Clean Water Act (CWA) programs apply to
MTM/VF activities where these activities may impact the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation's waters. Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or
fill material into waters of the U.S. Section 402 regulates all other point source discharges of
pollutants into waters of the U.S. Technology based effluent limits for the NPDES program are
established by EPA to restrict the concentration of particular pollutants associated with a
particular industry (e.g., iron for coal mining discharges). Section 401 provides states with the
authority to review and either deny or grant certification for any activities requiring a Federal
permit or license, to ensure that they will not violate applicable state water quality standards.
CWA and SMCRA regulatory agencies must either consult or coordinate with the FWS, as
appropriate to ensure the protection of endangered and threatened species and their critical
habitats as determined under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Relevant features of the
SMCRA, CWA, ESA, and Clean Air Act (CAA) programs are discussed throughout the
document, but are described in some detail under the No Action Alternative in Chapter II and in
Appendix B. Chapter II and Appendix B are provided only as a brief informal summary for the
convenience of the reader. These descriptions are not intended as a complete statement of
applicable law or to establish the actual requirements of any regulatory program. The reader
should refer to the statutes and the Federal Register for official program requirements.
1.3 Technical Studies
The agencies conducted or funded over 30 studies of the impacts of mountaintop mining
and associated excess spoil disposal valley fills. The findings of these studies, along with the
joint agency review of the existing regulatory environment, form the basis upon which the
significance of each issue was evaluated. The results of these studies, compilation of previously
PageS October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
published research, and information from various experts regarding the effects of mountaintop
mining are in the appendices or are cited in the reference sections.
Individuals and agencies outside of the PEIS development process conducted some
studies. The studies were summarized at the beginning of the applicable appendices. These
appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions and views of the PEIS agencies. The studies noted the following:
Of the largely forested study area, approximately 6.8 % has been or may be
affected by recent and future (1992-2012) mountaintop mining [USEPA, 2002].
In the past, reclamation focused primarily on erosion prevention and backfill
stability and not reclamation with trees. Compacted backfill material hindered tree
establishment and growth; reclaimed soils were more conducive for growing
grass; and grasses, which out-competed tree seedlings, were often planted as a
quick growing vegetative cover. As a result, natural succession by trees and
woody plants on reclaimed mined land (with intended post-mining land uses other
than forest) was slowed. Better reclamation techniques for growing trees on
mined lands now exist and are being promoted.
• More species of interior forest songbirds occur in forest unaffected by mining
than forest edge adjacent to reclaimed mined land. Grassland bird species are
more predominant on reclaimed mines. Similarly, amphibians (salamanders)
dominate unaffected forest, whereas reptiles (snakes) occupy the reclaimed mined
lands. Small mammals and raptors appear to inhabit both habitats.
• Approximately 1200 miles of headwater streams (or 2% of the streams in the
study area) were directly impacted by MTM/VF features including coal removal
areas, valley fills, roads, and ponds between 1992 and 2002. An estimated 724
stream miles (1.2 % of streams) were covered by valley fills from 1985 to 2001.
Certain watersheds were more impacted by MTM/VF than others.
• Based upon the study of 37 stream segments, intermittent streams and perennial
streams begin in very small watersheds, with a median of 14 and 41 acres
respectively.
• Streams in watersheds where MTM/VFs exist are characterized by an increase of
minerals in the water as well as less diverse and more pollutant-tolerant
macroinvertebrates and fish species. Questions still remain regarding the
correlation of impacts to the age, size, and number of valley fills in a watershed,
and effects on genetic diversity. Some streams below fills showed biological
assemblages and water quality of good quality comparable to reference streams.
Streams in watersheds below valley fills tend to have greater base flow. These
flows are more persistent than comparable unmined watersheds. Streams with fills
generally have lower peak discharges than unmined watersheds during most low-
intensity storm events; however, this phenomenon appears to reverse itself during
higher-intensity events.
Page 4 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Wetlands are, at times inadvertently and other times intentionally, created by
mining via erosion and sediment control structures. These wetlands provide some
aquatic functions, but are generally not of high quality.
• Valley fills are generally stable, as evidenced by fewer than 20 reported slope
movements out of more than 6,800 fills constructed since 1985.
• The extraction of coal reserves in the study area could be substantially impacted if
fills are restricted to small watersheds. The severity of impact to coal recovery
correlates with the magnitude of the fill limitations and site-specific and
operational factors.
1.4 Actions and Alternatives
In Chapter II, the PEIS identifies a number of proposed actions, presented in three action
alternatives in addition to the No Action Alternative, to improve agency decision-making and
minimize the adverse effects from MTM/VF. The objective of the coordinated program
improvements considered is to integrate application of the CWA and SMCRA to enhance
environmental protection associated with MTM/VF operations. The CWA/SMCRA program
improvements envisioned include more detailed mine planning and reclamation; clear and
common regulatory definitions; development of impact thresholds where feasible; guidance on
best management practices; comprehensive baseline data collection; careful predictive impact
and alternative analyses, including avoidance and minimization; and appropriate mitigation to
offset unavoidable aquatic impacts. The EPA, COE, and OSM propose to promulgate regulations
and develop policies or guidance as necessary to establish an integrated surface coal mining
regulatory program to minimize environmental impacts from MTM/VF.
The No Action Alternative describes the SMCRA and CWA programs as implemented in
2003. This alternative is the baseline from which to compare all other alternatives.
Alternative 1 provides for the COE, on a case-by-case basis, to make the initial
determination of the size, number, and location of valley fills in waters of the U.S. Under this
alternative, all MTM/VF projects that would involve proposed valley fills in waters of the U.S.
would initially be handled as individual permits (IP) under CWA Section 404. The SMCRA and
other permitting agencies would rely, to the extent practicable, on the COE decisions regarding
fill placement in waters of the U.S.
Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative because of the improved efficiency,
collaboration, division of labor, benefits to the public and applicants, and the recognition that
some proposals will likely be suited for IPs, and others best processed as Nationwide Permit
(NWP) 21. This alternative is unlike the other two action alternatives in that it integrates the
features of SMCRA and CWA programs into a coordinated regulatory process to determine the
size, number, and location of valley fills in waters of the U.S. The COE would determine
whether an IP under CWA Section 404 is appropriate, relying in part on the SMCRA information
provided by the applicant as part of a joint permit application. If so, CWA Section 404(b)(l) and
NEPA compliance determinations would be made, similar to that discussed in Alternative 1. If a
general permit, such as NWP 21, is appropriate, the COE would process the application
following the SMCRA review in a manner similar to the description of the COE review process
PageS October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
in Alternative 3. COE NWP 21 decisions would rely, to the greatest extent possible and
consistent with legal requirements, on the information and conclusions from the relevant
SMCRA review.
Alternative 3 provides for the SMCRA authority to assume the primary role in
determining the size, number, and location of valley fills in waters of the U.S. This alternative is
based on a procedural presumption by the COE that most MTM/VF applications would be
processed as general permits under NWP 21 because the SMCRA review would be the
functional equivalent of a CWA Section 404 IP. SMCRA programs would be enhanced through
rulemaking to satisfy the informational and review requirements of the CWA Section 404
program, consistent with SMCRA authority. Under this alternative, any off-site mitigation would
continue to be assured by the COE under CWA authorization.
The alternative summary table below briefly describes how agency actions would create a
coordinated regulatory process for MTM/VF. Following the table are the highlights of the
actions proposed to implement the complementary CWA/SMCRA programs.
Table 1. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill FPEIS Alternatives Summary
No Action Maintains the regulatory programs, policies, and coordination processes, as well as
actions that existed or had been initiated in 2003.
Action Alternative 1
Action Alternative 2
(Preferred)
The COE CWA Section 404 program would be the primary regulatory program for
determining (on a case-by-case basis) whether and how large valley fills from
MTM/VF would be authorized in waters of the U.S. The COE would presume that
most projects would require the CWA Section 404 IP process, and general permit
NWP 21 authorization would be applicable only in limited circumstances. The COE
would perform requisite public interest review as well as appropriate NEPA
analysis. As part of the IP process, the COE would largely rely on SMCRA reviews
that adequately address terrestrial and community impact issues arising as part of
public participation. COE would require mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts
either through on-site replacement of aquatic functions or by in-kind, off-site
watershed improvement projects within the cumulative impact area. The COE
would be the lead agency for ESA consultation on aquatic resources and the
SMCRA agencies would coordinate with FWS on aquatic and terrestrial species.
All other regulatory programs would defer to, or condition decisions on attaining,
the requisite CWA Section 404 approval. OSM would consider rulemaking so that
the stream buffer zone would be inapplicable to excess spoil disposal in waters of
the U.S. OSM would finalize excess spoil provisions to include minimization and
alternative analysis more consistent with those under the CWA. Cross-program
actions include rulemaking; continued research on MTM/VF impacts, improved
data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of Best Management Practices
(BMP) and Advance Identification (ADID) evaluations; and agency coordination
memorialized by such mechanisms as Memoranda of Agreement. These actions
would serve to further minimize the adverse effects on aquatic and terrestrial
resources and protect the public.
The agencies would develop enhanced coordination of regulatory actions, while
maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size,
location and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the U.S. would be
cooperatively determined by CWA and SMCRA agencies based on a joint
Page 6
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative
application and under procedures spelled out in such mechanisms as Memoranda
of Agreement. OSM would apply functional stream assessments to determine
onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to clarify the stream buffer zone
rule and make it more consistent with SMCRA. OSM excess spoil rules would be
finalized to provide for fill minimization and alternatives analysis, similar to CWA
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The COE would make case-by-case decisions as to
NWP or IP processing. Public interest review and NEPA compliance by the COE
would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA
permit. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required to the
appropriate level. ESA evaluations for IPs would be similar to those in Alternative
1; the SMCRA agency would take the lead for ESA coordination for NWP 21. FWS
would retain the ability to consult on unresolved ESA issues for all CWA Section
404 applications. Cross-program actions include rulemaking; improved data
collection, sharing and analysis; development of a joint application, harmonized
public participation procedures, BMP and ADID evaluations; and close interagency
coordination. These actions would serve to further minimize the adverse effects on
aquatic and terrestrial resources and protect the public.
Action Alternative 3
The COE would begin processing most MTM/VF projects as NWP 21 and few
projects would require IP processing. The SMCRA program would be enhanced as
described in Alternative 2 and the SMCRA regulatory authority would assume the
primary role of joint application review. The COE, or a state through a
programmatic general permit from the COE, would base CWA authorizations
largely on the SMCRA review with the addition of adequate off-site mitigation. The
COE would require the IP process if its review found an application inadequate due
to lack of data, alternatives considered, or mitigation. Satisfaction of ESA would be
identical to Alternative 1 and 2. The cross-program actions are identical to
Alternative 2 with the exception that no ADIDs would be developed. These actions
would serve to further minimize the adverse effects on aquatic and terrestrial
resources and protect the public.
The Federal and/or state agencies cooperatively would:
• develop guidance, policies, or institute rulemaking for consistent definitions of
stream characteristics, as well as field methods for delineating those
characteristics.
continue to evaluate the effects of mountaintop mining on stream chemistry and
biology.
continue to work with states to further refine the uniform, science-based protocols
for assessing ecological function, making permit decisions and establishing
mitigation requirements.
continue to assess aquatic ecosystem restoration and mitigation methods for
mined lands and promote demonstration sites.
• incorporate mitigation/compensation monitoring plans into SMCRA/NPDES
permit inspection schedules and coordinate SMCRA and CWA requirements to
establish financial liability (e.g., bonding sureties) to ensure that reclamation and
compensatory mitigation projects are completed successfully.
• work with interested stakeholders to develop a best management practices
(BMPs) manual for restoration/replacement of aquatic resources.
Page 7
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
evaluate and coordinate current programs for controlling fugitive dust and
blasting fumes from mountaintop MTM/VF operations, and develop BMPs and/or
additional regulatory controls to minimize adverse effects, as appropriate.
• develop guidelines for calculating peak discharges for design precipitation events
and evaluating flooding risk. In addition, the guidelines would recommend
engineering techniques useful in minimizing the risk of flooding.
• implement existing program requirements, as necessary and appropriate, to ensure
that MTM/VF is carried out in full compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
• in Alternatives 1 and 2, EPA and the COE would consider designating areas
generally unsuitable for fill, referred to as Advanced Identification of Disposal
Sites (ADHD).
in Alternatives 2 and 3, the agencies would develop a joint MTM/VF application
form.
The COE would:
• continue to refine and calibrate the stream assessment protocol for each COE
District where MTM/VF operations are conducted to assess stream conditions and
to determine mitigation requirements as part of the permitting process.
compile data collected through application of the assessment protocol along with
PHC, CHIA, antidegradation, NPDES, TMDLs, mitigation projects, and other
information into a GIS database.
use these data to evaluate whether programmatic "bright-line" thresholds, rather
than case-by-case minimal individual and cumulative impact determinations, are
feasible for CWA Section 404 MTM/VF permits.
The OSM and/or the state SMCRA regulatory authorities would:
continue rule making to clarify the stream buffer zone rule and require fill
minimization and alternatives analysis.
in conjunction with the PHC, CHIA, and hydrologic reclamation plan, apply the
COE stream assessment protocol to consider the required level of onsite
mitigation for MTM/VF.
• develop guidelines identifying state-of-the-science BMPs for selecting
appropriate growth media, reclamation techniques, revegetation species, and
success measurement techniques for accomplishing post-mining land uses
involving trees.
if legislative authority is established by Congress or the states, require reclamation
with trees as the post mining land use.
The EPA would:
• develop and propose, as appropriate, criteria for additional chemicals or other
parameters (e.g., biological indicators) that would support a modification of
existing state water quality standards.
PageS October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
The FWS would:
• continue to work with Federal and state SMCRA and fish and wildlife agencies to
implement the 1996 Biological Opinion and streamline the coordination process.
• work with agencies to develop species-specific measures to minimize incidental
takes of T&E species.
1.5 Events Since the Publication of the DPEIS
On January 7, 2004, OSM published in the Federal Register proposed changes to
regulations regarding excess spoil disposal, the stream buffer zone, and corresponding changes to
the stream diversion regulations. On June 16, 2005, OSM determined that the preparation of a
separate EIS would be an appropriate mechanism to fully analyze the impacts of the proposed
rule and reasonable alternatives that achieve the purposes and need of the proposal. OSM intends
that proposed rulemaking would achieve two basic purposes. First, the proposed rule is designed
to provide national regulatory guidance to ensure that excess spoil fills are no larger than
necessary to accommodate anticipated volume of excess spoil, and to address the adverse
environmental effects of excess spoil disposal, particularly impacts on streams. Second, the
proposed rule is designed to improve regulatory stability by clarifying the requirements of the
stream buffer zone rule in a manner consistent with the underlying authority in SMCRA, and the
historic intent of the stream buffer zone as stated in prior versions of the rule. OSM anticipates
that a new proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register in conjunction with the release
of a draft EIS.
The EPA announced on December 17, 2004 (69 FR75541) the availability of a draft
aquatic life criteria document for selenium and requests scientific information, data, and views.
The document contains draft water quality criteria recommendations for the protection of
freshwater and saltwater aquatic life. EPA is soliciting information, data, and views on issues of
science pertaining to the information the Agency used to derive the draft criteria. When
completed and published in final form, the revised criteria will replace EPA's current
recommended aquatic life criteria for selenium. EPA's recommended water quality criteria
provide technical information for states in adopting water quality standards.
On February 8, 2005, COE, EPA, OSM and FWS signed a Memorandum of
Understanding for the purpose of providing concurrent and coordinated review and processing of
surface coal mining applications proposing the placement of dredged and/or fill material into
waters of the U.S. This is a national umbrella document for surface coal mining designed to
improve decision-making using the SMCRA regulatory authority as the suggested focal point for
the initial data collection and conducting joint pre-application meetings, public meetings, public
notices and site visits. Each agency retains its statutory authorities and independent decision-
making responsibilities. A state or Federal SMCRA authority proposing to take this lead role as
the focal point for processing will develop specific procedures and sign a local agreement with
the appropriate EPA regional offices, FWS field or regional offices and COE districts.
The Federal District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia has enjoined the use
of Nationwide Permit 21 in that district court's jurisdiction. Ohio Valley Environmental
Coalition, et al. v. Bulen, et al., Nos. 04-2129(L), 04-2137, 04-2402; U.S. Court of Appeals for
Page 9 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
the Fourth Circuit (OVEC vs. Buleri). The COE Huntington District is currently processing
surface coal mine applications using the individual permit process. This case is currently under
appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. A similar lawsuit has been filed in Federal District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, see Kentucky Riverkeeper, Inc. et al. v. Rowlette, et
a/., CVNo. 05-181DLB (E.D. Kentucky).
2. Public Review Process
The COE, EPA, FWS, OSM, and WVDEP prepared a DPEIS on mountaintop coal
mining and associated valley fills in Appalachia. The agencies sought public comments on the
DPEIS in accordance section 102(c) of NEPA which reads in part:
...Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal official shall
consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has
jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact
involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, which are authorized to develop
and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the President, the
Council on Environmental Quality and to the public as provided by section 552 of
title 5, United States Code, and shall accompany the proposal through the existing
agency review processes.
The Notice of Availability of the DPEIS for public review and comment appeared in the
Federal Register dated May 30, 2003 (68 FR32487). The notice announced a 90-day comment
period ending August 29, 2003. The period for receipt of comments was extended 130 days to
January 6, 2004 and then an additional two weeks to January 21, 2004, based on several requests
from stakeholders. Comment period extensions were published in the Federal Register,
announced in news releases, and noted on the agencies' web pages. Requesters for comment
period extension were notified by e-mail of the extension. The public review period was
scheduled to provide concerned agencies and the public an opportunity to review the DPEIS and
to offer comments on its adequacy.
The Federal Register notice announced that the DPEIS was available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm. The other agencies maintained prominent links
to the EPA website. The EPA has distributed copies to known interested parties and
organizations, local agency offices, and public libraries as indicated in the document at Chapter
VII: Distribution List. An EPA Region 3 toll-free DPEIS request telephone hotline was in
operation during the comment period to allow persons to request copies of the DPEIS.
Approximately 140 hard copies and 600 CDs of the DPEIS were distributed to agencies and to
interested members of the public.
The COE led a communications team for the agencies and distributed a press release on
May 29, 2003 to the Associated Press and United Press International. The news release was
posted on each agency's web site. A press teleconference was held with twenty national and local
media contacts. Follow-up interviews were conducted with other press contacts that could not
participate. Wide national coverage of the availability of the DPEIS occurred in print and
Page 10 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
broadcast media. The news release announced the release of the DPEIS, summarized the DPEIS
recommendations, provided brief background information, the libraries where the DPEIS was
distributed and contact persons for additional information.
The public was invited to provide written comments during the comment period and oral
comments during the two public hearings. Written comments were accepted through the mail or
by placing them in a 'comment box' during the public hearings. Comments were also accepted
through e-mail at: mountaintop.r3@epa.gov . The first hearing was held on July 22, 2003 at The
Forum at The Hal Rogers Center, 101 Bulldog Lane, Hazard, KY 41701. The second hearing
was held on July 24, 2003 at the Charleston Civic Center-Little Theater, 200 Civic Center Drive,
Charleston, WV 25301. Each hearing had two sessions: the first from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and
the second on the same day from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Notices of the public hearings were
mailed by the COE to persons who mailed comments to the EPA during the NEPA scoping
process.
3. Public Comments Received
During the public review period, 712 letters (including non-form letter e-mails) were
received from individuals and organizations. A letter, e-mail or form letter was received from
every state in the nation. One letter was received from a group of members of the United States
Congress. Three letters were received from Federal agencies. Nine letters were received from
state or commonwealth agencies. One hundred seventy six (176) people provided oral comments
at the Public Hearings. Eighty three thousand ninety five (83,095) form letters were received. A
form letter is defined as identical text sent in an e-mail, letter, or post card. Seventeen different
form letters were received. The letters and seventeen different form letters are presented in their
entirety on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm and in the Public
Comment Compendium: Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Environmental Impact
Statement.
Table 2. Number of Comments by State
State
AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
State
Total
182
385
297
1,437
14,025
2,195
1,007
280
198
4,086
1,444
358
588
367
3,237
1,018
Percent of
Total
0.2%
0.5%
0.4%
1 .7%
16.7%
2.6%
1 .2%
0.3%
0.2%
4.9%
1 .7%
0.4%
0.7%
0.4%
3.9%
1 .2%
Letters
0
0
0
3
31
4
3
11
0
4
6
0
0
1
4
1
E-mails
0
5
0
2
30
6
4
3
2
5
3
3
1
1
8
3
Oral
Statements
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Form
Letters
182
380
297
1,432
13,964
2,185
1,000
266
196
4,077
1,435
355
587
365
3,225
1,014
Page 11
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
State
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
Ml
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
Rl
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
Wl
WV
WY
International
Unidentified
Total
State
Total
529
845
453
2,276
1,578
623
2,406
1,445
1,214
162
305
1,687
60
228
549
2,470
908
346
6,414
2,524
364
2,868
2,977
323
491
117
1,120
3,137
489
1,934
457
3,202
1,641
1,401
94
57
5,185
83,983
Percent of
Total
0.6%
1 .0%
0.5%
2.7%
1 .9%
0.7%
2.9%
1 .7%
1 .4%
0.2%
0.4%
2.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.7%
2.9%
1.1%
0.4%
7.7%
3.0%
0.4%
3.4%
3.6%
0.4%
0.6%
0.1%
1 .3%
3.7%
0.6%
2.3%
0.5%
3.8%
2.0%
1 .7%
0.1%
0.1%
6.0%
100.0%
Letters
0
84
0
8
5
1
6
5
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
1
9
8
3
2
3
0
0
0
21
3
2
21
2
1
0
107
0
0
20
385
E-mails
1
24
0
5
7
4
7
5
5
0
0
7
0
0
1
4
1
1
17
8
0
11
10
0
2
0
15
8
3
15
4
7
2
36
0
0
41
327
Oral
Statements
0
85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
0
80
0
0
0
176
Form
Letters
528
652
453
2,263
1,566
618
2,393
1,435
1,209
162
305
1,677
60
228
548
2,466
904
344
6,388
2,507
361
2,855
2,964
323
489
117
1,080
3,126
484
1,893
451
3,194
1,639
1,178
94
57
5,124
83,095
4. Organization Of Public Comments For Review
And Response
Each letter, e-mail, form letter, and oral statement was reviewed and evaluated. To
effectively and efficiently evaluate and respond to the large number of comments, each written
and oral comment was grouped into a numbered category. Paragraphs within a letter, e-mail, post
card, form letter, or oral statement were identified by a set of numbers that correspond to the
numbered category. For example, a paragraph stating a preference for Alternative 3 was given
the number 1. These following categories were assigned to paragraphs (or as needed to
sentences) within comment letters, e-mails, post cards or oral statements:
Page 12
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Categories
1. Alternatives
2. Role of the General Public
3. Public Involvement
4. Adequacy of DPEIS (NEPA)
5. Water Resources
6. Aquatic Fauna and Flora
7. Terrestrial Fauna and Flora
8. T&E, Candidate, and Species of Concern
9. Cumulative Impacts
10. Social Values
11. Economic Values
12. Government Efficiency
13. Excess Spoil Disposal
14. Stream Habitat and Aquatic Functions
15. Air Quality
16. Blasting (Excluding blasting dust and fumes)
17. Flooding
18. Invasive Species
19. Reclamation
There was some overlap among the comments received concerning the adequacy of the
DPEIS. Comments on the adequacy of the range of alternatives in the DPEIS were assigned to
category 1. Comments relating to how well the DPEIS fulfills the requirements of NEPA or the
stated purpose and need were assigned to category 4. Comments on the adequacy of analysis or
how adequately the DPEIS addresses specific topics or resources were assigned to categories 5
through 19 as appropriate. Categories 2 and 3 plus categories 18 and 19 have been combined in
the responses to comments.
As part of the comment analysis process, additional numeric designations were made.
The categories 5 through 19 were broken into subcategories and comments (paragraphs within a
letter) were identified as relating to legal, adequacy of analysis, monitoring or mitigation,
specific edit, or factual material. The legal designation was assigned to a comment if a specific
regulatory citation or case law was cited. The adequacy of analysis designation was assigned to
comments related to mining impacts to the resource category, coverage of the resource in the
affected environment section, or the environmental consequences section. Statements of impacts
in the context of opposing MTM/VF were assigned a different numeric designation (1-9) under
the alternatives category. The monitoring or mitigation designation was assigned to comments
regarding monitoring impacts to the resource or mitigating impacts to the resource. The specific
edit designation was assigned to comments that specified a section or page of the DPEIS and
requested a specific change in a well-developed manner that provided a reason for the requested
revision. The factual material designation was assigned to comments that requested additional
information such as reports, journal articles, or statistics be considered. See the document, Public
Comment Compendium: Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Environmental Impact
Statement, for a list of the numeric designations and their assignment to the comment letters. The
reader can request the comment compendium document by contacting EPA's agency
representative listed on the signature page. It is also available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm.
5. Responses to Comments
5.1 Organization of Responses
Each comment was reviewed, evaluated and summarized. The numeric designations
described previously were assigned first; all comments assigned to a given category were
evaluated together. The comments were summarized by category. The responses to the
comments are organized by category. A short summary of the comments begins the section
discussing each category. Comments with responses follow the summary. Comments receiving
Page 13
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
the same response are grouped together. Changes or additions to the text of the DPEIS made in
response to comments are acknowledged in the response and incorporated into the FPEIS
through an errata sheet included in Section 6 of this document.
5.2 Responses to Comments by Category
5.2.1 Comments to Which No Response is Required
The agencies received numerous comments to which no response was required. Many
comments disagreed with findings or conclusions. Other comments alleged misrepresentation of
findings or conclusions. Some comments reflected a difference of opinions or preferred
outcomes. In many cases, the commenters provided no additional data to support their claims.
The agencies did not identify any commenters' allegations of misstatements of fact other than
those specifically addressed in the errata sheet or the responses to comments that identified
material inaccuracies or errors.
Some comments reflected a difference of interpretation of the significance of the study
conclusions. Further, some of the comments mischaracterized study conclusions as the agencies'
conclusions. However, the conclusions in the studies were considered but do not necessarily
reflect the conclusions of the agencies. Moreover, the agencies considered numerous options and
numerous studies that ultimately were not relied on in developing and analyzing the alternatives
in the PEIS. The agencies discussed the bases of their conclusions and analyses throughout the
document and in the appendices. In all instances, the agencies carefully considered the best
available information in the preparation of this PEIS.
Some commenters suggested that the PEIS justify all or portions of the SMCRA and
CWA regulatory program and requested that the PEIS demonstrate the balancing between needs
for environmental protection and needs for coal recovery. In addition, many commenters
expressed their opinion on the need for the program. Some comments suggested changes to
existing programs that were broader than MTM/VF, and consequently are outside the scope of
this PEIS. Because these types of comments are not germane to the merits of the PEIS, including
the adequacy of the impact analysis, they are not specifically identified and responded to in this
document. Those comments were, however, considered.
5.2.2 Category: Alternatives
This category is a grouping of comments related to programmatic action alternatives and
the presentation of the No Action Alternative. Comments related to the range of alternatives
evaluated, preference for an alternative, description of the existing regulatory program, and the
stream buffer zone rule proposal are included in this category. Comments related to CWA
Section 404 Individual Permits (IP) and Nationwide Permits (NWP) as well as other aspects of
the permitting process are also included in this category. This category corresponds to category 1
in the Public Comment Compendium document.
Comments:
Mining in general and surface mining in particular is one of the most heavily
regulated industrial activities in the nation. Several major environmental statutes
have jurisdiction over coal extraction, including a single environmental program
Page 14 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
that was developed by Congress specifically for coal mining. If mining was 'not
acceptable from an environmental standpoint, the vast statutes and regulations
and the various Federal and state agencies that regulate this activity would not
allow a mining permit to be issued. This PEIS confirms the viability of these
existing regulatory programs in that no more than temporary, minimal impacts
could be linked to surface mining in the region.
Response:
The agencies disagree with the commenter's assertion that "This PEIS confirms the
viability of these existing regulatory programs in that no more than temporary, minimal impacts
could be linked to surface mining in the region." The PEIS characterized the impacts resulting
from MTM/VF activities in Chapter IV.
Comments:
An explanation is requested on how the preferred alternative will minimize the
environmental impacts from valley fills.
Response:
The preferred alternative enhances environmental protection and improves efficiency,
collaboration, division of labor, benefits to the public and applicants. See Section II.B for a more
detailed description of the benefits of the preferred alternative.
Comments:
The DPEIS fails to consider an adequate range of alternatives. Such a narrow
range of alternatives is arbitrary and capricious.
The DPEIS violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the
DPEIS does not contain a reasonable range of alternatives. The three action
alternatives considered in the DPEIS do not represent a legally sufficient range of
alternatives because they are merely "process alternatives" without any
substantive differences between them, or any substantive difference from the "No
Action Alternative. " NEPA requires an EIS to present the environmental impacts
of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining
the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision
maker and the public, and to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all
reasonable alternatives. The DPEIS further violates NEPA in that it defines the
purposes of its action to be so unreasonably narrow that only "process
alternatives" can satisfy it, and therefore illegally rejects a broader range of
substantive alternatives without analysis of their relative impacts.
No distinction can be made between the No Action Alternative and the three
action alternative as they affect cultural, historic, and visual resources in the
PEIS study area.
Page 15 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
This is a "programmatic" EIS consistent with the stated DPEIS purpose and need as well
as with NEPA, in that it evaluates broad Federal actions such as the adoption of new or revised
agency program guidance, policies, and decision-making processes. Each proposed alternative
has been developed in a manner to improve environmental protection and better coordinate
implementation of CWA, ESA and SMCRA, as compared to the No Action Alternative. As such,
the alternatives are reasonable. The DPEIS considered the individual and cumulative
environmental impacts of the preferred alternative and the other alternatives in Chapter IV,
including cultural, historic, and visual resources. Further, the DPEIS describes certain other
alternatives that were considered, which would have made various regulatory changes; and the
DPEIS explained why those alternatives were not carried forward in this DPEIS. See Section
II.D.
Comments:
The alternative selection ignores strong empirical evidence in the 30 technical
studies that indicate the pervasive and permanent impact to the environment, and
to public health and culture of communities near MTM/VF operations.
Response:
Studies do indicate that aquatic communities downstream of surface coal mining
operations and valley fills are impaired in some cases. Certain chemical parameters (sulfates,
specific conductance, selenium) are sometimes elevated downstream of mining or valley fills.
Stream reaches below mining and valley fills may have changes in substrate particle size
distribution from increased fine material due to sedimentation. Some macroinvertebrate
communities change in terms of diversity, population size, and pollution tolerance. However, the
sample size and monitoring periods conducted for the PEIS were not considered sufficient to
establish firm cause-and-effect relationships between individual pollutants and the decline in
particular macroinvertebrate populations. Impairment could not be correlated with the number of
fills, their size, age, or construction method. See Section II.C. Action 5 in the PEIS recognizes
the value of continued evaluation of the effects of mountaintop mining operations on stream
chemistry and biology. Actions 8, 13 and 15 call for additional evaluations on the issues of
effectiveness of mitigation restoration, reforestation and on air quality.
Comments:
None of the alternatives in the DPEIS are appropriate and none should be
adopted. They are purely process alternatives that should be discarded and
replaced with alternatives that actually reduce the cumulative environmental
impacts of mountaintop removal mining and valley fills. There is no rational basis
for choosing which of the three alternatives is the best. Increased government
efficiency at the expense of the human or natural environment is unacceptable.
Response:
The agencies do not agree. All of the alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative
are appropriate for a Programmatic EIS. Each of the alternatives provides varying degrees of
environmental protection that would reduce the cumulative environmental impacts associated
with mountaintop mining. The DPEIS does provide alternatives that if implemented, provide
Page 16 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
increased protections for the human and natural environments. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 build upon
existing "best science" methods, such as the West Virginia Stream Condition Index and the COE
stream functional assessment protocol. In Section II.B.3, there are extensive discussions of how
each of the alternatives would provide regulatory and environmental benefits. The basis for
choosing the preferred alternative is described in Section II.B.S.b.
Comments:
The use of Advanced Identification (ADID) is unnecessary and duplicative,
sufficient resource protection authority exists in SMCRA. CWA and SMCRA
require agencies to minimize duplication. Its purpose is to coordinate agency
action. ADID is a site-specific action which needs public participation. ADID
tends to ignore the possibility that a stream affected by a temporary fill could be
restored to a functional status, with only temporary impacts. Under the NWP 21
or IP process, the temporal impacts must be evaluated, and adequate
compensation provided. The use of ADID appears to preclude this avenue.
Response:
The agencies do not agree that the use of ADID is unnecessary or duplicative. ADID is
an analytical tool under the Clean Water Act that collects data and information in advance of a
specific permit application, ADID can be either site-specific or area-wide in focus. See page
II.C-36 for a description of ADID. ADID can identify waters of the U.S. that may be generally
unsuitable for fills and does not preclude considering whether impacts will be temporary or long-
term.
Comments:
The DPEIS violates the Bragg settlement agreement by not developing
alternatives that minimize environmental impacts of mountaintop mining. The
DPEIS only analyzes process alternatives that are designed to streamline agency
decision-making.
Response:
The alternatives analyzed are consistent with the stated purpose of the language in the
settlement agreement. The settlement agreement states that the agencies agreed:
"...to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") on a proposal to
consider developing agency policies, guidance, and coordinated decision-making
processes to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the adverse
environmental effects to waters of the United States and to fish and wildlife
resources affected by mountaintop mining operations, and to environmental
resources that could be affected by the size and location of excess spoil disposal
sites in valley fills."
The DPEIS evaluated four alternatives to agency decision-making processes containing
potential policy, guideline, and regulatory changes.
Page 17 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
The alternatives are constructed in a manner that requires more environmental
information and analysis of the impacts of the operation on environmental resources. All of these
proposals were offered as a means to minimize the adverse effects of mountaintop mining
operations on the environmental resources. Thus, these alternatives are designed to minimize
environmental impacts by coordinating decision-making among the Federal and state agencies
responsible for regulating mining activities; developing guidelines on best practices for mining,
reclamation, and mitigation; and considering changing policies and regulations. Implementing
the preferred alternative is expected to yield an added benefit of increased government efficiency
and still fulfill the spirit and intent of the settlement agreement. These are mutually attainable
objectives.
Comments:
The DPEIS excludes consideration of any alternatives for more strict limits on
MTM/VF.
Response:
The DPEIS considered alternatives that would have established stricter limits on
MTM/VF; however, those alternatives were not carried forward, as discussed in detail in Section
II.D. Scientific data collected for this PEIS do not clearly identify a basis (i.e., a particular stream
segment, fill or watershed size applicable in every situation) for establishing programmatic or
absolute restrictions that could prevent "significant degradation."
Comments:
The agencies are required, as a matter ofNEPA law, to consider an alternative of
"total abandonment of the project"—the no-fill alternative.
Response:
For a programmatic EIS, NEPA does not require agencies to consider an alternative of
"total abandonment of the project". Furthermore, the agencies did consider an alternative to
prohibit valley fills in waters of the United States, but was not carried forward. See Section
II.D.3.
Comments:
All alternatives weaken some states' more restrictive standards, limitations, and
requirements of their water quality regulations.
All alternatives are based on analyses not equally applicable or relevant to all of
the states affected. Individual state laws and requirements are not adequately
addressed in the DPEIS. No studies were done in some states.
Response:
None of the alternatives would weaken state standards. State agencies provided specific
information on various state regulatory programs applicable to authorizing MTM/VF activities.
The DPEIS only generally describes state and Federal program requirements and does not
provide expansive explanation of the many agencies' responsibilities. While West Virginia was
the only state that was a signatory to the Bragg settlement agreement, other states in the study
Page 18 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
area were invited to participate in development of the DPEIS, and they provided information on
their programs and otherwise participated as their time and resources permitted. The PEIS
focuses on the similarities of the Appalachian coalfield states' programs and affected
environments, rather than their unique differences. Any further action supported by this PEIS
would involve further coordination with and participation by the appropriate state agencies and
would take into account the applicable state laws, regulations, mining methods, and unique
environmental conditions.
Comments:
Eliminations of existing protections, such as the Buffer Zone Rule, are not
reasonable alternatives. The current DPEIS does not support elimination or
revision of the stream buffer zone regulation, and the proposed change is
perceived as lessening the current protections afforded to streams.
Response:
The stream buffer zone rule proposal and other regulatory program changes were
envisioned and sanctioned by the settlement agreement and do not rely on this NEPA document.
OSM is currently proposing changes to the stream buffer zone and excess spoil regulations. The
proposal is being accompanied by a separate environmental impact statement analysis and
commenters will have the opportunity in that specific rulemaking and NEPA compliance
document to further express their concerns. On June 16, 2005, OSM published a NOT for an EIS
on the Stream Buffer Zone Rule (70 FR35112).
Comments:
The proposed alternative offers many potential process improvements (e.g.
coordinated permitting process, BMPs, ADID, etc.) but inadequate detail on how
they would be accomplished.
Response:
As a programmatic DPEIS the document provides general direction for policies, guidance
and processes to minimize impacts. Implementation of a preferred alternative may entail
additional APA and NEPA procedures that require further input from the affected states and take
into account the applicable state laws, regulations, mining methods, and unique environmental
conditions.
Comments:
Alternative 1 seems more protective of the environment than other alternatives or
no action although it provides insufficient reduction of the environmental impacts
ofMTM.
Alternative 1 is preferable to the other alternatives - that valley fills will be
presumed to require individual 404 permits (IPs) from the Corps of Engineers
rather than being authorized by the lesser standards of Nationwide Permit 21
(NWP 21).
Page 19 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
The agencies do not agree that Alternative 1 is more protective of the environment.
Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative because it enhances environmental protection and
improves efficiency, collaboration, division of labor, benefits to the public and applicants, and
the recognition that some proposals will likely be suited for IPs, and others best processed as
NWPs. See Section II.B.l.c for a further discussion of Alternative 2.
Comments:
Support for Alternative 3 because permitting responsibility remains with the
SMCRA authority and it provides sufficient additional environmental information
for regulatory agencies to jointly address the concerns of the stakeholders. There
is need to develop new coal mines, whether they are surface or underground.
Based on evidence in the PEIS record, the best alternative would be Alternative 3,
including an explanation of why Nationwide Permits under CWA Section 404 are
appropriate in most cases for coal mining operations including mountaintop
mining and why individual permits are normally not appropriate in most MTM
situations.
Response:
Alternative 3 differs from the agencies' preferred Alternative 2, by enhancing the
SMCRA programs instead of a coordinated interagency permit process to satisfy the
informational and review requirements of the CWA Section 404 program in order to minimize,
to the maximum extent possible, the adverse effects of MTM/VF and to create a more effective
and efficient permit application review process. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative because
it reduces environmental impacts and improves efficiency, collaboration, division of labor,
benefits to the public and applicants, and the recognition that some proposals will likely be suited
for IPs, and others best processed as NWPs. See Section II.B.l.c. for a further discussion of
Alternative 2.
Comments:
The No Action Alternative is inaccurately characterized. The DPEIS should be
stopped in favor of a true "no-action " alternative. This would allow the three
regulatory programs to coordinate actions and not setup a single lead program.
The CWA and SMCRA anticipated that coal mining and valley fills would occur
and provided for performance standards and regulatory provisions that govern
the size, location, and mitigation of fill placement in streams. The DPEIS
recommendations for "action alternatives" are not supported by the record of
harm included in the technical and scientific studies accompanying this
document.
Response:
The "No Action Alternative" must reflect the existing programs and changes underway at
the time of the publication of the DPEIS to establish a basis for comparison of alternatives.
Consequently, actions that occurred after the settlement agreement, but before publication of the
Page 20 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
DPEIS, including the proposed buffer zone rule change, are considered part of the "No Action
Alternative". Because regulatory programs are varied as well as dynamic, it would be illogical to
compare proposed alternatives to requirements that no longer exist or are proposed to change in
the near term. According to CEQ, the "no action" alternative may be thought of in terms of
continuing with the present course of action until that action is changed. That is the type of no-
action alternative that the DPEIS presented. The "No Action" Alternative was used as a
reference (for programs in 2003) from which to compare all other alternatives. The action
alternatives have been designed to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the
environmental impacts from mining.
Comments:
The DPEIS studies clearly establish that greater than minimal adverse
environmental effects have occurred, are occurring and will continue to occur as
a result of mountaintop removal mining valley fills. Consequently the DPEIS's
proposed continued reliance on the use of Nationwide Permits for valley fills is
illegal and the general permits cannot provide the basis for considering
alternatives under the DPEIS.
COE should require individual permits for any valley fills associated with
MTM/VF to ensure that an environmental assessment is performed.
Response:
The agencies do not agree with the commenters' assertions. Each of the alternatives
requires the permitting authority to make individual determinations on whether the impacts from
a proposed surface coal mining operation will have more than minimal adverse effects in
deciding to permit under either a general permit or an individual permit. The agencies have not
chosen Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative, in part, because it generally relies on the
issuance of permits under NWP 21.
Comments:
The COE is illegally taking action before the FPEIS is completed. The commenter
states that the COE has committed to the Alternative 2 prior to the completion of
the DPEIS by making public its intent to do a case-by-case analysis of whether it
is appropriate to authorize fills under NWP 21 and the COE intends to analyze
the fill threshold question completely outside of the NEPA process.
The DPEIS does not address any of the deficiencies noted in the COE's draft
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Nationwide Permit
Program (7-31-2001), including inadequate record keeping, lack of mitigation
compliance efforts, poor enforcement, and failure of any attempts to quantify and
assess the ecological effects of the nationwide permit program.
Response:
Under the existing CWA Section 404 regulatory program the COE is required to make
determinations, independent of any other process, on whether an applicant meets the
requirements for permitting under the Nationwide Permit Program or must apply for and be
Page 21 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
approved by an Individual Permit. The COE is not required to suspend its regulatory program
pending the outcome of the Nationwide Permit Program EIS or this PEIS. This PEIS is not
intended to address any perceived deficiencies that might be noted in the COE's DPEIS for the
Nationwide Permit Program.
5.2.3 Category: Role of the General Public and Public Involvement
This category is a grouping of comments related to consideration of public comments,
concerns of coalfield citizens, concerns of surface property owners, availability of the DPEIS for
review, and location of public meetings. This category corresponds to categories 2 and 3 in the
Public Comment Compendium document.
Comments:
Not enough consideration was given in the DPEIS to the desires of surface
property owners. The concerns of citizens in the coalfields area have been largely
ignored.
Response:
In developing the DPEIS and ultimately the FPEIS, the agencies considered all the public
comments received during the scoping process and during the public comment period for the
DPEIS, including those regarding surface property owners. For example, see the issues identified
in Section I.G and Section II.A.3. Actions addressing those concerns that were determined to be
significant were described and evaluated in Section II.C. The issues that were considered not to
be significant, were outside the scope of the PEIS, or were already addressed by existing
programs, were not evaluated in the alternatives. The lead agencies made a number of efforts to
engage residents of the communities of the coalfields area in the PEIS process. For examples, as
discussed in Section I.G, scoping meetings were held in 1999 in three towns in southern West
Virginia (Charleston, Summersville, and Logan). These meetings were for the express purpose of
identifying those issues related to mountaintop mining that were of greatest concern to the
public. Subsequent to that, meetings were also held for this purpose with citizen and industry
groups in West Virginia and Kentucky. Public participation occurred throughout the PEIS
process and was integral in determining the scope of the document and in identifying the areas of
concern where studies were appropriate.
Comments:
No scoping meetings were held in Tennessee, all local libraries did not have
copies of the draft document available for public review, and many state and local
government agencies were either unaware of the existence of the DPEIS
document or unaware that the draft document dealt with more than mountaintop
removal mining operations.
Response:
Although no scoping meetings were held in Tennessee, the agencies believe the effort to
involve the public in the development and review of this document met the public participation
requirements of NEPA. In their notice in the Federal Register announcing their intent to prepare
an EIS, the agencies announced the opportunity for public meetings and invited written
Page 22 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
comments from the public. EPA also issued a press release announcing the opportunity for
public meetings and mailed letters announcing these meetings to approximately 2,500 citizens in
the Appalachian coalfield area. In addition, the agencies mailed additional letters requesting
comments on the scope of the PEIS, published newspaper notices requesting comments from all
of the states in the study area, and posted a notice on the mountaintop mining/valley fill website.
The letters and notices described the purpose of the PEIS, provided supplementary information
describing the agencies' regulatory responsibilities with respect to mountaintop mining/valley fill
activities, and briefly described initial agency concerns to be evaluated in the PEIS. The agencies
received and considered over 700 scoping comments.
Copies of the DPEIS on computer disks (CDs) were mailed to approximately 92 libraries
throughout the study area. In addition to written notices announcing the availability of the
DPEIS, the agencies published a toll-free telephone number from which additional free copies of
the DPEIS could be obtained.
Comments:
Some indicated that they feared their comments "didn 't matter" or may not be
read or considered. Others were concerned that because their comments were e-
mailed or were form letters instead of individually written comments, their
comments would not be "counted" or would somehow be given less consideration
than other comments.
Response:
All comments received during the public comment period were counted, read, and were
considered in preparation of the FPEIS. The form in which the comments were submitted (e.g.,
individual letters, e-mails, and form letters) had no bearing as to the consideration given those
comments. Comments and responses will be published for public review and will be maintained
as part of the administrative record.
Comments:
No public meetings were held after the focus of the preliminary DPEIS changed
from alternatives constructed around limits on valley fill sizes to the alternative
proposed in the DPEIS released for public review and comment.
Response:
The preliminary version of the DPEIS was a working document that did not reflect the
agencies' official position. The opportunity to comment on the alternatives contained in the
preliminary version of the DPEIS but not carried forward was provided during the comment
period for the DPEIS.
5.2.4 Category: Adequacy of the PEIS
This category is a grouping of comments related to how well the DPEIS fulfills the
requirements of NEPA or the stated purpose and need for the DPEIS. This category corresponds
to category 4 in the Public Comment Compendium document.
Page 23 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Comments:
The DPEIS's failure to address meaningful alternatives disregards the findings of
the studies on mountaintop mining and flies in the face of common sense - and
clearly violates the law governing the EIS process. NEPA implementing
regulations make clear that an EIS must "present the environmental impacts of
the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the
issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decisions
maker and the public, " and to "rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all
reasonable alternatives."
Response:
The agencies disagree that the alternatives in the PEIS disregarded the findings of the
studies and that the alternatives in the PEIS are not meaningful. This is a "programmatic" EIS
consistent with the stated DPEIS purpose and need as well as with NEPA, in that it evaluates
broad Federal actions such as the adoption of new or revised agency program guidance, policies,
and decision-making processes. Each proposed alternative has been developed in a manner to
improve environmental protection and better coordinate implementation of CWA and SMCRA,
as compared to the No Action Alternative. As such, the alternatives are reasonable.
A programmatic NEPA document such as this proposes only the direction for future
actions. The commenters appear to be looking for a level of detail that has not yet been
developed. Information provided as comments on the DPEIS can be considered and utilized to
direct further studies by the agencies. There will be further opportunity for peer and/or public
involvement as proposed actions are developed.
Comments:
The DPEIS violates the APA. Federal agencies are constrained by the APA (5
USC 701 et seq.) not to adopt any actions that are (i) arbitrary, (ii) capricious,
(in) an abuse of discretion, or (iv) otherwise not in accordance with law, in this
case, NEPA. The agency cannot, under law merely disregard environmental
factors. That is a violation of NEPA and APA.
Response:
The process of preparing the DPEIS, and the DPEIS itself, violate no applicable
requirements of NEPA or the APA. This DPEIS considered all relevant environmental factors
that were identified. Accordingly, the agencies conclude that the process is appropriate.
Comments:
The DPEIS violates NEPA because the proposed range of alternatives defers
analysis to future Federal actions on a case-by-case basis and as such are not
designed to address and reduce the cumulative impacts of permitting decisions.
Response:
The DPEIS considers a variety of potential future actions that are not fully developed.
The analysis reflects the programmatic and the not-yet-fully developed character of the
alternatives. Any of these alternatives that are actually fully developed and implemented will
Page 24 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
comply with NEPA as appropriate. The level of analysis in this DPEIS is the level that is feasible
and appropriate for a programmatic EIS. The cumulative impact analysis was based on an
evaluation of the past 10 years of permitting and extrapolation 10 years into the future based on a
constant rate of surface coal mining. See Sections II.C and IV.C for a discussion on cumulative
impacts.
Comments:
The DPEIS violates NEPA because it assumes that changing the "stream buffer
zone rule " is part of the "No Action " Alternative.
Response:
The "No Action Alternative" must reflect the existing programs and changes underway at
the time of the publication of the DPEIS to establish a basis for comparison of alternatives.
Consequently, actions that occurred after the settlement agreement, but before publication of the
DPEIS (including the proposed buffer zone rule change which is the subject of an independent
EIS), are considered part of the "No Action Alternative". Because regulatory programs are
varied as well as dynamic, it would be illogical to compare proposed alternatives to requirements
that no longer exist or are proposed to change in the near term. According to CEQ, the "no
action" alternative may be thought of in terms of continuing with the present course of action
until that action is changed. That is the type of No Action Alternative that the DPEIS presented.
Further, the terms of the settlement agreement at paragraph 21 provide that the agencies
can continue to modify their respective programs, as appropriate. Paragraph 21 of the settlement
agreement states, in its entirety:
"Except as expressly provided herein, nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall
be construed to limit or modify the discretion accorded the Federal agencies by
the CWA, SMCRA or general principles of administrative law. Nothing in this
Settlement Agreement shall be construed to limit or modify the Federal agencies'
discretion to alter, amend, or revised from time to time any actions taken by them
pursuant to this Settlement Agreement or to promulgate superseding regulations."
Regulatory program changes were acknowledged in the settlement agreement and any
proposed changes would not rely on this NEPA document, and will fulfill NEPA compliance, as
appropriate.
Comments:
The DPEIS relies on the effectiveness of in-kind mitigation while admitting that
on-site stream reconstruction has never been successfully accomplished.
Response:
The comment suggests that CWA mitigation measures and successes should have been
thoroughly evaluated and proven in this DPEIS. This type of thorough evaluation is not feasible
in a programmatic EIS. The actions, including CWA mitigation measures, proposed in the
DPEIS were presented as possible measures for the agencies to consider developing.
Page 25 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Implementation of these actions would, in many cases, require additional data collection and
analysis.
Existing CWA mitigation measures have been and are continuing to require compliance
with the standards mandated by the COE prior to approval of the proposed mitigation plan for
individual projects. Existing CWA regulations require mitigation for unavoidable impacts to
aquatic resources and operators must meet this obligation. That is, if the approved mitigation
plan is unsuccessful, the operator must design and implement a plan until success is achieved.
See discussion in Section III.D.2.
Comments:
The DPEIS relies solely on a BMP manual to "encourage " reforestation without
any analysis of whether it is likely to do so.
Response:
This is a programmatic EIS and it would be premature to attempt to more specifically
analyze the effects of a potential BMP manual. See the discussion at page II.C-77.
Comments:
The DPEIS is defective and needs to be re-written; no new mountaintop mining
permits should be issued until an EIS is completed and adopted. Due to the
massive environmental impacts, NEPA requires such a moratorium. Furthermore,
the Clean Water Act dictates that individual permits should be required for such
major actions; therefore the current use of nationwide permits is illegal. A
moratorium is also warranted because the Federal government has failed to
complete an EIS as required, even after 5 years have passed since litigation was
initially filed on this issue. Settlement of the litigation was to result in an EIS and
better measures to protect the environment. The DPEIS clearly indicates that this
is not occurring.
Response:
The alternatives proposed are consistent with the stated purpose of the language in the
settlement agreement that initiated this DPEIS. NEPA does not require a moratorium on mining
activities until the completion of this PEIS.
Comments:
The DPEIS violates NEPA because it does not address or remedy continuing
violations of Federal law. The DPEIS violates the CWA because it assumes
continued use of NWPs, even though the DPEIS's own studies demonstrate that
the minimal cumulative impact ceiling for NWPS has already been exceeded.
Further, the DPEIS violates the CWA because its studies show that MTM/VF
activities cause violations of the West Virginia water quality standard for
selenium, but the DPEIS does nothing to address those violations. Finally, the
DPEIS violates SMCRA, because it admits that MTM/VF activities violate OSM
regulations regarding soil practices, but does nothing to address those violations.
Page 26 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
The commenter uses studies included in the DPEIS and correspondence between
staff as factual support for his arguments.
Response:
The information available to the agencies does not support the commenter's allegation of
continuing violations of Federal law. Further, NEPA compliance is not the appropriate process to
determine or remedy alleged violations of Federal law. A DPEIS is not an end in itself but a tool
to promote environmentally sensitive decision-making. Any relevant violations of federal law
would be addressed under the statutory and regulatory provisions of SMCRA and the CWA.
Comments:
The DPEIS violates NEPA because it does not present valid reasons for the
elimination of reasonable alternatives from detailed analysis. The DPEIS must
present the reasons, in brief discussion, for the elimination of alternatives from
detailed study. By failing to articulate valid reasons for the elimination of
reasonable alternatives, the DPEIS fails to satisfy this NEPA requirement.
• Even if there were insufficient information to draw a bright line
type of restriction, some type of individual or cumulative
restriction on valley filling must be considered.
• The DEIS claims that fill restriction alternatives were eliminated
from consideration because the MTM/VF operations do not
contribute to significant degradation of U.S. waters.
Response:
The commenter has mischaracterized the agencies' evaluation of fill restriction
alternatives. See page II.D-9. The PEIS studies did not conclude that impacts documented below
MTM/VF operations caused or contributed to significant degradation of waters of the U.S. 40
CFR 230.10(c). The DPEIS did consider several alternatives to prohibit or restrict valley fills in
waters of the United States. The rationales for not carrying forward fill restriction and
prohibition alternatives are discussed in Section II.D.
Comments:
Even if sufficient information were not available now to develop fill restrictions,
that information must be obtained, because it is essential to choosing among
alternatives, and the DPEIS does not demonstrate that the cost of obtaining that
information is exorbitant.
Response:
The agencies spent over $5 million to conduct studies investigating various aspects of
MTM/VF activities over an approximately 3-year period. These studies were included as
appendices to the DPEIS. While these studies were insufficient to determine a bright-line
threshold of minimal impacts, they were useful in identifying data gaps and needs for further
study. In order to develop an effective trends analysis, the agencies would have to collect and
analyze data over an extended period. However, based on extrapolations of funds already
expended on these studies and the period over which these studies were conducted, the agencies
estimate that approximately $20 million over a minimum 5- to 10-year period would be required
Page 27 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
to collect data that might be sufficient to carry forward the PEIS alternatives involving
categorical fill restrictions on MTM/VF activities as listed in the preliminary DPEIS. Fill
restrictions would also require statutory and regulatory program changes. Because these costs are
exorbitant, the agencies chose not to continue these expensive studies but rather intend to
augment the existing data by those required during the continued implementation of the CWA
Section 404 and SMCRA regulatory programs.
Comments:
The DPEIS cannot evade the need to consider fill restrictions on the ground that
those restrictions are prohibited by the CWA (using the SBZ to prohibit fills that
would be otherwise allowed under the CWA would be a violation of section 702 of
SMCRA). This reason for excluding consideration of fill restrictions is erroneous
as a matter of law.
Response:
Significant questions remain whether prohibition of fills under the SBZ rule would be
consistent with SMCRA Section 702. Regardless of those questions, the OSM began the SBZ
rule-making before the DPEIS was published and is preparing a separate nationwide EIS for that
rule-making. The proposed SBZ rule-making also pointed out that prohibiting surface mining
activities in the SBZ would be inconsistent with SMCRA Section 515(b)(22).
Comments:
The DPEIS mitigation analysis is fundamentally flawed because burial of streams
cannot be mitigated. The DPEIS violates NEPA as it fails to analyze effectiveness
of proposed mitigation measures. The document wrongly relies on the
effectiveness of in-kind mitigation in spite of the fact that the accompanying
studies admit that headwater stream reconstruction has never been accomplished
and the technology to reconstruct such streams does not exist. Thus there is no
rational basis for relying on stream mitigation as a way to reduce impacts of
MTM to an environmentally acceptable level. An agency's decision to proceed
with a project based on unconsidered, irrational, or inadequately explained
assumptions about the efficacy of mitigation measures is "arbitrary and
capricious." The DPEIS relies upon mitigation "alternatives" that have little
basis in reality, and no credible prospect of success. Accordingly, the DPEIS
cannot satisfy NEPA 's requirements for a proper alternatives analysis.
Response:
Existing CWA mitigation measures have and continue to require compliance with the
standards mandated by the COE prior to approval of the proposed mitigation plan for individual
projects. Existing CWA regulations require mitigation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic
resources and operators must meet this obligation. That is, if the approved mitigation plan is
unsuccessful, the operator must design and implement a plan until success is achieved. See
discussion in Section 5.2.4 of this document. Each mitigation proposal submitted to the agencies
will be evaluated to determine the likelihood of success. Mitigation for stream impacts is
monitored to assure stream functions are achieved. This is a newly developing science.
Page 28 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Comments:
The DPEIS should be withdrawn and a new EIS prepared that meets the
requirements ofNEPA in its assessment of impacts to migratory birds within the
study area, includes additional alternatives to minimize impacts to migratory
birds, and provides measures to mitigate unavoidable impacts to migratory birds
(Cerulean Warbler).
Response:
A programmatic NEPA document such as this proposes only the direction for future
actions. A level of detail to specifically address this concern has not yet been developed. PEIS
information provided as comments on the DPEIS can be considered and utilized to direct further
studies by the agencies. There will be additional opportunity for peer and/or public involvement
as proposed actions are developed.
Comments:
The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to protect and restore the physical,
chemical and biological integrity of our nation's waters. Mountaintop mining
impairs the physical, chemical and biological integrity of Appalachian streams.
The scientific studies done as part of this PEIS have clearly demonstrated that;
yet the results of these studies are buried in appendices and their conclusions are
inadequately and inaccurately conveyed in the DPEIS. I was particularly
concerned by the statement in the Executive Summary that the "opinions and
views" of the authors of the technical studies "do not necessarily reflect the
position or view of the agencies preparing this EIS". The authors of the technical
studies did not have "opinions and views", what they wrote was the result of
analyses of scientific data. The quoted statement implies subjectivity in data
analysis that is an insult to the authors of those technical studies. These results
cannot be simply rejected (or downplayed and ignored as has been done in much
of the PEIS) as different "views. " The authors have presented logical reasons for
their conclusions based on data. In contrast, the agencies have not presented the
scientific results or logical arguments that support their "views" (i.e. their choice
of the preferred alternative).
Response:
The Executive Summary is not meant to be an exhaustive treatment of each issue.
Additional information important to understanding the Executive Summary statements is found
in the body of the PEIS. The agencies did not intend to offend the authors of the scientific studies
and the change from "opinions and views" to "conclusions" has been indicated on the errata
sheet. The agencies disagree that the agencies have not articulated their reasons for choosing the
preferred alternative. Rather, the agencies considered all of the scientific and technical studies,
together with other available information, and explained their choice of the preferred alternative.
Comments:
The original purpose of the mountaintop removal programmatic EIS was to
develop policies and procedures to "minimize, to the maximum extent practicable,
the adverse environmental effects to waters of the United States and to fish and
Page 29 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
wildlife resources from mountaintop removal mining operations, and to
environmental resources that could be affected by the size and location of fill
material in valley fill sites. " The DPEIS has completely abandoned this purpose.
It contains no meaningful, substantive alternatives or recommendations that
would minimize to any degree the environmental harm caused by mountaintop
removal coal mining, let alone policies or procedures to reduce these harms to
"the maximum extent practicable. "
The agencies' chosen "efficiency alternative " does not meet the stated purpose of
this EIS, which is to "minimize to the maximum extent practicable, the adverse
environmental effects to waters of the US and to fish and wildlife resources
affected by MTM operations and to environmental resources that could be
affected by the size and location of excess spoil disposal sites in valley fills"
In order to fulfill the purpose of the PEIS, and be consistent with the findings of
the studies on mountaintop removal, and meet the agencies' obligations under
NEPA and other Federal laws, the DPEIS must be rewritten to consider
substantive alternatives that would minimize the environmental harm caused by
mountaintop removal and select a preferred alternative that would truly protect
the resources and people of the region. " "None of the alternatives considered in
the DPEIS would impose new limits or clear, objective, restrictions on
mountaintop removal operations."
Response:
The alternatives analyzed and actions proposed are consistent with the language in the
settlement agreement. The settlement agreement states that the agencies agreed:
"...to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") on a proposal to
consider developing agency policies, guidance, and coordinated decision-making
processes to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the adverse
environmental effects to waters of the United States and to fish and wildlife
resources affected by mountaintop mining operations, and to environmental
resources that could be affected by the size and location of excess spoil disposal
sites in valley fills."
While minimizing the adverse impacts of mountaintop mining operations is the goal of
the DPEIS, the mechanism to attain that goal is through consideration of different policies,
guidance, and coordinated decision-making. The DPEIS evaluated four alternatives to agency
decision-making processes and seventeen actions containing potential policy, guideline, and
regulatory changes.
The alternatives are constructed in a manner that requires more environmental
information and analysis of the impacts of the operation on environmental resources. All of these
proposals were offered as a means to minimize the adverse effects of mountaintop mining
operations on the environmental resources. Thus, these alternatives analyzed are designed to
minimize environmental impacts by coordinating decision-making among the Federal and state
Page 30 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
agencies responsible for regulating mining activities; developing guidelines on best practices for
mining, reclamation, and mitigation; and considering changing policies and regulations.
Implementing the preferred alternative may yield an added benefit of increased government
efficiency while fulfilling the spirit and intent of the settlement agreement. These are mutually
attainable objectives.
Comments:
The DP ElS fails to describe (either in detail or general terms) the environmental
resources that would be harmed under the agencies preferred alternative... the
omission in the DPEIS itself is especially striking given the scientific studies
contained in the appendices so vividly describe the environmental destruction that
has been and currently is being caused by mountaintop removal.
Response:
The DPEIS, in Chapter IV describes the environmental consequences of the alternatives,
including the preferred alternative. The DPEIS, in Chapter III, Affected Environment and
Consequences of MTM/VF, generally characterizes the study area and potential impacts
resulting from MTM/VF activities, and describes state and Federal program requirements so as
to evaluate coordinated decision-making opportunities to further minimize impacts.
Comments:
The preferred alternative would clearly increase the damage from mountaintop
mining by eliminating the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's buffer
zone rule that prohibits mining activities that disturb any area within 100 feet of
larger streams.
Response:
OSM is currently engaged in an ongoing nationwide SBZ rulemaking that was pending
when the DPEIS was published and therefore is discussed in the No Action Alternative. The
preferred alternative, like all the other alternatives carried forward for detailed analysis,
including the No Action alternative, recognizes that the SBZ rulemaking is also proceeding. The
purpose and effects of the SBZ rulemaking are discussed in the proposed rulemaking notice at 69
FR 1035 (Jan 7, 2004) and the Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS at 70 FR at 35112-35116 (June
16, 2005). The SBZ and excess spoil rulemaking is being accompanied by a separate nationwide
EIS. The public should express any concerns they may have regarding that rulemaking in that
separate process.
Comments:
The DPEIS presents information, and is based on analysis, not equally applicable
or relevant to all states affected by the regulatory programs.
Response:
This PEIS evaluates programmatic alternatives that, if implemented, would be applicable
to individual mountaintop mining operations and conditions in Appalachia. The DPEIS provided
an opportunity to collect updated data on a range of surface mining impacts and led the agencies
to prepare and evaluate the alternatives and actions presented. However, analysis of the
Page 31 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
alternatives was not dependent on representative data from all locations within the study area.
The PEIS focuses on the similarities of the Appalachian coalfield states' programs and affected
environments, rather than their unique differences. Any further action supported by this PEIS
would involve further coordination with and participation by the appropriate state agencies and
would take into account the applicable state laws, regulations, mining methods, and unique
environmental conditions.
Before implementing many of the individual actions considered as part of the
alternatives, there will be a need for the collection and analysis of additional scientific data and if
appropriate, additional public participation and NEPA analysis.
Comments:
The DPEIS fails to address technology changes that will alter projections of
future forest loss. DPEIS forest loss projections are probably an underestimate.
They also do not consider the anticipated increase in future demand for
Appalachian coal due to the planned construction of flue gas desulfurization units
(scrubbers) at existing coal-fired generating plants in the study area. For
example, the DPEIS projects that TN'will issue permits causing the loss of 9,154
acres of forest in 2003 through 2012, but over 5,000 acres of surface mining
permits have already been approved between December 2002 and October 2003.
Response:
The level of analysis in this DPEIS is the level that is feasible and appropriate for a
programmatic EIS. The cumulative impact analysis was based on an evaluation of the past 10
years of permitting and extrapolation 10 years into the future assuming a constant rate of surface
coal mining. See Sections II.C and IV.C for a discussion on cumulative impacts.
5.2.5 Category: Water Resources
This category is a grouping of comments related to water resources, stream chemistry,
water regulatory programs, watershed programs, and mining impacts to surface water or
groundwater. This category corresponds to category 5 in the Public Comment Compendium
document.
Comments:
EPA 's national water program has worked with states to create comprehensive
state watershed approach strategies that actively seek a higher standard of
protection for the human environment. However the DPEIS does not address how
Federal agencies and the states plan to maintain the comprehensive state
watershed approach strategies and continue to approve MTM operations. The
DPEIS weakens the state's, COE 's, and FWS 's standards for programs in
sensitive ecosystem watersheds. The proposed changes to MTM/VF permitting
would seriously damage all Federal agencies' credibility and accountability to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our
Nation's waters.
Page 32 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
This PEIS evaluates programmatic alternatives that, if implemented, would be applicable
to individual mountaintop mining operations and conditions in steep-slope Appalachia. The
DPEIS provided an opportunity to collect updated data on a range of surface mining impacts and
led the agencies to prepare and evaluate the alternatives presented. However, analysis of the
alternatives was not dependent on representative data from all locations within the study area.
Before implementing many of the individual actions contemplated in this DPEIS, there
will be a need for the collection and analysis of additional scientific data and, if appropriate,
additional public participation and NEPA analysis. It was not the intention of the agencies that
this PEIS provide an exhaustive and definitive compilation or description of each state program
requirement.
The DPEIS, in Chapter III, sought to generally characterize the potential impacts and
generally describe state and Federal program requirements so as to evaluate coordinated
decision-making opportunities to further minimize impacts.
The agencies have no indication that environmental resources or mining impacts in other
steep-slope states are vastly different from the data collected in the technical studies
commissioned for the DPEIS. More thorough descriptions or voluminous data might more
completely define the actions proposed by the DPEIS, but would not likely result in marked
differences in the alternatives.
Following the recommended Action 5 in the preferred alternative, the agencies would
continue to evaluate the effects of mountaintop mining operations on stream chemistry and
biology. As appropriate, EPA would develop and propose criteria for additional chemicals or
other parameters (e.g., biological indicators) that would support a modification of existing state
water quality standards, [page II.C-44]
And, likewise with recommended Action 6 in the preferred alternative, Federal agencies
would continue to work with states to further refine the uniform, science-based protocols for
assessing ecological function, making permit decisions, and establishing mitigation
requirements, [page II.C-44]
Comments:
Issuing permits to dump mining waste in streams is not legal under the Clean
Water Act as passed by Congress. The DPEIS continued reliance on the use of
nationwide permits for valley fills is illegal.
Response:
The NEPA process is not the appropriate forum to address allegations of violations of
Federal and state law.
Comments:
Specific changes to the description of mining-related impacts to surface water
quantity and quality are suggested. The effect of adopting these comments would
Page 33 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
be descriptions in the PEIS that definitively concluded that the impacts were
adverse.
The DPEIS contains several serious misstatements of fact, such as it:
• incorrectly states that "watershed impacts directly attributable to
mining and fills could not be distinguished from impacts due to
other types of human activity, "
• incorrectly claims that 68% of mountaintop mining sites in West
Virginia "were to be reclaimed to forestry-related land uses,
• incorrectly asserts that "mountaintop mining may not have a
significant impact on the biologic integrity of the terrestrial
ecosystems, " and that ample forest will remain to maintain high
biological index scores for wildlife,
• incorrectly states that "mined sites may take as long as 120 years
or more to attain mature forest conditions, " and
• incorrectly describes West Virginia's AOC+ protocol as a "fill
minimization analysis."
Response:
These comments are examples of general statements of misrepresentation of, or
disagreement with, scientific findings and/or conclusions. The agencies did not identify any
commenters' allegations of misstatements of fact other than those specifically addressed in the
errata sheet or the responses to comments that identified material inaccuracies or errors. The
agencies identified many allegations of inaccuracies that appeared to reflect differences of
opinion or preferred outcomes of commenters. Some comments reflected a difference of
interpretation of the significance of the study conclusions.
Further, some of the comments characterized as the agencies' misstatements of fact are
rather references to studies instead of conclusions made by the agencies. The conclusions in the
studies were considered but do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies
preparing this PEIS. In many cases, the commenters provided no additional data to support their
claims. The agencies discussed the bases of the DPEIS analyses throughout the document and in
the appendices. The agencies addressed some of the alleged misstatements of fact in the
responses to comments. None of the other alleged misstatements of facts would have led to
changes in the description of baseline conditions, analysis of impacts, or revision in the
alternatives considered. In all instances, the agencies carefully considered the best available
information in the preparation of this PDEIS.
Some commenters suggested that the PEIS justify all or portions of the regulatory
program and requested that the PEIS demonstrate the balancing between needs for environmental
protection and needs for coal recovery. In addition, many commenters expressed their opinion on
the need for the program. Because these types of comments are not on the adequacy of the
analysis of the impacts of the preferred alternative and alternatives thereto, they are not
Page 34 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
specifically identified and responded to in this document. Those comments were, however,
considered.
Comments:
The DPEIS fails to consider the long-term impacts to groundwater hydrology
from MTM/VF.
Response:
A workshop on mountaintop mining effects on groundwater was held in Charleston, West
Virginia on May 9, 2000 during the scoping process for this DPEIS (Appendix G, Part 3 to the
DPEIS). As a result of the workshop, groundwater was identified as an issue that did not rise to
the level of the most significant issues in the context of mountaintop mining impacts.
Information on groundwater was included in Section III.H, Affected Environment. However, in
light of the results of the scoping process evaluation of groundwater issues, the agencies focused
the PEIS studies on the highest priority issues.
Comments:
Federal and state regulations clearly ban waste disposal, yet in-stream sediment
ponds are used for the sole purpose of waste treatment.
Response:
The DPEIS discusses the function of in-stream sediment ponds in describing the current
regulatory environment. However, comments advocating change in the use of in-stream sediment
ponds are outside the scope of this document.
Comments:
Quality assurance/quality control problems identified with EPA 's water chemistry
data cause all water chemistry data to be called into question.
Response:
Those data called into question were discarded. The EPA water chemistry study
conclusions concerning impacts were supported by QA/QC qualified data.
Comments:
Industry studies showing results different from government studies were excluded
because they were not "representative. "
Response:
A large array of studies were reviewed and considered, but due to the differences of
methodologies used, not all lend themselves to direct comparison. Those discussed are listed in
the references.
Comments:
Mining companies should not be allowed to divert water onto private property.
Page 35 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
This PEIS does not grant any permission or rights for mining companies to impact private
property owners.
Comments:
Components of documented field case studies may be applicable to selenium
mobilization in Appalachia. In contrast to many other contaminants, sources of
selenium and significant environmental damage due to selenium have been well
documented (Lemly, 1985; Presser, et al, 1994; Lemly, 1997; Hamilton, 1998;
Skorupa, 1998; Presser and Piper, 1998; Lemly, 2002; Seller et al, 2003).
Further, an upcoming presentation entitled "Linking Selenium Sources to
Ecosystems: Local and Global Perspectives" at the annual meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science in February 2004 gives
insights into a conceptual model of selenium pollution that is based on the
distribution of organic-enriched sedimentary rocks (www.aaas.org/meetings/
Presser and Skorupa, 2003). Our model (detailed in Presser et al., to be released
in January 2004) enabled prediction of potential selenium mobilization in areas
associated with waste shales, such as valley fills.
Oxidizing, Alkaline Environments — Acid mine drainage is traditionally of
concern in mining areas, as it is in the DPEIS study area. However, methods of
controlling coal mine drainage (CMD) with alkaline addition may exacerbate the
mobility of selenium and hence its loading to the environment. Among the six
criteria contributing to selenium contamination was an oxidized, alkaline
environment that promotes the formation ofselenate, the mobile form of selenium.
Expand Current Selenium Monitoring.
Forecast Selenium Effects Under an Array of Management Scenarios —
Determination of a selenium mass balance or budget for the DPEIS watersheds
and selenium cycling through the components of the watershed's ecosystems are
crucial because of selenium bioaccumulation. A comprehensive linked approach
would include all considerations that cause systems to respond differently to
selenium contamination. Comparison to multi-media guidelines could be made to
assess exposure and risk. Results of a comprehensive monitoring approach then
could be used to forecast ecological effects of selenium under an array of
scenarios that could result from different resolutions of waste management issues.
Ensure Selenium Methodology with a 0.4 jUg/L Detection Limit — The detection
limit for the methodology used in the DPEIS stream study was noted as 3 fj,g /L
(Appendix D, Stream Chemistry Final Report, 4/8/02, Table 2), but was further
noted that the estimated detection limit for selenium in water using Method 200.8,
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometer, was around 5 jUg/L (USEPA
Methods Manual, 1983). This methodology and detection limit (3-5 jug/L) may not
be sufficient in view of a USEPA criterion of 5 pg/L and ecological effects being
of concern at levels of 2 jUg/L. Guidance provided by USEPA requires a detection
Page 36 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
limit of 0.6 pg/L) (Interim Chemical/Biological Monitoring Protocol for Coal
Mining Permit Application, 11/19/00).
Continue Study of Selenium in Streams — Quality controls issues were resolved
concerning analysis of selenium in streams. However, results from Lab 1 were
discarded mainly because of elevated levels in Blanks. Duplicating this study with
improved methodology and detection limit for selenium may prove informative.
The technical studies demonstrate that water quality standards for selenium were
being violated in West Virginia below valley fills and that the DPEIS is not
proposing any remedies for those violations. The DPEIS must propose remedies
to eliminate all existing and potential stream degradation due to contamination
from MTM/VF activities.
Excess spoil having elevated selenium levels is placed in valley fills thus causing
adverse impacts to water chemistry.
Response:
The CWA Section 303(d) list of 2004 prepared by WVDEP and approved by EPA
recognized some selenium impaired streams. EPA finalized in March 2004 a TMDL addressing
selenium for the Guyandotte River Watershed, including the Mud River. WVDEP expects to
finalize a TMDL on the Coal River in 2005 that addresses selenium. TMDLs could be developed
for other streams.
The EPA formally published proposed revisions to the Aquatic Life Water Quality
Criteria for selenium in December, 2004. The revision process was initiated prior to the DPEIS
process and will continue after the PEIS is finalized. Recent selenium workshops (April and
August, 2004), sponsored by USGS have focused interest on on-going and potential studies that
will further the assessment of the occurrence and impact of selenium in the Appalachian region.
Activities authorized under SMCRA and CWA Section 404 proposals for surface coal
mining operations must comply with any applicable NPDES effluent limits. The effluent limits
for point sources associated with coal mining consider industry-wide treatment technology and
address specific concentration for iron, manganese, pH and suspended solids as well as measures
to protect aquatic life and human health. Under the CWA no activity is allowed to violate Water
Quality Criteria (including selenium) in the waters of the United States. The Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) required in NPDES permits provide for industry and the state
regulatory agencies monitoring data to indicate compliance and tools to protect stream quality.
This feature of the CWA program helps guard against impairment levels affecting designated
uses.
The studies sponsored by the PEIS were intended to provide the agencies information on
trends identifying where a potential problem may exist; they were not developed to the extent
needed to give definite answers to specific program changes or revisions especially on a regional
or national level. The results of the studies developed for the PEIS are the reason there are
actions in the PEIS to identify the need for additional studies. Additional studies on selenium in
Page 37 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
particular are part of actions taking place parallel to the PEIS, but will result in separate NEPA
documents.
Comments:
Concerns about elevated selenium at test sites are minimized when considered in
light of the latest scientific data on aquatic toxicity of selenium. EPA 's current
nationally recommended chronic criterion for selenium (5 jj.g/1 in the water
column) and 20 jj.g/1 acute criterion have been adopted by many States and
utilized in water quality standards programs. However, based upon the latest
scientific knowledge on selenium toxicity, EPA made a decision to update the
acute and chronic criteria for selenium and published, in March 2002, a draft
selenium criteria document.
EPA 's draft document proposes a revised freshwater acute criterion (185 fj.g/1) in
the water column and 7.9 jug/g (dry weight) in fish tissue that is considerably
higher than the current national criterion. It is important to note that in some
geographic areas in the study area background levels of total selenium exceed 20
ppb, yet no acute toxic effects are observed. Therefore, the levels of concern
expressed in the PEIS studies become much less significant when considered
pursuant to the agency's proposed revised criteria. See Draft Aquatic Life Water
Quality Criteria for Selenium 2002, EPA Contract No. 68-C6-0036 (March 2002
Draft).
EPA is currently in the process of revising the suggested water quality standard
for selenium. In February 2002 the agency published a draft of these revisions.
Among the conclusions and observations included in the draft document are
several that are relevant to this DPEIS and the assertion that detectable selenium
concentrations in the water column are indicative of negative impacts.
A commenter supports, as contemplated in Action 5, a meaningful review or
reanalysis of current water quality standards and use designations, particularly
in light of new scientific evidence suggesting the current national water quality
criteria for selenium may be over-protective.
Response:
The EPA formally published proposed revisions to the selenium criteria in December,
2004, and requested public comments. EPA has not yet processed those comments or arrived at a
final decision on the proposed revisions. If and when EPA decides that criteria changes are
warranted, the agency will publish that information in the Federal Register. Until then, the
criteria in effect at the time the DPEIS was published remain in effect.
Comments:
The reference to unpublished USFWS information on selenium data from a lake in
the study area is inappropriate and should be deleted from the PEIS.
Page 38 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
It is incorrect to extend the results of the Lemly studies to this PEIS because the
Lemly studies were conducted in a lotic rather than lentic environment.
Response:
The FWS information has been added to the errata. According to a January 16, 2004
letter from David Densmore, FWS to Allyn Turner, West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection: "In 2003 the FWS collected fish in streams downstream of valley fills, where earlier
water quality analysis [Appendix D] had revealed high selenium concentrations. The results
demonstrated that the selenium is biologically available for uptake into the food chain, and that
violations of the EPA selenium water quality criteria may result in selenium concentrations in
fish that could adversely affect fish reproduction. In some cases, fish tissue concentrations were
near levels believed to pose a risk to fish-eating birds. It is likely that benthic invertebrates in
some of these streams would be similarly contaminated, thereby posing a risk to birds such as
Louisiana waterthrush that depend upon aquatic insects as a food supply." (January 16, 2004,
letter from David Densmore, FWS, to Allyn Turner, West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection). These data demonstrate that selenium can bioaccumulate in lotic
(flowing) as well as lentic (non-flowing) environments. No change to the DPEIS is warranted.
Comments:
Further evaluation of stream chemistry and further investigation into the linkage
between stream chemistry and stream biotic community and structure are needed.
Response:
Actions to further evaluate the linkage between stream chemistry and the biotic
community are included in the DPEIS. These actions could deal directly with stream impairment
by: 1) developing additional water quality standards based on additional study and data
collection regarding impacts; and, 2) using monitoring protocols for aquatic ecosystem
functional assessment. Other actions developed for issues such as Section III.C.3 Direct Stream
Loss; Section III.C.5 Fill Minimization; Section III.C.6. Stream Habitat and Aquatic Functions;
Section III.C.7. Cumulative Impacts; and Section III.C.8. Deforestation could mitigate stream
impairment as well, [page II.C-44]
Comments:
Industry is not opposed to providing innovative mitigation or paying for damages
that have occurred, however, the government agencies are not interested in
industry's proposals to provide sewer lines to clean up streams. Mitigation also
should include removing trash from streams.
Response:
Stream habitat and functions lost through mining and filling are subject to amelioration
through mitigation. Although providing sewer projects or removing trash from streams may
increase water quality in adjacent areas it does not provide in-kind replacement of habitat and
functions of headwater streams. Separate CWA programs assess responsibility and provide
opportunities to improve water quality concerning inadequate sewage treatment systems. The
COE is considering the use of general watershed improvements as an opportunity for mitigation.
Page 39 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Comments:
The statement on page ES-4 that mining is "characterized by an increase in
minerals in the water" is a misrepresentation of the data presented. Sulfate
concentrations are 41 times greater on mined sites; total dissolve solids are 16
times greater; calcium, magnesium, total hardness is 21 times greater;
conductivity is 5 times greater; selenium is over 7 times greater; selenium median
value is twice the EPA safe drinking water standard, and 66 violations of drinking
water standards for selenium were found below valley fill sites. These are very
significant impacts on the chemical integrity of our Nation's waters that have not
been addressed in the DPEIS. These kinds of changes impair biological integrity
of the waters as well as pose threats to human health.
Response:
The agencies do not agree that the statement on page ES-4 is a misrepresentation; it is a
general statement in the Executive Summary. A full discussion on this issue is in Section
IV.B.l.b. (page IV.B-4).
Comments:
The evidence does not show a clear impact on the study streams by MTM/VF
activities but indicates changes typical of any large-scale development project,
e.g. road construction or residential development.
Finding selenium concentrations above the suggested criteria can be expected
given the overall background levels of selenium present in the native soils of the
area. Similar concentrations can be expected below any land disturbing activity
in the region.
Response:
The available studies do not conclusively distinguish impacts downstream of MTM/VF
from impacts of other activities within the watershed. The commenters provided no data to
support these claims.
Comments:
The DPEIS is critically deficient because 1) supporting documentation failed to
adequately quantify and analyze the effects of selenium on aquatic life; and 2)
proposed alternatives failed to address the protection of aquatic life from
potential adverse effects of selenium. The DPEIS has left out 1) fundamental data
on selenium concentrations in sediment, invertebrates, fish tissue, and bird eggs;
and 2) information on dietary pathways and vulnerable predator species.
Proposed control measures to neutralize discharges with alkaline addition may
exacerbate the mobility of selenium and hence it's loading to the environment.
Response:
The studies conducted as part of the DPEIS do show an impact from MTM/VF activities
to water chemistry downstream of surface coal mining operations and valley fills and indicate
that in some cases aquatic communities are impaired. However, the sample size and monitoring
Page 40 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
periods conducted for the PEIS were not considered sufficient to establish firm cause-and-effect
relationships between individual pollutants and the decline in particular macroinvertebrate
populations. Impairment could not be correlated with the number of fills, their size, age, or
construction method [page II.C-38].
The USEPA formally published proposed revisions to the Aquatic Life Water Quality
Criteria for selenium in December 2004. The revision process was initiated prior to the PEIS
process and has not yet concluded. Recent selenium workshops (April and August, 2004),
sponsored by USGS have focused interest on on-going and potential studies that will further the
assessment of the occurrence and impact of selenium in the Appalachian region. Until a revised
standard is adopted the states are required to abide by the currently adopted standards.
Since selenium is bioaccumlated, it is not expected to be directly toxic to fish collected in
the fisheries studies. However, selenium is one of the most toxic micronutrient to mammals of all
biologically essential elements; fish and birds are very sensitive to selenium contamination in an
aquatic environment. Selenium is passed from parents to offspring in eggs and, during critical
stages of development and growth, is substituted for sulfur in amino acids that form structural
and functional proteins. As selenium exposure increases, toxic effects can range from
suppression of the immune system, to reduced juvenile growth, to embryo mortality, to mass
wasting in adults, to teratogenesis (lethal or sub-lethal deformities) in juveniles, to juvenile
mortality, and finally to adult mortality. See Draft Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for
Selenium 2002 and 69 FR75541.
Comments:
Two reports on the Ballard Fork gages (Messinger, 2003; Messinger and
Paybins, 2003), which were produced by USGS West Virginia District as part of
the PEIS process, should be discussed in section III.D. Both reports contain
noteworthy information on total flows, stormflow characteristics, and seasonal
evapotranspiration losses.
Response:
The information contained in the draft reports was considered in the development of
Section III.D. of the DPEIS; however, they did not provide significant new information relevant
to Section III.D. beyond information already available from other studies. Therefore, these
studies were not cited in Section III.D. One of these draft reports was cited in Section III.H. and
both of these reports were included in Appendix H, Part 1.
Comments:
On page III.D-18 — The commenter recommends that the discussions of stream
creation include additional information on watershed hydrology, such as the
Variable Source Area Concept (Hewlett and Hibbert, 1967), that is, that water
seeps downhill through soil until it reaches a confining layer, that streams form in
saturated soil areas on the land surface, and that the area of saturated soil that
contributes to streamflow is variable through time. In light of the principles of
watershed hydrology, stream creation is very difficult and may not be practical, at
least if only natural channel design is to be applied to ditch construction.
Page 41 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
The difficulty of intercepting the groundwater and surface water hydrology for stream
construction is recognized by the agencies evaluating mitigation projects. Watershed hydrology
is one of many factors the agencies take into consideration when evaluating compensatory
mitigation for stream impacts. Each mitigation proposal submitted to the agencies will be
evaluated to determine the likelihood of success. Mitigation for stream impacts is monitored to
assure stream functions are achieved. This is a newly developing science.
5.2.6 Category: Aquatic Fauna and Flora
This category is a grouping of comments on mining impacts to aquatic invertebrates and
benthic invertebrate studies. This category also includes comments on fish population studies.
This category corresponds to category 6 in the Public Comment Compendium document.
Comments:
The DP ElS fails to recognize that salamanders and mussels, for example, have
particular difficulty adapting or changing habitat to new streams.
The DPE1S fails to fully consider the value of these forests and the terrestrial and
aquatic species dependent on them and the very real predictability of their
destruction - and extinction by widespread mountaintop mining and valley fills.
Response:
In Section IV.D (pages IV.D-2 and 4), the agencies recognized that there would likely be
a shift to drier habitats that may negatively affect species dependent on wetter habitats, such as
salamanders.
Comments:
A consistent definition is needed to establish where headwater streams start.
Topographic maps greatly underestimate their abundance and length. The
commenter suggests that a much better point would be where aquatic species with
year-long or multi-year life cycles are found (see Appendix D, Stout, et al. study).
Response:
There are currently different definitions of jurisdictional waters for CWA, SMCRA and
state law as administered by various state and Federal agencies. There is an action in the
preferred alternative in the DPEIS which proposes that the Federal and/or state agencies will
develop guidance, policies or institute rule-making for consistent definitions of stream
characteristics as well as field methods for delineating those characteristics. [Section II.C.2.b]
Comments:
Better stream protection from direct and indirect effects will not result from
improved characterization of aquatic resources if the proposed assessment is
limited to family or generic level identification of organisms.
Page 42 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
Aquatic resource characterization methods are still being evaluated by the agencies. The
commenter's concerns will be taken into consideration.
Comments:
Statements regarding fish impairment in the DPEIS are incorrect. The general
reasoning in support of this belief is contained in the following paragraph:
"Mountaintop mining will potentially impact only 4.10% of the total
stream miles in the study area, 60% of which are first order headwater
streams, dispelling any myth that mining and valley fills are eradicating
all headwater streams. Benthic research has demonstrated that abundance
remains high below fills and that the ponds and wetlands created during
reclamation are providing their own energy inputs to the stream reaches.
The USGS fisheries survey confirms the benthic research, finding that
heavily surface mined watersheds supported healthy and diverse fish
populations."
Response:
While some studies have found that benthic invertebrate abundance downstream of valley
fills is not statistically decreased compared to upstream, abundance is not necessarily a good
measure of ecosystem health. For example, some benthic organisms are more sensitive to certain
pollutants than other organisms; when the pollution eliminates the sensitive organisms, the more
tolerant organisms have less competition for food and space, and are able to increase in numbers
— resulting in no change in abundance, although the biological integrity of the benthic
community has been decreased. Benthic invertebrate studies conducted by a number of
government and industry researchers, and summarized in the DPEIS [Appendix D, Fulk 2003],
concluded that biological integrity is reduced downstream of MTM/VF. Concerning energy
inputs due to ponds and wetlands, no data specific to organic matter or energy were gathered to
address this question during the DPEIS process. Finally, the commenter has misinterpreted the
USGS study (Messinger, T., and D. B. Chambers. 2001. Fish communities and their relation to
environmental factors in the Kanawha River basin, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina,
1997-98." USGS Charleston, West Virginia). That document clearly states (page 39) that
"Because of the effects of zoogeography and the lack of unmined, medium-sized streams in the
coal-mining region, conclusions could not be made about the effects of coal mining on fish
communities."
Comments:
The statement in the DPEIS on selenium concentrations in excess of AWQC at
most of the filled sites is misplaced given the level of understanding relative to
selenium impacts and technical research that found healthy aquatic communities
in watersheds exceeding the suggested water quality criteria for selenium.
Response:
The DPEIS noted [Appendix D] that the West Virginia Stream Condition Index for
invertebrates was negatively correlated with selenium concentrations. In other words, as
Page 43 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
selenium concentrations increase, benthic invertebrate population health declines. In addition,
the scientific literature demonstrates that selenium is most problematic from a food chain
standpoint, causing reproductive failure in fish and birds that consume contaminated organisms.
Comments:
The balance of DPEIS technical research has identified a shift in benthic
communities, a shift that can be attributed to a number of factors and a shift that
is by no means disadvantageous. Similar shifts were found below mining related
disturbance that did not involve valley fill activities at a site outside of the PEIS
study region suggesting that similar results can be expected below any
disturbance within the general Appalachian region.
The commenter has presented the results of studies conducted for the PEIS, by
coal operators in conjunction with the DPEIS, independent of the DPEIS but
within the study area and outside of the study area but related to the streams in
the study area. The bulk of this research documents a shift in the biologic
community below disturbance. There is some question as to how directly this shift
can be correlated to particular water column parameters including conductivity.
In Appendix D, A Survey of the Conditions of Streams in the Primary Region of
Mountaintop Mining Valley Fill Coal Mining, streams assessed during the study
that contained residential development were the most impaired. Because several
stressors, including mining activities and residential development could cause the
observed impairments, no specific conclusions were reached. Although issues
regarding conditions in sediment control ditches associated with fill construction
are identified, very little useful data was provided to characterize conditions in
those structures.
From the results of the EPA streams study and other related research, it is
apparent that the aquatic communities were different among the classes of
invertebrate species, but not impaired. The elimination of the mayfly taxa cannot
be linked to impairment as the DPEIS narrative attempts to do.
Response:
The commenters are referred to Appendix D of the DPEIS (e.g., Fulk et al., 2003) for
information on the reduction in species diversity and increase in pollution-tolerant
macroinvertebrate and fish species downstream of valley fills. Comments that similar results
would be expected downstream of any disturbance in Appalachia are not substantiated;
furthermore, this DPEIS evaluated impacts related to mountaintop mining and valley fills, not all
land disturbance in the region. Finally, the absence of mayflies from streams where they are
expected to occur is widely recognized throughout the scientific community as indicative of
water quality impairment. No change to the DPEIS is warranted.
Comments:
On page IV.D-5, Fish Populations — This section is brief and not very
informative regarding mining impacts on fish populations. Additional information
Page 44 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(topic material or concepts) should be provided in the section. Coverage of the
topic should be similar to that provided in section b.
Response:
Additional information on fish populations is provided in Appendix D (Stauffer and
Ferreri, 2002).
Comments:
Kentucky Mountaintop Mining Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey — the study has
very limited usefulness because it was specific to only four Kentucky counties and
samples were collected just a single time at twelve stream sites in May of 2000.
The study's conclusions that MTM/VF construction negatively impacts benthic
health do not match similar study results from Virginia. See research report
"Ecotoxicological Evaluation of Hollow Fill Drainages in Low Order Streams in
the Appalachian Mountains of Virginia and West Virginia " by Timothy Merricks
with Dr. Donald Cherry. Also, the last paragraph of the study report indicates
that the impacts to benthic health from MTM/VF activities relate to deforestation.
Forest is the most common post-mining land use in Virginia. This differs from
Kentucky reclamation practices and therefore the conclusions of this report do
not seem applicable to Virginia.
No Virginia study information is included in Appendix D, The Value of
Headwater Streams: Results of a Workshop, State College, PA, April 13, 1999. It
should be noted in the PEIS that remining of AML areas would often reconnect
headwater streams to lower reaches. These streams were originally disrupted by
AML mining activities. The headwaters empty onto the AML bench, then flow
down the bench, eventually flowing over the bench at a low point by passing the
lower reach of the stream. By remining and backfilling the AML highwalls, these
streams can be re-connected.
Ecological Assessment of Streams in the Coal Mining Region of West Virginia
Using Data Collected by the EPA and Environmental Consulting Firms — As
with the Kentucky report, the study has limited usefulness because it was specific
to West Virginia. Seasonal data was collected from five West Virginia water sheds.
No Virginia study information was included. The study's conclusions that
mountain top mining and valley fill construction negatively impacts benthic health
do not necessarily match similar study results from Virginia and West Virginia.
Response:
The studies provided adequate information to evaluate the alternatives, but did not
provide specific data for each state or mine. Because this is a programmatic EIS, it was not
necessary to collect representative data from each state and the analysis of the alternatives was
not dependent on representative data from all locations within the study area. Any further action
could involve more data collection and analysis as well as further coordination with the
appropriate state agencies, and will take into account, as appropriate, the applicable state
requirements, mining methods, and unique environmental conditions.
Page 45 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Comments:
On page III.D-20 (third paragraph), for nutrient cycling, it is well known that
aquatic insects play a role in all aquatic ecosystems because all living organisms
cycle nutrients. A more reasonable question that should be addressed in this
section is whether nutrient cycling in such nutrient-poor systems are important to
areas larger than the created wetlands.
Response:
The DPEIS considered nutrient cycling in a larger watershed context and discussed it in
detail in Section III.C.l.b.4. (page III.C-5)
Comments:
Part of the preferred alternative calls for the COE to do a functional assessment
of the stream before it is buried by the valley fill. Then the COE is to make sure
that there is no net loss after mitigation. The COE functional assessment does not
appropriately integrate rare invertebrates into the functional assessment because
it takes highly trained biologists to identify rare invertebrates. If the right things
are not identified before the valley fills, how can the mitigation adequately
compensate for the loss?
Response:
Regulatory requirements are currently in place to collect information necessary for the
COE's permitting decisions. The COE functional assessment protocol uses typical stream survey
methods that are rapid assessment techniques. Although these techniques are used to characterize
the quality of the streams prior to making the permit decision, they may not identify certain new
or rare invertebrate species. The identification of new or rare species may require genetic testing
or other extensive analysis. Under the preferred alternative, the COE would continue to refine
and calibrate the stream assessment protocol within each ecoregion.
Comments:
On page III.D-21, subsection e.l. Onsite, top of the page, lines 7-9, the statement
"However, it is not known whether the organic matter processing that occurs in
created wetlands would mimic the processing found in a natural stream system. "
does not consider much information that is known about the nature of wetlands
compared to the nature of streams. Wetlands, by their nature, trap and conserve
organic matter, and function as organic matter sinks; whatever organic material
wetlands retain, the material tends to be dissolved, rather than undissolved.
Streams, by virtue of flowing, tend to transport organic matter (and whatever else
they contain) downstream. It is unlikely that organic matter processing in created
wetlands would provide processing similar to that provided by small streams. The
commenter recommends that the statement be modified to emphasize these
differing roles of streams and wetlands.
Page 46 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
The DPEIS statement was meant to reflect the lack of data comparing organic matter
downstream of created wetlands with organic matter in a natural stream. However, the
commenter's point is accurate, and this sentence is noted as deleted on the errata.
Comments:
Since trees do not grow well on reclaimed land and ponds do not replace streams,
the replacement of headwater streams on reclaimed land will not offset the loss
due to valley fills.
Response:
With natural stream design and a riparian buffer of trees planted on the reclaimed mine
site, functions of ephemeral and/or intermittent streams may be replaced. Monitoring the
effectiveness of such mitigation plans will continue and, if they are not effective, will require
additional offsite mitigation such as stabilizing stream banks, reducing erosion and planting
riparian vegetation to reduce the impacts of valley fills on the watershed.
5.2.7 Category: Terrestrial Fauna and Flora
This category is a grouping of comments related to forest habitats, post mining forest
regeneration or natural succession, terrestrial habitats, terrestrial animals including migratory
birds and terrestrial studies. This category corresponds to category 7 in the Public Comment
Compendium document.
Comments:
There is no evidence that significant forest regeneration is occurring on valley
fills. Hardwood forest recovers within several decades following logging, or even
succession from agriculture, insects and disease; there is no evidence of such a
succession on valley fills.
Response:
DPEIS studies have indicated that historically, reestablishing hardwood forests on
reclaimed mine sites has had limited success. However, studies by Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University and University of Kentucky, described in Section IV.C, identified hardwood
reforestation measures that, if implemented, may be successful. Action 13, which is part of the
preferred alternative, was proposed to help develop methods for and promote the use of
reforestation on surface mined lands.
Comments:
An explanation is requested on the following sentences on page III.F-9, which
appear to contradict each other since salamanders are amphibians:
"Amphibian and reptile species richness and abundance do not differ
between grassland, shrub/pole, fragmented forest, and intact forest
habitats from mountaintop mine sites in southern West Virginia" (Wood
and Edwards, 2001) [see Appendix E for details].
Page 47 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
"Salamanders appear to be less common in the grasslands of reclaimed
mountaintop mining sites than in the nearby forests" (Wood and Edwards,
2001).
Response:
The first sentence refers to amphibians and reptiles collectively; the second, to only
salamanders. The relative proportion of amphibians and reptiles changes from one habitat type to
another, particularly from wetter habitat types to drier ones. A clarification to more accurately
reflect the language of the study was made to Section III.F.S.c on the errata sheet.
Comments:
Bill Mackey, former head of forestry in West Virginia, should have been
interviewed and his concerns addressed in the document. In addition, other
comments asserted that no regional experts were used for these studies, only
outside experts.
Response:
Four of the five terrestrial studies were conducted by regional experts, including West
Virginia University and Concord College (Athens, West Virginia). See Table II. A.-1 in Section
II.A.2 for a list of all of the technical studies and their authors. In addition, the preferred
alternative includes an action to develop a Best Management Practice Manual for reforestation
with input from the local research community.
Comments:
Information from the Society of American Foresters published data indicating
that tree planting and the forest industry are thriving in the United States. These
data contradict studies in the DPEIS that deal with forestry and these conflicts
should be reconciled.
Response:
Information from the Society of American Foresters provided by the commenter concerns
forestry production on a national scale. The DPEIS evaluated impacts to forest only within the
study area. A DPEIS study (Handel, 2003) focused on mountaintop mining sites in West
Virginia, and found that reforestation is not occurring through natural succession on most of the
MTM/VF areas examined.
Comments:
The DPEIS fails to identify and analyze effective mitigation measures to reduce
bird losses. The DPEIS suggestion that reforestation is a panacea to mitigate the
negative effects of mining on interior forest habitat within the foreseeable future
is wrong and misleading. BMPs (Action 13) would be voluntary, and state or
Federal legislative change (Action 14) could take years. Also, it is inappropriate
to consider replacing high quality forest habitat with grassland habitat for "rare "
eastern grassland species that didn 't occur here historically.
Page 48 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
The commenter supports Action 13 to develop a BMP manual for growth media
and reclamation with trees. The DPEIS recognizes that; 'impacts to soils from
MTM/VF are not irreversible and that over time, soils similar to those that existed
prior to mining are likely to be re-established on reclaimed mine sites'. EISIV C-
7. This is an area where OSM rulemaking could make a significant contribution
to minimizing the impact ofMTM operations by removing existing impediments to
planting trees.
Maintaining extensive tracts of mature deciduous forests to support the high
diversity of mature forest birds, many of which are high conservation concern
species, is one of the highest Partners in Flight conservation priorities within the
PEIS study area. The commenter encourages every effort to minimize the removal
and fragmentation of existing mature forest habitat in the PEIS study area.
The DPEIS fails to identify and analyze reasonable alternatives to avoid bird
losses, a fatal flaw. Combined with the fatal flaw of not properly addressing
priority bird species, the DPEIS fails to comply with NEPA.
The only mitigation offered in the DPEIS for the destruction of large areas of
hardwood forest habitat by mining operations is a suggestion that the mine sites
could be reforested after operations cease. Convincing evidence that a hardwood
forest, essentially the same as the one removed during mining, can be
reestablished in a reasonable amount of time, needs to be presented before this
method can be offered as mitigation for the loss of hundreds of thousands of acres
of biologically diverse hardwood forest habitat.
Response:
The DPEIS acknowledges the importance of study area forest habitats in the DPEIS study
area to migratory birds and other wildlife, and proposed Action 13, included in the preferred
alternative, would develop and promote guidelines for reforestation of surface mined areas.
Removal of the trees before surface coal mining operations is required under SMCRA, although
mining is not the only reason that logging occurs in this region. Reforestation provides the
opportunity for the long-term restoration of habitat. Although establishing grass may be an
element in the reclamation process required under SMCRA, Action 13 is anticipated to
encourage reforestation with species that would approximate native forest habitat. In the
meantime, agencies will continue to consider the cumulative impacts on terrestrial habitats when
evaluating projects on a permit-by-permit basis. Impacts of the alternatives on bird species were
considered in the DPEIS. The preferred alternative includes Action 13 to foster reforestation to
ameliorate the impacts of lost forest habitat.
The agencies agree that BMP's are voluntary and that legislative change might take
years. However, for the reasons outlined in the description of the alternatives, the agencies do not
regard these factors as barriers to success.
Page 49 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Comments:
The failure to include alternatives that would protect some migratory bird habitat
violates Executive Order 13186, which requires Federal agencies to cooperate
with FWS to promote the conservation of migratory birds.
Response:
In January 2001, the President signed Executive Order 13186 directing Federal agencies
to conserve migratory birds. The Executive Order directs each Federal agency taking actions
having or likely to have a negative impact on migratory bird populations to work with the FWS
to develop an agreement to conserve those birds. The protocols developed by the consultation are
intended to guide future agency regulatory actions and policy decisions; renewal of permits,
contracts or other agreements; and the creation of or revisions to land management plans.
In addition to avoiding or minimizing impacts to migratory bird populations, agencies are
expected to take reasonable steps that include restoring and enhancing habitat, preventing or
abating pollution affecting birds, and incorporating migratory bird conservation into agency
planning processes whenever possible. Because the Executive Order does not apply to actions
delegated by Federal agencies to states, it has limited applicability in SMCRA permitting actions
in all of the study area states except Tennessee. The Tennessee Federal program under SMCRA
complies with the Executive Order. Provisions of the COE/FWS and EPA/FWS MOUs
implementing this Executive Order would apply in all of the states within the study area. No
change to the DPEIS is necessary.
Comments:
Recent research indicates that as landscapes fall below a threshold of about 82%
forest cover, the ecological integrity of the forest community becomes
increasingly compromised. Projected impacts from MTM/VF alone will bring the
study area forest cover close to this threshold and will cause some landscape-
level areas within this larger area to fall well below this threshold.
The projected level of forested habitat loss constitutes a significant negative
impact for the entire mature forest suite of birds, especially for Cerulean Warbler,
the forest species of highest concern in this area. Other species affected include:
ridgetops - yellow-throated warbler, Eastern wood pewee, scarlet tanager,
ovenbird, wood thrush; mature mixed-mesophy tic forest along headwater streams
("coves") — Louisiana waterthrush, worm-eating warbler, Kentucky warbler,
Acadian fly catcher, wood thrush.
DPEIS cumulative impact figures suggest a massive and permanent impact within
the PEIS study area on the entire suite of priority mature forest birds (cerulean
warbler, Louisiana waterthrush, worm-eating warbler, Kentucky warbler, wood
thrush, yellow-throated vireo, Acadian flycatcher) due to estimated forest loss of
11.5% of the total forest cover in the study area.
According to Partners In Flight bird conservation plans, mature forest birds are a
high conservation priority within the PEIS study area, whereas grassland birds
Page 50 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
are not. In addition, the creation of poor quality, early-successional habitats that
may be suitable for some shrub-nesting species does not justify, or in any way
compensate, the removal and fragmentation of extensive mature forest areas
within the PEIS study area.
Response:
The cumulative impacts to forest habitats identified in the DPEIS lend emphasis to the
need for reforestation efforts such as those proposed in Action 13 in the preferred alternative.
This information could be considered by the regulatory agencies when evaluating projects, with a
view toward minimizing future impacts.
Comments:
The statement on page III.F-11 conflicts with the findings of the Cumulative
Impact Study (CIS) and the terrestrial technical studies. The CIS found that
abundant habitat will continue to exist in the region even when mining
disturbance is assumed to have the greatest impact (no reforestation) and mining
is considered along with all other human activities. According to the CIS, the
area will remain 87.5% forested. The Wood and Edwards terrestrial technical
study found that forest-interior species were present in the fragmented forest area
created by mining. As noted in a subsequent paragraph in this same section, the
majority of species have the same abundance in the fragmented forest as the
intact forest.
The DPEIS has already acknowledged that existing rules and regulations imposed
by SMCRA are the biggest factors preventing reforestation. With the renewed
emphasis on reforestation and tree growth that will result from the PEIS
alternatives, it is reasonable to assume that tree reclamation will increase in the
study area. However, if tree reclamation was not advocated in the PEIS
alternatives, scientific research indicates that these grassland and shrub/pole
habitats are supporting a healthy and diverse terrestrial community with species
of both forest-interior and grasslands being recorded on reclaimed areas.
Some forest edge and grassland species (certain reptiles, birds, mammals,
raptors, etc.) are positively impacted by the terrestrial habitat diversity created by
MTM. [page II.C-75] The PEIS documents that there has been an increase in the
abundance of edge and grassland bird species at reclaimed MTM sites, [page
III.F-7]
On page III.F-8, second paragraph - "Some argue that mountaintop mining has
the potential to negatively impact, in particular neotropical migrants, through
direct loss and fragmentation of mature forest habitats. Forest interior
species... have significantly higher populations (at least one year of the two-year
study) in intact forests than fragmented forests. Furthermore, cerulean
warblers...are more likely to be found in a forest area as distance from a mine
increases. These data suggest that forest-interior species are negatively impacted
by mountaintop mining through direct loss of forest habitat and fragmentation of
Page 51 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
the terrestrial environment. " The data presented in the DPEIS technical studies
DO NOT support such a conclusion. Higher populations of forest interior species
in intact forests versus fragmented forest in one year of a two-year study are far
from conclusive.
Response:
The Wood and Edwards study found that four forest-interior species (Acadian flycatcher,
scarlet tanager, blue-headed vireo, and ovenbird) were less abundant in fragmented habitat than
intact forest. The MTM/VF study area is the core North American breeding area for a number of
forest interior species; the core breeding area for the grassland species using the reclaimed mines
does not include the study area.
Additional work by Weakland and Wood (2002) found that cerulean warblers are
negatively affected by mountaintop mining from loss of forested habitat, particularly ridgetops,
and by fragmentation. The Southern Environmental Law Center petitioned the FWS to list the
cerulean warbler as threatened and to designate critical habitat. The FWS's 90-day finding
identified mountaintop mining as one of the threats to this species, and noted that "unfortunately,
the area of the country with the highest density of ceruleans is also in a coal-mining region where
mountaintop removal mining is practiced." (See 67 FR65083 (Oct 23, 2002)).
The agencies recognize that this study was of limited scope. The agencies considered it
but did not rely on it in the analysis of the alternatives. Page IV.D-4 provides additional
information on this topic.
Comments:
No studies on edge bird populations were conducted in Virginia where the typical
permit size is smaller than sites used in the study. Therefore, the conclusions in
the report may not be applicable to Virginia.
The DPEIS gives the reader the impression that all surface mines leave huge
tracts of grasslands. This is not true in Virginia. More than 85% of all mined land
in Virginia is returned to forestland.
page III.F-12 Appalachian Forest Communities — characterizes reclaimed mined
lands in the study area as, "...often limited in topographic relief, devoid of
flowing water, and most commonly dominated by erosion-controlling, herbaceous
communities ". This characterization is not accurate for reclaimed mine lands in
Southwest Virginia. Eighty five percent of reclaimed mined lands in Virginia are
returned to forests. Most reclaimed mined lands in Virginia are returned to the
approximate original contour including re-establishing drainage patterns.
Many of the generalizations made about the study area do not or should not apply
to Virginia's coalfields. It is clear that many of the referenced studies included in
the Appendix and narrative in Chapter III do not include Virginia. It's unclear
and, most readers/reviewers will probably be unsure, if Virginia's seven coalfield
counties were part of the areas actually studied for the PEIS.
Page 52 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
This PEIS evaluates programmatic alternatives that, if implemented, would be applicable
to individual mountaintop mining operations and conditions in Appalachia. The DPEIS provided
an opportunity to collect updated data on a range of surface mining impacts and led the agencies
to prepare and evaluate the alternatives and actions presented. However, analysis of the
alternatives was not dependent on representative data from all locations within the study area.
The PEIS focuses on the similarities of the Appalachian coalfield states' programs and affected
environments, rather than their unique differences. Any further action supported by this PEIS
would involve further coordination with and participation by the appropriate state agencies and
would take into account the applicable state laws, regulations, mining methods, and unique
environmental conditions.
Before implementing many of the individual actions considered as part of the
alternatives, there will be a need for the collection and analysis of additional scientific data and if
appropriate, additional public participation and NEPA analysis.
5.2.8 Category: Threatened & Endangered, Candidate, and Species of
Concern
This category is a grouping of comments related to Federal Threatened, Endangered, or
Candidate species and state listed species. This category also includes comments on the
regulatory program interaction with the Endangered Species Act. This category corresponds to
category 8 in the Public Comment Compendium document.
Comments:
The DPEIS underestimates impacts on threatened and endangered species.
The public should have the opportunity to comment on the biological assessment
before implementing it.
Response:
Limited evaluation of threatened and endangered (T&E) species was provided in the
DPEIS. The agencies noted that a more detailed evaluation was anticipated to be provided in a
Biological Assessment (BA) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Pending
compliance with the ESA, the DPEIS indicated that there could be impacts to threatened and
endangered species [see page II.C-90]. However, in the process of making a determination of
effects, the agencies determined that there would be no effects on T&E species as a result of the
preferred alternative. The agencies reached this conclusion because the DPEIS was
programmatic and identified actions in the alternatives for consideration in concept.
Each of the Alternatives is made up of a series of individual actions listed in Table II.C.I,
in Section II.C. Table II.B-2 describes the distinctions among the alternatives. The list of T & E
species known to inhabit the study area is found in Appendix F. CWA and SMCRA regulatory
agencies must either consult or coordinate with the FWS, as appropriate, to ensure the protection
Page 53 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
of endangered or threatened species and their critical habitats as determined under the ESA (see
Section II.C.l 1 (page II.C-92).
If the actions in any of the alternatives were fully developed and implemented, the
environmental benefits could include using and/or developing best scientific methodologies.
Each of the action alternatives would lead to establishing common criteria and science-based
methods for determining baselines, impacts, and mitigation requirements. Monitoring
information could be used to identify and evaluate T & E listed species habitats; stream reaches
supporting naturally diverse and high quality aquatic populations, sole or principal drinking
water source aquifers; or other specially protected areas. By inclusion of a habitat quality
evaluation, as well as CWA Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines analysis (or its equivalent) in all three
action alternatives, the least-damaging practicable alternative for the placement of fill in waters
of the U. S. may be chosen.
Improved communications and the use of a designated regulatory authority as a focal
point for initial data collection should result in better cataloguing of T & E species and would
address this issue at the earliest possible stages of permit review. If T & E species are present,
measures required to protect them will be required.
Under Action 17, the agencies would identify and implement program changes, as
necessary and appropriate, to ensure that the proposed action is carried out in full compliance
with the ESA. To the extent necessary to assure compliance with the ESA, this action envisions
development of additional species-specific procedures and protective measures to further
minimize adverse effects for listed species that occur in the steep slope mining region, beyond
those requirements outlined in the 1996 Biological Opinion (BO). These actions could include
survey protocol, monitoring requirements (e.g., water quality and quantity), protective restriction
(e.g., buffer zones, seasonal restriction), and prohibitions (e.g., operations that would jeopardize
the species). These species-specific procedures and protective measures can be used to develop
area-wide plans that would assist mining companies in preparing their mining plans. For
example, baseline information on species presence, standardized protective measures, and
monitoring of potential cumulative impacts can be developed on a regional or watershed scale
that would assist reviews of individual projects.
Each of the actions in the action alternatives in the PEIS calls for developing certain
potential measures to minimize impacts from MTM/VF activities that now are conceptual,
preliminary, and undeveloped. The agencies have not yet determined the specific techniques or
technologies that would be employed, the specific objectives and measures that would apply, or
the products, practices, or standards that would result. Because parameters and directions for
these actions have not been developed, evaluation of the impacts of the actions on T & E species
and their designated critical habitats is not yet feasible. Until development of any action would
occur, there would be no effects from the possible action on specific T & E species and their
critical habitats.
Comments:
The cumulative effects of MTM/VF could negatively impact other species of
concern, including state-listed species. Conservation of these rare species will in
Page 54 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
part depend on whether they are given sufficient consideration when planning for
future MTM/VF locations. The commenter requests that the DPEIS give
consideration to all state-listed plants and animals, regardless if such species are
likely to become Federally-listed.
Specific species, specifically state-listed species, have not been addressed in the
DPEIS.
Response:
SMCRA and state laws require that consideration of state-listed species takes place on a
permit-by-permit basis and such consideration is therefore not included in this programmatic
EIS.
Comments:
The DPEIS fails to discuss or inadequately discusses the impacts of MTM/VF on
migratory birds and mature forest birds within the PEIS study area (Cerulean
Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Worm-eating Warbler, Kentucky Warbler,
Wood Thrush, Yellow-throated Vireo) from the projected loss of over 380,000
acres of high quality forest in the next 10 years.
The DPEIS ignores available scientific data showing higher bird densities and
higher potential losses from mining impacts. Important Cerulean Warbler
research findings by Weakland and Wood were not included in the DPEIS, even
though it was provided to DPEIS preparers.
Response:
The DPEIS discusses impacts to migratory and mature-forest birds at Section IV.D.l.a
and acknowledges potential impacts to these species through loss of habitat.
Additional work by Weakland and Wood (2002) found that cerulean warblers are
negatively affected by mountaintop mining from loss of forested habitat, particularly ridgetops,
and by fragmentation. Information on the Weakland and Wood findings has been added to the
errata section of this document.
Comments:
Action 17 is unnecessary. The most recent biological opinion issued by FWS says
that: "... surface coal mining conducted in accordance with properly implemented
state and Federal regulatory programs under SMCRA would not be likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or species proposed to be
listed, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or
proposed critical habitats." Endangered species issues can be adequately
addressed on a permit-by-permit basis under existing regulations.
Response:
The commenter is referred to the DPEIS, Section II.C [page II.C-90], for a description of
the regulatory program interaction with the Endangered Species Act, and the need for Action 17.
Page 55 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Comments:
On page II.C-90, Threatened and Endangered Species — The statements and
assumptions of the DP ElS fail to consider the scope of the activities in question.
The Cumulative Impact Study (CIS) determined that mining affects only a small
portion of the study area, which will remain dominated by densely forested areas.
The same technical study found that headwater streams comprise 60% of all
streams in the region and that mining has the potential to impact only 4.10% of
these streams. The commenter believes that, in preparing the Biological Opinion
(BO), the agencies MUST consider these factors because it is very apparent that
neither mining nor any human activity will result in massive elimination of
existing fish and wildlife habitat.
The commenter believes that the BO, to be adequate, must also consider the
positive effects of mining-created habitats for certain species of wildlife. The
DPEIS terrestrial studies failed to show that current mining and reclamation
practices were adversely impacting existing wildlife assemblages because species
thought to be rare and declining in the study region were found in reclaimed
areas. These unexpected species are targeted for conservation efforts.
The commenter states that at least one of the technical studies went to great
lengths to ignore these terrestrial gains. The same mistakes cannot be repeated in
the BO if it is to adequately protect threatened and endangered species.
Response:
The commenter is referred to the PEIS, Section II.C.ll [page II.C-90], which describes
the ESA compliance process. Pending compliance with the ESA, the DPEIS indicated that there
could be impacts to threatened and endangered species. However, in the process of making a
determination of effects, the agencies determined that there would be no effects on T&E species
as a result of the preferred alternative. The agencies reached this conclusion because the DPEIS
was programmatic and identified actions in the alternatives for consideration in concept. Further
development of the individual actions would define them sufficiently to allow evaluation of their
effects on T&E species. At that time, any additional required compliance with the ESA would be
carried out as appropriate.
5.2.9 Category: Cumulative Impacts
This category is a grouping of comments related to the cumulative impacts analysis in the
DPEIS. This category includes comments on the adequacy of the cumulative impact analysis on
social, economic, cultural, emotional and spiritual health. This category corresponds to Category
9 in the Public Comment Compendium document.
Comments:
The DPEIS cumulative impact analysis is inadequate, and called for the FPEIS to
revise the evaluation of cumulative impacts on socio-economic factors and
cultural, emotional, physical, and spiritual health. A "partial" cultural study
Page 56 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
performed by an ethnographer at the University of Pennsylvania is available. A
2003 economic report to the Governor of Tennessee illustrating that coal mining
influence on the Tennessee economy is small when compared to other business.
Response:
Because this "programmatic" DPEIS evaluates broad Federal actions, it proposes only the
direction for future actions. In complying with Section 102 of NEPA, the DPEIS evaluated
cumulative impacts in a general manner consistent with other programmatic NEPA documents.
The agencies recognize the importance of socio-economic factors and intangible values such as
cultural and spiritual health. Because these issues are intangible and complex, there are many
different methods for evaluating them. The commenters suggested alternative methods for
analyzing the impacts on these intangible factors. The information provided by the commenters
regarding socio-economic conditions and communities was considered. However, the agencies'
approach was consistent with Section 102 of NEPA, which requires that these values be given
"appropriate" consideration. Emphasis was placed on analysis of those impacts and issues
identified as most important in the scoping process. For example, see the issues identified in
Section I.G and Section II.A.3 of the PEIS. The DPEIS describes the baseline socioeconomic
conditions in Chapter III and describes the consequences of the alternatives for these
socioeconomic conditions in Chapter IV.
Comments:
Cumulative impacts were not addressed in the DPEIS in sufficient detail.
Commenters cited a need for more expansive, site-specific information and
analysis on economics, cultural, and environmental consequences.
A commenter questioned whether sections of the DPEIS relative to Tennessee
data on active and abandoned mining, coal reserves, parks, newly discovered
plants and animals, wildlife management areas, economic conditions,
climatology, population, land use, and transportation were complete or up-to-
date.
Another commenter suggested that the inadequacy of cumulative impact analysis
should have been overcome by commissioning the National Academies of Science
and Engineering for independent review.
The PEIS should be expanded to include cumulative impacts of non-metallic
mineral operations.
Response:
NEPA analyses of cumulative impacts for a programmatic EIS are, by their very nature,
general. The CEQ regulations and guidelines on preparing NEPA documents and case law
clearly indicate that the level of detail required of a site-specific project proposal is not necessary
for a broad programmatic EIS. This NEPA document was not intended to supplant the site-
specific data collection and analyses that occur prior to mining authorization.
Page 57 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
The cumulative impact analysis data collection and evaluation within this document is
commensurate with or more expansive than similar analysis in other programmatic EIS
documents. Non-metal mining, including quarries and gravel pits, was included in the Landscape
Scale Cumulative Impact Study of Mountaintop Mining Operations (Appendix I). The stated
purpose of the PEIS, in terms with the Bragg settlement agreement, was limited to steep-slope
surface coal mining in Appalachian where excess spoil disposal occurs. Commissioning the
National Academies to conduct such analyses is within the discretion of Federal agencies, but
not mandated. The agencies explored Academy work for some portions of the PEIS work, but
concluded that this was not a feasible option.
Comments:
There is no systematic evaluation in the DPEIS of the cumulative impacts of the
loss of headwater streams. This is not mentioned in the Executive Summary or in
the alternatives and evaluation sections.
Response:
An adequate level of cumulative impact assessment was made by modeling the landscape
to determine the total length of stream channels in the study area and by using past permit
information to determine the rate of impact for the past ten years. The DPEIS has projected into
the future by assuming that the rate of coal mining will continue at the level it has in the past ten
years (although factors such as the price of coal, competitiveness, availability of coal reserves,
difficulty of mining affect the rate) and extrapolating that into the future.
Comments:
Only one technical study looked at cumulative aquatic impacts and it showed that
the effects of valley fills were additive.
Response:
The agencies believe the commenter is referring to the Ecological Assessment of Streams
in the Coal Mining Region of West Virginia Using Data Collected by the U.S. EPA and
Environmental Consulting Firm (Fulk et a/., Feb, 2003; Appendix D, Part 2). A number of
limitations were recognized including the following: a small number of sample sites, less than a
full year of data, omission of other types of fill impacts such as highways and commercial
development, and difficulties in attributing cause and effect relationships for cumulative impacts.
In its analysis, the study did not consider the number or age of fills to investigate whether water
quality impacts were any of the following: (1) seasonal; (2) dependent on other factors such as
rainfall; or (3) decreased over time and/or distance from the fills. The agencies considered these
limitations when evaluating the aquatic environment. Therefore, the one study was not used as
the basis for making broad assumptions about the impacts of valley fills on downstream aquatic
functions.
Page 58 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
5.2.10 Category: Social Values
This category is a grouping of comments related to environmental justice, community,
socio-economic, demographic, quality of life, aesthetic and cultural concerns. This category
corresponds to category 10 in the Public Comment Compendium document.
Comments:
The DPEIS does not accurately or adequately portray socio-economic,
demographic, and other types of social/cultural data or community resources
particularly for VA, TN, andKY.
Response:
The DPEIS only generally describes such data. Because this is a programmatic EIS,
implementation of the individual actions under the preferred alternative would, as appropriate,
include APA and NEPA procedures that would require detailed information from affected states
and take into account local and unique conditions. Also it must be pointed out that a
programmatic NEPA document such as this is, by its very nature, general. CEQ regulations and
guidelines on preparing NEPA documents clearly indicate that the level of detail of a site-
specific project proposal is not required for a broad programmatic EIS. This PEIS document
evaluates impacts in a general manner consistent with other programmatic NEPA documents.
Comments:
The 2003 DPEIS fails to comply with Executive Order 12898 (Environmental
Justice) and did not discuss environmental justice concerns sufficiently. This is
another blatant lack of regard for low-income populations and their
disproportionate share of the impacts. This population needs to be addressed in
any PEIS regarding mountaintop mining and valley fills, solely because they are
the most vulnerable to governmental actions in this region.
Response:
The agencies made a significant effort to identify and reach out to EJ communities (see
Sections III.P through T and IVJ). A significant portion of the PEIS study area includes
economically disadvantaged communities. There appears to be a potential for ecological,
environmental, economic, heritage, and cultural impacts that could potentially represent risks to
the communities in question. Just four of the 69 study area counties had a per capita income
exceeding its state average per capita income in 1990. Therefore, the outreach the agencies
conducted to reach residents of the study area was effectively outreach to members of the EJ
community. Outreach efforts included mailing letters announcing public meetings to
approximately 2,500 citizens in the Appalachian coalfield area. In addition, the agencies mailed
additional letters requesting comments on the scope of the PEIS and published newspaper
notices requesting comments from all of the states in the study area. The agencies received and
considered over 700 scoping comments, and approximately 4,700 comments on the DPEIS from
the four states within the study area. In addition, the agencies anticipated that to some significant
extent, citizen groups whose participation in the PEIS was actively sought would actively and
effectively present EJ community concerns (see page 1-12).
Page 59 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Although not specifically identified as EJ concerns, issues of central concern to EJ
communities were discussed throughout the DPEIS. For example, EJ was addressed in Sections
II.A.S.f, IV.H, IV.I, and IV.K. In light of the fact that this is a programmatic EIS, the actions
contemplated have not been sufficiently developed to allow a mores specific evaluation of
impacts on the EJ community. That evaluation will have to await further development of the
actions.
Comments:
The DPEIS fails to adequately address the cultural concerns expressed during
scoping and further study is recommended (e.g., wild ginseng habitat loss and
associated economic impact). The DPEIS begins to address cultural resources
and their significance but it does not clarify the true cost of the loss of these
resources relative to the short term gains from MTM.
Response:
Appalachian coalfield residents do have a unique social and cultural connection to the
natural environment. For coalfield residents, the quality of the natural environment is important
both as a source of income and an integral element of Appalachian culture. Sections III.U.5 and
III.U.6 present an overview of the relationship between the natural environment, Appalachian
culture, and coal mining. The cumulative effects of mining may ultimately affect the human
environment in ways such as land use and potential development, as described in Section III.S;
historic and archaeological resources, as described in Section HIT; and the cultural, social, and
economic importance of existing landscape and environmental quality, as described in Section
III.U. All three action alternatives would facilitate a better understanding by the public of the
regulatory process and therefore facilitate their input regarding social concerns that should be
factored in permit decision-making. This improved efficiency would result in mining companies
having more predictability in their planning processes, resulting in reduced costs and time.
Comments:
The language of the PEIS favors the coal mining industry and ultimately supports
the goals of the coal industry over other options.
Response:
The agencies identified some assertions and allegations that reflect differences in
opinions or preferred outcomes of commenters. Some of those comments reflected different
interpretations of study conclusions or DPEIS analyses. In many cases, the commenters provided
no clarification or additional data to support their assertions. The agencies reviewed these
comments but did not agree with the allegations of bias. The bases for the analyses and
conclusions for the PEIS are stated throughout the PEIS and including these responses.
Comments:
Many sites may have historical significance such as portions of Blair Mountain
and the Stanley family on Kayford Mountain. An assessment of cultural and
historic losses is needed.
Page 60 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
If MTM/VF projects may impact historic properties, the projects are coordinated with the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), which operates to protect historic and cultural
resources consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The mission of the
SHPO is to encourage, inform, support, and participate in the efforts of people of the state to
identify, recognize, preserve and protect prehistoric and historic structures, objects and sites
[pageIV.G-2].
Comments:
What are the actual costs to the communities and people that suffer the effects of
MTM/VF? This mining affects the very poor, the powerless and oppressed people.
Economic development only reaches 6% of the destroyed mountains.
Some commenters requested the agencies identify and/or provide detailed,
additional information, history, data, and examples of specific site plans, or
permit decisions that support statements, conclusions and/or positions in the
DPEIS. Other commenters requested an indication of where, in the DPEIS,
explanations or specific information may be found.
Response:
Those comments were considered but the information requested was either more specific
than is appropriate for a programmatic document or currently exists in Sections III.U and IV.H
of the DPEIS.
Comments:
Coal companies should not be permitted to destroy local communities in the
process of MTM/VF mining. Community residents with homes and farms should
be protected from the consequences of such damage. Under current law, a
homeowner can pursue a damage claim in court. The practical problem is the
cost of hiring attorneys and the litigation costs in hiring expert witnesses.
Response:
The impacts of MTM/VF on communities are analyzed throughout Chapters III and IV.
Concerns about the costs of pursuing remedies under statutes other than the SMCRA and CWA
are outside the scope of this PEIS.
Comments:
The demographic realities of the study area stress the economic and social
importance of the coal industry. Coal mining activity creates substantial
economic activity through high-paying wages for coal miners and demand for
goods and service related directly to coal extraction. The ripple effect of this
activity is tremendous and mining is the only economic driving force in a majority
of the study area. However, mining will never occur on a scale large enough to
eliminate or even substantially impact the rich culture and history of Central
Appalachia.
Page 61 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
Coal mining practices have profoundly affected the communities and residents of the
Appalachian coalfields since coal mining first commenced in the region. Sections III.U.l.
through III.U.4. provide an overview of the past and current interaction between the coal mining
industry and the residents of Appalachia. A decline in the physical state of the community may
affect the economic status of local residents. Coal companies frequently built and maintained
local infrastructure, from housing to plumbing and even churches, in the coal towns of
Appalachia in varying degrees of quality. Today, many coalfield communities not only receive
revenue from taxes on coal property and employment, but also donations of money, land, and
company equipment to support civic organizations, [page IV.G-2]
Setting public policy to balance environmental protection and energy needs is not a
simple matter for Congress, the agencies implementing Federal law, state legislatures, or state
agencies implementing state or Federal law. Normal supply and demand principles govern the
energy market. For instance, the type of coal needed to comply with the Clean Air Act also
influences demand. If a certain type of coal is required to meet clean air requirements and is
more expensive to mine, then the cost of electricity to consumers will go up. [page IV.I-1]
5.2.11 Category: Economic Values
This category is a grouping of comments related to adverse economic impacts of new
regulations to restrict mining, economic benefits of mining and the economic analysis. This
category also includes comments on property values. This category corresponds to category 11 in
the Public Comment Compendium document.
Comments:
The coal industry and, in turn, the coalfield communities will suffer with the
inclusion in the PEIS of alternatives or actions that create more stringent
regulations.
Alternatives and actions in the PEIS must consider the benefits of coal mining
(i.e. severance taxes, electricity, employment, etc.) and the adverse impacts that
any new regulations to restrict mining would have on everyone in the coalfields.
A long-term economic study should be conducted about "everything this is
costing us, " not just the economic benefits of coal mining. The economic study
indicated that even under the most restrictive MTM scenarios, little adverse
economic impact would result.
Response:
The agencies do not agree that the mere act of including or considering alternatives in a
PEIS can cause an adverse impact. As indicated in Sections III.Q and IV.I.2 of the DPEIS the
economic costs of regulatory compliance are not significantly different among the alternatives;
because there were no alternatives carried forward that would adopt new regulations to restrict
mining. Rather, the alternatives emphasized other means to reduce the environmental impacts of
mining. These two chapters also discuss the economic benefits of coal mining operations to an
area. However the economic studies did show a direct correlation between fill size and shifts in
Page 62 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
production due to increased mining costs. Additional information on the economic studies
conducted can be found in Appendix G.
Comments:
A significant failure of the DPEIS is that it fails to analyze in a meaningful way
the economic impacts of mining restrictions. The agencies rejected a 2-phase
economic study that had been prepared specifically for this DPEIS that addressed
the economic impact based upon differing fill restrictions alternatives. Since the
fill restriction alternatives were not carried forward in the DPEIS, the economic
studies were described as no longer being essential for an analysis of the
alternatives developed.
Response:
The economic studies were not rejected. The studies have been provided in the DPEIS.
However, the economic reports were not essential for the full development and analysis of the
alternatives selected for inclusion in the DPEIS.
Comments:
The Phase I and Phase II economic studies are seriously flawed and many parts
of the DPEIS are not supported by accurate, fact-based studies. Conclusions
drawn in the DPEIS and any actions taken in response to these conclusions may
be considered arbitrary and capricious. Any actions taken as a result of this PEIS
need to be justified by separate, accurate, fact-based studies and not rely on the
information in the DPEIS.
The effects of the 250-acre threshold require more explanation in the PEIS as the
reader is left with the impression that the limit is impact-free, which it clearly is
not: reserve bases are being reduced and the projected life of particular mine
sites are being diminished with coincident reductions in employment, state tax
collections etc.
Response:
In the cover sheet to Appendix G, the agencies indicated that the site-specific results of
the Phase I and II economic studies have limitations and should not be relied on as representative
of potential future mining and fill areas or as precise with respect to production change estimates.
It was recognized in Section IV.I.2 of the DPEIS that implementation of any future agency
action (e.g. more stringent fill minimization regulations) following the FPEIS would, as
appropriate, include independent NEPA, legal and regulatory analysis of the relevant economic
consequences of any such action.
No further explanation of the effects of the 250 acre threshold alternative is required for
the reasons set out in Section II.D. This alternative was not carried forward.
Comments:
The PEIS should address the impact any decrease in mining would have on the
Federal Abandoned Mined Land program and the UMWA Combined Benefit
Page 63 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Funds when looking at the potential loss of mining as a result of the PEIS
alternatives.
DP ElS fails to consider the monetary value of eco-system services to the current
and future economy.
Response:
A programmatic NEPA document such as this is, by its very nature, general. CEQ
regulations and guidelines on preparing NEPA documents clearly indicate that the level of detail
of a site-specific project proposal is not necessary for a broad programmatic EIS. This PEIS
document evaluates impacts in a general manner consistent with other programmatic NEPA
documents.
Comments:
Agencies have not analyzed the availability of coal resources outside of
Appalachia. Therefore the economic analysis is not adequate.
Response:
The agencies do not agree with the commenter's assertion that the agencies did not
consider the availability of coal resources outside of Appalachia, See Sections IV.1.1-2.
Comments:
Economic diversification and social stabilization (by relocating flood prone
communities) are real possibilities only if alternative post-mining land uses, other
than reforestation, are preserved in the regulatory program.
Response:
This comment appears to refer to Action 14 (page II.C-83). Changes in the current
regulatory program, such as requiring reforestation as the only post mining land use, would
require Congressional action. Such legislation may provide exceptions to reforestation if another
land use would provide greater environmental benefits.
Comments:
The FPEIS should not focus on the ability of mitigation to economically
discourage fill placement, since fill minimization is already addressed through
SMCRA and the CWA Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines.
The reality of increased and what appears to be punitive mitigation requirements
(e.g. conservation easements) will not result in further minimized fills, it will only
add yet another economic constraint on the ability to mine coal in this region
because the physical and economic recoverability of coal reserves is directly
correlated to the amount of fill space available.
Response:
It is correct that fill minimization is already addressed in SMCRA and the CWA Section
404(b)(l) Guidelines. The agencies, however, recognize that compensatory mitigation has an
Page 64 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
economic cost and may discourage disturbing or filling stream segments. Conservation
easements are a mitigation option and not always required. Compensatory mitigation is not
punitive but is designed to offset aquatic resource impacts.
Comments:
The analysis of the effects on property values is inadequate. The PEIS should
assess property values in communities both before and after mountaintop removal
operations begin. Property values have decreased dramatically due to the adverse
effects of surface mining. In addition, commenters expressed frustrations about
losing what they have worked hard to build, and being unable to sell their
property because it is unwanted in its current condition.
Response:
This PEIS addressed economic issues at a programmatic level. Economic issues related to
site-specific property values before and after start of mining are outside the scope of this PEIS.
Comments:
Comments were offered detailing the "takings" implication of forbidding or
severely curtailing mountaintop mining operations.
Response:
Alternatives in the PEIS that would, on a programmatic level, impose stricter limits on
mountaintop mining were not carried forward for detailed analysis.
5.2.12 Category: Government Efficiency
This category is a grouping of comments related to streamlining the permitting process.
This category corresponds to category 12 in the Public Comment Compendium document.
Comments:
States should be encouraged to assume the CWA Section 404 program, and be
provided with adequate funding.
Response:
State assumption of the CWA Section 404 program is outside the scope of the PEIS.
Comments:
Valley fills should be evaluated under CWA Section 404 as individual permits.
Fees should be increased to hire more personnel to do additional studies on
cumulative aquatic impacts.
Response:
Requiring individual permits for most MTM/VF activities is considered in Alternative 1.
The COE may further study cumulative aquatic impacts in cooperation with other agencies when
developing actions under Alternative 2, the preferred alternative (see Action 12, page II.C-69).
Page 65 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Comments:
Although supporting the need for clear, concise definitions and procedures for
issues such as jurisdictional waters, the DPEISfails to develop such issues/terms.
Response:
There are currently different definitions of jurisdictional waters for CWA, SMCRA and
state law as administered by various state and Federal agencies. There is an action in the
preferred alternative in the DPEIS that proposes that the Federal and/or state agencies will
develop guidance or policies, or institute rule-making for consistent definitions of stream
characteristics as well as field methods for delineating those characteristics. [Section II.C.2.b]
5.2.13 Category: Excess Spoil
This category is a grouping of comments related to excess spoil, construction of fills, fill
minimization and fill stability. This category corresponds to category 13 in the Public Comment
Compendium document.
Comments:
In assuming under all the alternatives that excess spoil can be placed in streams,
the PEIS makes no provision for analysis of the benefits of maintaining the
current level of protection afforded by the SBZ rule (i.e., precluding placement of
excess spoil in streams).
Response:
The PEIS considered precluding placement of valley fills in waters of the U.S. but that
alternative was not carried forward for detailed analysis (see page II.D-8). The SBZ rule is the
subject of a separate nationwide rulemaking and nationwide EIS [see proposed rulemaking
notice: 69 FR1035 (Jan 7, 2004); and Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS: 70 FR35112 (June 16,
2005)].
Comments:
A commenter recommended that more information be provided in Section III. K. 4
(Trends in Watershed Size), as to the usefulness of the excess spoil disposal trend
analysis and what impacts would be specifically anticipated.
Response:
Sections III.K.2 through 5 provide valuable information to assist in characterizing the
extent to which valley fills have affected the environment during the period of 1985-2001.
Impacts that are associated with the alternatives that were carried forward are analyzed and
described in Chapter IV.
Comments:
Excess spoil fills such as valley fills and head-of-hollow fills are integral to
underground mining in Appalachia and should be considered in the analysis
presented in the PEIS.
Page 66 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
On page 1 of the Executive Summary and in Section 1C of the PEIS, the agencies clearly
indicate that underground mining activities are considered to be beyond the scope of this
document.
Comments:
Coal extraction methods require the construction of head of hollow fills and
valley fills in coal mining operations in the study area. Using valley and head of
hollow fills in this region is absolutely necessary, because when mining is
conducted in steep-slope areas such as Appalachia, the volume of the spoil
material is significantly greater than the volume of the overburden excavated
from its original geological location. This is true whether the mining methods are
mountaintop mining, contour mining, or even, in many instances, when creating
the necessary surface area to begin and support an under ground mine.
Response:
The agencies described how excess spoil is generated by surface mining operations in
Appalachia in the PEIS at Sections III.K.I.a and III.K.6. The agencies in the PEIS describe how
existing regulatory programs require operators to minimize the amount of excess spoil consistent
with the authorized post-mining land use, and limit the placement of this spoil in waters of the
U.S. (see Section II.C.5).
Comments:
A concept on page IV.1-4 related to mitigation and reduced fill sizes should
properly acknowledge that operations assure fill minimization by satisfying the
AOC mandate of SMCRA and the CWA Section 404(b)(l) analysis. The cost of
any required compensatory mitigation would reduce the economic or practical
viability of the operation.
Response:
Under the CWA Section 404(b)(l) guidelines, applicants are required to first avoid, then
minimize, impacts to waters of the U.S. Any remaining unavoidable impacts to waters of the
U.S. must be replaced through "compensatory" mitigation. During the permitting process, the
COE generally does not consider the economic impact of such mitigation costs to the applicant
on the viability of the project.
Comments:
The statement concerning long-term valley fill stability in Section 111.K.I is
misleading and it should either be removed from the FPEIS or revised to reflect
the findings of the PEIS Valley Fill Stability technical study.
Response:
The agencies do not agree that the statement concerning long-term valley fill stability in
Section III.K.l is misleading. In the introduction of Section III.K, the document states, "there is
also concern regarding long-term fill stability." The statement simply acknowledges that, as this
document was being developed, there were concerns expressed related to stability of valley fills.
Page 67 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
As discussed in Section III.K.l.c, the lead agencies initiated a study of this issue to determine if
the issue was one that would rise to the level of significance within the context of NEPA, and
thus require action(s) to be incorporated within the alternatives considered. The study found that
there were only a very small percentage of fills that had experienced stability problems. In
Section II.A.S.d, the agencies explain their rationale for not developing action(s) for this issue.
Comments:
Very isolated opportunities may exist for the placement of generated spoil on
adjacent flat areas such as AML benches. However, these occurrences would be
so rare and dependent on such a wide range of factors that they deserve no
mention as a reasonable alternative to valley fill construction. No substantial
amount of coal could ever be produced from an operation that was dependent on
an AML area for spoil placement.
Any reference to these two surface mining techniques should be deleted from
statements in Section IV.1.2.
Response:
As explained in Section IV.I.2 of the PEIS, storage of excess spoil materials on
abandoned mine benches, reclaimed mine sites, or active mining areas provides limited
opportunities for excess spoil storage that may reduce either the need for or the size of valley
fills. As such, these possible alternatives must be evaluated as part of the various regulatory
permit application processes. It is also worth noting that as discussed in Section III.K.3, between
1985 and 2001, a number of permits were issued in the study area states that did not include
valley fills. Alternative methods of excess spoil disposal other than valley fills were no doubt
part of the reasons that permits without valley fills were issued. As such, these possible
alternatives must be considered.
5.2.14 Category: Stream Habitat and Aquatic Functions
This category is a grouping of comments related to mitigation of stream habitat and
aquatic function loss. This category includes comments on functional stream assessments. This
category corresponds to Category 14 in the Public Comment Compendium document.
Comments:
The DPEIS fails to analyze the effectiveness of mitigation for stream loss.
Response:
Future actions under the preferred alternative would include monitoring and cumulative
impact analyses of stream impacts.
Comments:
The COE does not have the authority nor has it explained the recent shift in
policy to require no net loss of stream length or functions.
Page 68 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
The COE national mitigation policy is that all impacts to waters of the United States, not
just wetlands, generally require compensatory mitigation. This policy has been in existence since
2001 and was required by many COE districts prior to that time. In 2001, Regulatory Guidance
Letter 01-1 specifically discussed the need for compensatory mitigation for streams. Regulatory
Guidance Letter 02-2, which superceded the previous guidance, reinforced this policy. In
addition, when the nationwide permits were reauthorized on January 15, 2002, compensatory
mitigation for stream impacts was included in General Condition 19 on mitigation and in the
definition of compensatory mitigation. The rule-making issuing the nationwide permits went
through the Administrative Procedures Act as required. Conservation easements are encouraged,
where possible.
Comments:
The DPEIS fails to acknowledge the fact that proposed COE policy
changes/procedures would extend far beyond mining into areas such as highway
construction, etc.
Response:
The existing COE policy is to replace lost functions for all aquatic resource impacts and
is outside the scope of this PEIS.
Comments:
The DPEIS fails to present any methodology for performing functional stream
assessments. Functional assessments should be presented for public review. They
may be expensive, scientifically unproven and do not accurately measure lost
stream functions.
Response:
Stream assessments are developed using the best data available to identify indicators of
aquatic functions. The COE makes any methodology for performing functional stream
assessments available to the public and accepts comments and new data on a continuing basis.
The commenter is encouraged to provide this and similar comments to the COE.
5.2.15 Category: Air Quality
This category is a grouping of comments related to air quality, potential health risks from
mining, blasting dust and fumes, and fugitive dust. This category corresponds to Category 15 in
the Public Comment Compendium document.
Comments:
The generation and regulation of fugitive dust and other pollutants from blasting
and the potential health risks associated with these pollutants need additional
study.
Page 69 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
The agencies do not agree that the PEIS needs to contain additional studies on this issue.
The following sections of the draft and final PEIS considered these impacts:
Section III.V and Appendix G contain a recent study conducted by West Virginia
University on dust and fumes generated from blasting in the Appalachian region.
Appendix B of the DPEIS and in SMCRA regulations at 30 CFR 816.67, note that
citizens may file complaints on blasting dust or fumes, subject to investigation by the regulatory
authorities, and that the regulatory authorities do have latitude to address respirable dust and
fumes.
As proposed in Action 15 of the preferred alternative, Section IV.E.2, the DPEIS
proposes to further evaluate current programs for controlling dust and blasting fumes from
mountaintop mining and to develop BMPs and/or as appropriate, additional regulatory controls,
to further minimize any adverse effects. The PEIS recognizes that the Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) maintains exposure limits for respirable dust. Furthermore, Action 15 of
the preferred alternative would evaluate and coordinate current programs for controlling fugitive
dust and blasting fumes from MTM/VF operations and develop BMPs and/or additional
regulatory controls to minimize adverse effects, as appropriate.
5.2.16 Category: Blasting
This category is a grouping of comments related to blasting vibration, fly rock and
property damage. This category corresponds to category 16 in the Public Comment Compendium
document.
Comments:
SMCRA requires the prevention of damage to property and injury to people but
blasting is not being conducted within legal limits and protections are inadequate.
Response:
As discussed in the DPEIS Appendix B, vibration limits are set for ground and air
vibrations. The SMCRA rules require the regulatory authority to reduce the limits, if necessary to
ensure the prevention of damage or injury. A two-level test is part of each state regulatory
program. Vibrations must be within legal limits and off-site damage must be prevented. If
vibrations within allowable limits may cause damage (e.g., based on the type of structure or site
specific conditions) the blast plan must be changed to lower the limit and ensure damage does
not occur.
Comments:
More than 10 complaints exist in Tennessee for the review period of the Blasting-
Related Citizen Complaint study of Appendix G.
Page 70 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
Another review of the report reconfirmed that there were only 6 written complaints in the
files of OSM's Knoxville Field Office during the review period.
Comments:
Blasting should be classified as a "significant" issue. Reports, anecdotes, site-
specific details of blasting complaint information, and newspaper articles are
given in support of their position that the regulations should be changed.
Response:
While any property damage or public safety incident is of great concern, studies confirm
that existing blasting regulations provide sufficient controls for preventing personal injury and
damage to property. The regulatory authorities have the latitude and obligation to take action on
a case-by-case basis in the event a blasting-related incident occurs. The DPEIS outlines the
rationale for determining the issue not to be significant in Section II. A.3 and further explains the
basis for this decision in Section III.W.
5.2.17 Category: Flooding
This category is a grouping of comments related to flooding, contribution of MTM
operations to flooding, fear of flooding, and flooding analyses. This category corresponds to
category 17 in the Public Comment Compendium document.
Comments:
Mountaintop Mining (MTM) operations (along with logging) have caused floods
that are more severe now than before MTM mining began. Various explanations
were given for why this is happening: The change from pre-mining ground
surface conditions, broken rocks during and after, unregulated mining and
logging, streams being filled with debris from mines, and poorly designed or
failing sediment ponds. Some cited the studies that showed an increase in peak
flow from mined areas as proof. While on the other side some cited the same
studies showing the streams did not come out of their banks, as mining did not
cause flooding. Flooding occurred in areas where there was no mining due to
intense rainfall, steep hillsides, small narrow valleys, small road culverts, and
trash blocking bridge openings. Some highlighted the conclusions in the
referenced studies that found downstream flooding was not significantly
increased by existing mining practices if the approved drainage control plans
were properly applied.
Response:
The fear of flash flooding has been with most communities that are located in
mountainous terrain and justifiably so. The amount of water that flows past any given point is
dependant on many factors. These factors include season of the year, weather, antecedent
conditions, topography, geology, ground cover, drainage patterns, stream channels configuration,
and stream channel obstructions. Mountaintop mining will impact some of these factors within
the boundaries of its permit area. However, the hydrologic studies referenced in the PEIS
Page 71 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
[Section III.G and Appendix H] do not support the finding that mountaintop mining causes
flooding at the mine sites studied. The studies found that these mining operations, using their
approved mine plans, would increase peak discharges but would not cause an increase in out of
bank flooding. The studies also found that mining-related flooding issues were generally found
to be the result of problems associated with implementation and maintenance of the approved
mining plan and not the mine plan itself. Each mine is unique and must deal with its own set of
influencing factors. A significant effort goes into the design of drainage control plans for
mountaintop mining operations. The referenced studies in the PEIS support the success of this
design work, but the studies also show the importance of having the drainage control plans
implemented and maintained according to plan.
Comments:
The agencies involved should make sure appropriate regulations are in place so
flooding would not be allowed.
Response:
The preferred alternative proposes the development of guidelines for calculating peak
discharges for design precipitation events and evaluating flood risk. There are regulations
already in place that address requirements for controlling flood potential. In Section III.G of the
PEIS, there is a discussion of the regulatory requirements that address flooding. Action 16,
described in Section Il.C.lO.b, would further improve the ability to calculate peak discharges and
evaluate flooding risk.
Comments:
Streams are being filled with rock and debris from the mountaintop mining sites
due to transport of these materials during flooding and this causes the flooding to
be worse because the water has nowhere to go.
Response:
Mining operations must be designed under SMCRA to prevent material damage offsite
and the CWA Section 402 also precludes offsite sedimentation. Valley fills and backfills on mine
sites must also be constructed in a manner that achieves short- and long-term stability. Thus,
erosion or sliding of rocks and debris off of a mining permit would be violations of existing
provisions. However, the transport and deposition of rocks and debris is a natural process that
continually occurs in all stream channels—but can be influenced by other man-made
modifications within the watershed, stream channel, or floodplain. The DPEIS studies (see
Appendix H and K) found that when significant rainfall events occur, the impacts to the peak
runoff vary from site to site. When mountaintop mining operations are conducted in accordance
with existing regulatory drainage and sediment controls, they should not cause transport and
deposit of rocks and debris offsite.
Comments:
Editorial changes to the executive summary of one of the USGS studies to correct
the use of a phrase is suggested.
Page 72 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Specific additional detailed information about the flooding analyses done by the
COE be included in the EIS is requested.
Response:
The information on COE flooding analyses is not tracked or relevant to the finalization of
the PEIS. As discussed in the DPEIS, Section III.G, many states conduct flooding analyses as
part of the SMCRA review. WVDEP's surface water runoff analysis (SWROA) requires that
mining not increase the downstream peak above that which would have occurred without mining
impacts.
The alternatives contain an action to develop flooding analysis guidelines that should
address when flooding analyses are most appropriate. Intuitively, mining sites in closest
proximity to residences should receive the most scrutiny; however, all SMCRA permits must
include probable hydrologic consequence analyses to demonstrate that the hydrologic balance
will not be materially damaged as a result of mining (including flooding assessments).
Comments:
Ponds "break" during rainfall events releasing walls of water. The commenter
further indicated concern relevant to the construction of slurry impoundments and
underground mines.
Response:
The regulatory authorities (RA) routinely require that ponds be designed to minimize the
likelihood of failure. The RA conduct site inspections including observation of the construction,
maintenance, and function of the ponds. The regulations also require that a professional engineer
certify the proper construction of each pond. These requirements are intended to assure, to the
extent possible, that ponds constructed at mine sites are stable and function as intended. As
necessary, enforcement actions are taken to further minimize the occurrence of unplanned
releases of surface runoff. As discussed in Section III.G.2.d of the PEIS, the Citizen Complaints
Study reviewed complaints records for West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia. Only a very small
percentage of these complaints were concerned with flooding. The study found no
documentation of sediment ponds at mountaintop mine sites "breaking" and releasing walls of
water into downstream areas. The study did find that enforcement actions were taken as
necessary to correct any drainage control structure issues.
In a post-study incident in Lyburn, WV, a large amount of backfill material located above
a pond moved rapidly downslope into the pond. This caused a large volume of water to rapidly
overtop the pond embankment and did result in what would have essentially been a "wall of
water" moving downstream and flooding the downstream area. The pond embankment did not
fail (break). The above-referenced Citizen Complaint Study confirmed that this type incident is
rare and that the regulatory requirements of the SMCRA program work well to see that ponds are
stable and function as designed.
Comments:
Ponds at mountaintop mining sites cause flooding because they are poorly
maintained and too small.
Page 73 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
The agencies do not agree with the commenter's assertion. The studies referenced in the
PEIS [Section III.G.2.d] did not find that the ponds at mountaintop mining sites were designed
and constructed too small to control flooding. The studies did find that in very limited cases, the
drainage control structures were not being maintained or constructed in accordance with the
approved plan. However, where these situations were identified the RA took enforcement action
to require corrections be made to the drainage control structures.
Comments:
There was insufficient information about the SEDCAD 4 analysis in the DPEIS.
The commenter requested that the detailed data either be included in the PEIS or
the SEDCAD results be removed from the document.
Response:
The plain language summaries of both the HEC-HMS and SEDCAD 4 analysis will be
retained as presented in Section III.G.2.a of the PEIS. Both methods were used to do storm
runoff modeling. As indicated in the discussion found in the previously referenced section of the
PEIS, both models (SEDCAD 4 and HEC-HMS) used identical topographic, land use, and
hydrologic conditions or parameters for input in the model analysis. The detailed SEDCAD 4
and HEC-HMS data analysis will not be added to this document. Computer analysis for models
such as SEDCAD 4 and HEC-HMS are voluminous, each consisting literally of hundreds of
pages of technical data. If the commenter or any other interested party wishes to review the
detailed supporting data of the SEDCAD 4 modeling or the HEC-HMS modeling, it can be
requested from OSM and the COE respectively. Requests for copies of the SEDCAD 4 or HEC-
HMS modeling runs should be submitted in writing to OSM (SEDCAD 4) at 3 Parkway Center,
Pittsburgh, PA, 15220 and to the Corps (HEC-HMS) at Pittsburgh District, US Army Corps of
Engineers, ATTN: CELRP-EC-WH, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4186.
Comments:
The finding of the study titled "Comparison of Storm Response of Streams in
Small, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds" in Appendix H of the PEIS is
questionable. The commenter is concerned that the location of the data collection
sites that were between the valley fills and the sediment pond inappropriately
negates the effects of the sediment pond.
Response:
Given the purposes of this study, the agencies do not agree that its findings were
questionable. The purposes and limitations of this study are discussed in Appendix H. The study
was clear in describing where the data collection sites were located and why they were chosen.
Comments:
The July 2001 Flood Study described in Section III.G.2.C of the PEIS, should not
be included in the PEIS because some assumptions made as part of the study are
not correct.
Page 74 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
This study, described in Appendix H, was an attempt to fill a data void by collecting
information that was not available in previous research or studies. The study articulated the
assumptions that it made and the agencies took those assumptions in account in evaluating the
flooding issues. The commenter's opinion is noted; however, the study will be included in the
PEIS as it should be considered in an evaluation of the flooding issue.
5.2.18 Category: Reclamation
This category is a grouping of comments related to reclamation of mine lands, the
positive aspects of reclaimed land, compensatory mitigation, reforestation and reclamation
practices that favor introduction of non-native species. This category corresponds to categories
18 and 19 in the Public Comment Compendium document.
Comments:
The EIS should consider the positive aspects of reclaimed land such as aesthetics,
industrial development, safe housing sites, less severe flooding, and an increase
in game.
Response:
The PEIS does consider the positive aspects of reclaimed lands. In Chapters III and IV,
the PEIS provided a great deal of information on the issues of post-mining land use, flooding,
wildlife and its habitat, and many other issues. The PEIS evaluated the beneficial and adverse
effects of mountaintop mining and valley fills and the impacts of the proposed alternatives.
Comments:
Reclamation for surface mine impacts on Appalachian and Cumberland Mountain
hardwood forest must include compensatory mitigation and/or reforestation.
Response:
Action 14 (page II.C-83) in the preferred alternative would include Congressional action
to require reforestation as a post-mining land use. This action did not indicate whether Congress
was likely to take such action.
SMCRA and the CWA do not require that sites forested prior to mining would be re-
forested as a part of the post-mining reclamation requirements. The PEIS document identifies
and includes analysis of two actions related to this issue. Actions 13 and 14 [Section Il.C.S.b]
discuss these actions in detail. Section IV.C provides analysis of the anticipated impacts of these
two actions.
Comments:
The PEIS should not imply that forestry is the only desirable use of reclaimed
mine land.
Page 75 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Response:
The PEIS document does not imply that reforestation of reclaimed mine land is the only
desirable post-mining land use. The regulatory limitations related to replanting mined areas
under the SMCRA and CWA regulatory requirements are discussed in the above comment
response.
Comments:
Approximate original contour (AOC) variance is not applied consistently across
states and can be abused.
Response:
The studies prepared for this PEIS do not document any improper implementation of
AOC variance provisions. The commenter did not provide any evidence of such improper or
abusive implementation. SMCRA does not require that all states implement their regulatory
programs in an identical manner. SMCRA allows states to adapt their regulatory programs to the
unique circumstances of each state, so long as the programs are no less effective than the
provisions of SMCRA and its implementing regulations.
Comments:
The ability to successfully re-establish trees on reclaimed mine sites is
questionable. There is little or no evidence to indicate that hardwood forests (1)
are or can be successfully established on reclaimed mine sites and (2) that if
established, these forests can equal or exceed the forests that existed before
mining.
Response:
In Section IV.C.l, the PEIS discusses on-going research related to the establishment of
forest communities on reclaimed mine sites. This research, occurring at both Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and the University of Kentucky, has demonstrated that forest communities,
including a number of different hardwood species, can be successfully re-established on
reclaimed mine sites. The above referenced PEIS discussion acknowledges those historic
problems that research has identified as having inhibited the successful establishment of forests
on reclaimed mine sites and recognizes that there are likely some forest communities such as the
cove-hardwood forests that will not be able to be re-established following mining. Although the
lead agencies recognize and have acknowledged in the PEIS document that all pre-mining forest
communities can not be re-established following mining, given the findings of the on-going
research and the recent efforts to emphasize reforestation of mine sites, there can be little doubt
that valuable forest communities that meet or exceed pre-mining growth rates can be established
on reclaimed mine sites.
Comments:
The DPE1S essentially acknowledges that current reclamation practices,
particularly as they relate to soils and vegetation, violate OSM regulations as
post-mining soils support lower quality vegetation than did pre-mining soils. In
failing to propose any alternative that would include a remedy for these
Page 76 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
violations, all the proposed alternatives are illegal and are arbitrary and
capricious.
Response:
The PEIS discusses ongoing efforts to develop new approaches to achieve more effective
reforestation under SMCRA (see page IV.C-5). In Section IV.C.l, the PEIS provides a historical
perspective on post-SMCRA reclamation with trees, discussing at some length the problems
created for the successful establishment of trees in the post-mine environment. The lead agencies
included actions in this document that are intended to address the identified reforestation
concerns, which involve growth media concerns. Specifically, the PEIS identifies and includes
analysis of two actions related to this issue. Actions 13 and 14 [Section Il.C.S.b] discuss these
actions in detail. Section IV.C provides analysis of the anticipated impacts of these two actions.
Existing SMCRA procedures provide remedies for specific alleged violations of reclamation
requirements. However, the record of this PEIS does not include documentation of any specific
violations of SMCRA regulatory requirements. Therefore, the agencies have found no basis for
any additional actions other than those described above and in the PEIS.
Comments:
The use of a BMP manual to merely "encourage " reforestation as a means of
mitigating the effects of deforestation is insufficient to meet the requirements of
NEPA. NEPA requires that an EIS adequately analyze the effectiveness of
proposed mitigation measures. The DPEIS contains no analysis of whether the
BMP manual will actually increase reforestation and as such, does not meet
NEPA requirements.
Response:
The PEIS document identifies and includes analysis of two actions as part of the
preferred alternative related to the issue of reforestation of mountaintop mine sites. Actions 13
and 14 [Section Il.C.S.b] discuss these actions in detail. While it is true that proposed Action 13
includes development of BMP guidance related to this issue, proposed Action 14 is predicated on
the assumption that regulatory statutes would be changed to require reclamation with trees as the
post-mining land use. Section IV.C provides the required NEPA analysis of the anticipated
impacts of these two actions.
Comments:
Current reclamation and land use practices create habitat that adversely affects
wildlife species and favors introduction of non-native species at the expense of
native flora and fauna. The lead agencies should better coordinate and take
measures to further reduce the introduction of non-native and invasive species
into the reclamation environment.
Response:
As discussed in Section II.A.3.C, the lead agencies commissioned a study that included a
review of the use and occurrence of non-native and invasive species on reclaimed mountaintop
mining site. Based on a review of the study and the applicable SMCRA regulations, the agencies
Page 77 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
concluded that this was not a "significant issue" in the context of NEPA and as such, no actions
to address this issue were included in the alternatives considered.
Comments:
The commenter supports proposed alternatives that include BMPs related to
reclamation and revegetation, particularly revegetation with native species. The
commenter is concerned that past revegetation practices that involved certain
invasive, non-native species have already resulted in degradation to existing
native plant communities and habitats throughout the region.
Response:
The lead agencies considered the many comments that were received that either
supported or opposed the different actions and/or alternatives that are presented in this PEIS. The
concerns relevant to the impact that invasive, non-native species can have on the environment
are duly noted. However, a study commissioned by the lead agencies and discussed in Section
II.A.3.C of the PEIS does not support the concern that mine revegetation practices have already
degraded existing native plant communities and habitats throughout the region.
Comments:
The PEIS fails to consider the potential problems with large-scale land
disturbance and the encroachment of exotic and non-native species. The potential
for recolonization of reclaimed mine sites by aggressive nuisance species is
extremely high.
Response:
The PEIS did examine the issue of reclamation of mountaintop mine sites and
encroachment of exotic and non-native species. As discussed in Section II.A.S.c, the lead
agencies commissioned a study that included a review of the use and occurrence of introduced
invasive species on reclaimed mountaintop mining site. The study did not support the concern
that mine revegetation practices have already degraded existing native plant communities and
habitats in the region. Based on a review of the study and the applicable SMCRA regulations, the
agencies concluded that this was not a "significant issue" in the context of NEPA and as such, no
actions to address this issue were included in the alternatives considered.
6. Errata from the Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement
The following are changes to the DPEIS to make it serve as the FPEIS. All references to
paragraphs and sentences are relative to the page indicated. Subheadings are only indicated when
the change is on the same page as the subheading. These changes include corrections to minor
typographical errors and changes noted in the response to comments. The appendix is a
continuation of the errata that includes finalized versions of technical studies that had been in
draft form in the DPEIS and studies referenced in agency responses.
Page 78 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
• Executive Summary, page ES-3 third paragraph from the top, second and third sentences,
should read:
"Conclusions by the authors of the studies were not altered. Their conclusions in the
studies do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing this EIS."
• Executive Summary, page ES-4, fourth bullet from the bottom, last sentence, should read:
"Streams with fills generally have lower peak discharges than unmined watersheds
during most low-intensity storm events; however, this phenomenon appears to reverse
itself during higher-intensity events."
• Executive Summary, page ES-5 Table ES-1, text in the first row second column should
read:
"Maintains the regulatory programs, policies, and coordination processes, as well as
actions that existed or had been initiated in 2003."
• Executive Summary, page ES-6 Table ES-1. Text in the second row, second column, sixth
line should read.
"OSM rules would be finalized to clarify the stream buffer zone rule and make it more
consistent with SMCRA. OSM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for fill
minimization and alternatives analysis, similar to CWA Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines."
• Executive Summary, page ES-7, ninth bullet should read:
Replace the beginning of the sentence with: "Implement existing program requirements,
as necessary and appropriate, to ensure that MTM/VF is carried out in full compliance
with the Endangered Species Act."
• Section II.A, page II.A-1, block quote in the second paragraph:
"United States" is spelled incorrectly.
• Section II.A, page II.A-2, subsection 2, last sentence should read:
"These cover sheets are an aid to the reader and do not necessarily reflect the conclusions
of the agencies."
• Section II.A, page II.A-5, last line, of the second paragraph:
delete the reference, "(see Chapter ID.2)."
• Section II. B, page II.B-3, Table II.B-1, text in the first row, second column should read:
"Maintains the regulatory programs, policies, and coordination processes, as well as
actions that existed or had been initiated in 2003".
• Section II.B, page II.B-3, Table II.B-1, text in the third row, second column, sixth line
should read:
"OSM rules would be finalized to clarify the stream buffer zone rule and make it more
consistent with SMCRA. OSM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for fill
minimization and alternatives analysis, similar to CWA Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines."
• Section II.B. 2, page II.B-11, second bullet, should read:
"Implement existing program requirements, as necessary and appropriate, to ensure that
MTM/VF is carried out in full compliance with the Endangered Species Act."
• Section II. C. 2, page II. C-29 subsection a. 2, last sentence should read:
"For instance, in West Virginia, the point where the stream segment changes from
ephemeral to intermittent is located by a field procedure identifying groundwater levels."
Page 79 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
• Section II. C.10, page II. C-87, third paragraph, next to last sentence, should read:
"The USGS Ballard Fork study found that peak discharge from mined watersheds
exceeded peak discharge from unmined watersheds when rainfall intensity was greater
than 1 inch per hour."
• Section II. C.ll, page II. C-91, this and all other references to a Biological Assessment or
developing a Biological Assessment for the PEIS, should be amended with the following:
"In the process of making a determination of effects pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act, the agencies concluded that the preferred alternative would have no effects on T&E
species. In coming to this conclusion, the agencies considered the entire record before
them, including the fact that in this programmatic EIS, each of the actions in the action
alternatives in the PEIS calls for developing certain potential measures to minimize
impacts from MTM/VF activities. Each action is conceptual, preliminary, and
undeveloped. The agencies have not yet determined the specific techniques or
technologies that would be employed, the specific objectives and measures that would
apply, or the products, practices, or standards that would result. Because parameters and
directions for these actions have not been developed, evaluation of the impacts of the
actions on T & E species and their designated critical habitats is not yet feasible. Thus,
until development of any action would occur, there would be no effects from the possible
action on specific T&E species and their critical habitats."
• Section II.D.2, page II.D-8, subsection c. last sentence:
"unacceptable" is spelled incorrectly.
• Section III. C. 1, page III. C-l 0, first paragraph, first sentence should read:
"Fish species present in headwater streams tend to be representative of cold water species
or pioneer species adapted to live in ephemeral/intermittent streams, and are primarily
sustained by a diet of invertebrates (Vannote et al, 1980)."
• Section III.C.I, page III.C-l 1, insert additional text after the sentence at the top of the
page:
"The areas that were studied were important in the radiation of many different fish forms
(e.g., the six endemic fishes in the New River drainage). It is important to note that
speciation is not a phenomenon that occurred a million, a thousand, or even one hundred
years ago and then stopped. It is a dynamic event that continues to occur (Stauffer and
Ferreri)"
• Section III. C. 1, page III. C-l2, second to last bullet under "Biological, " should read:
"They enhance fine organic matter transport downstream by breaking down the leaf
material"
• Section III. C. 1, page III. C-l 7, subsection e, third paragraph, third sentence should read:
"This lake is anticipated to be similar to ponds found in the study area."
• Section III. C. 2, page III. C-20, last sentence, should read:
".. .may tend to limit the effect of disturbances on the downstream watersheds although
the streams and ponds do not replace the structure and function of original first and
second order watersheds (Wallace, B. in EPA et al. March 20, 2000)"
• Section III.D. 1, page III.D-3, subsection b. 2:
Page 80 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
all references to the USGS 2002 Draft "E-point, P-point" study should instead refer to the
USGS 2003 ephemeral points and perennial points study.
• Section III.D. 1, page III.D-5, subsection e, first paragraph, second sentence should read:
"One study of the impact of valley fills on stream flows was performed by the USGS
(USGS 200 Ic) on one stream below a valley fill site (at the toe of the valley fill) and one
stream below an unmined site, and comparing one flow parameter at many streams with
and without filling in the watershed."
• Section III.D. 1, page III.D-7, subsection/.2, first paragraph, second sentence should
read:
"These changes include increases in a number of constituents and properties that are
known to be associated with surface mining..."
• Section III.D. 1, page III.D-9, subsection h. 1, second paragraph, last sentence should
read:
"In addition, other metrics that evaluate the diversity, evenness and degree of pollution
tolerance..."
• Section III.D. 1, page III.D-15, subsection i, second paragraph, first sentence should
read:
"A study offish communities and the responses to environmental factors..."
• Section III.D. Li, page III.D-17, add to the top of paragraph:
"In 2003 the FWS collected fish in streams downstream of valley fills, where earlier
water quality analysis [Appendix D] had revealed high selenium concentrations. The
results demonstrated that the selenium is biologically available for uptake into the food
chain, and that violations of the EPA selenium water quality criteria may result in
selenium concentrations in fish that could adversely affect fish reproduction. In some
cases, fish tissue concentrations were near levels believed to pose a risk to fish-eating
birds. It is likely that benthic invertebrates in some of these streams would be similarly
contaminated, thereby posing a risk to birds such as Louisiana waterthrush that depend
upon aquatic insects as a food supply." (January 16, 2004, letter from David Densmore,
FWS, to Allyn Turner, WVDEP).
• Section III.D.2, page III.D-19, second paragraph, last sentence should be replaced with:
"Wallace (EPA 2000) suggested that these types of systems can be important sites of
nutrient storage and uptake provided that a sufficiently vegetated littoral zone is present,
and the reconstructed wetland is linked to the downstream watershed. Dr. Wallace stated
that while these wetlands have value, he does not believe that these constructed wetlands
replace the pre-mining streams. However, he noted, the wetlands do tend to limit the
effect of disturbances on the downstream watersheds."
• Section III.D, page III.D-21, first paragraph, lines 7-9 delete the statement:
"However, it is not known whether the organic matter processing that occurs in created
wetlands would mimic the processing found in a natural stream system" should be
deleted.
• Section III.E.2, page III.E-3, second paragraph, second sentence should read:
"Aluminum solubility is very low, less than 0.5 mg/L, at pH of approximately 7."
Page 81 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
• Section III.E.2, page III.E-5, second paragraph, second sentence should read:
"In most natural or unpolluted surface waters, soluble iron is either near or less than
quantifiable concentrations due to its relative insoluble properties in oxidizing and water
environments at pH of approximately 7."
• Section III.E.2, page III.E-5, third paragraph, third sentence should read:
"In most natural or unpolluted surface waters, soluble manganese is absent due to its
limited solubility in oxidizing and water environments at pH of approximately 7 similar
to iron."
• Section III.E. 2, page III.E-5, fourth paragraph, second sentence should read:
"The presence or absence of aluminum is a direct result of pH-dependent solubility, with
aluminum solubility increasing from, much less than 1 mg/L at pH of approximately 7, to
greater than 100 mg/1 at pH less than 3 (Stumm and Morgan 1996)."
• Section III.E. 3, page III E-6, subsection b, third paragraph, insert before the last
sentence:
"Flocculants and precipitates associated with mine drainage can cement substrates and
contribute to streambed armoring."
• Section III.F. 1, page III.F-3, second full paragraph, last sentence:
change the word, "tress," to "trees."
• Section III.F. 3, page III.F-7, subsection a, second paragraph, second sentence should
read:
"This change in available habitat has resulted in an increase in the abundance of edge and
grassland bird species at reclaimed mountaintop mining sites (Wood and Edwards, 2001;
Canterbury, 2001)"
• Section III.F. 3, page III.F-9, subsection c, third paragraph, beginning of'the first
sentence should read:
"Herptofaunal species richness and abundance..."
• Section III. G. 2, page III. G-4 Insert at the end of the last paragraph:
"Requests for copies of the SEDCAD 4 or HEC-HMS modeling runs should be submitted
in writing to OSM (SEDCAD 4) at 3 Parkway Center, Pittsburgh, PA, 15220 and to the
Corps (HEC-HMS) at Pittsburgh District, US Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CELRP-
EC-WH, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4186."
• Section III. G. 2, page III. G- 7, subsection b., first sentence of the last paragraph, should
read:
"During most of the recorded storms (low intensity), the peak flows (per unit area) for the
unmined watershed and the cumulative watershed were greater than the mined
watershed."
• Section III.K. 4, page III.K-38, subsection a, first sentence:
change the word "competed" to "completed."
• Section III.L. 3:
pages III.L-14 - III.L-17 are missing. They are reproduced in the appendix.
• Section IVD, page IV.D-4, first paragraph, second sentence, add following reference:
(67 FR65083 (Oct 23, 2002))
Page 82 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
• Section IV. D, page IV.D-5, subsection l.e, first paragraph, last sentence should read:
"The Federally-listed species and habitat information are summarized in Appendix F of
this EIS."
• Section V, page V-41, insert the following two references before the third reference from
the bottom:
"West Virginia Legislative Auditor, Performance Evaluation And Research Division.
Preliminary Performance Review. The Office of Explosives and Blasting. PE 02-36-268.
December 2002."
"West Virginia Legislative Auditor, Performance Evaluation And Research Division.
Preliminary Performance Review. The Office of Explosives and Blasting. PE 03-23-298.
November 2003."
• Appendix D:
The Fulk 2003 study should be replaced with the final 2003 version with pagination. This
study is provided in the errata continuation appendix.
• Appendix E:
The Handel study on the CD version of the EIS and on the website should be replaced
with the March 2003 version. This study is provided in the errata continuation appendix.
• Appendix H:
The July 2001 USGS flooding study should be part of appendix H. This study is provided
in the errata continuation appendix.
The following items are in the errata continuation appendix:
Pages III.L-14 - III.L-17 from the DPEIS
USFWS letter report
• USGS Water Quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin
• Handel 2003 study text final version
• Fulk 2003 study, final version with pagination
• "Amphibian utilization of sediment control structures compared to a natural
vernal pool located on mine permitted areas in southern West Virginia."
Conducted for Pen Coal by R.E.I. Consultants, report dated 22 April 2000.
• "A History of the Benthic Macroinvertebrate and Water Chemistry Studies of two
Long-term Monitoring Stations on Trough Fork" Conducted for Pen Coal by
R.E.I. Consultants, report dated 20 June 2000.
Weakland, Cathy, A., and Wood, Petra Bohall. "Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica
Cerulea) Microhabitat and Landscape-level Habitat Characteristics in Southern
West Virginia in Relation to Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills". Final Project
Report. USGS Biological Resources Division and West Virginia University,
Division of Forestry. December 2002.
• Selenium Workshop, April 13th, 2004 Charleston, WV. Summary
USGS 2001 Flooding Study
Page 83 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
7. List Of Preparers
This document was prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, with assistance from Gannett Fleming, Inc.
The individuals listed below had principal roles in the preparation and content of this document.
Many others had significant roles and contributions as well and their efforts were no less
important to the development of this FPEIS. These others include senior managers,
administrative support personnel, legal staff, and technical staff.
Steering Committee Members
Katherine Trott, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
John Forren, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Programs,
Environmental Services Division, Philadelphia, PA
Michael Robinson, U.S. Office of Surface Mining, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center,
Pittsburgh, PA
Russell Hunter, WV Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Mining and
Reclamation, Charleston, WV
Cindy Tibbott, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PA Field Office, State College, PA
Assisted Steering Committee
David Hartos, U.S. Office of Surface Mining, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center,
Pittsburgh, PA
Jeffrey Coker, U.S. Office of Surface Mining, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center,
Knoxville, TN Field Office
Vermeil Davis, U.S. Office of Surface Mining, Program Support, Washington DC
Gregory Peck, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
David Rider, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Programs,
Philadelphia, PA
Elaine Suriano, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities,
Washington, D.C.
David Vande Linde, WV Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Mining and
Reclamation, Charleston, WV
Jim Serfis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Marjorie Snyder, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5, Hadley, Massachusetts
Page 84 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
8. Distribution List
The following is a list of agencies, organizations, libraries, and individuals who were sent
copies of this FPEIS on Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia. This document is also
available on the World Wide Web at the following Internet address:
http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm.
Federal Agencies
Council on Environmental Quality
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
HQ, Washington, DC
Huntington District
Louisville District
Nashville District
Norfolk District
Pittsburgh District
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
PA Field Office, State College, PA
SW Virginia Field Office, Abingdon, VA
VA Field Office, Gloucester, MA
TN Field Office, Cookeville, TN
KY Field Office, Frankfort, KY
WV Field Office, Elkins, WV
Regional Director, Region 4, Atlanta, GA
Regional Director, Region 5, Hadley, MA
Branch of Federal Activities, Arlington, VA
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Division, WV District Office
U.S. Office of Surface Mining
Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center, Pittsburgh, PA
KY — Lexington; London; Madisonville; Pikeville
TN — Knoxville
VA — Big Stone Gap
WV — Beckley; Charleston; Morgantown
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
National Park Service
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Labor
Page 85 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Headquarters, Washington, DC
Region III, Philadelphia, PA
Region IV, Atlanta, GA
Other Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Interstate Commerce Commission
State Agencies
Kentucky
Department of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Office of the Commissioner
Pikeville; London; Middlesboro; Prestonsburg
Ohio
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation
Virginia
Department of Mines, Minerals & Energy
Mined Land Reclamation
Keen Mountain; Big Stone Gap
West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection
Logan; Nitro; Oak Hill; Philippi; Welch
Division of Natural Resources
Charleston; Elkins
Libraries
Kentucky
Middlesborough-Bell County Public Library, Middlesboro, KY
Boyd County Public Library, Ashland, KY
Breathitt County Public Library, Jackson, KY
Clark County Public Library, Winchester, KY
Clay County Public Library, Manchester, KY
Elliott County Public Library, Sandy Hook, KY
Estill County Public Library, Irvine, KY
Floyd County Public Library, Prestonsburg, KY
GreenUp County Public Library, GreenUp, KY
Harlan County Public Library, Harlan, KY
Jackson County Public Library, McKee, KY
Johnson County Public Library, Paintsville, KY
Knott County Public Library, Hindman, KY
Page 86 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Knox County Public Library, Barbourville, KY
Laurel County Public Library, London, KY
Lawrence County Public Library, Louisa, KY
Lee County Public Library, Beattyville, KY
Leslie County Public Library, Hyden, KY
Martin County Public Library, Inez, KY
McCreary County Public Library, Whitley City, KY
Menifee County Public Library, Frenchburg, KY
John F. Kennedy Memorial Public Library, West Liberty, KY
Owsley County Public Library, Booneville, KY
Perry County Public Library, Hazard, KY
Pike County Public Library District, Pikeville, KY
Powell County Public Library, Stanton, KY
Pulaski County Public Library, Somerset, KY
RockCastle County Public Library, Mount Vernon, KY
Wayne County Public Library, Monticello, KY
Whitley County Public Library, Williamsburg, KY
Wolfe County Public Library, Campton, KY
Tennessee
Briceville Public Library, Briceville, TN
Clinton Public Library, Clinton, TN
Clinch-Powell Regional Library Center, Clinton, TN
Lake City Public Library, Lake City, TN
Betty Anne Jolly Norris Community Library, Norris, TN
Oak Ridge Public Library, Oak Ridge, TN
Altamont Public Library, Altamont, TN
Beersheba Springs Public Library, Beersheba Springs, TN
Coalmont Public Library, Coalmont, TN
Monteagle (May Justus Memorial Library), Monteagle, TN
Palmer Public Library, Palmer, TN
Tracy City Public Library, Tracy City, TN
Sequatchie County Public Library, Dunlap, TN
Jasper Public Library, Jasper, TN
Beene-Pearson Public Library, South Pittsburg, TN
Orena Humphreys Public Library, Whitwell, TN
Bledsoe County Public Library, Pikeville, TN
Barbara Reynolds Carr Memorial Library, Tazewell, TN
Caryville Public Library, Caryville, TN
Jacksboro Public Library, Jacksboro, TN
Jellico Public Library, Jellico, TN
LaFollette Public Library, LaFollette, TN
Huntsville Public Library, Huntsville, TN
Oneida Public Library, Oneida, TN
Winfield Public Library, Winfield, TN
Coalfield Public Library, Coalfield, TN
Page 87 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Deer Lodge Public Library, Deer Lodge, TN
Oakdale Public Library, Oakdale, TN
Petros Public Library, Petros, TN
Sunbright Public Library, Sunbright, TN
Wartburg Public Library, Wartburg, TN
Art Circle Public Library, Crossville, TN
Fentress County Public Library, Jamestown, TN
Virginia
Buchanan County Public Library, Grundy, VA
Wise County Public Library, Wise, VA
Russell County Public Library, Lebanon, VA
Tazewell County Public Library, Tazewell, VA
Scott County Public Library, Gate City, VA
Lee County Public Library, Pennington Gap, VA
West Virginia
Ansted Public Library, Ansted, WV
Boone - Madison Public Library, Madison, WV
Bradshaw Public Library , Davy, WV
Clay Co. Public Library, Clay, WV
Fort Gay Public Library, Fort Gay, WV
Gilbert Public Library, Gilbert, WV
Glasgow Public Library, Glasgow, WV
Graigsville Public Library, Graigsville, WV
Fayetteville Public Library, Fayetteville, WV
Fayette County Public Libraries, Oak Hill WV
Hamlin - Lincoln Co., Hamlin WV
Kanawha Co. Public, Charleston, WV
Kermit Public Library, Kermit, WV
Logan Area Public Library, Logan, WV
Mingo County Public Library, Delbarton, WV
McDowell County Public Library, Welch, WV
Oceana Public Library, Oceana, WV
Raleigh Public Library, Beckley, WV
Sutton Public Library, Sutton, WV
Wayne County Public Library, Kenova, WV
Branch of Wayne County Public Library, Wayne, WV
Whitesville Public Library, Whitesville, WV
Organizations
Arch Coal, Inc.
Arch Coal, Inc., WV Operations (CSX)
Bell County Coal Corporation
Buckeye Forest Council
Citizens Coal Council
Citizens & Tourists Against Leveling of WV
Coal Operators and Associates, Inc.
Concerned Citizens Coalition
EcoSource, Inc.
Greystone Environmental Consultants
Page 88
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Howard Engineering & Geology, Inc.
Interstate Mining Compact Commission
Jackson & Kelly, Attorneys at Law
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth
Kentucky Coal Association
Kentucky Resources Council, Inc.
Knott/Letcher/Perry Coal Operators
Association
Lone Mountain Processing, Inc.
Massey Coal Services, Inc.
Michael Baker Engineering Consultants
Mountain State Justice, Inc.
National Mining Association
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
Pittston Coal Management
Individuals
Lynn Abbott
Michael Abraham
David Brandon Abshes
Mark Abshire
Lorranie J. Adams
Geert Aerts
Lee Agee
Sandy Ahlstrom
Julie Alaimo
Geri Albers
George & Frances Alderson
Deborah C. Allen
Christopher Ambrose
Christopher Anderson
Julie Arlington
Harvard Ayers
Janet Ayward
Tina Bailey
Jim Baird
Ray and Arlene Baker
Isabel Balboa
Jessica Ballowe
Carl B. Banks
Israel Baran
Leslie Elizabeth Barras
Richard Baskin
Susan Bechtholt
Lawrence T. Beckerle
Barbara Beer
Progress Coal Company
Samples Mine Complex
Schmid & Company, Inc.
Small Coal Operators Advisory Council
Summit Engineering, Inc.
Tennessee Coal Association
The West Virginia Highlands Conservancy
The Virginia Coal Association, Inc.
Virginia Mining Association
West Virginia Coal Association
West Virginia Mining & Reclamation
Association
West Virginia Environmental Council
WV Rivers Coalition
WV Sierra Club
Tricia Behle
Bob Bell
Gordon Bell
Vaughn Bell
Ella Belling
Arthur C. Benke, University of Alabama
David J. Berkland
Michael Bialas
Bonnie Biddison
Charles R. Biggs
Ida Binney
Cathie Bird
Kathy Birmingham
Stephanie Blessing
Ruth Bleuni
Margaret Block
Kathryn Blume
Julia Bonds
JeffBosley
Douglas Boucher
Brian Bowen, Jr.
Deborah Bowles
Randy Boyd
Gayle Brabec
Julia Brady
Sandra Brady
Paul Brant
Lee Bridges
Linda Brock
Page 89
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Dede Brown
Megan Brown
Shale Brownstein
Mike Brumbaugh
Mark Bruns
Stephen Bull
Doug Burge
Mark Burger
Moss Burgess
Linda Burkhart
Dianne Burnham
Judy Burris
Edmund Burrows
Rick Cameron
Beth Campbell
Ruth Campbell
Pauline Canterberry
Nancy Carbonara
Enid Cardinal
Mary Lou Carswell
Jenny Casey
Sidni S. Cassel
Don Cassidy
Philip Castevens
Billy Caudill
Herman Caudill
Therma Caudill
Dan Chandler
Dorsey Channel
John W. and T. J. Chase
Louise Chawla
Arthur Childers
Susan AR Cho
Martin Christ
Jerry Ciolino
Matthew Cleveland
Sister Mary Brigid Clingman
Jerry L. Coalgate
Marlene Cole
Michael Compton
James Conroy
David S. Cooper
Kennon R. Copeland
Ruby B. Corbin
Jennifer Cox
John Cox
Owen Cox
James Crabb
Carol and Don Creager
Ruth H. Creger
Ryan Crehan
Kathy Cross
April & Jeff Crowe
Kate Cunningham
Marilynn Cuonzo
Marie Cyphert
Bernard L. Cyrus
Janet Dales
Mick Daugherty
Bongo Dave
J. Eric Davis, Jr.
William Dawson
Edna Dillon
Dee Dobben
Ira Dobin, Jr.
Elmer & Angela Dobson
B. Dominey
Gail Douglas
Linda C. Downs
Waneta Dressier
Phoebe A. Driscoll
Kenneth Dufalla
Morris Dunlop
Bill Dwyer
Craig Edgerton
Edgar & lier Edinger
Dave Edwards
Robert Eggerling
Susan L. Eggert
Clara Else
Susan Emberley
Julie M. Emerson
Lawrence D. Emerson
Linda Lee Emrich
Kathleen Enders
Nancy Erps
Craig Etchison
Bill Ettinger
Alice Evans
McNair Ezzard
Pete Farino
Estelle Fein
Page 90
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Robert Fener
Denise Ferguson
Michael Ferrell
Steve Fesenmaier
Nathan Petty
Arthur Figel
Patrice Fisher
Gerry & Louise Fitzgerald
Anthony Flaccavento
Agatha (Betty) Fleming
Janet Fout
Winnie Fox
Luther E. Franklin
Tim Frasine
Vincent Frazzetta
Suzan Frecon
Barbara Fredrickson
Rachel Frith
Don Gaines
Pash Galbavy
Francis J. Gallagher
Sister Marie Gangwish
J. Steven Gardner
Dawn Garten
Mall Gartlan
Lydia Garvey
Glenn Gaskill
Suzanne Gayetsky
Mary Gee
Melissa Gee
Dan Geiger
Andy Gelston
Mike George
Helen Gibbins
Larry Gibson
Meagan Gibson
Jay Gilliam
Christopher Goddard
Gay Goforth
Crystal Good
Donny Good
Joanne H. Granzow
Dana Graves
Margaret M. Gregg
Robert Gipe
Karen Grubb
David L. Haberman, Indiana University
Deirdra Halley
Emilie Hamilton
Hann
Dr. Stephen Handel, Dept of Ecology,
Evolution, & Natural Resources
Karl Hanzel
David Haudrich
Alice Hardin
Jerry Hardt
William Hardy
Roy B. Harless, Jr.
Ronda Harper
Mark Harris
Anne R. Harvey
Erica Harvey
Tracy Hasuga
Marlon Henn
Dan Hensley
Robert Hensley
Caroline Hice
Susan L. Hickman
Sanford Higginbotham
Monica Hill
Marty Killer
Danita Hines
Robert B. Hiser
Paul A. Hodder
Sharon Hodges
Steve Hodges
Andy Hodgman
Dr. Karen Holl, University of California
Mr. Arthur B. Holmes
Mark Homer
John Hopkins
Patricia R. Hopkins
Pierre Howard
Renee Hoyos
Patrick Huber
Robert Huddleston
Mary Hufford, University of Pennsylvania
Barbara Hutchison-Smith
Martha Hutson
Carole Hyre
Robert lies
Michael A. Jablonski
Page 91
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Donnie Jackson
Gordon James
Roberta A. James
Phyllis Jenness
Sarah A. Jessup, D. O.
John Jodine
Emily Johnson
James Johnson
Jane Johnson
Mrs. Eleanor Johnson
Katie Johnson
Andrew Jones
Chelsea Jones
Deborah Jones
Lora Jones
Mary Lou Jones
Roger Jones
Tim Jones
Richard E. Jorgensen
Tom Joy
Al Justice
Edward Kadane
Ray Kamstra
Dan Kash
Barry Katzen
Robert Keiilback
Mary Corst Kelley
Cindy Kendrick
Oren Kennedy
Oren Kennedy
Birtrun Kidwell
Carol Anne Kilgore
Sterling Kinnell
Laura Klein
William Kling
Raymond Koffler
Gerri Kolesar
Vanessa Kranda
Jud Kratzer
Scott Kravitz
Tom Kruzen
Glenn Kuehne
Kara & Kenneth Kukovich
John L.
Alexandra Lamb
Sloane T. Lamb
Melissa Lambert
Denise Lamobaw
Jackie Lancaster
Susan Lander
Jennifer Lantz
Tim Larrick
Phyllis H. Law
F. Carey Lea
Igal Levy
Elizabeth Lewis
Norma Lewis
Tom Lewis
Betta Leyland
Eric Lillyblad
Joan V. Linville
William J. Linville
Nannie Linville
Josh Lipton
Curt A. Livingston, Sr.
Julie Longman-Pollard
Sherry Lorenz
David and Marsha Low
Benjamin M. Lowman
Lois A. Ludwig
Tom Luther
The Lynch Family
Ann Lynnworth
Lawrence B. Lyon, Jr.
Dr. Malcolm R. MaePherson
Andy Mahler
Craig Mains
O. Mandrussow
Jay Rog Mar
Carli Mareneck
Thomas Marshalek
Julia Martin
Namon Martin
Rev. Mary McAnally
Dara L. McCarty
Erika McCarty
Leslee McCarty
Don McClung
Kerry McClure
Chelena McCoy
Harold McCurdy
Leah McDonald
Page 92
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Howard McFann
John McFerrin
Scott McGarrity
Carol McGeehan
M. McGeorge
Margaret McGinnis
Judith McHugh
Meagan McKay
Catherine McKenzie
Bonni McKeown
Cathe McLaughlin
Corinna McMackin
James & Carla McMillin
Janet Comperry McReynolds
Gary Meade
Shawn Meagher
Colby Mecham
Elaine Melnick
Barbara Mendelsohn
Ricardo Mendez
Barbara & Val Menendez
Jennifer Merrick
Richard W. Merritt, Michigan State
University
Robert A. Mertz
James & Teresa Mesich
Alissa Meyer
Judith L. Meyer, University of Georgia
Greg Miles
C. Sue Miles
Leon & Lualle Miller
Mary Miller
Michael Miller
Regina Miller
Robin Mills
Phyllis Mingo
Georgia Miniard
Steve Mininger
Carol Mintz
Jonathan Mirgeaux
Denver Mitchell
Keith Mohn
William A. Montgomery
John H. Mooney
Bryan K. Moore
Maryhea Morelock
B. Morgan
John Morgan, Morgan Worldwide
Consulting
J. Jeffrey Morris
John C. Morse, Clemson University
Robert Moss
Robert F. Mueller
David Muhly
Dr. Mendi Mullett
Cory Munson
Mark Murphy
Sheldon A. Myers
Grace E. Naccarato
Susan Nadeau
Patricia Napier
Nanette Nelson
Paul Nelson
Joanne Nemec
Mike Newell
Brad Newsham
Duane G. Nichols
Dr. Karl K. Norton
Jason O'Brian
Peggy O'Kane
Ethel Oldham
Russell Oliver
Steven J. Olshewsky
Tony Oppegard
Marilyn Ortt
Clark Orwick
Amanda O'Shea
Jim Ottaviani
Judy Otto
Jon Owens
Richard Packman
Aleta Pahl
Lori Parsley
Lynn Partington
Mary Pasti
Cynthia Patterson & Peter J. Schrand
Leiter Patton
Jerone Paul
K. Payne
Karen Payne
Ray Payne
Dolores Perez
Page 93
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
John H. Perez
Candice C. Peters
Ian Petersen
Denise Peterson
Dean Petrich
Deborah Brooks Pettry
Amelia Pickering
Joseph F. & Helen D. Pickering
Joseph Presson
Andrew Price
Donna Price
Perrie'Lee Prouty
Sean Quinlan
Christine Rafal
Linda Rago
Rev. Mary Donelle Ramsay
Dr. Jan Randall, San Francisco State
University
Kevin M. Randall
M. Rauen
John S. Rausch
Lisa Rayburn
Eric Rechel
Patricia Reed
Mrs. Juanita Reese
Linda Reeves
Dylan C. Reid
Richard Reis
Jordan Reiter
John Reppun
Michelle Reynolds
James Richard
Nancy Riley
Paul Robertson
Richard Robertson
Thomas Robertson
J. W. Robinson, Jr.
Henri Roca, Marshall University School of
Medicine
Hugh Rogers
Michael Romo
Ruth Rosenthal
Greg Roth
Lionel Ruberg
Stephen E. Rudolph
Steve Rutledge
Mark Van Ryzin
Paul Sainato
Sue Anne Salmon
Manuel Sanchez
Bennett Sawyers
Ashlee Say lor
Abraham Scarr
Paul Schaefer
Marsha & Richard S cherub el
Kenny Schmidt
Betty Schnaar
Rose Alma Schuler
Lauren Schwartz
Bruce Scott
William Scott, III
Rebecca Scott
Jason Scullion
Robert Seaver
Linda Sekura
Danny Sergent
Dink Shackleford, VMA
Justine Sharp
Llyn Sharp
Walt R. Sharpe
Sue Sharps
Susan Shriner
Lance Eric Schultz
June Silverman
Willis E. Simms
Jeffrey A. Simmons, West Virginia
Wesleyan College
Pat Simpson
John Singleton
Tom Skergan
Harry E. Slack, III
Mr. Francis D. Slider
Deana Steiner Smith
Eric T. Smith
Jill S. Smith
T. Smith
Jonathan Smuck
Billy R. Smutko
Susan Sobkoviak
Richard Sommer
Constance S. Sowards
Wayne C. Spiggle
Page 94
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Daniel Spilman
Joel Spoonheim
Richard Spotts
Richard Spotts
Tom Spry
Sue Staehli
Robert Stanley
Ellender Stanchina
Dallas Staten
Steven A. Stathakis
Fitz Steele
Edward H. Stein
Jim Steitz
Judith Stetson
Elaine Stoltzfus
Kathryn Allen Stone
Kermit Stover & Cindy Stover
Sally Streeter
Joseph Strobel
Jean Agnus Strong
Keller Suberkropp, University of Alabama
William D. Sullivan
Jim Sweeney
Chetan Talwalkar
Lesley Tate
William Taylor
Darla A. Tewell
Jackie Thaxton
Dean Thayer
Paul Thompson
Rose Thompson
Derek & Ershel Thornsberry
Mildred Thornsberry
Barry Tonning
Steve Torrico
Georgia Townsend
Philip Tracy
Roy E. Trent
Phil Triolo
Martha A. Turnquist
Ellisa Valoe
Mary C. Vassalls
Corey Vernier
Judith Walker
Dr. Bruce Wallace, Professor of
Entomology & Ecology
Patty Wallace
David W. Walters
Richard E. Walters
Barbara A. Walton
Rufus Wanning
Carol E. Warren
Kenneth S. Warren
C. Lee Webb
Matt Webber
Robert L. Weikle, Jr.
Diane Wellman
Eric Wessels
Julya Westfall
Marian Weston
James M. White
Julia Whiteker
Gregory Wilcox
Mae Ellen Wildt
Susan Williams
Suzanne H. Williams
Waimea Williams
Paul Wilson
Sara Wilts
Victoria Wutke
Vickie Wolfe, University of Charleston
Doug Wood
Dr. Petra Wood
Ivan & Jean Woods
Tanya & Jim Woods
Anne Woodsbury
Nancy Hyden Woodward
Daniel Wright
Mingjane Wu
Bryan Wyberg
Chuck Wyrostok
Eleanor & John Yackel
Lynn & Chess Yellott
Geoffrey M. Young
Walter Young
Mary L. Yunker
David Zeff
Carol Zeigler
Page 95
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
9. References
Bragg v. Robertson, Civ. No. 2:98-0636 (S.D. W.V.).
Densmore, David, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter to Allyn Turner, West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection. 16 January 2004,
Executive Order 12898. "Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations". 11 February 1994.
Executive Order 13186. "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies To Protect Migratory Birds".
10 January 2001.
Fulk, Florence et al. "Ecological Assessment of Streams in the Coal Mining Region of West
Virginia Using Data Collected by the U.S. EPA and Environmental Consulting Firms".
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory.
February 2003.
Handel, S.N. "Mountaintop Removal Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact Statement
Technical Study Project Report for Terrestrial Studies: Terrestrial Plant (spring herbs,
woody plants) Populations of Forested and Reclaimed Sites" Rutgers University. 2003.
Kentucky Riverkeeper, Inc. et al. v. Rowlette, etal, CVNo. 05-18 IDLE (E.D. Kentucky).
Lemly, A. D. "A Teratogenic Deformity Index for Evaluating Impacts of Selenium on Fish
Populations". Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety. 37:259-266. 1997.
Lemly, A. D. "Toxicology of Selenium in a Freshwater Reservoir: Implications for
Environmental Hazard Evaluation and Safety". Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety. 10:314-338.
1985.
Messinger, T., and D. B. Chambers. "Fish communities and their relation to environmental
factors in the Kanawha River basin, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina, 1997-
98." USGS Charleston, West Virginia. 2001.
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, etal. v. Bulen, etal., Nos. 04-2129(L), 04-2137, 04-2402;
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (OVEC vs. Bulen).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement To
Consider Policies, Guidance, and Processes To Minimize the Environmental Impacts of
Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fills in the Appalachian Coalfields". Federal Register 64
FR5778. 5 February 1999.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Surface
Mining; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Memorandum Of Understanding ... for the
Purpose of Providing Concurrent and Coordinated Review and Processing of Surface
Coal Mining Applications Proposing Placement of Dredged and/or Fill Material in
Waters Of The United States." February 2005.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Surface
Mining; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia, Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement. June 2003.
Page 96 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Surface
Mining; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection. "Announcement of Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) availability and notice of public hearings." Federal Register 68 FR 32487. 30
May 2003.
U.S. Department Of The Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
"Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement [to analyze the effects
of possibly revising our regulations pertaining to excess spoil generation and disposal and
stream buffer zones.]" Federal Register 70 FR 35112. 16 June 2005.
U.S. Department Of The Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. "30
CFR Parts 780, 816, and 817 Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations; Excess
Spoil; Stream Buffer Zones; Diversions; Proposed Rule". Federal Register 69 1035. 7
January 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Draft Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for
Selenium". Office of Water; Office of Science and Technology. Online. Available:
Novemb er 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Draft Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for
Selenium". March 2002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Notice of Availability of Draft National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permits MAG910000 and NHG910000
for Discharges From Groundwater Remediation and Miscellaneous Surface Water
Discharge Activities in the States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire and Indian
Country Lands in the State of Massachusetts". Federal Register 69 FR 75541. 17
December 2004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Survey of the Water Quality of Streams in the Primary
Region ofMountaintop/ValleyFill Coal Mining. Final Report. April 2002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Public Comment Compendium: Mountaintop
Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Environmental Impact Statement. September 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Standards Handbook. 2nd ed. EPA 823-B-
94-005a. August 1994.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Value of Headwater Streams: Results of a
Workshop, State College, Pennsylvania, April 13, 1999. Sponsored by the Pennsylvania
Field Office. April 2000.
Weakland, Cathy, A., and Wood, Petra Bohall. "Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica Ceruled)
Microhabitat and Landscape-level Habitat Characteristics in Southern West Virginia in
Relation to Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills". Final Project Report. USGS Biological
Resources Division and West Virginia University, Division of Forestry. December 2002.
West Virginia Legislative Auditor, Performance Evaluation And Research Division.
"Preliminary Performance Review. The Office of Explosives and Blasting. The Office of
Explosives and Blasting is Not Meeting All Required Mandates." PE02-36-268.
December 2002.
Page 97 October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
West Virginia Legislative Auditor, Performance Evaluation And Research Division. Preliminary
Performance Review. The Office of Explosives and Blasting. "Although the OEB has
Made Progress in Achieving Mandates, There is Still a Backlog of Claims to be
Resolved." PE 03-23-298. November 2003.
Wood, Petra Bohall, and Edwards John W. Mountaintop Removal Mining/Valley Fill
Environmental Impact Statement Technical Study; Project Report For Terrestrial
Studies; Terrestrial Vertebrate (Breeding Songbird, Raptor, Small Mammal,
Herpetofaunal) Populations of Forested and Reclaimed Sites. Division of Forestry, West
Virginia University and Biological Resources Division, USGS. September 2001.
10. Reader's Guide to Acronyms
ADID Advanced Identification
APA Administrative Procedures Act
AOC Approximate Original Contour
BMP Best Management Practices
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHIA Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment
CMD Coal Mine Drainage
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CWA Clean Water Act
DPEIS Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. This acronym is used when
describing or referring to the DPEIS released June 2003.
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FPEIS Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. This acronym is used when
describing or referring to the FPEIS that incorporates the draft document released
June 2003.
EO Executive Order
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
e.g. For example
FR Federal Register
FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Department of the Interior)
IP Individual Permit
JPP Joint Permit Processing
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MTM Mountaintop Mining
MTM/VF Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, P.L. 91 -190
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWP Nationwide Permit
OSM United States Office of Surface Mining (U.S. Department of the Interior)
PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Page 98
October 2005
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
PHC Probable Hydrologic Consequences
PIR Public Interest Review
P.L. Public Law (of the United States)
ppb parts per billion
SBZ Stream Buffer Zone
SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads
USGS United States Geological Survey (U.S. Department of the Interior)
U.S. United States
WVDEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Page 99 October 2005
-------
Appendix
Errata Continuation
-------
Pages Missing from DPEIS
-------
III. Affected Environment and Consequences of MTM/VF
Table III.L-5
Example MTM/VF Mine Economic Analysis
MANPOWER TABLE
Period: Full Year
# Production Days = 260 days
C.T. Per M.H.
BCY Per M.H.
7.25
108.90
Manpower
Position
25 yd. Front Shovel
210 Ton Rock Track
Fill Dozer
18% yd. Backhoe
150 Ton Rock Track
Fill Dozer
16 yd. Endloader
150 Ton Rock Track
Fill Dozer
45 yd. Bull Dozer
Development Dozer
Reclamation Dozer
16 yd. Coal Loader
9 yd. Coal Loader
Drillers
Motor Grader
Water Track
Mechanics/Welders
P.M. Technicians
Fueler/Greaser
Blasters
Blasting foreman
Prod. Foreman
Maint. Foreman
Maint. Planner
Prod. Engineer
Superintendant
Total
Day
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
4
2
1
2
2
4
1
1
2
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
47
Evening
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
4
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
6
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
42
Total
2
6
2
2
6
2
2
4
2
8
4
2
4
4
7
2
2
8
3
2
6
1
2
2
2
1
1
89
Job
Description
O.B. Loading
O.B. Haulage
Run Fill
O.B. Loading
O.B. Haulage
Run Fill
O.B. Loading
O.B. Haulage
Run Fill
Prod. Dozing
Development
Reclamation
Coal Prep. Ldg.
Coal Prep. & Ldg.
O.B. Drilling
Road Maint.
Dust Control
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance
Blasting
D & B Superv.
Shift Superv.
Maint. Superv.
Maint. Scheduling
Engineering
General Superv.
O.B.
Production
7,500,000
5,800,000
4,100.,000
7,800,000
25,200,000
#
Prod.
Days
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
Hrs.
Per
Day
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Total
Manhours
5,200
15,600
5,200
5,200
15,600
5,200
5,200
10,400
5,200
20,800
10,400
5,200
10,400
10,400
18,200
5,200
5,200
20,800
7,800
5,200
15,600
2,600
5,200
5,200
5,200
2,600
2,600
231,400
Source: Meikle & Fincham, 1999
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill DEIS
m.L-14
2003
-------
III. Affected Environment and Consequences of MTM/VF
Table III.L-6
Example MTM/VF Mine Economic Analysis of
Earnings Before Interest and Taxes
Parameter
Revenues
Revenues Per ton
Total Project
$$
$405.800.604
$24.75
$$ Per BCY
$1.65
$$ Per C.T.
$24.75
Non-Mining Costs:
Sales Related Costs
Intercompany Royalties
Intercompany Commissions
Trucking
Other Transportation Costs
Preparation Costs
Subtotal
Net Realization
$59,771,560
$0
$4,098,996
$33,666,422
$9,837,593
$12,752,441
$120,127,012
$285,673,592
$0.24
$0.00
$0.02
$0.14
$0.04
$0.05
$0.49
$1.16
$3.65
$0.00
$0.25
$2.05
$0.60
$0.78
$7.33
$17.42
Indirect Costs:
Overhead
Reclamation
Subtotal
$8,996,465
$2,459,394
$11,455,859
$0.04
$0.01
$0.05
$0.55
$0.15
$0.70
Mining Costs:
Labor
Supplies
Subtotal
Cash Margin
Cash Margin Per Ton
Cash Cost Per Ton
Direct D.D. & A.
Indirect D.D. & A.
Subtotal
Earnings Before Interest & Taxes
$83,956,796
$112,056,241
$196,013,037
$78,204,696
$4.77
$19.98
$51,691,246
$0
$51,691,246
$26,513,450
$0.34
$0.45
$0.80
$0.32
$0.21
$0.00
$0.21
$0.11
$5.12
$6.83
$11.95
$4.77
$3.15
$0.00
$3.15
$1.62
Source: Meikle & Fincham, 1999
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill DEIS
m.L-15
2003
-------
III. Affected Environment and Consequences of MTM/VF
Table III.L-7
Example MTM/VF Mine Economic Analysis
CAPITAL INVESTMENT STATISTICS ($millions)
Parameter
E.B.I.T.
Taxes @
30%
Commissions
Taxes on
Comm.
Intercompany
Royalty
Taxes on
Intercompany
Tax Savings
Depl.
Net Income
(Add) DD&P
(Less) CapEx
Net Cash
Flow
Initial
Inv.
YearO
SO.OO
$0.00
SO.OO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3.86
($3.86)
Year #1
$2.43
$0.73
$0.42
$0.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.09
$5.29
$37.06
($29.77)
Year
#2
$2.57
$0.77
$0.42
$0.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.14
$5.29
$0.48
$6.90
Year
#3
$2.64
$0.79
$0.42
$0.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.14
$5.29
$0.23
$7.21
Year
#4
$2.79
$0.84
$0.42
$0.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.25
$5.22
$0.48
$6.99
Year
#5
$2.82
$0.85
$0.42
$0.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.27
$5.23
$2.78
$4.72
Year
#6
$1.45
$0.44
$0.42
$0.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1.31
$6.53
$10.66
($2.82)
Year
#7
$1.55
$0.47
$0.42
$0.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1.38
$6.53
$1.70
$6.21
Year
#8
$1.70
$0.51
$0.42
$0.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1.49
$6.48
$0.00
$7.97
Year
#9
$5.22
$1.57
$0.42
$0.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3.95
$2.97
$2.55
$4.37
Year
#10
$3.33
$1.00
$0.32
$0.10
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.56
$2.85
$0.00
$5.41
Year
#11
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
($6.65)
$6.65
N.P.V. @ 5%
N.P.V. @ 8%
N.P.V. @ 10%
I.R.R.
Payback Period
$7.45
$2.26
($0.52)
9.60%
7.56 yrs
Cash Flows 1-11
E.B.I.T.
Net Inc.
Net Cash
$26.51
$21.43
$19.98
Source: Meikle & Fincham, 1999
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill DEIS
m.L-16
2003
-------
III. Affected Environment and Consequences of MTM/VF
Table III.L-8
Individual Taxes
By Total Mine Life Cost and Cost Per Ton of Coal
Taxes
Personal Property Tax
Worker's Compensation
Matching PICA
Unmined Mineral Tax
Franchise Tax
Severance Tax
Black Lung Tax
Federal Reclamation Tax
WV Special Assessment
Federal & State Income Tax
TOTAL
Total Mine Life Cost
$3,132,574
$5,559,085
$3,097,378
$1,173,000
$504,390
$20,290,033
$8,747,264
$5,566,431
$819,798
$9,183,734
$58,073,684
Cost Per Ton of Coal
$0.1 9 per ton
$0.34 per ton
$0.1 9 per ton
$0.07 per ton
$0.03 per ton
$1.24 per ton
$0.53 per ton
$0.34 per ton
$0.05 per ton
$0.5 6 per ton
$3.54 per ton
Individual taxes and tax rates vary between states in the study area. It is predicted that total taxes
would be $4,189,994 less if this same operation where conducted in Kentucky, and $12,187,134 less
if it were conducted in Virginia.
4. Mining Method Considerations
Selection of the appropriate mining method(s) for a given site is a complicated, iterative process
during the mine feasibility evaluation and planning stages. Choices are typically driven by the desire
to maximize coal recovery with the least expensive mining method that is practical for a given coal
seam. This section summarizes the basic considerations for mine method selection.
a.
Mine Method Selection Factors
The two basic options in mine method selection are surface and underground mining, or a
combination of the two. For surface operations, contour, area, and mountaintop removal methods
are available individually or in combination, and room and pillar and/or longwall mining are available
for underground operations. The primary factors used for deciding between the individual methods
are summarized in Table in.L-9.
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill DEIS
m.L-17
2003
-------
USFWS letter report
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Pennsylvania Field Office
Suite 322
315 South Allen Street
State College, Pennsylvania 16801
January 16, 2004
Allyn Turner
Director, Division of Water and Waste Management
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
414 Summers Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Dear Ms. Turner:
During the spring and summer of 2003, we conducted a survey of selenium in fish, water, and
sediments in various waterbodies in southern West Virginia. Because U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency studies for the draft Environmental Impact Statement on Mountaintop
Mining/Valley Fills found high selenium concentrations in waters downstream of valley fills,
and selenium is highly bioaccumulative and toxic to fish and wildlife, we were interested in
determining whether the waterborne selenium downstream of valley fills is accumulating in fish
tissues to ecologically relevant levels. In addition, because mercury is associated with coal and
also bioaccumulates, we initially included mercury in our chemical analysis.
We conducted our sampling May 28-30, and August 19-21, 2003. Most of the streams we
sampled were previously sampled for selenium in water by EPA or WVDEP. As a cost-saving
measure, we did not collect water samples in those locations; however, we did collect a sediment
sample at each location. When sampling stream fish, we targeted primarily creek chubs and
blacknose dace. These species are efficient bioaccumulators of selenium (bioaccumulation
factors of 4,545 and 4,590, respectively; Mason et al. 2000), and would be expected to serve as a
food source for birds such as the belted kingfisher and great blue heron. Selenium in fish
consumed by these birds could be transferred to offspring in bird eggs, resulting in embryo
mortality or deformity (Lemly 2002).
We also sampled East Lynn and Beech Fork Lakes in Wayne County, and one stream in each of
their watersheds (Trough Fork and Miller's Fork, respectively). The East Lynn watershed is
heavily mined, while the Beech Fork watershed is relatively undisturbed by mining. For the
lakes, we targeted bluegill, largemouth bass, gizzard shad, and white crappie. Samples included
whole fish, fillet (left side, skin on, scaled), and eggs.
Table 1 provides results for streams in the Little Coal/Coal River, Big Coal River, and Mud
River watersheds, and one sedimentation pond downstream of a valley fill at the head of Trace
-------
Branch. Table 2 provides results for East Lynn and Beech Fork Lakes, and Trough and Miller's
Forks.
Mercury analysis was conducted only on samples collected in May. Mercury was found in only
one stream fish sample (creek chubs from Stanley Fork), but was present in many of the lake fish
samples. Mercury was not found in any of our sediment samples, or in any of four water
samples. Because of the low incidence of detections in the stream samples, we did not submit
the August stream samples for mercury analysis.
Selenium was present in all fish samples. As a guideline for evaluating the ecological
significance of the selenium concentrations, we used Lemly (2002). Based on a synthesis and
interpretation of scientific literature, Lemly has established "toxic effect thresholds for selenium
in aquatic ecosystems," which he describes as "levels at which toxic effects begin to occur in
sensitive species offish and aquatic birds. They are not levels that signify the point at which all
species die from selenium poisoning" (p. 31). Lemly's values and associated biological effects
in fish are 8 ppm (dw) for fillets1 (reproductive failure); 10 ppm for eggs (reproductive failure);
and 4 ppm for whole fish (mortality of juveniles and reproductive failure). For reproductive
failure in birds, Lemly cites 7 ppm in food chain organisms.
Creek chubs and blacknose dace collected from Trace Branch, Sugartree Branch, and Stanley
Fork (where EPA or WVDEP had previously identified selenium water concentrations above the
EPA chronic water quality criterion of 5 ug/1) contained selenium at concentrations above
Lemly's 4 ppm toxic effect threshold level for whole fish. Our water sample from a valley fill
sedimentation pond at the head of Trace Branch hollow contained 6.44 ug/1 selenium, and
bluegill captured in the pond contained 6.89 ppm selenium. Selenium levels in fish samples
from the Trace Branch pond and Sugartree Branch were just below the 7 ppm threshold value for
reproductive failure in birds.
Fish from several streams where other agencies had documented stream selenium concentrations
greater than the EPA criterion did not exceed the Lemly threshold values. Among many possible
explanations for this is evidence that other water quality parameters, especially sulfates, can
interfere with selenium uptake (Great Lakes Environmental Center 2002). In studies related to
the EIS for mountaintop mining, EPA identified high sulfate concentrations at many sampling
locations.
No fish or fish eggs collected from Beech Fork Lake or East Lynn Lake contained selenium at
concentrations above Lemly's thresholds. However, tissue selenium concentrations were
generally higher in the East Lynn samples, and long-term monitoring of this situation is
advisable. Selenium concentrations in creek chub samples from both Trough Fork and Miller's
Fork were low relative to other streams in our survey.
Our results show that selenium present in surface waters in southern West Virginia is
bioavailable, and that violations of the EPA selenium water quality criterion may result in
Note that Lemly's fillet values are for skinless fillets, and our samples were skin-on.
-------
selenium concentrations in fish that could adversely affect fish reproduction. In some cases, fish
tissue concentrations were near levels believed to pose a risk to fish-eating birds. It is likely that
benthic invertebrates in some of these streams would be similarly contaminated, thereby posing a
risk to birds that depend upon aquatic insects as a food supply (e.g., Louisiana waterthrush).
Accordingly, we believe that the potential for release of selenium during and after mining should
be assessed to ensure that future permits are not issued where there is a likelihood that selenium
water quality standards will be violated. We are aware that the West Virginia Geological Survey
has analyzed the selenium content of coal in various locations (www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/
www/datastat/te/Maps/Semapmax.gif). If those results can be correlated to the selenium water
and fish data, it may be possible to develop coal and/or overburden analysis requirements for
permit applicants that would characterize the degree of selenium risk associated with a given
application.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact Cindy Tibbott of my staff at
814-234-4090, ext. 226.
David Densmore
Supervisor
Literature Cited
Great Lakes Environmental Center. 2002. Draft aquatic life water quality criteria for selenium.
Traverse City, MI.
Lemly, A.D. 2002. Selenium assessment in aquatic ecosystems: Aguide for hazard evaluation
and water quality criteria. New York: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 162 pp.
Mason, R. P., J-M. Laporte, and S. Andres. 2000. Factors controlling the bioaccumulation of
mercury, arsenic, selenium, and cadmium by freshwater invertebrates and fish. Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 38:283-297 (as cited in Great Lakes Environmental Center 2002).
-------
Table 1. Results of sediment, water, and fish tissue analyses for selenium and mercury in samples collected from various
waterbodies in southern West Virginia.
Location, collection date,
lat/long
Little Coal/Coal River Waters
Spruce/White Oak Branch
28-May-03
37.86289, -81.803831
Coal/Trace Branch Pond
29-May-03
37.87704, -81.84137
Coal/Left Fork Beech
28-May-03
37.905423, -81.846021
Coal/Trace Branch
29-May-03
37.87655, -81.83786
Big Coal River Watershed
Ewing Fork
20-Aug-03
37.91067, -81.32799
Clear Fork/Sycamore Creek
20-Aug-03
37.93762, -81.42299
Clear Fork/Rockhouse Creek
19-Aug-03
37° 57.952, -81° 30.096
White Oak/ Left Fork
1 9-Aug-03
38030.7,81 31 41
Seng Creek
20-Aug-03
37° 59.981, 81° 29.274
Buffalo Fork
20-Aug-03
37.899, -81.331
Other agency
station code
heds
EPA MT 39
EPA MT 34B
WVDEP
WVKC-10-T-19
EPA MT 69
EPA MT 81
WVDEP
WVKC-47A
WVDEP
WVKC-35E
WVDEP
WVKC-42
EPA MT 64
Other agency Se
water (mean, ug/l)
ND
(<2.99)
22.7
6.4
ND
(<2.99)
ND
(<2.99)
<5
7
16
13
Sediment
Se (ppm)
ND
(0.229)
0.525
0.486
ND
(<0.240)
0.221
0.113
0.455
1.49
0.479
0.387
Water Se
and Hg (ug/l)
Hg-ND
(<0.100)
Se- 6.44
Hg1.5
SeND
(<2.5)
Hg 1.01
SeND
(<2.5)
Fish species
(whole fish)
Creek chub
Creek chub
Creek chub
Bluegill
Creek chub
Creek chub
Creek chub
Blacknose dace
Blacknose dace
Creek chub
Blacknose dace
Creek chub
Creek chub
Blacknose dace
Creek chub
Blacknose dace
Mean fish
size (mm)
101
146
72
152
142
159
100
77
71
109
77
92
98
84
135
72
Fish Se
(ppm, dw)
1.86
1.43
3.19
6.89
3.05
5.5
6.04
2.9
2.45
0.845
1.86
1.33
1.73
2.75
2.06
0.91
Fish Hg1
(ppm.dw)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-------
Table 1 (continued).
Location, collection date,
lat/long
Mud River Watershed
Mud/Rushpatch Branch
21-Aug-03
38.04966, -81.93302
Mud/Stanley Fork
30-May-03
38.08506, -81.95601
Mud River
21V\ug-03
38.09191, -81. 97446
Mud/Sugartree Branch
30-May-03
38.09084, -81.95262
Other agency
station code
EPA MT 02
EPAMT15
EPA MT 23
EPAMT18
Other agency Se
water (mean, ug/l)
ND
(<2.99)
12.1
12.9
36.8
Sediment
Se (ppm)
ND
(<0.0679)
ND
(O.245)
0.134
0.192
Water Se
and Hg (ug/l)
Hg 0.952
SeND
(<2.5)
Fish species
(whole fish)
Blacknose dace
Creek chub
Creek chub
Creek chub
Creek chub
Blacknose Dace
Creek chub
Mean fish
size (mm)
59
109
185
84
108
75
104
Fish Se
(ppm, dw)
0.907
O.481
4.13
5.11
1.4
6.52
6.85
Fish Hg1
(ppm.dw)
0.28
ND
ND
ND
1 Mercury detection limits for fish tissue samples ranged from 0.145 to 0.200 ppm. August 2003 fish samples were not submitted for mercury analysis.
-------
Table 2. Results of sediment, water, and fish tissue analyses for selenium and mercury in samples collected from East Lynn and
Beech Fork Lakes, and Trough and Miller's Forks, Wayne County.
Location, collection date, lat/long
East Lynn Lake
June 2, 2003
38.04561, -82.25049
Sediment 1
Se
(ppm dw)
ND
0.238
Water
Se and Hg
(Hg/0
ND
<.0999 Hg
<2.5Se
Fish species & tissue
Bluegill - 5 whole fish
Gizzard shad - 5 whole fish
Largemouth bass - 1 whole fish
(female, eggs removed)
Largemouth bass - 2 whole fish
White crappie - 2 whole fish
Largemouth bass - fillets from 5
fish
Gizzard shad - eggs from 1 fish
Largemouth bass - eggs from 1
fish (remainder analyzed whole
- see above)
Largemouth bass - eggs from 3
fish
Mean fish
size (mm)
89- 113
89 - 100
260
272
201
337
285
260
343
Tissue Se
(ppm, dw)
1.60
3.29
1.72
3.84
0.863
3.25 dw,
0.772 ww
3.54
3.17
4.73
Tissue Hg2
(ppm, dw)
ND
ND
0.340
0.370
0.175
l.OOdw,
0.238 ww
ND
ND
ND
-------
Location, collection date, lat/long
Beech Fork Lake
June 3, 2003
38.3133, -82.36219
Trough Fork
June 4, 2003
38.04561, -82.25049
Miller's Fork
June 4, 2003
38.04561, -82.25049
Sediment l
Se
(ppm dw)
ND
(O.238)
ND
(O.248)
ND
(O.243)
Water
Se and Hg
(US/I)
ND
(HgO.100
Se <2.50)
Fish species & tissue
Bluegill - 5 whole fish
Bluegill - 3 gravid females
Largemouth bass - 3 whole fish
White crappie - 5 fish
Largemouth bass - fillets from 1
gravid female
Largemouth bass - fillets from 1
gravid female and 1 male
Bluegill - eggs from 3 fish
Largemouth bass - eggs from 1
fish (same fish used for fillet,
above)
Largemouth bass - eggs from 1
fish
Creek chub
Creek chub
Mean fish
size (mm)
100
149
328.
125
455
400(1)
370 (m)
153
455
400
7.5-10 (5
fish)
7.5-8.5 (5
fish)
Tissue Se
(ppm, dw)
0.600
0.635
0.871
0.600
1.76dw,
0.422 ww
1.26dw,
0.490 ww
1.08
2.06
2.48
0.564
0.713
Tissue Hg2
(ppm, dw)
ND
ND
0.613
0.360
2.16dw,
0.517 ww
0.368 dw,
0.143 ww
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1 Mercury was not detected in sediments. The detection limits ranged from 0.917 to 0.0990 ppm.
2 Mercury detection limits for tissue samples ranged from 0.145 to 0.200 ppm.
-------
USGS Water Quality in the
Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
uses
science for a changing world
Water Quality in the
Kanawha-New River Basin
West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina, 1996-98
•^ v .
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1204
-------
POINTS OF CONTACT AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The companion Web site for NAWQA summary reports:
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/
Kanawha-New River Basin contact and Web site:
USGS State Representative
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Division
11 Dunbar Street
Charleston, WV 25301
e-mail: dc_wv@usgs.gov
http://wv.usgs.gov/nawqa/
National NAWQA Program:
Chief, NAWQA Program
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Division
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M.S. 413
Reston, VA20192
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/
Other NAWQA summary reports
River Basin Assessments
Albemarle-Pamlico Drainage Basin (Circular 1157)
Allegheny and Monongahela River Basins (Circular 1202)
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (Circular 1164)
Central Arizona Basins (Circular 1213)
Central Columbia Plateau (Circular 1144)
Central Nebraska Basins (Circular 1163)
Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins (Circular 1155)
Eastern Iowa Basins (Circular 1210)
Georgia-Florida Coastal Plain (Circular 1151)
Hudson River Basin (Circular 1165)
Lake Erie-Lake Saint Clair Drainages (Circular 1203)
Las Vegas Valley Area and the Carson and Truckee River Basins
(Circular 1170)
Lower Illinois River Basin (Circular 1209)
Long Island-New Jersey Coastal Drainages (Circular 1201)
Lower Susquehanna River Basin (Circular 1168)
Mississippi Embayment (Circular 1208)
Ozark Plateaus (Circular 1158)
Potomac River Basin (Circular 1166)
Puget Sound Basin (Circular 1216)
Red River of the North Basin (Circular 1169)
Rio Grande Valley (Circular 1162)
Sacramento River Basin (Circular 1215)
San Joaquin-Tulare Basins (Circular 1159)
Santee River Basin and Coastal Drainages (Circular 1206)
South-Central Texas (Circular 1212)
South Platte River Basin (Circular 1167)
Southern Florida (Circular 1207)
Trinity River Basin (Circular 1171)
Upper Colorado River Basin (Circular 1214)
Upper Mississippi River Basin (Circular 1211)
Upper Snake River Basin (Circular 1160)
Upper Tennessee River Basin (Circular 1205)
Western Lake Michigan Drainages (Circular 1156)
White River Basin (Circular 1150)
Willamette Basin (Circular 1161)
National Assessments
The Quality of Our Nation's Waters—Nutrients and Pesticides (Circular 1225)
Front cover: The Kanawha River at Kanawha Falls, West Virginia. (Photograph by David Fattaleh, West Virginia
Division of Tourism, and used by permission.)
Back cover: Left, Electrofishing on Sewell Creek at East Rainelle, West Virginia (photograph by Edward Vincent,
USGS); right, Mountaintop coal mine near Kayford, West Virginia (photograph by James H. Eychaner, USGS).
-------
Water Quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin
West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina, 1996-98
ByKatherine S. Paybins, Terence Messinger, James H. Eychaner, Douglas B.
Chambers, anc/Mark D. Kozar
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1204
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Charles G. Groat, Director
The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and
does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government.
2000
Free on application to the
U.S. Geological Survey
Information Services
Box 25286 Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Or call: 1-888-ASK-USGS
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publications Data
Water Quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina, 1996-98 / by
Katherine S. Paybins [et al.].
p. cm. -- (U.S. Geological Survey Circular; 1204)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-607-95412-4 (alk. paper)
1. Water quality-West Virginia-Kanawha River. 2. Water quality-Virginia. 3. Water quality-North
Carolina. I. Paybins, Katherine S., 1966- II. Geological Survey (U.S.) III. Series.
TD224.W4 W36 2000
363.739'42'097543-dc21
00-049459
-------
CONTENTS
NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM IV
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS 1
Stream and River Highlights 1
Ground-Water Highlights 2
INTRODUCTION TO THE KANAWHA-NEW RIVER BASIN 3
MAJOR FINDINGS 5
Persistent changes in water chemistry and aquatic biology are evident in coal-mined areas 5
REGIONAL STUDY—Sulfate concentrations and biological communities in Appalachian
coal fields indicated mining-related disturbances despite a general water-quality
improvement between 1980 and 1998 9
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE—Effects of mining on invertebrate communities were of similar
magnitude as the effects caused by urban development and agriculture nationally 11
Some contaminants are widespread and present at potentially harmful concentrations in
streambed sediment and fish tissue 11
Fish communities differ considerably throughout the basin, but non-native species continue
to expand their range 12
High concentrations of fecal bacteria remain in streams if sources are close 14
Nutrient and organic-chemical concentrations in surface water are low in most of the basin 15
Radon concentrations and bacterial contamination are the principal ground-water-quality
concerns 16
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE—Radon concentrations in ground water were among the
highest in the Nation 18
STUDY UNIT DESIGN 20
GLOSSARY 22
REFERENCES 24
APPENDIX—WATER-QUALITY DATA FROM THE KANAWHA-NEW RIVER BASIN IN
A NATIONAL CONTEXT 27
III
-------
NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
THIS REPORT summarizes major findings about water quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin that emerged
from an assessment conducted between 1996 and 1998 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-
Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. Water quality is discussed in terms of local and regional issues and com-
pared to conditions found in all 36 NAWQA study areas, called Study Units, assessed to date. Findings also are
explained in the context of selected national benchmarks, such as those for drinking-water quality and the protec-
tion of aquatic organisms. The NAWQA Program was not intended to assess the quality of the Nation's drinking
water, such as by monitoring water from household taps. Rather, NAWQA assessments focus on the quality of the
resource itself, thereby complementing many ongoing Federal, State, and local drinking-water monitoring pro-
grams. Comparisons made in this report to drinking-water standards and guidelines are only in the context of the
available untreated resource. Finally, this report includes information about the status of aquatic communities and
the condition of instream habitats as elements of a complete water-quality assessment.
Many topics covered in this report reflect the concerns of officials of State and Federal agencies, water-resource
managers, and members of stakeholder groups who provided advice and input during this water-quality
assessment. Residents of West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina who wish to know more about water quality
in the areas where they live will find this report informative as well.
NAWQA Study Units-
Assessment schedule
|[1991-95
11994-98
11997-2001
Q^ Not yet scheduled
I High Plains Regional
GroundWater Study,
1999-2004
THE NAWQA PROGRAM of the USGS seeks to improve scientific and public understanding of water quality
in the Nation's major river basins and ground-water systems. Better understanding facilitates effective resource
management, accurate identification of water-quality priorities, and successful development of strategies that pro-
tect and restore water quality. Guided by a nationally consistent study design and shaped by ongoing communica-
tion with local, State, and Federal agencies, NAWQA assessments support the investigation of local issues and
trends while providing a firm foundation for understanding water quality at regional and national scales. The ability
to integrate local and national scales of data collection and analysis is a unique feature of the USGS NAWQA Pro-
gram.
The Kanawha-New River Basin is one of 51 water-quality assessments initiated since 1991, when the U.S. Con-
gress appropriated funds for the USGS to begin the NAWQA Program. As indicated on the map, 36 assessments
have been completed, and 15 more assessments will conclude in 2001. Collectively, these assessments cover about
one-half of the land area of the United States and include water resources that are available to more than 60 percent
of the U.S. population.
IV National Water-Quality Assessment Program
-------
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS
Appalachian
Plateaus
Province
Valley
and
Ridge
Province
Boone
EXPLANATION
STREAM DATA-COLLECTION
SITE
• Water quality, ecology,
bed sediment, and
fish tissue
Bed sediment and
fish tissue
GROUND-WATER
STUDY AREA
I I Appalachian Plateaus
I I Blue Ridge
MILES
KILOMETERS
The Kanawha-New River Basin is generally mountainous, forested,
humid, and rural. Agriculture is concentrated in the southern half of
the basin; major products are cattle and hay. Seven percent of all coal
mined in the United States is produced from the Appalachian Plateaus
Physiographic Province within the basin.
Stream and River Highlights
The generally low population and intensity of agri-
culture and urban land uses throughout the
Kanawha-New River Basin are reflected in low con-
centrations of nutrients and pesticides in streams and
rivers.
Streams in the coal region of the Appalachian
Plateaus Physiographic Province generally improved
between about 1980 and 1998 with respect to pH,
total iron, total manganese, and sedimentation. These
improvements were among the regulatory goals of
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (SMCRA). Other unregulated factors, however,
show the effects of continued mining. Mine drainage
in the basin is rarely acidic but has high concentra-
tions of sulfate, which decrease slowly after mining
ends. Stream-bottom sedimentation in mined basins
remains greater than in undisturbed basins.
Streams draining basins that have been mined
since 1980 show increased dissolved sulfate,
decreased median bed-sediment particle size, and
impaired benthic-invertebrate communities com-
pared to streams not mined since 1980. (p. 5-11)
In all basins studied where more than 100,000 tons
of coal per square mile have been mined, the
stream benthic-invertebrate community is
impaired in comparison to rural parts of the basin
where less than 10,000 tons of coal per square
mile have been mined since 1980. Some basins in
which the benthic-invertebrate community is
impaired, however, were not heavily mined.
Benthic invertebrates are sensitive indicators of
many types of disturbance and respond to impair-
ment of either stream chemistry or physical
habitat, (p. 7-8)
Effects on stream benthic-invertebrate communi-
ties caused by coal mining were of similar magni-
tude to the effects caused by urban development
and agriculture elsewhere in the Nation, (p. 11)
Kanawha Falls is the upstream limit for the range
of several fish species. Non-native fish continue to
expand their range in tributaries of the New and
Gauley Rivers, (p. 12-14)
Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria concentrations
exceeded the national guideline for public swim-
ming areas in 26 percent of samples from major
rivers and in 43 percent of samples from tributary streams,
but no outbreak of waterborne disease was reported during
1991-98. Inadequate sewage treatment and manure manage-
ment contribute to elevated E. coli concentrations.
(p. 14-15)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) continue to be detected
in the Kanawha River downstream from the Charleston met-
ropolitan area. (p. 16)
Nickel, chromium, zinc, and certain toxic organic com-
pounds were found in bed sediment in concentrations that
could harm aquatic life. Elevated concentrations of cad-
mium, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc were measured in
fish tissue at some sites, (p. 12)
Summary of Major Findings 1
-------
Selected Indicators of Stream-Water Quality
Small Streams
Major Rivers
Coal Agricul- Forest
Mining tural
Mixed
Land Uses
Pesticides1 —
Nutrients2
Bacteria3
Trace
elements4
^| Percentage of samples with concentrations greater
than or equal to health-related national guidelines for
drinking water, protection of aquatic life, or contact
recreation; or above a national goal for preventing
excess algal growth
| Percentage of samples with concentrations less than
health-related national guidelines for drinking water,
protection of aquatic life, or contact recreation; or
below a national goal for preventing excess algal growth
Percentage of samples with no detection
(* Detected in 1 percent or less of samples)
— Not assessed
1 Insecticides, herbicides, and pesticide metabolites, sampled in water.
2 Phosphorus and nitrogen, sampled in water.
3 Escherichia coli (E. coif) bacteria, sampled in water.
4 Nickel, chromium, zinc, and lead, sampled in streambed sediment.
Ground-Water Highlights
Ground water in the Appalachian Plateaus and
Blue Ridge Physiographic Provinces moves mostly
in a network of narrow fractures within a few hun-
dred feet of the land surface, and drains toward the
nearest stream. Wells normally tap only a few of the
many local fractures. The ridgetops bound each local
aquifer, which generally are affected only by local
contaminant sources. In small areas of the basin
where caves and solution cavities in limestone bed-
rock are common, wells can have high yields but are
susceptible to contamination from fecal bacteria, pes-
ticides, and other toxic chemicals.
• Radon concentrations in the Blue Ridge were among the
highest in the Nation. Almost 90 percent of wells
sampled there exceeded the proposed U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (USEPA) primary drinking-
water standard of 300 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). One-
third of these wells contained more than 4,000 pCi/L,
the proposed alternate drinking-water standard. Radon
is a radioactive gas that forms during the decay of natu-
ral uranium, (p. 18-19)
• Modern well construction can prevent fecal bacteria from
reaching drinking water in most areas of the basin. Bacteria
were frequently detected only at older wells, (p. 19)
• Potentially explosive concentrations of methane were found
in water at 7 percent of wells in the coal region of the Appa-
lachian Plateaus, (p. 17)
• Nutrients, pesticides, and VOCs were detected in low con-
centrations throughout the basin. In the Blue Ridge, how-
ever, water from more than 50 percent of wells contained
pesticides, an indication that the ground water is vulnerable
to contamination, (p. 19)
• In the Appalachian Plateaus, iron and manganese concentra-
tions exceeded USEPA drinking-water guidelines in at least
40 percent of the wells and in about 70 percent of wells near
reclaimed surface coal mines. Elevated sulfate concentration
and slightly acidic water were more common at wells within
1,000 feet of reclaimed mines than elsewhere, (p. 10 and 17)
Major Influences on Ground Water
• Composition of soils and bedrock
• Improper disposal of human and animal wastes
• Current and past mining practices
• Pesticide usage and other toxic chemical releases
Selected Indicators of Ground-Water Quality
Domestic Supply Wells
Appalachian
Plateaus, Mining
Pesticides1 —
Radon
Volatile —
organics
Bacteria3 ^
Nitrate
Appalachian
Plateaus
r
^1
1
f
*
Blue
Ridge
1
4)
a
^| Percentage of samples with concentrations greater
than or equal to health-related national guidelines for
drinking water
• Percentage of samples with concentrations less than
health-related national guidelines for drinking water
Percentage of samples with no detection
— Not assessed
1 Insecticides, herbicides, and pesticide metabolites, sampled in water.
2 Solvents, refrigerants, fumigants, gasoline, and gasoline additives,
sampled in water.
3 Fecal coliform bacteria, sampled in water.
Water Quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
INTRODUCTION TO THE KANAWHA-NEW RIVER BASIN
Population and Human Activities
The Kanawha River and its major tributary, the New
River, drain 12,223 mi in North Carolina, Virginia,
and West Virginia (Messinger and Hughes, 2000).
Most of the total basin population of 870,000 (1990
data) live in rural areas, and industrial and residential
areas cover less than 5 percent of the total area in the
basin (fig. 1). Only about 30 percent of the population
live in towns larger than 10,000 people, including the
25 percent who live in the Charleston, W. Va.,
Downtown Charleston
in winter
82
Land use
in 1992-94
Appalachian
Plateaus
Mining and other
Urban disturbed land
Valley and Ridge
Agriculture (15%)
Forest (82%) V_,
Blue Ridge Mining and otheg
disturbed land
Urban (1%) / (<1%)
Agriculture (31%) ^{~"\
7 I \
vForest (67%)
50 MILES
I
50
KILOMETERS
Figure 1. In the mountainous Kanawha-New River Basin, elevation ranges from over
4,000 feet in the Allegheny Highlands of the Appalachian Plateaus Province and the
Blue Ridge Province to about 560 feet at the mouth of the river at Point Pleasant,
W. Va. Forest accounted for 81 percent of the land cover in 1993 (Multi-Resolution
Land Characteristics Interagency Consortium, 1997). Logging is a major industry
throughout the basin. The entire basin was logged by the early 20th century, and no
undisturbed areas remain (Clarkson, 1964). Coal mining is prevalent in the Appalachian
Plateaus. The Blue Ridge Province contains proportionally more agricultural land than
the Appalachian Plateaus and Valley and Ridge Provinces. Cattle, hay, and corn grown
as cattle feed are the primary agricultural products (National Agriculture Statistics
Service, 1999). Physiographic provinces from Fenneman, 1938.
* Photograph by Julie Archer, and used by permission.
metropolitan area. The total population has not
changed substantially since the 1950s, mostly because
of emigration from rural parts of the basin to urban
centers in the Midwest and the South.
The only major industrial area in the basin is along
the terrace of the Kanawha River, within about 20
miles of Charleston (fig. 2). Chemical industry prac-
tices that profoundly polluted the Kanawha River dur-
ing the 1950s and 1960s have changed, and discharge
of pollutants to streams has greatly decreased, although
bed sediment and fish remain
contaminated with dioxin and
other industrial chemicals
(Henry, 1981; Kanetsky, 1988;
West Virginia Division of Envi-
ronmental Protection, 2000).
In the Kanawha-New River
Basin, most coal is mined in the
Appalachian Plateaus in West
Virginia (McColloch, 1998).
About 7 percent of the coal
mined in the United States
comes from the Kanawha-New
River Basin (Fedorko and
Blake, 1998; Messinger and
Hughes, 2000). Most coal
mined in the basin has a low sul-
fur content. Coal production has
increased since passage of the
Clean Air Act amendments of
1990, which mandated a reduc-
tion of sulfate emissions to
decrease acid precipitation.
Physiography
The streams and rivers of the
basin drain areas in three physi-
ographic provinces: the Blue
Ridge (17 percent), the Valley
and Ridge (23 percent), and the
Appalachian Plateaus (60 per-
cent). In the Appalachian Pla-
teaus, little of the land is flat,
and most flat land is in the flood
plains and terraces of streams.
Christmas tree farming in the
Blue Ridge
Introduction to the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
Figure 2. Coal and motor fuel commonly are transported by
barge on the Kanawha River, downstream from Kanawha Falls.
The Valley and Ridge is characterized by strongly
folded ridges separated by relatively flat, broad valleys.
These two regions are underlain by sedimentary rocks.
The Blue Ridge is characterized by igneous and meta-
morphic rocks that have been folded and faulted.
Water Use
Hydrologic Conditions and Features
With some exceptions, mean streamflow
during the study was within about 10 percent
of long-term mean flows at most gaging sta-
tions (see records from a representative station
in fig. 3). Major flooding occurred throughout
the Appalachian Plateaus in January 1996,
seven months before sampling began, and
streamflow at several gaging stations within
the Kanawha-New River Basin exceeded the
100-year flood flow (Ward and others, 1997).
A thunderstorm in June 1998 caused flooding
in the northwestern part of the basin where
flow on a few small streams exceeded the
100-year recurrence interval (Ward and others,
1999). With the exception of these floods, no
other flows exceeded the 10-year recurrence
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
interval. No streams in the basin were in drought con-
ditions during the study.
Streamflow varies most through the year in the west-
ern Appalachian Plateaus, and it varies least through
the year in the Blue Ridge. On average, streamflow
throughout the basin is greatest in February and March
and least in September through October. Maximum
streamflow does not coincide with maximum precipita-
tion because summer vegetation uses a large fraction of
the precipitation.
The river system in the Kanawha-New River Basin
is regulated by four major flood-control dams, three
navigation dams, and several smaller dams. The two
largest dams are on the Gauley River (Summersville
Dam) and Elk River (Sutton Dam). The other two
major dams are on the New River. The navigable reach
of the Kanawha River is in backwater caused by the
navigation dams. In this reach, stream depth is greater
and velocity is less than in the undammed reaches of
the major rivers. All pools behind dams in the basin
collect sediment. Dams are also major barriers to fish
movement.
In 1995, 61 percent of the basin's population
depended on surface-water supplies for domestic needs
(Solley and others, 1998). Thirty percent relied on
domestic water wells. The remaining nine percent used
public-supply water wells. In 1995, total withdrawal of
water was about 1,130 Mgal/d (million gallons per
day); total consumptive use was about 118
Mgal/d. 10,000 p
Figure 3. After a major flood in January 1996, streamflow from Williams
River at Dyer, W. Va., and precipitation from Richwood, W. Va., were
normal throughout the study period. The long-term average annual
streamflow at Williams River at Dyer, W. Va. is 336 cubic feet per second.
Long-term average precipitation at the Richwood, W. Va. location is
48 inches per year.
4 Water Quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
MAJOR FINDINGS
Persistent Changes in Water Chemistry and
Aquatic Biology are Evident in Coal-Mined
Areas
About 7 percent of all coal mined in the Nation
comes from an area of 5,000 mi2 in the Appalachian
Plateaus part of the Kanawha-New River Basin. Pro-
duction of the mostly low-sulfur coal nearly doubled
from 1980 to 1998 as mining technology advanced,
individual mines became larger, and employment
decreased. Total production is about 90 million tons per
year. A coal seam 1 foot thick and 1 mile square weighs
about 1 million tons.
Most drainage basins within the coal region have
been mined repeatedly as technology has advanced and
economics have changed. Only three unmined basins
greater than 10 mi in the coal mining region were iden-
tified in this study. Among mined basins, cumulative
coal production of less than 10,000 ton/mi2 of coal dur-
ing 1980-95 is low. Cumulative production in many
basins ranged from 100,000 to 1,000,000 ton/mi2.
Most water that drains from coal mines in the
Kanawha-New River Basin is naturally neutral or alka-
line rather than acidic.When iron pyrite in coal and
adjacent rocks is exposed to air and water during min-
ing, a series of chemical reactions produce dissolved
iron and sulfuric acid (Rose and Cravotta, 1998). Natu-
ral or applied limestone, lye, or anhydrous ammonia
can neutralize the acid (Skousen and others, 1998), but
sulfate ions dissolved in water generally remain as evi-
dence of the reactions. Sulfate concentrations in
streams decrease slowly after mining ends (Sams and
Beer, 2000).
Since 1981, Total Iron and Manganese have
Decreased in Stream Basins where Coal
Mining has Continued, but Sulfate has
Increased
During low flow in July 1998, water samples from 57
wadeable streams (drainage area less than 1 to 128 mi )
were analyzed once. Samples were collected from
streams in the region of the Appalachian Plateaus
where coal has been mined. At least three analyses were
available for 51 of the sites for 1979-81, before the Sur-
face Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)
affected regional water quality (Ehlke and others,
1982). Each 1998 analysis was compared to the one
earlier analysis with the closest corresponding stream-
flow. Results were interpreted with respect to cumula-
tive mining history and other land uses in each basin.
Median concentrations of total iron and total manga-
nese were lower in 1998 than during 1979-81 in 33
basins that had been mined both before and after
SMCRA, but sulfate concentration and specific conduc-
tance were higher (table 1). In 1998, median total man-
ganese, specific conductance, sulfate, and pH were
higher in 37 basins mined since 1980 than in 20 basins
unmined since then; median total iron was lower in the
mined basins, possibly reflecting aggressive treatment
of permitted discharges.
Table 1. Medians of regulated constituents improved between
1979-81 and 1998 in 33 mined basins
[Hg/L, micrograms per liter; ilS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; mg/L.
milligrams per liter]
Median value
1979-81 1998
Regulated Constituents
pH (standard units)
Total iron (u.g/L)
Total manganese (u-g/L)
Unregulated Constituents
Specific conductance (u.S/cm)
Sulfate (mg/L)
7.1
455
150
360
91
7.5
150
78
446
150
At the time the SMCRA and subsequent regulations
were established, acidification and subsequent increase
in metal concentrations, but not sulfate concentration,
were known to degrade stream quality. Regulations,
10,000
2 ,§ 1,000
°*
-------
EXPLANATION
SULFATE IN STREAMS
In milligrams per liter
less than 59
59 250
• greater than 250
AVERAGE COAL PRODUCTION
BY COUNTY (1980 95)
In thousands of tons per year
en 0-50
en 51 -1,000
• 1,001 -10,000
H 10,001 20,000
Figure 5. Sulfate concentration in wadeable streams
was highest in counties with the highest coal production.
10,000
1,000
100
10
Drinking-water guideline = 50 ng/L ^
Median = 32 ng/L
COAL PRODUCTION (MILLIONS OF TONS
MINED PER SQUARE MILE, 1980 95)
Figure 6. Concentrations of manganese in about
half of the streams draining heavily mined basins
were less than the study median.
therefore, were targeted at decreasing mining-related
acidification and concentrations of iron and manga-
nese, but were not designed to decrease sulfate concen-
trations. Sulfate concentrations less than 59 mg/L
(milligrams per liter; study median) were measured
only from basins where less than 142,000 ton/mi2 of
coal were produced during 1980-95 (figs. 4 and 5). In
contrast, manganese concentrations less than 32 |ig/L
(micrograms per liter; study median) were measured at
several heavily mined basins (fig. 6).
Sulfate concentration in streams draining mined
areas does not correlate strongly with coal production
because sulfate production depends on local geology,
mining practice, and possibly results from activities in
addition to mining. Sulfate concentration is higher than
background, however, in basins with the greatest coal
production. Background sulfate concentration was less
than 25 mg/L in 16 of 20 basins not mined since 1980.
In contrast, sulfate concentration was greater than 250
mg/L in 8 of 15 mined basins drained by streams tribu-
tary to the Coal River. The USEPA guideline for sulfate
in drinking water is 250 mg/L.
For two years, water chemistry was analyzed
monthly and at high flow at two streams in heavily
mined basins, and at one stream where no coal had
been mined since 1980. At the mined sites, sulfate, sev-
eral other ions, and specific conductance decreased as
streainflow increased; at the unmined site, major-ion
concentrations were low at all flows (fig. 7). Dissolved
iron and manganese concentrations were virtually unre-
lated to flow at all three sites. At both Peters Creek near
Lockwood and Clear Fork at Whitesville, specific con-
ductance was correlated with sulfate concentration, and
correlations were nearly as strong between specific
conductance and dissolved calcium, magnesium,
sodium, and chloride. The same patterns were found in
data for the sites before the implementation of the
SMCRA.
Streamflow, water temperature, pH, and specific
conductance were measured hourly at the two mined
sites during the same two years. In the Coal River
Basin at Clear Fork, sulfate concentration (estimated
from the hourly specific conductance) exceeded the
1,000
— o)
o oT
|_ LU
< b
o: _i
S^
o
o
o
100
10
Drinking-water guideline = 250 mg/L
Clear Fork near
^Whitesville (mining)
Peters Creek near
Lockwood (mining)
Williams River at Dyer,
(not recently mined)
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
Figure 7. The concentration of sulfate, like other major ions,
decreased with flow at two heavily mined sites but was
consistently low at a site with no recent mining (Clear Fork
R2= 0.90, Peters CrR2= 0.91, Williams River R = 0.11).
6 Water Quality of the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
250-mg/L guideline about 25 percent of the time. Sul-
fate concentrations across a range of flow at Clear Fork
were at least 10 percent greater in 1998 than in 1979-
81.
Coal-mining methods in the Kanawha-New River
Basin
In the Kanawha-New River Basin, half of the coal
comes from underground mines and half from surface
mines. Surface subsidence is expected above longwall
mines, which remove about 90 percent of a coal seam,
but is less common above room-and-pillar mines that
may remove only 60 percent. Surface mines, both
smaller contour mines and larger mountaintop mines,
can remove 100 percent of a series of seams. Surface-
mine operators working in steep-slope areas cannot
simply replace all waste-rock material within the
boundaries of the mine sites, because broken rock takes
more space than consolidated rock. The excess is
placed in valleys as fill material where the land is flat
enough to provide a stable foundation, but the valley
fills greatly affect the stream environment (U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, 2000).
Stream Benthic-lnvertebrate Communities are
Impaired at Mined Sites
In all streams sampled that drain areas where large
quantities of coal have been mined, the benthic-
invertebrate community is impaired in comparison to
rural parts of the study area where little or no coal has
been mined since 1980 (fig. 8). Some streams in which
Epeorus
(Mayfly nymph)*
Dolophilodes
(Caddisfly larva)**
• Higher MHBI (impaired invertebrate
community)
median
Lower MHBI (healthy invertebrate
community)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
BASINWIDE COAL PRODUCTION, IN MILLIONS
OF TONS MINED PER SQUARE MILE, 1980 95
Figure 8. Only sites with little recent coal production
had healthy invertebrate communities as measured
by low (favorable) scores on the Modified Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index, although not all impaired sites were in
areas of high coal production.
Figure 9. Invertebrates that are intolerant of fine
sediment were present at unmined sites and sites
with little coal production since 1980. (Photograph by
* Jennifer Hiebert, University of Alberta; ** D.B. Chambers,
USGS; *** Arturo Elosegi, North American Benthological
Society. All photos reproduced with permission)
the community is impaired drained areas that were not
heavily mined.
Invertebrate communities were sampled from riffles
at 29 wadeable streams in areas of the Appalachian
Plateaus where coal is or has been mined (Chambers
and Messinger, 2001). The sites were separated into
two groups by statistical comparison of species compo-
sition and abundance. Each group contained communi-
ties that were similar. The communities that included
several insect taxa known for intolerance of fine sedi-
ment were identified as the less impaired group of sites.
These taxa include Epeorus mayflies and Dolophilodes
and Rhyacophila caddisflies (fig. 9). Epeorus is a genus
of relatively large mayflies that cling to the bottom of
large, loosely embedded rocks. Fine sediment can fill
the openings in the stream bottom where they live.
Caddisflies in the genus Dolophilodes spin finely
meshed nets that can be clogged with silt. Rhyacophila
are mobile predators typically found in clean, cool-
water streams. These intolerant taxa were not present in
the invertebrate communities at sites identified as
poorer. In addition, scores from the MHBI (Modified
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index; see glossary) and proportions
of pollution-tolerant taxa from the midge family were
significantly greater at the more impaired group of
sites. The MHBI and other biological metrics are math-
ematical summaries of characteristics that change pre-
dictably in response to environmental stress. They are
used to measure ecological health of a system (Karr
and Chu, 1999).
Major Findings 7
-------
Benthic invertebrates are good indicators of overall
stream-water quality
Benthic invertebrates are sensitive indicators of many
types of stream disturbance (Barbour and others,
1999). Because most have a life span of about a year
and many remain in the same short section of stream
during most of their lives, they are particularly well
suited for assessments of short-term, local disturbances
within a watershed. Fish, however, often move
throughout a stream system, enabling them to seek ref-
uge from such disturbances. An impaired invertebrate
community is more than a disruption in the aquatic
food web— it indicates that stream chemistry and (or)
physical habitat are impaired. Stream-chemistry data
provide useful information about the stream's quality
only for the time of sampling, but benthic-invertebrate
communities can show the effects of short-term distur-
bances that can easily be missed when stream-quality
assessments rely only on chemical measurements.
Differences in land use, stream habitat, and stream
chemistry between the groups of sites suggest possible
causes for the different invertebrate communities. The
less impaired group of sites drained basins that were
unmined, or where less than 10,000 ton/mi were
mined during 1980-95. Most basins in the more
impaired group of sites had been mined within the last
20 years by both surface and underground methods;
most contained abandoned mines that pre-dated
SMCRA and produced 100,000 to 1,000,000 ton/mi2 of
coal. Some of the basins in the more impaired group,
however, had not been mined since 1980. Coal produc-
tion during 1980-95 is not an ideal indicator of the
environmental disturbance caused by coal mining, but
it related better to environmental measurements than
did production over a shorter interval, number of aban-
doned mines, or mine discharge permits (Chambers
and Messinger, 2001).
At the more impaired sites, the proportion of total
land area as strip mines, quarries, disturbed land, or
gravel pits was significantly greater than at the less
impaired sites. In addition, sulfate concentration, spe-
cific conductance, and alkalinity of stream water were
all higher. Stream pH did not differ significantly
between the two groups; pH is regulated in mine dis-
charges.
Two basins that were not mined since 1980 con-
tained valley fills similar to those constructed at large
surface mines. The invertebrate community in Mill
Creek near Hopewell, W. Va., which drains an area
with few relatively small fills, grouped with the less
impaired sites. Davis Creek at Trace Creek, W. Va.,
drains several large fills at a shopping center and was in
the poorer group.
Instream habitat structure also differed significantly
between the two groups. Sites from the less impaired
group had less sand and silt in the stream bottom.
Smaller median sediment size correlated with
decreased number of taxa of mayflies, stoneflies, and
caddisflies (EPT taxa) and an increased (more
impaired) score on the Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic
Index (fig. 10; r2 = 0.46 and 0.43, respectively). Among
the sites sampled, correlations between invertebrate
metrics and coal production (or factors relating to coal
mining) were weak, largely because some streams were
impaired by other land uses. Erosion and sediment dep-
osition in basins with active mines have decreased
overall because of controls required under SMCRA,
but temporal comparisons are not possible. Sedimenta-
tion in 1998 remained generally greater, however, at
sites in basins with coal production since 1980 than in
unmined basins.
The invertebrate-community degradation repre-
sented the cumulative effects of mining before and after
SMCRA, deep mining and surface mining, mines in
and out of compliance with applicable regulations, and
all other nonmining disturbances in the basins.
Impaired sites from this region ranked near the middle
of an index that ranked NAWQA sites representing dif-
ferent land uses throughout the United States. (See dis-
cussion of effects on invertebrate communities
nationally, p. 11). Logging and ongoing construction
probably contribute to sedimentation, but their extent in
each basin could not be quantified. Logging may con-
tribute more sediment per disturbed volume of soil than
mining.
DQ
o
0 40 80 120 160
MEDIAN STREAMBED-PARTICLE
SIZE, IN MILLIMETERS
1 10 100 1,000
SULFATE CONCENTRATION,
IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
Figure 10. Invertebrate-community metrics show generally better
conditions (lower MHBI) at sites with coarser streambeds and
lower sulfate concentrations, although correlations are weak.
8 Water Quality of the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
Regional study: Sulfate concentrations and biological communities in
Appalachian coal fields indicated mining-related disturbances despite a
general water-quality improvement between 1980 and 1998
39 -
37 -
In a 1998 study to assess 32
regional water-quality effects
of coal mining (Eychaner,
1999), samples representing
the Northern Appalachian coal
field were collected in the
Allegheny and Monongahela
River Basins (ALMN), where
high-sulfur coal is common
and acid mine drainage was
historically severe, and sam-
ples for the Central Appala-
chian coal field were collected
in the Kanawha-New River
Basin (KANA), where acid
drainage is uncommon
(fig. 11).
Water chemistry in 178
wadeable streams was ana-
lyzed once during low flow, in
July and August 1998. Drain-
age area for most streams was
between 4 and 80 mi . Most
(170) of these sites were also
part of a study on the effects of
coal mining that was con-
ducted during 1979-81 (Herb
and others, 1981a, 1981b;
1983; Ehlke and others, 1982),
before regional water quality was affected by imple-
mentation of regulations from the Surface Mining Con-
trol and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). At 61 sites,
aquatic invertebrates (insects, worms, crustaceans, and
mollusks) also were collected. Ground water was sam-
pled from 58 wells near coal surface mines and 25
wells in unmined areas. Wells sampled downgradient
from reclaimed surface coal mines reflect the local
effects of mining.
Concentrations of Regulated Constituents
Improved in Stream Base Flow From About
1980 to 1998
During low-flow conditions, sulfate in more than 70
percent of samples from streams downstream from coal
mines in both coal regions exceeded the regional back-
ground concentration. Background was calculated as
about 21 mg/L sulfate from data for basins with no
0 40 KILOMETERS
0 40 MILES
Lake Erie
• < "
Northern
Coal
Fields
EXPLANATION
I I STUDY UNIT
SULFURCONTENTOFCOAL
by county, in percent
Greaterthan 1.3
Lessthan 1.3
• No data
APPROXIMATE
BOUNDARY BETWEEN
APPALACHIAN COAL
FIELDS
MAJOR STREAMS
Figure 11. Coal seams in the Appalachian coal region
vary in sulfur content, and the fields are identified
primarily on the basis of this difference (Tully, 1996).
The Kanawha New River Basin contains mostly lower
sulfur coal, while the Allegheny and Monongahela
River Basins contain mostly higher sulfur coal.
history of coal mining. The
highest concentrations were
measured in basins with the
greatest coal production. One-
fourth of all samples exceeded
250 mg/L, the USEPA drink-
ing-water guideline.
Total iron, total manganese,
and total aluminum also
exceeded regional background
concentrations (129, 81, and
23 |ig/L, respectively) in many
streams in mined basins. The
median concentrations of total
iron in the northern coal region
were about equal between
mined and unmined basins, but
in the central region, concen-
trations of median total iron
among mined basins were
lower than among unmined
basins. In both regions, median
concentrations of total manga-
nese among mined basins were
about double that among
unmined basins.
Median pH increased, and
median concentrations of total
iron and total manganese
decreased among mined basins between 1979-81 and
1998 in both regions, reflecting that regulations
restricting these constituents in mine drainage are
effective. Even so, stream sites downstream from mines
more commonly exceeded drinking-water guidelines
for sulfate, iron, manganese, and aluminum concentra-
tions than streams in unmined basins (fig. 12).
LU Q ±= OU
a! LU QJ
|§5 4°
O Lufjj 3°
1X1 t t
< I g 20
111'0
EC n
_
-
-
-
-
h
D MINED SITES
D UNMINED SITES _
-
-
1
-
n :
Iron Manganese Sulfate Aluminum
Figure 12. Stream water more often exceeded
drinking-water guidelines at mined sites than at
unmined sites.
Major Findings 9
-------
SULFATE,
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
GREATER
THAN
21
LESS
THAN
21
• NORTHERN COAL FIELDS A CENTRAL COAL FIELDS
MEDIAN
- A ••••••lukMk** A •
1* • A • ••*• 'T"»»« • •
,
10
20
30
NUMBER OF LARVAL MAYFLY, STONEFLY,
ANDCADDISFLYTAXA
Figure 13. Sulfate concentration in stream water was inversely
related to the number of mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly taxa
found at water-quality sampling sites.
Aquatic Benthic Invertebrate Communities are
Impaired in Mined Basins
Aquatic invertebrate communities tended to be more
impaired where there was more coal mining, when
compared to basins where there was little coal mining.
Pollution-tolerant species are more likely to be present
at mined sites than at unmined sites, whereas pollution-
sensitive taxa were fewer in number or non existent in
heavily mined basins. Increasing coal production corre-
lated with both an increased concentration of sulfate
and a decline in some aquatic insect populations (fig.
13). Of the 61 sites where aquatic invertebrates were
collected, those sites with sulfate concentrations higher
than the estimated background concentration had the
lower diversity of three groups of sensitive insect spe-
cies (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies), even though
the pH of the water at all sites was greater than 6.5.
At the concentrations measured, the sulfate ion is
relatively non toxic to aquatic organisms and may not
represent the cause of the decline observed in mayflies
and stoneflies. Sulfate concentration was, however,
positively correlated with the total coal production
from a basin (Sams and
Beer, 2000). Other land-
scape disturbances asso-
ciated with coal
mining—changes in
streamflow, siltation, or
trace metal contamina-
tion—could affect the
invertebrate community.
Negative effects on com-
munities caused by min-
ing were of similar
magnitude to the effects
'OC3
Sffi
a«2
^ g
DC
LLI
K
CC
LJJ
Q.
i
^
CD
I
z
LJJ
^
_l
CO
ouu
700
600
500
400
300
200
100,
t
n <
— Drinking-water guideline
— Background level in
unmined areas
« Northern coal region
» Central coal region
,*
*• .*
»
• •
* * » t « »
Ljt-±—*-— t j.
-^-»- " " « • — i • i i -
Iron Manganese Sulfate Aluminum
Figure 15. Ground-water samples more often
exceeded drinking-water guidelines in mined
areas than in unmined areas.
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
DISTANCE FROM MINED AREA, IN FEET
Figure 14. Sulfate concentrations in ground water are
greater within 1,000 feet of reclaimed surface coal mines
and in the northern coal region than at greater distance
and in the central coal region.
of urban development, agriculture, large construction
projects, flow alterations, or wastewater
effluent.
Sulfate, Iron, and Manganese Concentrations
were Elevated in Wells Near Reclaimed
Surface Mines
At mined sites in both coal regions, pH was lower
and sulfate concentration was greater at mined sites
than at unmined sites. Sulfate concentrations in ground
water were higher than background concentrations in
shallow wells within 1,000 feet of reclaimed surface
mines (fig. 14). Samples from wells in the northern
coal region contained more sulfate than wells at
unmined sites in the same region, or at any of the sites
in the central coal region. Iron, manganese, and alumi-
num were higher than background con-
centrations within about 2,000 feet of
reclaimed surface mines (1,800, 640, and
11 |ig/L, respectively).
Water from most wells, except at
unmined sites in the northern coal region,
exceeded guidelines for iron and manga-
nese, which make the water unpleasant to
drink (fig. 15). The concentrations in
both regions were higher near reclaimed
mines than at unmined sites.
D MINED SITES
D UNMINED SITES
10 Water Quality of the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
BS °
Q
? 20
cn
CO
>;
40
60
80
100
O
1
I
1
a
1
•
T
?
i
\\\\\
EXPLANATION
• KANAWHA NEW RIVER
BASIN SITES
NAWQA SITES NATIONWIDE
T
T
10th percentile
25th percentile
Median
75th percentile
90th percentile
Invertebrate communities at two coal
mining stream sites ranked near the middle
of more than 600 NAWQA sites sampled
nationwide during 1991-98. These sites had
index scores better than national median
scores for urban sites, about the same as
national median scores for agricultural
sites, and worse than national median
scores for undeveloped sites. The commu-
nity at a forested and undeveloped site in
the Appalachian Plateaus was within the
best 10 percent of NAWQA sites nationally
and within the best 25 percent of undevel-
oped sites.
Nationally, invertebrate communities at
heavily agricultural sites were commonly
highly impaired. In the Kanawha-New
River Basin, agriculture is usually of low
intensity and centers on pasturing small herds of cattle and growing cattle feed. Invertebrate communities at two
agricultural sites, one in the Appalachian Plateaus and one in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province, were within
the best 10 percent of all sites nationally.
Sites in undeveloped and agricultural basins in the Kanawha New River
Basin rank among the best sites nationally in the National Invertebrate
Community Status Index. More impaired sites in the Kanawha New River
Basin rank about the same or better than most sites that represent
developed land uses nationally. (Low scores correspond to diverse
invertebrate communities.)
Some Contaminants are Widespread and
Present at Potentially Harmful Concentrations
in Streambed Sediment and Fish Tissue
Ten Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons were Found in
Streambed Sediments in Concentrations that may
Harm Aquatic Life
Forty samples of Streambed sediment from 36 sites
in the Kanawha-New River Basin were analyzed for
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) during
1996-98. PAHs are components of wood smoke, diesel
exhaust, soot, petroleum, and coal. Their toxicity var-
ies, and some are carcinogenic to humans and other
animals. Of the 12 PAHs for which guidelines were
available, 10 were detected at concentrations exceeding
the Probable Effect Level (PEL; see information box
on sediment-quality guidelines), and all were detected
at concentrations exceeding the Threshold Effect Level
(TEL).
High concentrations of PAHs were present in each
physiographic setting in the basin except for the Blue
Ridge, although the only high concentrations in the
Valley and Ridge/Appalachian Plateaus transition zone
were in basins where coal has been mined. The highest
Sediment Quality Guidelines
NAWQA's bed-sediment sampling protocol (Shelton
and Capel, 1994) is designed to maximize the chance
of detecting contaminants that have been transported in
a stream during the previous 1-3 years. The data from
this study were compared to final Canadian Sediment
Quality Guidelines (SQGs) rather than the preliminary
USEPA guidelines. SQGs have been issued by Envi-
ronment Canada for 8 trace elements and 12 PAHs
(Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment,
1999). At concentrations below a Threshold Effect
Level (TEL), contaminants are rarely expected to have
a toxic effect on aquatic fife. At concentrations above a
Probabfe Effect Levef (PEL), toxic effects are expected
frequentfy. Concentrations of substances that exceed
SQGs may impfy, but not prove, that organisms in the
streams of interest are at risk from those substances.
PAH concentrations measured in this study were in the
Appafachian Pfateaus. Some of the highest PAH con-
centrations were measured at some of the most heavily
mined sites in the basin, although the correlation
between coal production and Streambed PAH con-
Major Findings 1 f
-------
centration was weak (r = 0.52, among 20
wadeable stream sites within the coal
region). Coal samples from several com-
monly mined seams in West Virginia were
between 20 and 85 percent PAH by mass
(W.H. Orem, U.S. Geological Survey, writ-
ten commun., July 2000). Coal particles are
common in sediment from many streams in
the coal fields. The PAHs from the coal par-
ticles, however, may not be bioavailable
(Chapman and others, 1996). Unlike other
NAWQA study areas, no correlation was
found between most other land uses and
PAH concentration.
Four Trace Elements were Present in
Streambed Sediment in Concentrations
That May Harm Aquatic Life
A total of 53 bed-sediment samples from
47 sites in the Kanawha-New River Basin
were analyzed for trace elements during
1996-98. All eight of the trace elements for which cri-
teria were available were found at some sites in con-
centrations exceeding their Threshold Effect Level (fig.
16; see information box on sediment-quality guide-
lines). Nickel, chromium, zinc, and lead were detected
at concentrations exceeding their Probable Effect
Level. Nickel concentrations exceeded the Probable
Effect Level most frequently (in 47 of the 53 samples),
based on the 1995 Sediment Quality Guidelines; a final
SQG was not issued for nickel at the time that other
SQGs were finalized.
Trace-element concentrations also were determined
in livers of common carp or rock bass in 27 samples
from 18 sites in 1996 and 1997. Some samples con-
tained concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead, mer-
cury, nickel, selenium, and zinc that were among the
highest 25 percent of more than 900 NAWQA samples
nationwide (1991-98). Concentrations of cadmium,
mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc in fish-tissue sam-
ples from the Kanawha-New River Basin ranked
among the highest 10 percent of all NAWQA samples;
six samples contained cadmium concentrations ranking
among the highest 10 percent of all NAWQA samples,
and five samples contained selenium concentrations
ranking among the highest 10 percent of all NAWQA
samples. One fish-tissue sample, from Kanawha River
at Winfield, contained cadmium at a concentration
ranking in the highest 1 percent of all samples in the
Figure 16. Some trace element concentrations in stream-bed sediment
exceeded Environment Canada's effects-based criteria at several sites in
the basin. Probable effects levels (PEL) are those concentrations at which
harmful effects to aquatic life are thought to be likely, and were exceeded
most frequently in the Allegheny Highlands and other Appalachian Plateaus
streams. Threshold effects levels (TEL) were exceeded at all sites by nickel
and chromium. "Valley and Ridge sites include transition zones between
provinces.
Nation. Determining the human health or ecological
significance of these concentrations is problematic,
because tissue samples were collected from many dif-
ferent species and because fish-liver tissue is not nor-
mally eaten by humans.
Fish Communities Differ Considerably
Throughout the Basin, but Non-native
Species Continue to Expand Their Range
Fish communities in the Kanawha-New River Basin
are complex and vary widely among streams of differ-
ent size, physiographic setting, and land use. Individual
species are distributed in patches, particularly upstream
from Kanawha Falls (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994).
This patchy distribution can confound comparisons
among streams (Strange, 1999). The quality of the
regional fish community is generally good, although
the national NAWQA fish index seems to underrate
that quality because it does not consider the patchy dis-
tribution.
Non-native Fish Continue to Expand Their Range in
Tributaries of the New and Gauley Rivers
Three fish species were collected for the first time at
often-sampled sites in tributaries of the New and
Gauley Rivers (Cincotta and others, 1999). Margined
madtoms, a popular bait species, were collected for the
12 Water Quality of the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
first time from Second Creek near the village of Second
Creek. Margined madtoms are native to some parts of
the New River and some of its tributaries, but they had
never before been collected from the Greenbrier River
Subbasin. Telescope shiners (fig. 17), natives of the
Tennessee River Basin, have been collected in the New
River since 1958, and they continue to expand their
range. Telescope shiners were collected from another
often-sampled site, Williams River at Dyer, in the
Gauley River Subbasin; this was their first collection
upstream from Summersville Dam, a large impound-
ment. Telescope shiners also were collected for the first
time from two Meadow River tributaries, also in the
Gauley River Subbasin. Least brook lamprey were col-
lected for the first time from Williams River at Dyer,
their second collection from the Gauley River Subba-
sin. Populations of all these species were well estab-
lished, and the ongoing expansion of their ranges
suggests that all were relatively recent bait-bucket
introductions to the New River system. Two of these
reaches, and all of these streams, had been thoroughly
sampled in the late 1970s (Hocutt and others, 1978,
1979).
Figure 17. Example of a telescope shiner
(Notropis telescopus), a non-native species
in the Kanawha New River Basin.
(Photograph from Jenkins and Burkhead,
1994; used by permission from the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries)
Other fish collected for the first time in the basin
were in tributaries of the Coal River. The new species
in Coal River distribution records were from large trib-
utaries where few or no surveys had been made since
the 1930s. Mottled sculpin, bluebreast darter, river
carpsucker, blacknose dace, and longnose dace all were
collected for the first time from Clear Fork near
Whitesville or Spruce Laurel Fork at Clothier, major
tributaries to the Big or Little Coal Rivers, respectively.
Several of these records represented the most upstream
collections in their respective forks of the Coal River,
although all had been collected from the Coal River
Subbasin. These new-species records most likely repre-
sent undersampling of streams that have often been
overlooked by investigators rather than new range
expansions.
In some regions of the United States, the highest pro-
portion of non-native fish are typically present in the
most impaired streams (Maret, 1997; Waite and Car-
penter, 2000). In these regions, unimpaired streams are
typically cold-water streams with complex physical
habitat and low nutrient concentrations. In impaired
streams where agricultural and urban land uses are
common, stream temperature and nutrient concentra-
tions are high and physical habitat is degraded. Many
non-native fish tolerate these conditions better than
many native species do, enabling the non-natives to
displace the natives. No such relation was found in the
Kanawha-New River Basin, where sedimentation and
increased dissolved solids have impaired streams, but
where temperature and nutrient concentrations have
remained low (Messinger and Chambers, 2001, in
press). The proportion of introduced fish in the New
River system was high, even though other measures did
not indicate impairment.
Fish Species Common Throughout the Ohio River
Basin are Not Native Upstream from Kanawha Falls
The New River system, which fisheries biologists
consider to include the Gauley River and its tributaries,
supports a different collection of fish species than the
downstream Kanawha River system, which is part of
the larger Ohio River system (Jenkins and Burkhead,
1994). Kanawha Falls (see front cover), a 24-foot
waterfall 2 miles downstream from the confluence of
the New and Gauley Rivers, is the boundary between
the New River and Kanawha River systems. This
waterfall has been a barrier to upstream fish movement
since glaciers affected streams more than 1 million
years ago. The New River system lacks native species
diversity, and it has unfilled ecological niches. It has
only 46 native fishes and the lowest ratio of native
fishes to drainage area of any river system in the East-
ern United States.
The lack of native-species diversity allowed other
species to develop in the New River system, which has
the largest proportion of endemic species (found
nowhere else in the world) in eastern North America (8
of 46). Introduced fish species have prospered in the
New River system; Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) cite
the New River system as having the largest number and
proportion (42 of 89) of introduced freshwater species
Major Findings 13
-------
of all major eastern and central North American drain-
ages.
Although many species have been introduced and
become naturalized throughout the 19th and 20th cen-
turies, the New River fish fauna remain susceptible to
invasion. In contrast, 118 fish species are reported from
the Kanawha River system downstream from Kanawha
Falls (Stauffer and others, 1995); none of these fish
species are endemic to the Kanawha River system, and
only 15 are considered possible, probable, or known
introductions.
Fish Communities are Controlled By a Variety of
Environmental Factors in the Kanawha-New River
Basin
In testing the possible effects of coal mining on fish
communities, results were less definitive than for
benthic invertebrates (p. 8-9). No common fish metrics
(Karr and Chu, 1999; Harbour and others, 1999) corre-
lated closely with mining intensity or its surrogate, sul-
fate concentration. The study included sites both
upstream and downstream from Kanawha Falls, and
differences in many metrics between the two groups
mask differences among land-use categories
(Messinger and Chambers, 2001, in press). However,
fish were collected at only 13 wadeable sites in the coal
region, which did not represent a full gradient of min-
ing intensity.
High Concentrations of Fecal Bacteria
Remain in Streams if Sources are Close
Concentrations of
Escherichia coli (E.
coif) exceeded the
national guideline for
public swimming areas
in 26 percent of sam-
ples from major rivers
in the Kanawha-New
River Basin and in 43
percent of samples
from tributary streams
(fig. 18); however, no
outbreak of water-
borne disease was
reported from the basin
during 1991-98 (Bar-
wick and others, 2000).
Bacteria concentration
Tributary streams
in stream water varies widely, reflecting the changing
balance between bacterial sources and many factors
that help or hinder bacteria transport. Because of the
wide variability, comparisons between streams based
on only a few samples can be misleading; a few gener-
alizations, however, can be made.
First, streams contain more bacteria if the sources
are close to the stream and the sampling site. Among
large rivers, median concentrations of E. coli were low-
est in the New River Gorge at Thurmond, in a reach
distant from any large city (fig. 18). Concentrations
were highest in the Kanawha River downstream from
the Charleston metropolitan area at Winfield. In the
two tributary basins with the highest median concentra-
tions, most homes are clustered close to the streams
because the land slopes steeply elsewhere. In contrast,
four tributary streams in basins with more moderate
slopes, where bacteria sources are more dispersed, had
median E. coli concentrations less than half as high.
Regardless of slope, direct contamination of a stream
by sewage or manure can produce extremely high con-
centrations, as Gillies and others (1998) observed in the
Greenbrier River.
Second, bacteria concentrations exceeding guide-
lines are much more common when streamflow is
greater than average, so streams generally contain more
bacteria in winter than in summer (fig. 19). E. coli con-
centrations exceeded guidelines in less than one-third
of summer samples from moderate-slope tributaries
and less than one-fifth from large rivers. In the three
Large rivers
Steep Slopes
Moderate slopes
New River Kanawha River
10,000
,
H 1,000
08
O'-
I
5°
100
10
. : ! « •
5--L: i « i ! • i !
• • • • •
EXPLANATION
• MEASURED VALUE
MEDIAN VALUE
USEPA GUIDELINE
FOR PUBLIC
SWIMMING AREAS
rt?>
,0*
V
SAMPLING SITES
Figure 18. E, coli bacteria concentrations in streams vary widely.
14 Water Quality of the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
Tributary streams
Large rivers
Steep slopes Moderate slopes New River Kanawha River
PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLES THAT
EXCEEDED 235 COLONIES OF
/> E. COLI PER 100 MILLILITERS
\. g g g g I
rn
D Summer (May-October)
n Winter (November-April)
•
. , , I
r
,
,r
_
,
Figure 19. Guidelines for E. coli are exceeded
more often in winter than in summer for most
streams.
tributary basins with steeper slope, however, concentra-
tions were higher in summer than winter.
Finally, streams contain more bacteria if the bacteria
sources are large. Williams River, the tributary basin
with the lowest median concentration of E. coli (fig.
18) is home to only 5 people per square mile, compared
to the average of 71 people per square mile throughout
the entire Kanawha-New River Basin. For twice the
population density, median E. coli was about 300 per-
cent higher among steep-slope tributaries. Among the
moderate-slope basins, however, including the Blue-
stone River Basin with 201 people per square mile,
median E. coli was only about 10 percent higher for
twice the population density. Neither the estimated
number of cattle nor the percentage of agricultural land
use in the tributary basins showed a relation to the
median bacteria concentrations.
Facts about E. coli
Escherichia coli (E. coli) is a bacterium that grows in
the intestines of people, other mammals, and birds.
Most strains of E. coli do not cause disease, but they do
indicate water contamination by feces, which could
contain other disease-causing organisms. The national
guideline for public swimming areas is less than 235 E.
coli colonies per 100 milliliters of water (col/100 mL)
in any single sample (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1986). That level is intended to allow no more
than 8 gastrointestinal illnesses per 1,000 swimmers.
For waters infrequently used for full-body-contact rec-
reation, the guideline is 576 col/100 mL.
Nutrient and Organic-Chemical
Concentrations in Surface Water
are Low in Most of the Basin
Nutrients were Detected at Low Concentrations in
Streams of the Kanawha-New River Basin
Mean concentrations of nutrients in the Kanawha-
New River Basin were at or below national background
levels. Most concentrations, however, exceed those
measured at a stream-water-monitoring site at Williams
River, which drains mostly National forest. The highest
mean nitrate concentration measured was 1.5 mg/L.
Flow-weighted mean ammonia concentrations ranged
from less than 0.02 to 0.04 mg/L. Mean total phospho-
rus concentration was less than 0.1 mg/L at nine sites;
the maximum was 0.15 mg/L. Nitrate and phosphorus
are typically increased by agricultural or urban land
uses, and certain nutrients, such as ammonia, can accu-
mulate from natural sources.
Differences in nutrient concentrations were found
among sites because of differences in land use/land
cover, and physiography. Generally, basins with more
agriculture produced more mean total nitrogen than did
forested basins. The lowest mean total nitrogen con-
centration in streams, 0.71 mg/L was that for mostly
forested tributary basins in the Appalachian Plateaus
produced (fig. 20). The lowest mean concentration in
the basin, or background concentration, was 0.45 mg/L,
at Williams River. Tributary streams with basins mostly
or wholly within the Valley and Ridge Physiographic
Province had the highest mean total nitrogen, 1.04
mg/L. One stream in the Blue Ridge had a mean total
nitrogen concentration of 0.94 mg/L. The mean total
nitrogen concentration was not substantially different
between large rivers and smaller tributaries (0.83 and
0.90 mg/L respectively).
Four sites, draining forest mixed with agriculture or
coal mining, ranked among the best sites in the Nation
in a national Algal Status Index. This index measures
the proportion of algal samples that belong to species
that are tolerant of high nutrient concentrations and
siltation.
Pesticides were Detected at Low Concentrations in
Surface Water
Pesticides were sampled for 9 to 25 times at four
sites in 1997. Two sites were on main-stem, large
streams. The other two sites on tributary streams
drained basins with more than 30 percent agricultural
Major Findings 15
-------
Figure 20. Because
much of the Kanawha
New River Basin is
forested, surface water
and ground water
contain low
concentrations of
nutrients and few
pesticides.
land and some urban land. (See Study Unit Design,
p. 20). Time of sampling covered the seasonal spec-
trum of both climate and pesticide application. The
pesticides detected at all sites are routinely detected at
agricultural sites across the Nation.
Surface-water samples in the Kanawha-New River
Basin contained only a few pesticides at low levels. In
all, 23 of 83 pesticides analyzed for were detected
(Ward and others, 1998). All pesticide detections were
less than 1 |ig/L; concentrations detected did not
exceed USEPA drinking-water standards or aquatic-life
criteria. The most commonly detected pesticides were
atrazine, deethylatrazine (a breakdown product of atra-
zine), metolachlor, prometon, simazine, and tebuthiu-
ron. Atrazine, deethylatrazine, metolachlor and
simazine were detected in more than 90 percent of
samples.
Dioxin is a particularly toxic contaminant in certain
herbicides formerly manufactured near Charleston and
is a known contaminant in the lower Kanawha River,
but it was not analyzed for this study. Dioxin in the
lower Kanawha River is the target of ongoing regula-
tory investigations by USEPA and other agencies.
Many VOCs Detected in the Lower Kanawha River
Numerous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have
been detected routinely at low concentrations in the
Kanawha River downstream from the Charleston met-
ropolitan area (Tennant and others, 1992). In this study,
more than 20 VOCs were detected, at concentrations
ranging from 0.015 to 0.3 |lg/L, in each of two samples
collected in late 1997 from the Kanawha River at Win-
field. Each sample was analyzed for 85 compounds
(Ward and others, 1998). The compounds detected at
Winfield, downstream from Charleston, included
chloroform, motor fuel and aromatic compounds such
as benzene, and industrial compounds such as ethers.
In contrast, only a single compound was detected in
one of two samples collected from the Kanawha River
upstream at Kanawha Falls.
During 1987-96, one or more of 21 VOCs were
detected in 50 percent of all daily samples collected for
the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
(ORSANCO) from an industrial water intake at St.
Albans, downstream from Charleston (Lundgren and
Lopes, 1999). Benzene and toluene were the two most
frequently detected compounds, and a maximum of 11
compounds was detected in a single sample. Median
concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 2.3 |lg/L. Gasoline
spills or leaks of as little as 10 gallons per day that
reach the river could produce the concentrations mea-
sured at St. Albans.
Radon Concentrations and Bacterial
Contamination are the Principal Ground-
Water-Quality Concerns
Physiographic Province, Geology, Well Construction,
and Land Use Affect the Quality of Water from
Domestic Wells
Ground water from private wells provides domestic
supply for 30 percent of the people in the Kanawha-
New River Basin. High concentrations of radon are a
concern in the Blue Ridge (p. 18), and private wells can
be contaminated by fecal bacteria throughout the basin
(p. 19), but the occurrence of other contaminants dif-
fers among the physiographic provinces.
16 Water Quality of the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
APPALACHIAN PLATEAUS PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE
In the layered sedimentary rocks of the Appalachian
Plateaus, ground water moves mostly in a network of
narrow fractures within a few hundred feet of the land
surface (Wyrick and Borchers, 1981; Harlow and
LeCain, 1993). Individual fractures typically connect to
only a few others, and a well normally taps only a few
of the many fractures nearby. Recharge comes from
rain and melting snow. Ground water flows generally
toward the nearest stream, forming local aquifers
bounded by the ridgetops. Contamination of a local
aquifer and its stream is most likely to come from local
sources.
Water samples were collected from 30 newer domes-
tic wells or similar-capacity public-supply wells
throughout the Appalachian Plateaus (Sheets and
Kozar, 2000) and from 28 generally older domestic
wells close to surface coal mines where reclamation
was completed between 1986 and 1996. Wells near
active mines were not sampled. Most of the wells were
between 40 and 200 feet deep, and most water levels
were between 10 and 90 feet below land surface.
Concentrations of iron and manganese exceeded
USEPA drinking-water guidelines in 40 and 57 percent,
respectively, of the wells throughout the Appalachian
Plateaus and in about 70 percent of wells near
reclaimed mines. Water that exceeds these guidelines is
unpleasant to drink and can stain laundry and plumbing
fixtures, but it is not a health hazard.
Potentially hazardous concentrations of methane, an
odorless component of natural gas that is often associ-
ated with coal seams, were detected in water at 7 per-
cent of the wells. At concentrations greater than about
10 mg/L, methane can bubble out of water pumped
from a well. If enough gas collects in a confined space,
an explosion is possible. In the West Virginia coal
fields, any well water that bubbles is a potential meth-
ane explosion hazard.
Other chemical analyses of ground water samples
collected as part of this study showed the following
water-quality characteristics and conditions. Water
from 61 percent of the wells near reclaimed mines was
slightly acidic (pH less than 6.5) and could leach lead
or copper from water pipes in homes. Only 23 percent
of other Appalachian Plateaus wells produced acidic
water. Radon exceeded the proposed USEPA standard
at half the wells throughout the Appalachian Plateaus
(p. 18). Water from half the wells exceeded 20 mg/L of
sodium, the upper limit that USEPA suggests for peo-
ple on a sodium-restricted diet. Arsenic in water from 7
percent of the wells exceeded the 10-|ig/L standard set
in January 2001, but none exceeded the previous
50-|ig/L standard. Concentrations of radon, sodium,
and arsenic were lower in wells near reclaimed mines
than in wells remote from reclaimed mines. Home
water-treatment techniques can remove lead, copper,
sodium, and arsenic from drinking water.
BLUE RIDGE PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE
In the igneous and metamorphic bedrock of the Blue
Ridge, as in the Appalachian Plateaus, ground water
moves in a network of shallow fractures. Local aqui-
fers generally drain toward the nearest stream (Coble
and others, 1985).
Water samples were collected from 30 newer domes-
tic wells or similar low-capacity public-supply wells
throughout the Blue Ridge. Most of the wells were
between 100 and 350 feet deep, and most water levels
were between 10 and 70 feet below land surface.
Ground water in the Blue Ridge is susceptible to
contamination. Chlorofluorocarbon concentrations
showed that the water in 89 percent of the wells had
been recharged within the previous 20 years, indicating
that contaminants could be transmitted readily into the
fractured rock aquifers (Kozar and others, 2001).
Chemical analyses of ground water samples col-
lected as part of this study indicated that concentrations
of radon were among the highest in the Nation (p. 18);
iron and manganese concentrations exceeded guide-
lines at only 17 percent of the wells; sodium exceeded
20 mg/L at 3 percent of the wells; and arsenic did not
exceed 1 |ig/L at any of the sites. Pesticides were
detected at 57 percent of the wells. The presence of the
common agricultural herbicide atrazine in ground
water, even in low concentrations, shows that potential
contaminants could move quickly from the land surface
into the drinking-water aquifer.
Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province ground-
water conditions can be inferred from studies in similar
settings in the Potomac River Basin, which was one of
the 1991 NAWQA study units. See Lindsey and Ator,
1996 and Ator and others, 1998 for more details.
Major Findings 17
-------
Kanawha-New
River Basin
EXPLANATION
STUDY UNITS WITH GROUND-WATER
RADON CONCENTRATION EXCEEDING:
d 1,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) in
at least 25 percent of samples
d 600 pCi/L in at least 25 percent of samples
n 300 pCi/L in at least 25 percent of samples
d 300 pCi/L in fewer than 25 percent of samples
n No data
River Basin
Potomac River Basin
Upper Tennessee
River Basin
Allegheny and
Monongahela Basins
Radon is a radioactive gas
that forms during the decay
of natural uranium. Igneous
and metamorphic rocks, like
Lower Susquehanna those in the Blue Ridge,
commonly contain more ura-
nium than other rock types.
Radon in the air in homes is
the second leading cause of
lung cancer; and radon
causes 2-3 percent of all
cancer deaths in the United
States. Homes can be
designed or remodeled to
remove radon from both drinking water and interior air. The only way to determine if an individual well or home
exceeds standards, however, is to have the water or air tested. Information on radon testing and removal is avail-
able at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/radon/qal.html and other Web sites.
Radon concentration exceeds 1,000 pCi/L (picocuries per liter) in at least 25 percent of ground-water samples
collected in many areas of the Eastern United States. In the Kanawha-New River Basin, 30 percent of samples
exceeded 1,000 pCi/L (Appendix, p. 27), making the basin comparable to the Potomac and Lower Susquehanna
River Basins to the northeast. Within the basin, however, radon in two-thirds of samples from wells in the Blue
Ridge exceeded 1,000 pCi/L, but only in 10 percent of samples from the Appalachian Plateaus. The northern part
of the basin, therefore, is more comparable to the adjacent Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers and Upper
Tennessee River Basins.
Ground-water Radon Concentrations were Highest in
the Blue Ridge
Radon concentrations were greater than 300 pCi/L, the
proposed drinking-water standard (U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, 1999), in 87 percent of wells
sampled in the Blue Ridge (fig. 21). The maximum
concentration detected was 30,900 pCi/L (Kozar and
Sheets, 1997). Of the 30 wells sampled, 10 contained
concentrations of radon greater than 4,000 pCi/L, the
alternate standard USEPA has proposed for regions
where action is taken to decrease airborne radon. As
water is used in a home, radon in the water can lead to
an increase in radon in the air, which is the major
exposure path for people.
Radon concentrations exceeded 300 pCi/L at 50 per-
cent of wells sampled throughout the Appalachian Pla-
teaus. The maximum in any sample was 2,500 pCi/L
(fig. 21). The area is underlain primarily by sandstone,
shale, coal, and limestone sedimentary rocks, in which
uranium is less common than in igneous and meta-
morphic rocks.
At 28 wells downgradient from recently reclaimed
surface coal mines, the median radon concentration
was just 115 pCi/L, and the maximum was 450 pCi/L.
Appalachian
Plateaus
Province
EXPLANATION
SAMPLED WELLS
O Subunit survey
n Mining land-use survey
RADON CONCENTRATION
In picocuries per liter
O Less than 300
• • 300 4,000
• • Greater than 4,000
Blue Ridge
Province
Figure 21. Radon concentrations vary greatly among
physiographic provinces.
18 Water Quality of the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
In comparison, at 15 wells in the same geologic units
but not near mines, the median concentration was 200
pCi/L.
Modern Well Construction Can Prevent Fecal Bacteria
from Reaching Drinking Water in Most Areas
Escherichia coli (E. coli) and the broader fecal
coliform group of bacteria indicate the possible pres-
ence of disease-causing organisms. Standards for pub-
lic drinking-water supplies do not permit the presence
of any of these bacteria at detectable levels. Septic sys-
tems or livestock near a well are the probable sources
of bacteria throughout the basin. Proper well construc-
tion can prevent bacteria from reaching the well water
in some settings, and drinking water can be disinfected
with chemicals or ultraviolet light.
Water from wells less than 25 years old in the Appa-
lachian Plateaus and Blue Ridge was generally free
from fecal bacteria (table 2). The sampled wells were
generally in good condition, with a section of solid pipe
at the top of the well sealed with concrete into the soil
and rock (Sheets and Kozar, 1997). A residential septic
system typically was nearby, but no heavy livestock use
was within several hundred yards. Bacteria were found,
however, at one fourth of the wells in a second study in
the Appalachian Plateaus, which included some older
wells and some without seals. Near these wells, there
also may have been bacteria sources other than a septic
system.
Table 2. E. coli or other fecal coliform bacteria were detected
in few modern wells
Setting
Percentage of wells where
bacteria were detected
Appalachian Plateaus:
Newer wells
Older wells
Blue Ridge (newer wells only)
3
26
Most wells in limestone aquifers in the basin, includ-
ing the Valley and Ridge, are at risk of contamination
by bacteria (Boyer and Pasquarell, 1999), even if septic
systems or livestock wastes are not nearby (Mathes,
2000), because ground water moves rapidly through
solution channels in the rock. The wide valleys that
typically overlie limestone aquifers are heavily used for
livestock and agriculture.
Volatile Organic Compounds and Pesticides in Ground
Water were Found in Low Concentrations
Both volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and pesti-
cides were detected at low concentrations in the ground
water of the Kanawha-New River Basin (Appendix, p.
27). Thirteen percent of samples (9 of 60) contained
VOC concentrations greater than 0.1 |ig/L. Of the
seven detected VOCs, however, only three have estab-
lished drinking-water standards. None of the VOCs
identified in samples exceeded these standards. Pesti-
cides were found above a detection limit of 0.001 |ig/L
in 32 percent of samples (19 of 60). Of the 12 detected
pesticides, 4 have established drinking-water standards,
none of which was exceeded.
Pesticides were detected in 17 of 30 wells sampled in
the Blue Ridge, where 30 percent of the land was being
used for agriculture in 1993. The most commonly
detected pesticides, at one-third of the wells, were atra-
zine and its breakdown product deethylatrazine. The
maximum concentration of all pesticides detected in a
single sample was 0.14 |ig/L. Two other pesticides,
p,p'-DDE and simazine, were present in more than 10
percent of samples at a maximum concentration of
0.025 |ig/L in this province. In the largely non agricul-
tural Appalachian Plateaus, however, pesticides were
detected only at two wells.
Nutrient Concentrations in Ground Water were At or
Below National Background Levels
Nutrients were prevalent at relatively low concentra-
tions in ground water of the Kanawha-New River
Basin. Nitrate concentration in 1 of 88 wells sampled in
this study exceeded the USEPA drinking-water stan-
dard of 10 mg/L (as nitrogen). Most ground water con-
tained less nitrate than does precipitation in the basin.
Concentrations of other nutrients measured were at or
below national background levels. These findings are
consistent with national findings on nutrients in the
ground water of forested areas, and the Kanawha-New
River Basin is about 80 percent forested.
In the water of Appalachian Plateaus wells, the rela-
tively high median ammonia concentration for a for-
ested region-0.16 mg/L- is probably a result of
mineralization of organic material. In contrast, ground
water in the Blue Ridge, where a greater percentage of
land is used for agriculture, had ground water with a
higher median nitrate concentration (0.42 mg/L) and a
higher median dissolved-oxygen concentration (5.1
mg/L).
Major Findings 19
-------
STUDY UNIT DESIGN
Studies in the Kanawha-New River Basin were designed to describe the general quality of water and the aquatic
ecosystem and to relate these conditions to natural and human influences (Gilliom and others, 1995). The design
focused on the principal environmental settings—combinations of geohydrology, physiography, and land
use—throughout the basin. The studies supplement assessment work by State agencies (Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 1998; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1999; West
Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, 2000).
Stream Chemistry and Ecology
The sampling network was designed to characterize
the effects of land use on stream quality at various
scales. Water chemistry, fish and invertebrate commu-
nities, habitat, and bed-sediment and fish-tissue chem-
istry were used as indicators of stream quality. Fixed
Sites were chosen on large rivers at the boundary
between the Valley and Ridge and Appalachian Pla-
teaus Physiographic Provinces, downstream from the
Greenbrier and Gauley Rivers, and near the mouth of
the Kanawha River. Fixed Sites also were chosen on
tributaries to represent the effects of agriculture, coal
mining, forest, and a relatively large human population
in an otherwise rural setting.
Appalachian
Plateaus
Province
EXPLANATION
SURFACE STREAM-WATER
SITE LOCATION
• Pesticides
* Coal-mining synoptic study
• Bed sediment and tissue
O Water quality and ecology
Valley
and
Ridge
Province
Blue Ridge
Province
Appalachian
Plateaus
Province
EXPLANATION
AQUIFER SURVEY WELLS
• Blue Ridge
• Appalachian Plateaus
• MINING LAND-USE
STUDY WELLS
Valley
and
Ridge
Province
Blue Ridge
Province
Ground-Water Quality
The ground-water network was designed to broadly
characterize the resource. Little previous information
was available in the aquifer-survey areas. Aquifer sur-
veys examined more constituents than any previous
study and included a random component in site selec-
tion that allows estimates to be made for the whole
population of similar wells. The land-use study tar-
geted current effects of mining reclamation standards
that have developed since around 1980.
20 Water Quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
Study
component
(Type of site)
What data were collected and why
Types of sites sampled
Number
of sites
Sampling
frequency
and period
STREAM CHEMISTRY AND ECOLOGY
Fixed sites —
General quality of
the water column
Fixed sites —
Dissolved
pesticides
Fixed sites —
General stream
ecology and
habitat
Contaminants in fish
tissue
Contaminants in bed
sediment
Synoptic sites —
Coal mining
Concentration, seasonal variability, and load of major ions,
common metals, nutrients, bacteria, organic carbon,
dissolved oxygen, suspended sediment, pH, specific
conductance, and temperature. Continuous streamflow
monitoring.
Concentration and seasonal variability of 86 organic
compounds in addition to the general water-column
constituents listed above.
Fish, benthic invertebrate, and algae communities were
sampled and physical habitat was described to
determine the presence and community structure of
aquatic species.
To determine the presence of potentially toxic compounds
in food chains that can include humans. Data included
22 elements and 28 organic compounds. Samples were
a composite of at least five fish from one species,
usually rock bass or common carp.
To determine the presence of potentially toxic compounds
attached to sediments accessible to aquatic life. Data
included 44 elements and more than 100 organic
compounds.
To assess the present effects of coal mining in Appalachian
Plateaus streams and the change in stream chemistry
since about 1980. Data included discharge, alkalinity,
acidity, pH, specific conductance, sulfate, chloride, and
dissolved and total iron, manganese, and aluminum.
Coordinated with a similar study in the Allegheny-
Monongahela study unit.
Benthic invertebrate community, physical habitat,
contaminants in bed sediment, and other major
ions in addition to constituents listed above.
Fish community, in addition to constituents listed above.
Large rivers with mixed land use, draining 3,700
to 1 1,800 square miles at sites located between
major tributaries or at boundaries of regional
environmental settings.
Tributary streams draining 40 to 300 square miles
in basins with predominant land uses of agri-
culture, coal mining, forest, and rural
residential.
One large river downstream from the Valley and
Ridge Physiographic Province and one near the
mouth of the Kanawha River.
Tributary streams with extensive agricultural land
use.
Fixed sites where general water-column samples
were collected.
Fixed sites where general water-column samples
were collected, plus contrasting settings in
three large basins with mixed land use and five
tributaries.
Same as sites for contaminants in fish. Composite
samples were collected from depositional
zones, where fine-grained sediments
transported within the past year settle out of the
water.
Streams draining 0.2 to 128 square miles in areas
of known mining history, including unmined
basins. Most of the sites were sampled for
water-column chemistry during 1979-81.
A subset of sites described above, draining 8.8 to
128 mi2.
A subset of benthic invertebrate sites.
4
7
2
2
11
19
19
57, including
3 Fixed
Sites
30
10
Monthly plus storms:
about 30 samples
during October
1996 through Sep-
tember 1998.
Semimonthly to
monthly; 14 or 15
samples in 1997.
Weekly to monthly
during 1997; 9 or
25 samples.
Once, in 1997; three
reaches sampled at
each of three tribu-
tary sites in 1998.
1 or 2 samples per site
and species, during
1996 or 1997; 27
total samples.
1 or 2 samples during
1996 or 1997; 21
total samples.
One sample during
low flow, July
1998.
GROUND-WATER
Aquifer Surveys —
Blue Ridge and
Appalachian Pla-
teaus
Land-use effects,
reclaimed surface
coal mines
General water quality, to determine the occurrence and
distribution of contaminants. Data included major ions,
nutrients, bacteria, organic carbon, 19 trace elements,
47 pesticides, 86 volatile organic compounds, dissolved
oxygen, turbidity, pH, specific conductance, and tem-
perature. Samples from the Blue Ridge were analyzed
for an additional 39 pesticides.
General water quality, to determine effects of present
reclamation requirements. Data included the constitu-
ents from aquifer surveys, without pesticides or volatile
organic compounds. Coordinated with a similar study in
the Allegheny-Monongahela Study Unit.
Domestic and public supply wells 25 years old
and younger, and in good condition.
Domestic wells within 3,100 feet downgradient
from a fully reclaimed surface coal mine.
Reclamation was complete between 2 and 12
years before sampling. None of the sites were
near "mountaintop removal" mines. Included
both old and new wells.
60
28,
compared to
1 0 unmined
aquifer survey
sites.
Once in 1997.
Once in 1998.
Study Unit Design 21
-------
GLOSSARY
Aquatic-life criteria—Water-quality guidelines for protec-
tion of aquatic life. Often refers to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency water-quality criteria for protection
of aquatic organisms.
Aquifer— A water-bearing layer of soil, sand, gravel, or
rock that will yield usable quantities of water to a well.
Background concentration— A concentration of a sub-
stance in a particular environment that is indicative of
minimal influence by human (anthropogenic) sources.
Bed sediment— The material that temporarily is stationary
in the bottom of a stream or other watercourse.
Benthic— Of, related to, or occurring on the bottom of a
water body.
Community— In ecology, the species that interact in a com-
mon area.
Constituent— A chemical or biological substance in water,
sediment, or biota that can be measured by an analytical
method.
Criterion— A standard rule or test on which a judgment or
decision can be based. Plural, Criteria.
Cubic foot per second (ft /s, or cfs)— Rate of water dis-
charge representing a volume of 1 cubic foot passing a
given point during 1 second, equivalent to approxi-
mately 7.48 gallons per second, or 448.8 gallons per
minute, or 0.02832 cubic meter per second.
Detection limit— The minimum concentration of a sub-
stance that can be identified, measured, and reported
within 99 percent confidence that the analyte concentra-
tion is greater than zero; determined from analysis of a
sample in a given matrix containing the analyte.
Dissolved constituent— Operationally defined as a constit-
uent that passes through a 0.45-micrometer filter.
Dissolved solids— Amount of minerals, such as salt, that are
dissolved in water; amount of dissolved solids is an
indicator of salinity or hardness.
Downgradient— At or toward a location farther from the
source of ground-water flow.
Drainage basin— The portion of the surface of the Earth
that contributes water to a stream through overland run-
off, including tributaries and impoundments.
Drinking-water standard or guideline— A threshold con-
centration in a public drinking-water supply, designed
to protect human health. As defined here, standards are
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations that
specify the maximum contaminate levels for public
water systems required to protect the public welfare;
guidelines have no regulatory status and are issued in an
advisory capacity.
Escherichia coli—A common species of intestinal or fecal
bacteria.
Fecal bacteria— Microscopic single-celled organisms (pri-
marily fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci) found in
the wastes of warm-blooded animals. Their presence in
water is used to assess the sanitary quality of water for
body-contact recreation or for consumption. Their pres-
ence indicates contamination by the wastes of warm-
blooded animals and the possible presence of patho-
genic (disease producing) organisms.
Intolerant organisms— Organisms that are not adaptable to
human alterations to the environment and thus decline
in numbers where human alterations occur. See also
Tolerant species.
Major ions—Constituents commonly present in concentra-
tions exceeding 1.0 milligram per liter. Dissolved cat-
ions generally are calcium, magnesium, sodium, and
potassium; the major anions are sulfate, chloride, fluo-
ride, nitrate, and those contributing to alkalinity, most
generally bicarbonate and carbonate.
Maximum contaminant level (MCL)— Maximum permis-
sible level of a contaminant in water that is delivered to
any user of a public water system. MCLs are enforce-
able standards established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Micrograms per liter (|ig/L)— A unit expressing the con-
centration of constituents in solution as weight (micro-
grams) of solute per unit volume (liter) of water;
equivalent to one part per billion in most streamwater
and ground water. One thousand micrograms per liter
equals 1 milligram per liter.
Milligrams per liter (mg/L)— A unit expressing the con-
centration of chemical constituents in solution as
weight (milligrams) of solute per unit volume (liter) of
water; equivalent to one part per million in most stream-
water and ground water.
Minimum reporting level (MRL)— The smallest measured
concentration of a constituent that may be reliably
reported using a given analytical method. In many
cases, the MRL is used when documentation for the
detection limit is not available.
Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (MHBI)— The Hilsen-
hoff Biotic Index (HBI) is a benthic invertebrate com-
munity index developed by W.L. Hilsenhoff. The HBI is
determined by assigning a pollution tolerance value for
each family of benthic invertebrates, then computing
the average tolerance for a sample. In a modification of
the HBI developed by R.W. Bode and M.A. Novak, pol-
lution tolerance values are assigned by genus, which
provides greater resolution in the average tolerance.
Nutrient— In aquatic systems, a substance that contributes
to algal growth. Nutrients of concern include nitrogen
and phosphorus compounds, but not elemental nitrogen.
Picocurie (pCi)— One trillionth (1012) of the amount of
radioactivity represented by a curie (Ci). A curie is the
amount of radioactivity that yields 3.7 x 1010 radioac-
tive disintegrations per second (dps). A picocurie yields
2.22 disintegrations per minute (dpm), or 0.037 dps.
22 Water Quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)— A class of
organic compounds with a fused-ring (aromatic) struc-
ture. PAHs result from incomplete combustion of
organic carbon (including wood), municipal solid
waste, and fossil fuels, as well as from natural or
anthropogenic introduction of uncombusted coal and
oil. PAHs include benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene, and
pyrene.
Recharge— Water that infiltrates the ground and reaches the
saturated zone.
Secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL)— The
maximum contamination level in public water systems
that, in the judgment of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (USEPA), is required to protect the public
welfare. SMCLs are secondary (nonenforceable) drink-
ing water regulations established by the USEPA for
contaminants that may adversely affect the odor or
appearance of such water.
Sediment— Particles, derived from rocks or biological
materials, that have been transported by a fluid or other
natural process, suspended or settled in water.
Specific conductance— A measure of the ability of a liquid
to conduct an electrical current.
Suspended (as used in tables of chemical analyses)— The
amount (concentration) of undissolved material in a
water-sediment mixture. It is associated with the mate-
rial retained on a 0.45-micrometer filter.
Suspended sediment— Particles of rock, sand, soil, and
organic detritus carried in suspension in the water col-
umn, in contrast to sediment that moves on or near the
streambed.
Taxon— Any identifiable group of taxonomically related
organisms, such as a species or family. Plural, Taxa.
Tolerant species— Those species that are adaptable to (tol-
erant of) human alterations to the environment and
often increase in number when human alterations occur.
Trace element— An element found in only minor amounts
(concentrations less than 1.0 milligram per liter) in
water or sediment; includes arsenic, cadmium, chro-
mium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc.
Upgradient— At or toward a location nearer to the source
of ground-water flow.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)— Organic chemicals
that have a high vapor pressure relative to their water
solubility. VOCs include components of gasoline, fuel
oils, and lubricants, as well as organic solvents, fumi-
gants, some inert ingredients in pesticides, and some
by-products of chlorine disinfection.
Water-quality standards— State-adopted and U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency-approved ambient stan-
dards for water bodies. Standards include the use of the
water body and the water-quality criteria that must be
met to protect the designated use or uses.
Watershed— See Drainage basin.
Babcock Mill at Babcock State Park, WV.
Photograph by Douglas B. Chambers, USGS.
Glossary 23
-------
REFERENCES
Ator, S.W., Blomquist, J.D., Brakebill, J.W., Denis, J.M.,
Ferrari, M.J., Miller, C.V., andZappia, Humbert, 1998,
Water quality in the Potomac River Basin, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District
of Columbia, 1992-96: U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1166, 38 p.
Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, I, Snyder, B.D., and Stribling,
J.B., 1999, Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in
streams and wadeable rivers—Periphyton, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and fish (2d ed.): U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
EPA 841-B—99-002.
Barwick, R.S., Levy, D.A., Craun, G.F., Beach, M.J., and
Calderon, R.L., 2000, Surveillance for waterborne-
disease outbreaks—United States, 1997-1998: Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, May 26, v. 49, SS 4, p. 1-35.
Boyer, D.G, and Pasquarell, G.C., 1999, Agricultural land
use impacts on bacterial water quality in a karst ground-
water aquifer: Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, v. 35, no. 2, p. 291-300.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1999,
Canadian sediment quality guidelines for the protection
of aquatic life: Winnipeg, Publication 1299, accessed
Janurary 19, 2001 at URL http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-
rcqe/.
Chambers, D.B., and Messinger, Terence, 1998, Selected
contaminants in fish tissues in the Kanawha River
Basin [abs]: Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy
of Science, v. 70 no. 1, p. 20.
Chambers, D.B., and Messinger, Terence, 2001, in press,
Benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the
Kanawha River Basin and their response to selected
environmental factors: U S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 01-4021.
Chapman, P.M.; Downie, James; Maynard, Allen; and Tay-
lor, L.A., 1996, Coal and deodorizer residues in marine
sediments—Contaminants or pollutants?: Environ-
mental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 15, no. 5,
p. 638-642.
Cincotta, D.A., Chambers, D.B., and Messinger, Terence,
1999, Recent changes in the distribution offish species
in the New River Basin in West Virginia and Virginia:
Proceedings of the New River Symposium, Boone,
N.C., p. 98-106.
Clarkson, R.B., 1964, Tumult on the mountains: Parsons,
W. Va., McClain Publishing Company, 401 p.
Coble, R.W., Giese, G.L., andEimers, J.L., 1985, North
Carolina ground-water resources, in U.S. Geological
Survey, 1985, National water summary 1984—Hydro-
logic events, selected water-quality trends, and ground-
water resources: U.S.Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 2275, p. 329-334.
Crawford, J.K., andLuoma, S.N., 1993, Guidelines for
studies of contaminants in biological tissue for the
National Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-494, 69 p.
Cuffney, T.F., Gurtz, M.E., and Meador, M. R., 1993,
Methods for collecting benthic invertebrate samples as
part of the National Water-Quality Assessment
Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
93-406, 66 p.
Ehlke, T.A., Runner, G.S., and Downs, S.C., 1982,
Hydrology of Area 9, Eastern Coal Province, West
Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Open-File Report 81-803, 63 p.
Eychaner, J.H., 1994, National Water-Quality Assessment
Program—The Kanawha-New River Basin: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Fact Sheet 94-019, 2 p.
Eychaner, J.H., 1998, What's normal? —Constituent
concentrations in West Virginia streamflow, ground
water, streambed sediment, and fish tissue, in West
Virginia Non-Point Source Conference, Charleston,
1998, Proceedings: West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection and West Virginia Soil
Conservation Agency, p. 38-53.
Eychaner, J.H., 1999, Progress of environmental studies in
coal mining areas of western Pennsylvania and central
West Virginia, in Twentieth Annual West Virginia
Surface Mine Drainage Task Force Symposium, 1999,
Proceedings: Morgantown, W. Va., 6 p.
Fedorko, Nick, and Blake, Mitch, 1998, A geologic
overview of mountaintop removal mining in West
Virginia: accessed October 20, 1999 at URL
http://www.wvgs. wvnet.edu/www/mtrm/.
Fenneman, N.M., 1938, Physiography of Eastern United
States: New York, McGraw-Hill, 714 p.
Gillies, W.N., Malakoff, D.A., Ailes, Nancy, and Constantz,
George, 1998, Greenbrier—A scientific portrait of a
West Virginia river: High View, W. Va., Cacapon
Institute, 32 p.
Gilliom, R.J., Alley, W.M., and Gurtz, M.E., 1995, Design of
the National Water-Quality Assessment Program:
Occurrence and distribution of water-quality condi-
tions: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1112, 33 p.
Harlow, G.E., Jr., andLeCain, G.D., 1993, Hydraulic
characteristics of, and ground-water flow in, coal-
bearing rocks of southwestern Virginia: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Water-Supply Paper 2388, 36 p.
Henry, E.N., 1981, Phased cleanup, Kanawha River: Pre-
sented at Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commis-
sion (ORSANCO) meeting, May 1981, Charleston
W. Va, 60 p.
Herb, W.J., Shaw, L.C., and Brown, D.E., 1981a, Hydrology
of Area 3, Eastern Coal Province, Pennsylvania: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Open-File Report 81-537, 88 p.
24 Water Quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
1981b, Hydrology of Area 5, Eastern Coal Province,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Water-Resources Investigations Open-
File Report 81-538, 92 p.
Herb, W.J., Brown, D.E., Shaw, L.C., Stoner, J.D. and
Felbinger, J.K., 1983, Hydrology of Area 2, Eastern
Coal Province, Pennsylvania and New York: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Water-Resources Investigations Open-
File Report 82-647, 93 p.
Hocutt, C.H., Denoncourt, R.F., and Stauffer, J.R., 1978,
Fishes of the Greenbrier River, West Virginia, with
drainage history of the Central Appalachians: Journal
of Biogeography, v. 5, no. 1, p. 59-80.
1979, Fishes of the Gauley River, West Virginia:
Brimleyana, no. 1, p. 47-80.
Jenkins, R.E., andBurkhead, N.M., 1994, Freshwater fishes
of Virginia: Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries Society,
1079 p.
Kanetsky, C.A., 1988, A study of dioxin contamination in
sediments of the Kanawha River basin — Final report:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation
with West Virginia Department of Natural Resources,
12 p., appendix.
Karr, J.R., and Chu, E.W., 1999, Restoring life in running
waters—Better biological monitoring: Washington,
D.C., Island Press, 206 p.
Kozar, M.D., Sheets, C.J., and Hughes, C.A., 2001, Ground-
water quality and geohydrology of the Blue Ridge
physiographic province, New River Basin, Virginia and
North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 00-4270, 36 p.
Kozar, M.D., and Sheets, C.J., 1997, Radon in ground water
in the Kanawha-New River Basin, West Virginia,
Virginia, and North Carolina [abs.]: Proceedings of the
Ohio River Basin Consortium for Research and
Educationl 3th Annual Scientific Symposium, 1 p.
Lindsey, B.D., and Ator, S.W, 1996, Radon in ground water
of the Lower Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins:
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 96-4156, 6 p.
Lundgren, R.F., and Lopes, T.J., 1999, Occurrence,
distribution, and trends of volatile organic compounds
in the Ohio River and its major tributaries, 1987-96:
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 99-1257, 89 p.
Maret, T.R., 1997, Characteristics of fish assemblages and
related environmental variables for streams of the
Upper Snake River Basin, Idaho and western Wyoming,
1993-95: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 97-4087, 46 p.
Mathes, M.V, 2000, Relation of bacteria in limestone aqui-
fers to septic systems in Berkeley County, West Vir-
ginia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 00-4229, 12 p.
McColloch, G.H., Jr., 1998, Coal geology of West Virginia,
in Sanda, A.P, ed., Keystone coal industry manual,
1998: Chicago, Intertec Publishing, p. 708-717.
Meador, M.R., Cuffney, T.F., and Gurtz, M.E., 1993,
Methods for sampling fish communities as part of the
National Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-104, 40 p.
Meador, M.R., Hupp, C.R., Cuffney, T.F., and Gurtz, M.E.,
1993, Methods for characterizing stream habitat as part
of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-408,
48 p.
Messinger, Terence, 1997, Water-quality assessment of the
Kanawha-New River Basin, West Virginia, Virginia,
and North Carolina —Review of water-quality
literature through 1996: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 97-4075, 27 p.
Messinger, Terence, and Chambers, D. B., 1998, Selected
contaminants in bed sediment in the Kanawha River
Basin [abs]: Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy
of Science, v. 70, no. 1, p. 20.
Messinger, Terence, and Hughes, C.A., 2000, Environmental
setting and its effects on water quality, Kanawha-New
River Basin—West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina:
National Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 00-4020, 75 p.
Messinger, Terence, and Chambers. D.B., 2001, in press,
Fish assemblages of the Kanawha River basin and their
relation to the environment, 1997-98: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4048
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Interagency
Consortium, 1997, Federal regional land cover data
sets: accessed September 19, 1999, at URL
http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/Regions.html/.
National Agriculture Statistics Service, 1999, Census of
agriculture, 1997: accessed September 10, 1999, at
URL http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, 1999, Basinwide assessment report, New
River Basin, July 1999: Raleigh, Division of Water
Quality, 99 p.
Rose, A.W., and Cravotta, C.A., III, 1998, Geochemistry of
coal mine drainage, in Brady, K.B.C., Smith, M.W., and
Schueck, Joseph, eds., 1998, Coal mine drainage pre-
diction and pollution prevention in Pennsylvania: Penn-
sylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
p. 1-1 to 1-22.
Sams, J.I., III, and Beer, K.M., 2000, Effects of coal-mine
drainage on stream water quality in the Allegheny and
Monongahela River basins—Sulfate transport and
trends: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 99-4208, 17 p.
References 25
-------
Sheets, C.J., and Kozar, M.D., 1997, Bacteria in water from
domestic wells in fractured bedrock within the
Kanawha-New River basin in West Virginia, Virginia,
and North Carolina [abs.]: Proceedings of the Ohio
River Basin Consortium for Research and
EducationlSth 13th Annual Scientific Symposium,
Ip.
Sheets, C.I, and Kozar, M.D., 2000, Ground-water quality
in the Appalachian Plateaus, Kanawha River Basin,
West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 99-4269, 25 p.
Shelton, L.R., 1994, Field guide for collecting and process-
ing stream-water samples for the National Water-
Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 98-455, 42 p.
Shelton, L.R., and Capel, P.O., 1994, Guidelines for the col-
lecting and processing samples of stream bed sediment
for analysis of trace elements and organic contaminants
for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program:
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-458,
20 p.
Skousen, J., and others, 1998, Handbook of technologies for
avoidance and remediation of acid mine drainage:
Morgantown, W Va., National Mine Land Reclamation
Center, 131 p.
Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.B., and Permian, H.A., 1998, Esti-
mated use of water in the United States in 1995: U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1200, 71 p.
Stauffer, J.R., Jr., Boltz, J.M., and White, L.R., 1995, The
fishes of West Virginia: Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia, 389 p.
Strange, R.M., 1999, Historical biogeography, ecology, and
fish distributions—Conceptual issues for establishing
IBI criteria, in Simon, T.P, ed., Assessing the
sustainability and biological integrity of water
resources using fish communities: Boca Raton, Fla.,
CRC Press, p. 65-78.
Tennant, PA., Norman, C.G, and Vicory, A.H., Jr., 1992,
The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission's
toxic substances control program for the Ohio River:
Water Science and Technology, v. 26, no. 7-8,
p. 1779-1788.
Tully, John, 1996, Coal fields of the conterminous United
States: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
96-92, 1 sheet, scale 1:5,000,000.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Quality crite-
ria for water - 1986: Office of Water,
EPA 440/5-89-001.
1999, Proposed radon in drinking water rule: Office
of Water, EPA 815-F—99-009. Accessed January 19,
2001 at URL http://www.epa.gov/safewater/radon/ and
scroll to proposal.html.
2000, Mountaintop mining valley fill draft environ-
mental impact statement: EPA/903/R-00/013, accessed
January 18, 2001 at URL
http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, The quality of our Nation's
waters—Nutrients and pesticides: U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1225, 82 p.
2000, Annual coal production for West Virginia coun-
ties, 1900-1998: accessed August 15, 2000, at URL
http://wv.usgs.gov/nawqa/coal.html.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 1998, 1998
water quality assessment report: accessed September
21, 2000, at URL http://www.deq.state.va.us/water/.
Waite, I.R., and Carpenter, K.D., 2000, Associations among
fish assemblage structure and environmental variables
in Willamette Basin streams, Oregon: Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society, v. 129, no. 3,
p. 754-770.
Ward, S.M., Taylor, B.C., and Crosby, G.R., 1997, Water
resources data, West Virginia, water year 1996: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Data Report WV-96-1,
258 p.
1998, Water resources data, West Virginia, water year
1997: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report
WV-97-1, 414 p.
1999, Water resources data, West Virginia, water year
1998: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report
WV-98-1, 476 p.
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, 2000,
West Virginia water quality status assessment 2000:
Charleston, Office of Water Resources, 202 p.
Wyrick, GG, and Borchers, J.W., 1981, Hydrologic effects
of stress-relief fracturing in an Appalachian valley: U. S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2177,
51 p.
Greenbrier River near Seebert, WV.
Photograph by Katherine S. Paybins, USGS.
26 Water Quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
APPENDIX—WATER-QUALITY DATA FROM THE
KANAWHA-NEW RIVER BASIN IN A NATIONAL CONTEXT
For a complete view of Kanawha-New River Basin data and for additional information about specific benchmarks used, visit our Web site at
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/. Also visit the NAWQA Data Warehouse for access to NAWQA data sets at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data.
This appendix is a summary of chemical concentrations
and biological indicators assessed in the Kanawha-New
River Basin. Selected results for this basin are graphically
compared to results from as many as 36 NAWQA Study
Units investigated from 1991 to 1998 and to national
water-quality benchmarks for human health, aquatic life, or
fish-eating wildlife. The chemical and biological indicators
shown were selected on the basis of frequent detection,
detection at concentrations above a national benchmark,
or regulatory or scientific importance. The graphs illustrate
how conditions associated with each land use sampled in
the Kanawha-New River Basin compare to results from
across the Nation, and how conditions compare among
the several land uses. Graphs for chemicals show only
detected concentrations and, thus, care must be taken to
evaluate detection frequencies in addition to concentra-
tions when comparing study-unit and national results. For
example, simazine concentrations in Kanawha-New River
Basin agricultural streams were similar to the national
distribution, but the detection frequency was much higher
(94 percent compared to 61 percent).
CHEMICALS IN WATER
Concentrations and detection frequencies, Kanawha-New River
Basin, 1996-98—Detection sensitivity varies among chemicals and,
thus, frequencies are not directly comparable among chemicals
* Detected concentration in Study Unit
66 38 Frequencies of detection, in percent. Detection frequencies
were not censored at any common reporting limit. The left-
hand column is the study-unit frequency and the right-hand
column is the national frequency
Not measured or sample size less than two
12 Study-unit sample size. For ground water, the number of
samples is equal to the number of wells sampled
National ranges of detected concentrations, by land use, in 36
NAWQA Study Units, 1991-98—Ranges include only samples
in which a chemical was detected
Streams in agricultural areas
Streams in urban areas
Streams and rivers draining mixed land uses
Shallow ground water in agricultural areas
Shallow ground water in urban areas
Major aquifers
Lowest Middle Highest
25 50 25
percent percent percent
National water-quality benchmarks
National benchmarks include standards and guidelines related to
drinking-water quality, criteriaforprotectingthe health of aquatic life, and
a goal for preventing stream eutrophication due to phosphorus. Sources
include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Canadian
Council of Ministers of the Environment
| Drinking-water quality (applies to ground water and surface water)
| Protection of aquatic life (applies to surface water only)
| Prevention of eutrophication in streams not flowing directly into
lakes or impoundments
* No benchmark for drinking-water quality
** No benchmark for protection of aquatic life
Pesticides in water—Herbicides
Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent
National frequency of detection, in percent
II
100 88
-- 86
97 87
Study-unit sample size
Atrazine (AAtrex, Atrex, Atred, Gesaprim)
-- 30
20 18
100 75
-- 62
97 75
-- 39
-- 28
17 19
Deethylatrazine (Atrazine breakdown product) *
Metolachlor (Dual, Pennant)
Simazine (Princep, Caliber 90)
-- 77
86 7H
-- 21
-- 18
10 5
36 22
-- 39
52 32
3
0 3
Tebuthiuron (Spike, Tebusan)
'1
33
0
29
0
0
60
55
0
29
0
0
60
55
0
29
0
0
55
0
29
0
0
60
55
0
29
0
0
60
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER
Other herbicides detected
Acetochlor (Harness Plus, Surpass) * **
Alachlor (Lasso, Bronco, Lariat, Bullet) **
Benfluralin (Balan, Benefin, Bonalan) * **
Cyanazine (Bladex, Fortrol)
DCPA (Dacthal, chlorthal-dimethyl) * **
2,6-Diethylaniline (Alachlor breakdown product) * **
Dinoseb (Dinosebe)
Diuron (Crisuron, Karmex, Diurex) **
EPIC (Eptam, Farmarox, Alirox) * **
Fenuron (Fenulon, Fenidim) * **
Molinate (Ordram) * **
Napropamide (Devrinol) * **
Oryzaiin (Surilan, Dirimal) * **
Prometon (Pramitol, Princep) **
Triallate (Far-Go, Avadex BW, Tri-allate) *
Triclopyr (Garlon, Grandstand, Redeem, Remedy) * **
Trifluralin (Treflan, Gowan,Tri-4,Trific)
Herbicides not detected
Acifluorfen (Blazer, Tackle 2S) **
Bentazon (Basagran, Bentazone) **
Bromacil (Hyvar X, Urox B, Bromax)
Bromoxynil (Buctril, Brominal) *
Butylate (Sutan +, Genate Plus, Butilate) **
Chloramben (Amiben, Amilon-WP, Vegiben) **
Clopyralid (Stinger, Lontrel, Transline) * **
2,4-D (Aqua-Kleen, Lawn-Keep, Weed-B-Gone)
2,4-DB (Butyrac, Butoxone, Embutox Plus, Embutone)"
Dacthal mono-acid (Dacthal breakdown product) * **
Dicamba (Banvel, Dianat, Scotts Proturf)
Dichlorprop (2,4-DP, Seritox 50, Lentemul) * **
Ethalfluralin (Sonalan, Curbit) * **
Water-Quality Data in a National Context 27
-------
Fluometuron (Flo-Met, Cotoran) **
Linuron (Lorox, Linex, Sarclex, Linurex, Afalon) *
MCPA (Rhomene, Rhonox, Chiptox)
MCPB (Thistrol) * **
Metribuzin (Lexone, Sencor)
Neburon (Neburea, Neburyl, Noruben) * **
Norflurazon (Evital, Predict, Solicam, Zorial) * **
Pebulate (Tillam, PEBC) * **
Pendimethalin (Pre-M, Prowl, Stomp) * **
Picloram (Grazon, Tordon)
Pronamide (Kerb, Propyzamid) **
Propachlor (Ramrod, Satecid) **
Propanil (Stam, Stampede, Wham) * **
Propham (Tuberite) **
2,4,5-T **
2,4,5-TP (Silvex, Fenoprop) **
Terbacil (Sinbar) **
Thiobencarb (Bolero, Saturn, Benthiocarb) * **
Pesticides in water—Insecticides
Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent
National frequency of detection, in percent
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in ground water
These graphs represent data from 16 Study Units, sampled from 1996 to 1998
II
Study-unit sample size
p,p'-DDE
I 8 • •)»*• 1.43'
2 • "
o n | rr
n
2 • <:»..
72 *m
33
0
29
0
0
60
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER
Other insecticides detected
Carbaryl (Carbamine, Denapon, Sevin)
Carbofuran (Furadan, Curaterr, Yaltox)
Chlorpyrifos (Brodan, Dursban, Lorsban)
Diazinon (Basudin, Diazatol, Neocidol, Knox Out)
alpha-HCH (alpha-BHC, alpha-lindane) **
gamma-HCH (Lindane, gamma-BHC)
Malathion (Malathion)
Insecticides not detected
Aldicarb (Temik, Ambush, Pounce)
Aldicarb sulfone (Standak, aldoxycarb)
Aldicarb sulfoxide (Aldicarb breakdown product)
Azinphos-methyl (Guthion, Gusathion M) *
Dieldrin (Panoram D-31, Octalox, Compound 497)
Disulfoton (Disyston, Di-Syston) **
Ethoprop (Mocap, Ethoprophos) * **
Fonofos (Dyfonate, Capfos, Cudgel, Tycap) **
3-Hydroxycarbofuran (Carbofuran breakdown product) *
Methiocarb (Slug-Geta, Grandslam, Mesurol) * **
Methomyl (Lanox, Lannate, Acinate) **
Methyl parathion (Penncap-M, Folidol-M) **
Oxamyl (Vydate L, Pratt) **
Parathion (Roethyl-P, Alkron, Panthion, Phoskil) *
c/s-Permethrin (Ambush, Astro, Pounce) * **
Phorate (Thimet, Granutox, Geomet, Rampart) * **
Propargite (Comite, Omite, Ornamite) * **
Propoxur (Baygon, Blattanex, Unden, Proprotox) * **
Terbufos (Contraven, Counter, Pilarfox) **
Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent
National frequency of detection in percent
INCUI
Study-unit sample sizt
Methyl ferf-butyl ether (MTBE)
n
-- 16
7 6
size
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER
Other VOCs detected
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane (Dichlorobromomethane)
2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)) *
Carbon disulfide *
Chlorodibromomethane (Dibromochloromethane)
Chloromethane (Methyl chloride)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-Dichlorobenzene)
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC 12, Freon 12)
1,1-Dichloroethane (Ethylidene dichloride) *
1,1-Dichloroethene (Vinylidene chloride)
c/s-1,2-Dichloroethene ((Z)-1,2-Dichloroethene)
Diisopropyl ether (Diisopropylether (DIPE)) *
1,2-Dimethylbenzene (o-Xylene)
1,3 & 1,4-Dimethylbenzene (m-&p-Xylene)
1-4-Epoxy butane (Tetrahydrofuran, Diethylene oxide) *
Ethylbenzene (Phenylethane)
lodomethane (Methyl iodide) *
Isopropylbenzene (Cumene) *
Methylbenzene (Toluene)
2-Propanone (Acetone) *
Tetrachloroethene (Perchloroethene)
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane (Methylchloroform)
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC 11, Freon 11)
Trichloromethane (Chloroform)
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (Pseudocumene) *
VOCs not detected
ferf-Amylmethylether (ferf-amyl methyl ether (TAME)) *
Bromobenzene (Phenyl bromide) *
Bromochloromethane (Methylene chlorobromide)
Bromoethene (Vinyl bromide) *
Bromomethane (Methyl bromide)
n-Butylbenzene (1-Phenylbutane) *
sec-Butylbenzene *
ferf-Butylbenzene *
3-Chloro-1-propene (3-Chloropropene) *
1-Chloro-2-methylbenzene (o-Chlorotoluene)
1-Chloro-4-methylbenzene (p-Chlorotoluene)
Chlorobenzene (Monochlorobenzene)
Chloroethane (Ethyl chloride) *
Chloroethene (Vinyl chloride)
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP, Nemagon)
1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide, EDB)
Dibromomethane (Methylene dibromide) *
frans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ((Z)-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene) *
1,2-Dichlorobenzene (o-Dichlorobenzene)
1,3-Dichlorobenzene (m-Dichlorobenzene)
1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride)
frans-1,2-Dichloroethene ((E)-1,2-Dichlorothene)
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)
1,2-Dichloropropane (Propylene dichloride)
2,2-Dichloropropane *
1,3-Dichloropropane (Trimethylene dichloride) *
frans-1,3-Dichloropropene ((E)-1,3-Dichloropropene)
c/s-1,3-Dichloropropene ((Z)-1,3-Dichloropropene)
1,1-Dichloropropene *
Diethyl ether (Ethyl ether) *
Ethenylbenzene (Styrene)
Ethyl methacrylate *
28 Water Quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
Ethyl fert-butyl ether (Ethyl-f-butyl ether (ETBE)) *
1-Ethyl-2-methylbenzene (2-Ethyltoluene) *
Hexachlorobutadiene
1,1,1,2,2,2-Hexachloroethane (Hexachloroethane)
2-Hexanone (Methyl butyl ketone (MBK)) *
p-lsopropyltoluene (p-Cymene) *
Methyl acrylonitrile *
Methyl-2-methacrylate (Methyl methacrylate) *
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK))'
Methyl-2-propenoate (Methyl acrylate) *
Naphthalene
2-Propenenitrile (Acrylonitrile)
n-Propylbenzene (Isocumene) *
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane *
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloromethane (Carbon tetrachloride)
1,2,3,4-Tetramethylbenzene (Prehnitene) *
1,2,3,5-Tetramethylbenzene (Isodurene) *
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (Freon 113) *
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene *
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (Vinyl trichloride)
1,2,3-Trichloropropane (Allyl trichloride)
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene (Hemimellitene) *
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (Mesitylene) *
Trace elements in ground water
Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent
I National frequency of detection, in percent
II
Study-unit sample size
\ I I
. Arsenic
-- 58
-- 36
18 37
Chromium
85
79
73
Zinc
-- 28
-- 29
55 66
•imm »»m MI** «»
1
0
0
60
0
0
60
Nutrients in water
Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent
National frequency of detection, in percent
1 1
Ammonia, as N '
47 84
-- 86
52 75
-- 78
-- 71
45 70
100 95
-- 97
99 91
-- 81
-- 74
62 71
Dissolved nitrite plus nitrate, as N
Study-unit sample size
39 92
-- 90
34 88
Total phosphorus, as P *
i
99
0
208
o
208
0
208
0
0
60
99
0
208
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER
Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent
I National frequency of detection, in percent
I ' ' ' ^~
_L _L Radon-222
-- 99
-- 100
87 97
Study-unit sample size
1
0
0
60
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
CONCENTRATION, IN PICOCURIES PER LITER
Other trace elements detected
Lead
Selenium
Uranium
Trace elements not detected
Cadmium
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
Nutrients not detected
Dissolved ammonia plus organic nitrogen as N * **
Dissolved solids in water
Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent
National frequency of detection, in percent Study-unit sample size
III I I I
I I Dissolved solids * **
100 100
-- 100
100 100
-- 100
-- 100
100 100
I I
0.001 0.01
I I
0.1 1
I I I I
~s?
.•IMI»»
I I I I
10 100 1,000 10,000
' I
98
0
208
0
60
I
100,000
CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
Water-Quality Data in a National Context 29
-------
CHEMICALS IN FISH TISSUE
AND BED SEDIMENT
Concentrations and detection frequencies, Kanawha-New River
Basin, 1996-98—Detection sensitivity varies among chemicals and,
thus, frequencies are not directly comparable among chemicals.
Study-unit frequencies of detection are based on small sample sizes;
the applicable sample size is specified in each graph
* Detected concentration in Study Unit
66 38 Frequencies of detection, in percent. Detection frequencies
were not censored at any common reporting limit. The left-
hand column is the study-unit frequency and the right-hand
column is the national frequency
Not measured or sample size less than two
12 Study-unit sample size
National ranges of concentrations detected, by land use, in 36
NAWQA Study Units, 1991-98—Ranges include only samples
in which a chemical was detected
Fish tissue from streams in agricultural areas
Fish tissue from streams in urban areas
Fish tissue from streams draining mixed land uses
Sediment from streams in agricultural areas
Sediment from streams in urban areas
Sediment from streams draining mixed land uses
Lowest Middle Highest
25 50 25
percent percent percent
National benchmarks for fish tissue and bed sediment
National benchmarks include standards and guidelines related to
criteria for protection of the health of fish-eating wildlife and aquatic
organisms. Sources include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
other Federal and State agencies, and the Canadian Council of
Ministersofthe Environment
I Protection of fish-eating wildlife (applies to fish tissue)
I Protection of aquatic life (applies to bed sediment)
* No benchmark for protection of fish-eating wildlife
** No benchmark for protection of aquatic life
Organochlorines in fish tissue (whole body)
and bed sediment
Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent
National frequency of detection, in percent
Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent
National frequency of detection, in percent
II
33 38
-- 75
82 56
0 9
-- 57
25 11
Study-unit sample size
Total Chlordane (sum of 5 chlordanes)
1
6
0
11
ir
17 31
-- 53
0 29
0 19
-- 38
12 11
Study-unit sample size
o,p'+p,p'-DDT (sum of o,p'-DDT and p,p'-DDT) *
67 90
-- 94
73 93
Total DDT (sum of 6 DDTs)
17 53
-- 42
45 38
0 13
-- 30
12 9
Dieldrin (Panoram D-31, Octalox)'
0
11
o
11
6
0
11
5
0
Total PCB 1
33 38
-- 81
100 66
0
--
25
2
21
9
CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM
(Fish tissue is wet weight; bed sediment is dry weight)
1 The national detection frequencies for total PCB in sediment are biased low because about
30 percent of samples nationally had elevated detection levels compared to this Study Unit.
See http://water.usgs.gov/foradditional information.
Other organochlorines detected
o,p'+p,p'-DDD (sum of o,p'-DDD and p,p'-DDD) *
Dieldrin+aldrin (sum of dieldrin and aldrin) **
Heptachlor epoxide (Heptachlor breakdown product) *
Heptachlor+heptachlor epoxide (sum of heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide)
Organochlorines not detected
Chloroneb (Chloronebe, Demosan) * **
DCPA (Dacthal, chlorthal-dimethyl) * **
Endosulfan I (alpha-Endosulfan.Thiodan) * **
Endrin (Endrine)
gamma-HCH (Lindane, gamma-BHC, Gammexane) *
Total-HCH (sum of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, gamma-HCH, and delta-HCH) **
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) **
Isodrin (Isodrine, Compound 711) * **
p,p'-Methoxychlor (Marlate, methoxychlore) * **
o,p'-Methoxychlor * **
Mirex (Dechlorane) **
Pentachloroanisole (PCA) * **
c/s-Permethrin (Ambush, Astro, Pounce) * **
frans-Permethrin (Ambush, Astro, Pounce) * **
Toxaphene (Camphechlor, Hercules 3956) * **
0 48
-- 62
25 39
67 90
-- 94
73 92
0 48
-- 62
25 39
o,p'+p,p'-DDE (sum of o,p'-DDE and p,p'-DDE) *
6
0
11
0
0
11
CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM
(Fish tissue is wet weight; bed sediment is dry weight)
Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs)
in bed sediment
Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent
National frequency of detection, in percent
Anthraquinone
21
83
39
Study-unit sample size
0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM, DRY WEIGHT
30 Water Quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent
National frequency of detection, in percent
Study-unit sample size
Benz[a]anthracene
Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent
National frequency of detection, in percent
Study-unit sample size
I I
Phenanthrene
\
80 I|I|
-- 94
100 62
9H-Carbazole **
100 50
-- 93
100 66
Phenol
19
76
33
50 23
0 12
-- 64
75 30
6
62 7
40 65
-- 74
100 77
100 91
-- 99
100 95
100 66
-- 97
100 78
0 22
-- 76
88 41
20 11
-- 47
Dibenz[a,/?]anthracene
» » » |»
Dibenzothiophene **
Fluoranthene
9/-/-Fluorene (Fluorene)
Naphthalene
60 81
-- 82
75 80
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-Dichlorobenzene)
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate **
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM, DRY WEIGHT
Other SVOCs detected
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Acridine **
C8-Alkylphenol **
Anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[ft]fluoranthene **
Benzo[g/?/]perylene **
Benzo[/(]fluoranthene **
Butylbenzylphthalate **
Chrysene
p-Cresol **
Di-n-butylphthalate **
1,2-Dichlorobenzene (o-Dichlorobenzene) *
Diethylphthalate **
1,2-Dimethylnaphthalene **
1,6-Dimethylnaphthalene **
3,5-Dimethylphenol **
Dimethylphthalate **
2,4-Dinitrotoluene **
lndeno[1,2,3-cc(|pyrene **
Isoquinoline **
1-Methyl-9/-/-fluorene **
2-Methylanthracene **
4,5-Methylenephenanthrene **
1-Methylphenanthrene **
1-Methylpyrene **
Phenanthridine **
Pyrene
Quinoline **
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene **
2,3,6-Trimethylnaphthalene **
SVOCs not detected
Azobenzene **
Benzo[c]cinnoline **
2,2-Biquinoline **
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether **
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol **
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane **
2-Chloronaphthalene **
2-Chlorophenol **
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether **
Di-n-octylphthalate **
1,3-Dichlorobenzene (m-Dichlorobenzene)
Isophorone **
Nitrobenzene **
W-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine **
Pentachloronitrobenzene **
0 2
-- 10
25 4
0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM, DRY WEIGHT
Water-Quality Data in a National Context 31
-------
Trace elements in fish tissue (livers) and
bed sediment
Study-unit frequency of detection, in percent
National frequency of detection, in percent
Study-unit sample size
1
33
58
100
100
83
100
100
100
67
83
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
42
100
100
67
83
100
100
67
75
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1 1 1 1
_L Arsenic *
99 »«• » |
98
97 1 «•<(
Cadmium *
77 _iMi_
95 ^MM^^^^B*^^
98 •«* —
100
98 »»»«•»
Chromium *
62 »«» »
72 -|—
54 «•«—
100
99
100 —
Copper *
100 — •»»
100 ^^—
100 ll»» III
100 «•
99
100 ^-^H
Lead *
100
100
99 — |
Mercury *
59 — ^— •••£—
82 «•» — -)—
Nickel * **
100
100 1
Selenium *
100 <•» ^-
100
100 «««• «*
Zinc *
100
100
100
100
99
100
1 1 1 1
0.01 0.1 1 10
1 ' '1
6
0
12
5
— 0
6
0
«•— 12
0
— 8
6
0
12
«»<» 5
0
^^T^~~ 8
i^^^^_^_ 6
^•^^^^ 0
•» 12
» • i 5
0
^^— ^^— 8
6
0
12
«• 5
— 0
0
0
8
6
0
12
0
4NM» ^ 8
— 0
0
8
«•» 1 5
0
««M» • 8
1 1 1
100 1,000 10,000
BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS
Higher national scores suggest habitat disturbance, water-quality
degradation, or naturally harsh conditions. The status of algae,
invertebrates (insects, worms, and clams), and fish provide a
record of water-quality and stream conditions that water-
chemistry indicators may not reveal. Algal status focuses on the
changes in the percentage of certain algae in response to
increasing siltation, and it often correlates with higher nutrient
concentrations in some regions. Invertebrate status averages 11
metrics that summarize changes in richness, tolerance, trophic
conditions, and dominance associated with water-quality
degradation. Fish status sums the scores of four fish metrics
(percent tolerant, omnivorous, non-native individuals, and percent
individuals with external anomalies) that increase in association
with water-quality degradation
Biological indicator value, Kanawha-New River Basin, by
land use, 1996-98
• Biological status assessed at a site
National ranges of biological indicators, in 16 NAWQA Study
Units, 1994-98
^M Streams in undeveloped areas
^m Streams in agricultural areas
^M Streams in urban areas
^M Streams in mixed-land-use areas
75th percentile
25th percentile
Undeveloped
Agricultural
Urban
Mixed
Undeveloped
Agricultural
Urban
Mixed
Undeveloped
Agricultural
Urban
Mixed
Algal status indicator
" ^^^L
Invertebrate states indicator
10 20 30 40
Fish status indicator
CONCENTRATION, IN MICROGRAMS PER GRAM
(Fish tissue is wet weight, bed sediment is dry weight)
32 Water Quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin
-------
A COORDINATED EFFORT
Coordination with agencies and organizations in the Kanawha-New River Basin was integral to the success of this
water-quality assessment. We thank those who served as members of our liaison committee.
Federal Agencies
National Park Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Office of Surface Mining
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Monongahela National Forest
State Agencies
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Virginia Department of Health
Virginia Division of Mineral Resources
Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation
West Virginia Bureau for Public Health
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources
West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey
West Virginia Soil Conservation Agency
Universities
Marshall University
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
West Virginia University
Other public and private organizations
Cacapon Institute
Canaan Valley Institute
Greenbrier River Watershed Association
National Committee for the New River
New River Community Partners
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
West Virginia American Water Company
West Virginia Citizens Action Group
West Virginia Coal Association
West Virginia Farm Bureau
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy
West Virginia Manufacturers Association
West Virginia Mining and Reclamation Association
West Virginia Rivers Coalition
West Virginia Rural Water Association
We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of numerous property owners who provided access to sampling loca-
tions on their land. We also thank the following individuals for contributing data, knowledge, time, and expertise to
this effort.
Dennis Adams, Billy Barton, Steven Bolssen, Melody Bova, Freddie Brogan, Charlynn Sheets Buchanan, John
Buchanan, Daniel Cincotta, Matthew Cooke, Gary Crosby, David Eaton, Michael Eckenwiler, Ronald Evaldi, Carl
Faulkenburg, Patsy Francisco, Georganne Gillespie, Wesley Gladwell, Jeffrey Hajenga, Kristi Hanson, Harold
Henderlite, Curt Hughes, Donna Justus, Lisa Ham Lahti, Melvin Mathes, Kimberly Miller, Dawn Newell, Jesse Pur-
vis, Brian Rasmussen, Lary Rogers, Tom Rosier, Benjamin Simerl, Kimberly Smith, Stephen Sorenson, Janet
Steven, Joan Steven, Edward Vincent, Stephen Ward, David Wellman, Jeremy White, Matthew Wooten, Dennis
Wyatt, Humbert Zappia
-------
NAWQA
National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program
Kanawha-New River Basin
\ J
F
ISBN D-tD7-^s^lE-^
^.
-------
Handel Study
Final Version
March 2003
-------
MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING/VALLEY FILL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TECHNICAL STUDY
PROJECT REPORT FOR TERRESTRIAL STUDIES
March 2003
Terrestrial Plant (spring herbs, woody plants) Populations
of Forested and Reclaimed Sites
Principal Investigator:
Steven N. Handel, PhD, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural
Resources, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
1 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1582
Project Personnel:
Amy E. K. Long, Field Researcher, Ecology, Evolution, & Natural Resources, Rutgers
University
Zachary T. Long, Graduate Program in Ecology and Evolution, Rutgers University
Jessica DiCicco, Field Technician, Ecology, Evolution, & Natural Resources, Rutgers
University
Kate Burke, Graduate Program in Plant Biology, Rutgers University
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The data presented in this report were collected in the spring and summer of 2000.
They examine the pattern of revegetation of mountaintop removal and valley fill mining
sites in southern West Virginia. The forests that are being removed by mountaintop
removal and surface mining activities are located in the Mixed Mesophytic Forest
Region. This region has very high biodiversity at the community level, and is among the
most biologically rich temperate regions of the world (Figure 1. Hinkle et al. 1993).
These forested mountaintops are predominantly being replaced by grasslands, although
grasslands are not a naturally occurring habitat in this region (Figure 2. Hinkle et al.
1993). Blocks of young trees, some exotic, are often added to the final revegetation mix
after grass establishment is successful. There is now great interest in developing and
implementing mining practices that will have the least impact on future economic and
ecosystem health.
Fifty-five transects on sites ranging in age from eight to twenty-six years since
revegetation were visited in southern West Virginia by this investigation team. Plant
species, sizes, and distribution were recorded across these sites for all woody species.
Data from adjacent, unmined mature forests were also recorded. Invasion of native
species onto reclaimed mined sites and valley fills was very low and restricted to the first
several meters from the adjacent forest edge. Most of the plants found on mined sites
were in the smallest (
-------
Objectives:
The objective of this study was to determine the patterns of terrestrial vegetation
on areas affected by mountaintop removal mining and valley fills in the southern
Appalachian region, and on adjacent, non-mined areas. Specific goals were to identify
plant species present, determine the relative numbers of species present, record the size
class distribution based on diameter at base or diameter at breast height of each species,
and to document the pattern of vegetation from toe of slope to top of slope and from
forested areas to mined areas. These data will enable investigators to understand the
potential for re-establishment of native vegetation and document the actual change in
vegetation since revegetation of the mined sites.
Importance of the objectives:
It is important to know the fate of the mined lands after reclamation, to determine
the potential for re-establishment of surrounding native vegetation, and to see if a flora
different from the vegetative mix installed upon reclamation can establish. The soils,
seed pool, and local conditions on mined sites are quite different from the original
conditions. It must be understood if mined areas will develop differently from the
forested terrestrial communities surrounding the mined sites. These data are also needed
to assess the quality of the habitat for animals of the region. If current reclamation
methods are creating different habitat types, this must be known precisely, so that
regulatory actions can be created to account for such changes.
METHODS:
Tree and shrub studies - site selection:
In order to assess the progress of invasion of woody species onto reclaimed mine
lands, sites were selected that had a remnant forest adjacent to the mined area. A remnant
forest is a forest that is directly bordering an active mining site or in this case, reclaimed
sites. They are passively disturbed by mining activity through many ways including
pollution, ground disturbance from blasting, hydrology changes and siltation, and
increased edge area. These reclaimed areas were considered most relevant for this study
because they included a nearby seed source for the mined area, therefore offering an
opportunity for woody species to invade the open, disturbed land. Study of mined lands
adjacent to mature forests, of course, maximizes the potential for invasion of species, and
potentially weighs the data sets towards higher invasion rates. However, it is necessary
to see invasion, and the intensive sampling of edge areas gives the investigator a higher
potential for determining invasion rates.
Sites across the mining region of southern West Virginia were selected to
represent a wide variety of ages, conditions, and treatments. The sites in this study were
recommended by EPA, WVDEP, FWS, and mining officials and engineers who worked
for the mining companies that participated in the study. Knowing that the goal of this
study was to record re-establishment of woody vegetation on modern, mountain-top
mined lands, mining officials (list of personnel can be provided by investigators) directed
our team towards the richest sites available.
-------
All of the recommended sites were studied during our survey, in standing with the
policy to visit every site recommended by stakeholders. Data from all these sites are
included in our tables and analyses, except for one of the first sites visited, a contour
mine at Honey Branch, WV. This site had been planted with dense rows of non-native
autumn olive and with alder trees in the past. To test field methodology, we counted and
identified all woody stems at this site across a 10 x 175 meter transect, through the
plantings, without recording stem size classes. We found that this method was at once
too time consuming to allow a broad sampling of the entire West Virginia portion of the
EIS study area (a requirement for this EIS) and not precise enough to understand the
temporal pattern of revegetation. Linking size class to stem identification gives a clearer
analysis of site fate. Consequently, at all sites visited and studied after this trial run, we
took the time to record stem size class, and sampled only at 20m intervals along the
transect. Because of the differences in sampling methodology, the Honey Branch data
could not be statistically analyzed with the rest of the data set and are not included in the
tables. The raw data from this site are on file and available along with all other data, and
show a revegetation pattern quite similar to the fifty-five transects included in this report.
For all other sites, at each specific locale, transects were positioned in a
standardized location and vegetative cover and density were similar. The total number of
forest transects surveyed and reported is 25 and the total number of mined land transects
is 30. Ten different mine properties were surveyed, with ages ranging from eight to
twenty-six years since revegetation. Emphasis was on surveys of sites that were older, but
reclaimed after the 1977 surface mining law (SMCRA) was put into effect. Changes in
reclamation protocols necessitated by that law caused important differences in
reclamation practice (Vories and Throgmorton, 1999). A complete list of study sites is in
the Appendix (Table 1).
Tree and shrub studies - data collection:
The first aspect of this study involves twelve transects that were run vertically
down slope from a mined land (i.e. valley fill, mountain-top removal area, backfill, or
contour mine) into an adjacent, mature, remnant forest apparently unaffected by mining
activity (Figure 3a). (Many of these forested sites were once logged and showed vestiges
of former rough logging roads. Consequently, these forests have been modified by human
activity and are not considered intact or pristine forests. However, all forested areas
contained large, diverse canopy trees with well-developed stands and unexcavated soil.)
The transect line was continuous from mined area to the adjacent remnant forest, or in
some instances started in the remnant forest above the reclaimed site and ran down into
the mined land.
It is important to note the structure and nature of the valley fills. Transects were
arrayed from top of slope to toe of slope (toe of slope in this study was defined as the
bottom of the hill/fill where the ground leveled off, and/or the stream bank was reached),
and ran the entire length of the fill. Because of the triangular geometry of valley fills
(Figures 3a and 3b), areas at the toe (base) of the slope were surrounded on two sides by
remnant forests. They were much moister areas than the top of the fill, due to storm
water run-off and ground water. Because the toe of slope is wetter, much narrower, and
much closer to remnant forests (on both sides), we see an increase in stem density that is
indicative of an "edge effect." Some of the valley fills had forest remnants at the top of
-------
the slope as well as at the bottom, therefore creating two zones of forest edges. Where
this was the case, the top forest remnant was sampled and the bottom one was not.
There were an additional 43 transects studied where it was not possible to run
continuous transects, as above. In these cases, the forest remnant transect was run
perpendicular or adjacent to the mined area transect, as shown in Figure 3b.
Data were collected during the year 2000 growing season only. The presence of
woody plants on these sites represents the reproductive performance of many years. The
boundary, or edge, between forests and reclaimed mine land was recorded for each
transect and is the "0" point on all data sets and graphs. The point-quarter sampling
method was used to survey the woody plant community (Barbour, Burk, et al. 1999).
This technique was used as it allowed the investigating team to cover the most ground,
the most sites, and collect the most data points in the time frame given. There is a
potential to underestimate rare species with this technique, as a census of all plants in an
area is not done. However, a species effort curve performed on the data indicates that
few, if any, rare species were missed given the large data set that covers thousands of
individual plant records. Consequently, the field sampling technique is representative of
the woody species on site.
At each sampling point, located at 20 meter intervals along the transect line, the
area was divided into four quadrats. In each quadrat the distance was measured from the
sample point on the transect line to the nearest woody plant and recorded for three
different size classes, for a potential of twelve individuals per transect point. The size
classes were defined as "small" (0-2.54cm), "medium" (2.54-7.62cm), and "large" (more
than 7.62cm) based on diameter at base of stem. For each of these stems, the nearest
neighbor's distance and species identification were recorded, as well as the distance to
the nearest conspecific (individual of the same species). Trees that were obvious parts of
an implemented planting program (determined by plantation spacing and diameter at
breast height) were not included in the counts, as these did not naturally arrive on the
sites and are not part of any invasion process. Any offspring produced by planted
individuals were included in the data, however. We were not interested in survival of the
planted trees, as all planted species we encountered are either forestry created hybrids or
non-native and in fact illegal to plant in many states. Data were entered on computer
databases for further study. Leaves and stems of questionable plants were collected and
keyed out using herbarium specimens. Occasionally, specimens could not be keyed to
species because they were barren of flowers or fruits; it was impossible, given the rapid
time frame of the study, to return to each site at other seasonal times in the year 2000 to
search for reproductive specimens.
Tree and shrub studies -data analysis:
Comparing the mined sites to the adjacent remnant forests is difficult at best.
Mines are viewed by some as representatives of "primary successional soil/plant
systems." Comparing them to the "native forest stands [as] largely secondary
successional systems" is therefore like comparing apples and oranges. (W. Lee Daniels,
personal communication). First, the mined lands are not primary successional
landscapes. Primary succession is defined as "The development of an ecosystem in an
area that has never had a living community Examples of areas in which a community
has never lived before would be new lava or a rock from a volcano that makes a new
-------
island or a new landscape, or a sand bar that arises from shifting sands in the ocean"
(University of North Carolina Wilmington). The question is not how the data were
compared, but the task set before us was to document the invasion process from forest
remnants to reclaimed land, to describe the vegetation and note patterns based on our
knowledge and experience as restoration ecologists. We documented the successes and
failures of natural recruitment onto these early successional landscapes, and analyzed our
findings with statistics that allowed for such comparisons, which follow.
As previously mentioned, the objective of this terrestrial study was to determine
the success of woody plant invasion onto the disturbed mining areas. The data were
examined in several ways. Transects were categorized as one of six types: continuous
forest (CF); remnant forest (RF); valley fill (VF); mountaintop removal area (MTR);
backfill (BF); or contour mine (CM). Continuous forests are forests located away from
mining activity and therefore not significantly impacted by mining activity, whereas
remnant forests, as previously defined, are forests directly adjacent to and affected by
mining activity. Remnant forests are typically smaller parcels than the continuous forests,
but this is not a defining characteristic. Data were displayed within each of the six
categories by the three size groupings of plants: small; medium; and large. The density
of woody plants by size class was also determined. These densities were compared in
order to evaluate the progress of the woody invasion. Species lists of forests and mined
areas were developed and comparisons between native forests and mined lands were
performed. Plant diversity was estimated using the Shannon-Weiner statistic, which
includes measures of number of species and their relative abundances. For example, if
you had two stands with the same number of plants and the same number of species, they
can be distinguished from one another if one stand has these species in more or less equal
proportions; a more diverse stand would have these species in more equal numbers.
Herb studies - site selection:
Nineteen forested sites, considered to be either "intact" forest (11) or
"engineered" forest (8), were chosen to evaluate the herb community, adjacent to the
EPA aquatic biology team's locations. The terms "intact" and "engineered" forests
comply with EPA terminology and are equated to "continuous" and "remnant",
respectively, as described in the paragraph previously. Sections of watersheds that had
been mined (the engineered forest) and areas that were distant from mining activity (the
intact forest) were selected. Sites are listed in the Appendix (Table 2). This protocol
allows comparison and correlation of herb data with the aquatic study, for a more
complete understanding of these sites.
Herb studies - data collection:
The study team visited all sites during April and May 2000, to sample the spring
herbaceous vegetation. Early season sampling of the herb flora was necessary, as many
spring herbs often complete their life history before the summer months, then persist
underground until the following year (Schemske, et al., 1978; Bierzychudek, 1982).
Transects were sampled every 10 meters, starting at the base of the slope, up hill for an
additional 50 meters. It was determined by the investigating team that the herb cover
significantly diminished around 40 or 50 meters from base of slope, and data from a
broader geographical range could be collected if this was a decided end point. At each
-------
sample location, a 5x1 m plot across the face of the slope was censused for all herbs.
Species identity and stem count for each species were recorded for each 5xlm plot.
Samples of species were collected for herbarium records and identification verification.
Herb studies — data analysis:
Data were summarized to determine relative distribution and number of species
on undisturbed forest slopes compared to forest slopes adjacent to disturbed areas (i.e.
mines and wide road cuts). These data were entered in a database for statistical analyses
to determine vegetation distribution patterns. Shannon-Weiner Index of Diversity was
performed to determine diversity values for both forest types using mean number of
stems counted and mean number of species present in both forest types.
RESULTS:
TREE AND SHRUB STUDIES:
Presence of trees and shrubs on the study sites:
The 99 species listed in Table 3 were found collectively on the 25 forest transects
and 30 mined transects. Table 4 shows the differences in species composition across
these two types, ranked from most to least commonly present. The species did not have
to be abundant at a particular site to be included, merely present on the site (i.e. whether
the species has one or one thousand individuals, it is recorded as "present"). These
numbers do not include data that were collected from contour mine sites or their
associated remnant forests, which have been treated and reported separately, so the
sample size here is 23 forest transects and 25 mined transects. Most of the species found
in the majority of forest transects were found on only a few mine transects, with the
exception of Acer rubrum, Liriodendron tulipifera, and Rubus sp., which are regularly
found as small plants in disturbed areas. There are twenty species occurring on the mined
lands that are not found in the forested lands and thirty forest species not found on the
mined lands. Of the twenty unique mine species, many of these are typical early
successional species (Acer rubrum, Liriodendron tulipifera, Rubus sp.^ and many others
(Firms sp. and Robinia pseudoacacid) are offspring of the trees planted as part of
reclamation efforts. Overall, there are ten more species found in the forest than on the
reclaimed mined lands. This is not unusual given the very different stages of succession
that these lands are in.
The data from Table 4 can also be summarized across sites by richness, defined as
the number of species found regardless of abundance. Figure 4 shows that the forested
category always contains more species than the sites in the reclaimed mine category,
when listed from most to least rich site (i.e., the woody species are not growing in as
much variety on the mined sites as in the forests.). In other words, the forests have higher
plant species richness and more plant biodiversity than the mine sites (Figure 4).
Species-presence data can also be arrayed by individual species, in addition to the
site values shown in Table 4 and Figure 4. Figures 5a and 5b illustrate the number and
percent of transects studied where each species in the data set was found. Forested sites
have a higher percent of transects represented for the majority of species. These data
-------
indicate that woody species occur across the entire forest transect, they are not just
sequestered in a few unusually rich transects that happened to be included in the surveys.
There is special interest in the major tree species of the forest, as these are of
possible commercial interest. Figures 6a and 6b display six of the most common
hardwood tree species found by absolute number and percent of all woody stems found
(total of 4,140 stems in the data sets, including all size classes). These trees are always
more abundant as a proportion of stems on the forested sites. Five of the six are more
common by absolute number on the forested sites; only Acer rubrum has more
individuals on the mined sites, as many seedlings of this species were present. Further
observations should be made on the reclaimed mine lands to see how well these
economically viable species establish and grow.
Woody species found can also be displayed according to mine type (Table 5), to
more clearly see if there are special determinants associated with species presence.
Again, these numbers are based simply on being present at all, not abundance. Remnant
forests have the most species, and mountaintop removal sites (MTR) have the fewest,
when grouped in this way. However, only four MTR sites were examined as opposed to
twenty remnant forest sites. If one examines the average number of species by site (see
site table in appendix to see number of species per site), MTR's have 6.25 and remnant
forests have 17.7 species on average. Table 5 also illustrates that some species (for
example Acer rubrum and Liriodendron tulipiferd) are more generalist (i.e. are found on
all the site types). Others were found only on mined areas (Lespedeza bicolor) or only in
forests (Acer pensylvanicum, Lindera benzoin). Once again, these species differences can
be greatly attributed to varying successional stages.
The distribution of species can also be considered in terms of how abundant, or
how frequently, the species appeared on the site (Table 6). Most species found in great
number in the forests are not found in similar abundance on the mined sites. At the same
time, common woody species on the mined sites, typical of earlier successional stages,
are not found as abundantly in the forests. This is simply a matter of succession. The
reclaimed mine lands are in a much earlier stage of succession or development than the
forests, and one would expect to find different species compositions as a result of the
various stages.
The forest community is comprised of a greater number of species. It is also a
more diverse community than the mine land communities. More uncommon species
occur in the forest and there is less dominance by a few common species. That is, the
mine sites have a few dominant species making up most of their communities and few
rare species present. Figures 7a and 7b illustrate the number of woody plants found
during the point quarter sampling. The mine plot in Figure 7b is based on percentages,
which allows a simpler comparison, as sampling effort was unequal between mine and
forestlands. The mine species distribution starts quite low on the y-axis because there
were many points, about 1600, where woody stems were not present at all (this very high
point is not plotted on this graphic). Absence (not falling within sampling range) of a
woody plant was rarely experienced on any of the forest sample points. Having more
species that occur more evenly or frequently (i.e. not having a population dominated by
only a few species) creates a more diverse environment. For many of the species found,
the percent occurrence is high in forests. Having all the species occur only once or twice,
-------
such as on the mine lands, and being dominated by only a few species, creates a less
diverse community.
There is growing concern over alien and invasive plants across all landscape types
throughout the United States. This survey encountered very few invasive or alien plant
species on mined-lands or in the forests (Tables 3, 7a and 7b note non-native species).
Most of the non-native individuals observed were those that were planted as part of a
reclamation effort (i.e. Autumn olive is both exotic and very invasive and every mine
visited was using it for reclamation). There were several other exotic species that were
observed, including Tree-of-heaven, Japanese honeysuckle, Princess-tree, and Multiflora
rose that arrived on site naturally. Japanese Knotweed was also observed along the
stream banks in developed areas.
Distribution of trees and shrubs across the study transects:
To spatially study the process of invasion, data were displayed across the x axis in
figures 8-12, where "0" represents the edge, the sharp boundary between forest and
reclaimed mine area. In these graphics, all alien species were removed from the data sets,
as the interest in this study is the reappearance of the native West Virginia plant
community. These data (in Figures 8-12) are from the twelve continuous transects
described earlier (page 1). There are three Mountain-top Removal (MTR), three Valley
Fill (VF), three Backfill (BF), and three Contour Mine (CM) sites, all with paired forest
remnants. The following figures graph the mean stem densities per 25m2.
Figures 8a, 8b, and 8c illustrate the stem densities calculated for the small,
medium, and large size-classes, for woody individuals on nine continuous mine to forest
transects (contour mines not included in total density graphs). A "continuous transect"
(Figure 3a) is a location where only one line was run, going from mine land directly into
the remnant forest, or vice versa. Figure 8a shows that the small individuals (2.54cm and
smaller diameter at base) are not regenerating on the mined lands as abundantly as they
do in the forest. Figure 8b shows that establishment of the medium size class individuals
(2.54-7.62cm diameter at base) is not as high on the mined lands as it is in the forests.
(Figure 8c) Large individuals (7.62cm diameter at base) are barely present on the mining
areas. There is little to no growth into this size class. This is not an unreasonable size
class to reach given the age of these mines (range of 8 to 26 years old since revegetation).
The six most common forest tree species have the following age and size
projections under optimum soil conditions: Acer rubrum can reproduce at an age as early
as 4 years, with a size of 5-20cm diameter at breast height (DBH). Quercus rubra is 25
years at first reproduction with 60-90cm DBH. Liriodendron tulipifera is 15-20 years at
first reproduction, with DBH of 17-25cm. Acer saccharum will reproduce as early as 22
years, with DBH equal to 20cm. Fagus grandifolia reaches substantial seed production
at age 40 or with a DBH of 6cm. Magnolia acuminata starts reproducing at age 30,
optimum at age 50, with DBH unreported (Burns and Honkala, 1990, for these data).
These data should be carefully interpreted, as they are in optimum conditions, conditions
that are not experienced on reclaimed mine lands. However, there are no age estimates
published for such lands, with similar aspect, elevation, topography, etc. that we are
aware of to compare our data to. The age and size estimates given above are at breast
height, roughly 1.22m (4') high, for the average adult. The size classes used in this report
were determined at the base of the plants, as most of the individuals were no taller than
-------
61cm. The reclamation age of many of the mine sites is nearing or has reached the
reproductive age for several of these trees, but this study's data indicates that trees in
mine spoils have not approached the correlated sizes.
The woody data from reclaimed mine transects can also be divided into the four
mining categories: Mountain-top Removal (MTR), Valley Fill (VF), Backfills (BF), and
Contour Mine (CM). Figures 9a, 9b, and 9c illustrate the stem densities calculated for
woody individuals in all three size-classes, on three MTR sites and the paired remnant
forest transects. Figure 9a shows that the small individuals (2.54cm and smaller diameter
at base) are not regenerating on the mine lands as they do in the forest, which is expected
given the vast differences in soils. Of the three MTR's surveyed, one was eight years old
since revegetation and the other two were both 17 years since revegetation. It is expected
to see small size-class individuals well before 17 years is reached. The medium
individuals (2.54-7.62cm diameter at base) (Figure 9b) are not present on these mined
lands, and there are only a few large individuals (7.62cm diameter at base) present on the
surveyed, reclaimed mine lands (Figure 9c).
Figures lOa, lOb, and lOc illustrate the stem densities calculated for woody
individuals in all three size-classes on three Valley Fill sites, that accompany MTR sites,
and the paired remnant forest transects. The remnant forests of two of these transects
were located above the fill (Colony Bay: Cazy fill; Hobet Mine: Bragg Fork fill) and the
other was located at the bottom of the fill (Leckie Smokeless: Briery Knob). Due to the
triangular geometry of Valley Fills (Figure 3a), which (a) allows closer proximity to
forest edge, and (b) provides a moisture gradient created by the drainage ravines at the
toe of the slope, there was an increase in stem densities with decreasing elevation in the
Valley Fill sites. This has apparently increased the presence of the small size-class plants
in this mining area. However, the data for the medium and large size classes shows a
decrease in this trend over time. Valley fills remain stressful sites for these seedlings,
and slow growth or lack of survival could underlie these low data points. As these sites
are ages 16, 21, and 25 years, a higher representation in all three sizes would be expected
during successional change, even without optimal soil conditions.
Figures 1 la, lib, and lie illustrate the mean stem densities calculated for woody
individuals in all three size-classes on three Backfill sites and the paired remnant forest
transects. One Backfill is 14 and the other two are 16 years old since revegetation.
Figure 1 la shows that the small size-class individuals are regenerating along the forest
edge as would be expected, but taper off rapidly beyond 60 meters and are not found
further from the edge. An edge effect can also be observed in the medium size-class
(Figure 1 Ib) in the first 20 meters that quickly fades until there are no medium
individuals found beyond that point in great number. Few large size-class individuals
were found on the mined sites (Figure lie).
Figures 12a, 12b, and 12c illustrate the stem densities calculated for woody
individuals in all three size-classes, on three Contour Mine sites and their paired remnant
forest transects. All three of these sites are 12 years since revegetation. The contour
mines that our investigators visited were much shorter in length than the other mine lands
and were typically less compacted upon completion than flat areas, because of less
grading activity (Vories and Throgmorton, 1999). Bonferroni T tests (Proc GLM in
SAS/STAT version 6.12; SAS 1990) were run on the mean densities of the four mine
types, by size class. The Contour Mines' plant densities in the small and medium size
10
-------
classes were significantly greater than all three other mine types (psmaii -0.0011 and
Pmedium-0.0004) (Figure 13). Because all four mine types included in this study had so
few large individuals, there was no significant difference among any of the mine
treatments.
Regeneration of the small size-class individuals on the CMs illustrates the edge
effect of a forest (Figure 12a). The CM's trend of regeneration falls abruptly after 10
meters, and suggests that few woody stems would be present beyond 50 meters (the local
limit of this site). Figure 12b shows a pattern similar to Figure 12a, the smaller
individuals are surviving into the next size class. No large individuals occurred within
our sampling efforts on these CMs (Figure 12c). However, it has only been 12 years
since revegetation at these sites and not many tree species are expected in this size class
from seed this quickly (see maturation information in previous text).
Finally, one transect studied represents a unique site where it is possible to
compare three types of land engineering, all at the same age, to determine what woody
plants have naturally recruited into the site. This site was at Peerless Eagle Mine, and its
age is estimated between 12 and 17 years. The top third is mountaintop removal, the
middle third is a clear-cut forest remnant (apparently cut in preparation for the fill, but
never filled to that height, and has since revegetated), and the bottom third is valley fill
(Figure 14a). Consequently, the soil in the clear-cut area was only minimally disturbed;
soil was removed or covered in the other areas. Figure 14b illustrates the lack of plant
recruitment into the two engineered areas. During the same time, the central clear-cut
area has fully revegetated, probably due to stump sprouts and germination from the
undisturbed seed bank (Figure 14a). Soil quality is dramatically drawn into attention at
this site. In the same amount of time, with the same external forces impacting the area,
there is a remarkable lack of vegetation on the engineered sites.
Additional perspectives on trees and shrubs:
Once again, comparing these data between reclaimed lands and forests is difficult,
in that we do not have a controlled environment or experiment. However, we must
analyze the data to the best of our abilities and within the limits of statistical powers.
The Shannon-Weiner Index (H) is a measurement of community diversity, a
function of both species number and relative abundance commonly used in vegetation
analysis (Barbour, et al., 1999). For small, medium and large plant size classes, the
diversity index is significantly higher (paired t test, df = 8, psman = 0.0191, pmedium =
0.0082, piarge= 0.0033) on the forested parts of the transects (Figure 15), indicating
greater species diversity than on the reclaimed mine lands.
Finally, figures 16a, 16b, and 16c compare mine age (since revegetation) and
average total plant density on each transect site. Data from all remnant forest transects
are shown as a mean of values, with standard deviation. These are displayed across the
x-axis to allow a visual comparison with all of the values from the mine lands. However,
this does not represent in any way the actual age of the forested sites; this acts as an
approximate asymptote to which developing forests in this region might attain. The data
for the forest were added to give a visual cue of where the average forest density is for
each size class. Figures 16a, 16b, and 16c illustrate that mine age since revegetation does
not positively correlate with increasing stem density. If the densities were increasing
over time, one would see a positive regression line for the mines. However, for all three
11
-------
size classes there is no linear relationship, indicating no increase in number of individuals
over time.
The last three data points along the x-axis (reclamation ages 23, 25, 26) of figures
16a-c are important to note. The two older mines were revegetated prior to the 1977
SMCRA laws, while the third was reclaimed just two years later, in 1979. The two older
sites have revegetated much more quickly than the third site and all other sites visited.
The medium and large size-class individuals were just within the remnant forest density
mean (or very near the lower end of the range) at these two sites. What happened in two
years to create such a change in reinvasion potential? Possible answers are scale of
mining and reclamation practice (see Conclusions and Executive Summary).
General Conclusions for Trees and Shrubs:
There is a low number of species and an extremely low number of stems of
woody plants on all mine types in this study compared to forests. The few native plants
that do invade the mining areas are very close to the edge of the forest and are heavily
concentrated in the smallest size class (less than 2.54cm diameter at base). The absence
of significant numbers of stems larger than 2.54cm suggests that these are stressful sites,
where very slow growth or high death rates for small plants are typical conditions. These
are very low invasion rates compared to many sites adjacent to mature forests that do not
have mining as a land use. As has been noted in many recent studies (e.g. Vories and
Throgmorton, 1999), the combination of poor substrate quality and interference by
inappropriate grass cover restricts the ability of native communities to return to these
extensive land areas. Stands that have regenerated on pre-SMCRA sites often have
diverse, productive forests (Rodrique and Burger, 2000), but newer protocols challenge
this level of stand development, as is illustrated by these data.
A 1999 Greenland's article by Skousen et al. evaluated tree growth on surface
mine lands in southern West Virginia. This study examined only three sites, two of
which were pre-SMRCA law, and the third was reclaimed in 1980. Our team included all
three of these sites in this study of 54 sites. Skousen's results clearly support our findings
in that post-law sites are not regenerating as quickly as they could due to "[herb species
suppressing woody seedling establishment], soil compaction and shallow soil depth."
Similarly, in the pre-law sites that were not seeded with an herbaceous cover plant
succession is rapid (Skousen 1999).
An in-press article by Holl (2002) shows the potential for reinvasion and recovery
on reclaimed surface mined lands. It is extremely important to note that, like the Skousen
article, her study was comprised of pre-law sites dating back to 1962 reclamations. She
does not report how many of the 15 sites were post-law (post 1977), but her three age
classes for the mines are 1962-1967, 1972-1977, and 1980-1987. Also, the mines in that
report are small 1A hectare parcels, not comparable to the large mountaintop removal
areas subject to this study. The Holl study sites, only 62.5 x 40m in size, examined areas
very close to seed sources, within "5-50 m from unmined forests." It becomes obvious
that invasion is possible for many species if the landscape setting is different from current
large-scale practice. We have yet to see evidence that the original community has or will
return to these seriously degraded landscapes.
Recently, a new series of West Virginia State regulations was passed to detail
better procedures for re-establishing forest lands on AOC mine sites. These regulations
12
-------
include detailed requirements in soil, cover, and landscape requirements to begin getting
productive habitats returning to the land. These new active regulations could be the
starting point to address the poor stand development seen on the sites recorded in this
study. However, full return of the rich biodiversity of the historical forests of the region
would require more intervention than the addition of several dominant species, as is
required in the new West Virginia regulations.
Attempts to encourage woody establishment are being made by some industry
participants. One of the current practices is to plant rows or blocks of a tree species
(Autumn olive, Black locust, Black alder, pine) in an effort to create corridors - areas that
seed dispersers (birds, mammals) might find inviting for perching, foraging, and
protection, which then introduces seed into the area. Our study found that blocks of olives
and pines had little to no plants establishing underneath them. These trees were usually
planted very close together and both species tend to grow dense and bush-like. Seed was
either excluded from the area or could not establish due to poorer soil quality or not
enough light and rain penetration. The alder and locust blocks had more success. These
trees grow much straighter and do not shade out seed-rain, light, or other resources as
much as the other two species. Other attempts have been made as well, like
experimenting with different crop trees.
HERB STUDIES:
Presence of herbs on the study sites:
The herb communities on the forested sites were generally dense and species-rich,
as is typical of this region (Hinkle et al., 1993). Eighty-five herbaceous species have
been identified (Table 7a), and more were found on site, which required flowering
structures for complete species identification. The presence and composition of the forest
herb stratum is critical for forest health, as these herbs maintain soil structure and add
nutrients, and offer habitat and nutrients to many animal species.
Three of the nineteen transects were on valley fills, the rest in forests. Presence-
absence of the woodland herbs was recorded at these three valley fill sites, so these data
are analyzed separately from the remaining data, which follow. Woodland herbs were
not expected to be observed in open, sunny fields, as most of the herbs on Table 7a
require the shade and moisture of the forest floor. The species that were recorded on the
mine sites are on Table 7b.
Of the remaining sixteen sites, eleven were in mature intact forests and five were
on lands directly adjacent to mining activities, such as the mine itself, a railroad, or a
busy vehicular haul road. These are the "engineered" forests. Table 8 lists herbaceous
species found on study sites, ranked from most to least present. The engineered forest
sites are contrasted with the intact forest sites to determine the effects of mining activity
on adjacent forest herbs. There might not be direct physical destruction of these adjacent
forest remnants, but the disturbance caused by high activity levels (i.e. mining equipment,
blasting, fumes and exhaust from train engines and hauling vehicles), as well as sun
shafts cutting through to the forest floor from adjacent human-dominated areas, may
disrupt the forest community starting with the herbaceous stratum. Seventeen fewer
species are found in engineered forests than on intact forested sites.
13
-------
In analyzing species distribution on the slopes, intact sites have more species at
any point than engineered sites (Figure 17a). This can be seen with a two-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) (Proc GLM in SAS/STAT version 6.12; SAS 1990) to test for the
effects of treatment type, distance from toe of slope, and the interaction of treatment and
distance on mean number of species. Significant results were found for treatment type
and distance from toe of slope on the species mean (both had a p value = 0.0001),
indicating that both the distance up the hill and the type of site affected the number of
species. There was no significant interaction between environment and distance.
The herb stratum in the intact sites also contained more stems in study areas than
in the engineered sites along the entire slope (Figure 17b). A two-way ANOVA was
performed, testing treatment and distance on mean number of herb stems (treatment p -
0.0016 and distance p = 0.125). Treatment type was found to be significant for number of
plants found. There was no significant interaction found for distance from toe of slope on
number of stems. There was no significant effect of treatment and distance collectively
on number of herb stems counted.
The diversity of the herb stratum follows a similar pattern as described above.
Figure 17c shows that the engineered sites had less diversity than the intact sites at all but
one point along the slope. ANOVAs show a significant value (p = 0.003) for treatment
type, and a marginally significant result (p = .0989), at a lower level, for distance on
diversity. Once again, there was no significant relation between treatment and distance.
Tables 9a and 9b record the herbaceous species found at study sites, ranked from
most to least abundant (number of stems counted) in engineered and intact sites and by
percent abundance, respectively. (The two tables record absolute number and percent of
stems on these sites.) Several of the species, which are found most abundantly on the
intact forest sites, were not present, or were present in very low numbers, on the disturbed
engineered sites. This indicates that human activity is affecting the forest ecosystem and
changing the community composition. Four of the top ten intact forest herbs are in the
top ten of the engineered sites, however, three of the top ten were not present at all on the
engineered sites. This might indicate that although some of the heartier species are
persisting, some of the more sensitive species are disappearing.
Table 10 records herbaceous species found, ranked by abundance (number of
stems counted) in engineered and intact sites. In this table, values have been standardized
by multiplying engineered numbers by 11/5 to even out differences in the number of sites
sampled. By equalizing the numbers, one can see the abundance of the species from a
level starting point. (The total number of stems for the engineered and intact forests is
3978 and 8817 respectively.) The totals indicate, even when the differing number of sites
is compensated for, that the density of herbaceous stems at the engineered sites was less
than half that of the intact forest sites.
General Conclusions for Herbs:
When mine disturbance is adjacent to a forest (engineered forest), we found the
herb community, important for nutrient status and wildlife values, to be much less dense
and species-rich. Part of the reason for the difference in spring herb abundance and
diversity can be attributed to mining activity. Mining activity (i.e. filling and contour
mining) often results in covering up the toe of the slope, eliminating the most diverse and
rich community habitats. In our study, the engineered sites we visited may have been the
14
-------
higher slope regions depicted in Figure 18. Therefore, the habitat may have been drier
and less diverse than the intact forest sites due to the fact that it was the naturally drier,
higher slope community. Also, because the engineered sites suffer more intense and
frequent disturbance, the quantity of light penetrating the canopy may be increased. This
increase in light energy reaching the ground can dry out the soil and make conditions less
favorable for the spring herb population. These herbs rarely invade mining lands on the
areas studied, so data sets used for woody plants did not include forest herbs because they
were seldom, if ever, observed. (Dispersal limits and the need for shady, moist
microhabitat are obvious limits to regeneration.) A return to full forest biodiversity of
plants is apparently even more challenged on mining areas when herb species are added
to a concern.
CLOSING STATEMENT:
OSM reviewers pointed out that the unstated goal in mine reclamation in the
Appalachians is to render the land green and stable. Traditionally, attempts are not made
to reclaim the ecology or even the land use capability required by law. This report
addresses what was accomplished, not what could be. What we see is only what is
politically feasible, not technologically possible.
15
-------
Literature Cited:
Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gilliam, and M.W. Schwartz. 1999.
Terrestrial plant ecology. Third edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Menlo Park.
Bierzychudek, P. 1982. Life histories and demography of shade-tolerant temperate forest
herbs: a review. New Phytol. 90:757-776.
Burger, J.A., and J.L. Torbert. 1999. Status of reforestation technology: the Appalachian
region. Pages 95-123 in Vories and Throgmorton, op. cit.
Burns, Russell M., and Barbara H. Honkala, tech. coords. 1990. Silvics of North
America: 1. Conifers; 2. Hardwoods. Agricultural Handbook 654. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Core, Earl L. 1966. Vegetation of West Virginia. McClain Printing Co, Parsons, WV.
Gleason, Henry A., and Arthur Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of
Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, 2nd ed. New York Botanical Garden,
Bronx, NY.
Harris, J., and D. Steer. 1997. DHA soil microbial activity analysis. Dept. of
Environmental Science, University of East London, U.K.
Hinkle, C.R., W.C. McComb, J.M. Safley, Jr., and P.A. Schmalzer. 1993. Mixed
mesophytic forests. Pages 203-254 in Martin, W.H., S. G. Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht,
editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States, upland terrestrial communities.
Wiley and Sons, NY.
Roll, Karen D. 2000. The effect of coal surface mine revegetation practices on long-term
vegetation recovery - progress report. 2000 Powell River Project Symposium and
Progress Reports.
Newcomb, Lawrence, and Gordon Morrison. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide.
Little, Brown and Co., Boston, MA.
Rodrique, J.A., and J.A. Burger. 2000. Forest productivity and woody species diversity
on pre-SMCRA mined land. Proc. Amer. Soc. Surface Mining Reclam., pages 205-223.
Schemske, D.W., M.F. Willson, M.N. Melampy, et al. 1978. Flowering ecology of some
spring woodland herbs. Ecology 59:351-366.
Skousen, J., P. Ziemkiewicz, and C. Venable. 1999. Evaluation of Tree Growth on
Surface Mined Lands in Southern West Virginia. Greenlands, vol. 29(1): 43-55.
16
-------
Strausbaugh, P. D., and Earl L. Core. 1977. Flora of West Virginia, 2nd ed. Seneca Books.
Morgantown, WV.
Torbert, J.L., and J.A. Burger. 1996. Influence of grading intensity on herbaceous ground
cover, erosion, and tree establishment in the southern Appalachians. Pages 639-646 in
Successes and failures: applying research results to insure reclamation success. ASSMR,
and Powell River Project of Virginia Tech Univ.
Venning, Frank D., and Manabu C. Saito. 1984. A Guide to Field Identification:
Wildflowers of North America. Golden Press, New York, NY.
Vories, K.C., and D. Throgmorton, editors. 1999. Proceedings of: Enhancement of
reforestation at surface coal mines: technical interactive forum. USDI OSM, Alton, IL,
and Coal Research Center, SIU, Carbondale EL 274 p.
17
-------
* X
Figure 1. The blackened area illustrates the Mixed Mesophy tic Forest Region
of the southeastern United States. Taken from Hinlde et. al in Biodiversity of the
southeastern United States, upland terrestrial communities.
18
-------
Figure 2. The naturally occurring grasslands of the southeastern
United States. Taken from HinHe et. al in Biodiversity of the
southeastern United States, upland terrestrial communities.
19
-------
Figure 3a. Diagram of valley fill geometry. Arrows indicate relative location and
direction of transect lines on the valley fill and into the adjacent forest remnant. Darker
line indicates how the 12 continuous transects were run from mined land to remnant
forest.
Forest Remnant
Figure 3b. Diagram of valley fill geometry when continuous line could not be run.
Arrows indicate relative location and direction of transect lines on the valley fill and into
the adjacent forest remnant. Darker lines indicates how the mined transect and forest
transect were run. Only one forest transect was run, either on the left or the right, not
both.
Forest Remnant
Forest Remnant
20
-------
Figure 4. Woody species richness on all study sites. Sites are ranked not in pairs,
but in decreasing species richness. Contour mine data not included.
t>
CD
CO
c
20 -
en
0)
'o
Q.
V)
"§ 10
O
(1)
.n
Forest
Mined
5 10 15 20 25
Study site rank (ranked from most to least species rich)
21
-------
5a
£\1 -
•n
\j
8
o
co 15 .
fl) '-3
'o
o>
Q.
CO
£
CD
f 10-
co
t>
Q_
0 -
-
CD**
°^
0 •
CD m
033 g^
CUD «••
CD ^^
CUD ^^^V^^
cnrD ••*
((((f{CC{({tttl 9mtmmmmmw
^^^^^^^
cc(((C((C({ c c c nT^TBBBBBBBB^
crrrrrnrmraf a t 'fmra cccri
Most common
Least common
Species
Figure 5a and 5b. Figure 5a on top shows the frequency of occurrence of woody species
on 23 forest and 25 mined sites by number of transects, while Figure 5b on bottom shows
the frequency of occurrence by percent of transects. Contour mines are not included.
22
-------
6a
200 -
v>
150 -
T3
100 -
u
6b
0)
o
§
8
0)
Q_
50
0
16
14 -
12 -
10 -
6 -
Ll
I
*
^
Figure 6a and 6b. Top graph 6a shows the presence of six major forest tree
species on forested versus mined areas. Percent occurrence is graphed on the
bottom graph, 6b, for the six tree species (of total 1332 forest data points and
2808 mine data points). Contour mine data not included.
23
-------
250
7b
14 -
12 -
"w
S 10
o>
o>
(0
4-1
c
0)
S
V
DL
8 -
6 -
o •
0
20 40
Species, ranked from most to least abundant
Figure 7a and 7b. Figure 7a illustrates the species abundance distribution, while Figure 7b
shows tine percent species abundance. Based on 1332 forest points and 2808 mined points.
Contour mines excluded.
24
-------
ouuu -
<1
4500 :
„ 4000^
JQ 3500 \
& 3000^
s 2500 ^
co :
c
0) 2000 :
E 1500 '-
$• :
to 1000 ^
500 \
0 :
cnnn
5b
4000 -
Jl 3000 -
CM
§_ 2000 -
.-e x
co goo
C v^WW^/
Q 250 -
E 200 :
0
35 150-
100 :
50-
0 -
8c
2500 -
<| 2000-
CM 1500 -
l_
S. 1000 -
^ X
g 150X
&
E 100
$
50
'
< > < I
( I
0 T I I
T " T
< ' L
i* fi (^ "i
• ' J-^'^^l*-- • --
1 i 1 " T ' I ' 1 ' i ' 1 ^ I ^ T~ — ' 1 1 1 ' 1 '
_,
o
/
/ .
/
T
T
0 <» 1 0 y
• *lii °
" I 2 Z A _
' • ' ^ T • i T , . T T i • i • 1
1 1
X
/
3 T X
: 0 °
- ° 1 i
+
1 1 i f "
1 AAftMftAAAttAAttAAtt
**™***™W™"
-160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
Distance (m) from Forest Edge (= Om)
Forest Edge Mined Land
Figure 8a-8c. Mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for all size classes and mine types.
Small woody plants are 1" (2.54cm) and smaller in diameter at base (8a). Medium woody plants
are 1-3" (2.54-7.62cm) diameter at base (8b). Large woody plants are 3" (7.62cm) and larger
diameter at base (8c). Forest edge is represented by dashed line.
25
-------
a auuwl
4500 :
4000 :
Q 3500 -i
|_ 3000 :
& 2500 :
g 2000 :
E 1500 -
& ':
w 1000 :
500 -;
0 :
/D
„ 6000 -
in
CM
1 4000-
c 250 >
fl> "
D 200 -.
| 150 -I
« q
W 100^
50 '-_
-
ryr\r\
9c -
180 -
160 -
"E
in 140 -
CM
1 12°-
jfr 100 -
I 8°-
£ 60 -
55 40 -
20
0.
<
(
1 '
>
<
> '
1
>
1
^
»
"• §
«
i"
T
I 1
4
(
>•
' (
i
t
i
>
-
i
•
<
i
<
i
>
•
»
i
<
i
i
t
r-H
i <
t
1
)
II
i — i — i — i — i — i T ' — i — i i i n
A
1+.+.+
• • • • •
i • i • i • i • t •
i
40
60 80
MTR
100 120
-160 -140 -120 -100 -80-60-40-20 0 20
Forest Edge
Distance (m) from Forest Edge (= Om)
Figure 9a-9c. Mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge in three Mountian-top Removal sites
(ages 6, 15,15) and their paired forest remnants. Small woody plants are 1" (2.54cm) or smaller in diameter
at base (9a). Medium woody plants are 1-3" (2.54-7.62cm) diameter at base (9b). Large woody plants
are 3" (7.62cm) or larger diameter at base (9c). Forest edge is represented by vertical dashed line.
26
-------
f. ouuu -r
Qa :
4500 :
4000 -i
E :
jo 3500:
«_ 3000 :
.•&" 2500 -
in -
S 2000;
E 1500 -
Si ':
w 1000 :
500 :
0 :
iob 25° ;
225 :
200 :
10 175 '-
CM :
a> 150 :
Q. ;
^ 125 -
'to :
S 100 :
E 75
.8
CO 50
25
0
-ton
- ,, 1 OU
lOc
160 :
CN 140 -
CM 120 -
°- 100 -
"tn on
C 80 -
i -
K 40-
20 -
0-
t
i
<
±
1
\
T
*
i
i
}
\
{
\
—
4
>
I
4
f
-
i
-1-
»
T
" T T ° 4' T
0 0 1 t
« ,_ , 0 ^*-Lji.. ji-L
F — i — i — i — T^ — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — p — i— H
•
T °
._,m__.ll~Jj-'-_
i | i i i i • i • i i j • i .
.
f
— ^^-*-*-»-^-»-«--«-«-»-»-*-*-«—
-80 -40
Forest
240
280 320
Toe of slope
0 40 80 120 160 200
Edge Valley Fill
Distance (m) from Forest Edge (= Om)
Figure lOa-lOc. Mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge in three Valley Fill sites (ages 14, 17,
19) and their paired forest remnants. Small woody plants are 1" (2.54cm) or smaller in diameter at base
(lOa). Medium woody plants are 1-3" (2.54-7.62cm) diameter at base (lOb). Large woody plants are 3"
(7.62cm) or larger diameter at base (lOc). Forest edge is represented by vertical dashed line.
27
-------
Ha 12000 i
11000 \
„ 10000^
,| 9000 ^
CM -
i_ 8000 -.
°- 7000 ^
•B 6000 •!
C '•
® 5000 :
Q :
£ 4000 -.
~ 3000 •:
2000 ^
1000 ^
0 J
lib 70° ;
650 i
600 \
^ 550 ^
^ 500 -I
^ 450 \
a. 400 i
.-& 350 i
| 300^
Q 250 -.
o 200 ^
W 150 -
100 -
50-
ftrmn
lie 800°
c^ 6000 -
in
CM
5
?; 4000
•S1 /
w Tnn
c JUU/
Q 250 -
E 200-
o>
S5 150-
100-
50-
n
-,
i
/
/
t
-M
i 1 r
(
$ i -
i i
« •
(
i
<
i
>
^
<
r
f -
1
i
i
-
1 <>
O
f 1 ^
-p 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1
i
< i
L?__L^_._,_ i ^_» ,
i < i i i i i i i
i
/
/
K
-120
40
80
-80 -40 0
Forest Edge
Distance (m) from Forest Edge (= Om)
120
Backfill
160
200
Figure 1 la-1 Ic. Mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge in three Backfills (ages 12, 14, 14)
and their paired forest remnants. Small woody plants are 1" (2.54cm) or smaller in diameter at base
(1 la). Medium woody plants are 1-3" (2.54-7.62cm) diameter at base (1 Ib). Large woody plants are
3" (7.62cm) or larger diameter at base (1 Ic). Forest edge is represented by vertical dashed line.
28
-------
I2a 'uuu° :
18000 '-
16000 -_
"l 14000-
CM
fc 12000 :
Q. :
.-£? 10000 :
en
c
Q 8000 '-_
1 6000 :
CO :
4000 ^
2000 '-
0 :
innn
IUUU
12b :
900 ^
800 :
10 70° :
CN
fe 600 :
Q. ;
$• 500 :
in
i 400-
| 300 -
55
200 -
100 -
"
cnnn
12c
4000
"g 3000
CM
CD 2000
Q.
:& /
£ 150,
0) X
Q 125
I 100
55 75
50
25
* •-
i
$ 1
I I I
f
t
|
f
•
1
•i J
i
(
I
I
«
<
»
i
i i
i
$
i *
\
T
T
f
T
<
i «
1
•
|
I
(
£
I .
' '
T
1
\
4
4
i
i
I • ^
i i i i
i
„
i 1
^_
9
;
^ .. ^ A ™ ^
60
-90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Forest Edge Contour Mine
Distance (m) from Forest Edge (= Om)
Figure 12a-12c. Mean stem density vs. distance from forest edge for all size classes in three Contour
Mines and their paired forest remnants. Small woody plants are 1" (2.54cm) or smaller in diameter at base
(12a). Medium woody plants are 1-3" (2.54-7.62cm) diameter at base (12b). Large woody plants are
3" (7.62cm) or larger diameter at base (12c). Forest edge is represented by vertical dashed line.
29
-------
Figure 13. Mean stem density vs. mine type, by size-class. We tested if
mine type differed in density with an analysis of variance for each size class,
and compared mean density within size class with Bonferroni adjusted
multiple comparisons (Proc GLM in SAS/STAT version 6.12; SAS 1990).
Contour mines were significantly different than all other mine types in the
small and medium size classes.
IO
CM
0)
QL
>,
•i—»
'to
CD
Q
0)
GO
CO
0)
*HJUU -
-
3500 :
-
3000 :
2500 /
GOO/,
500 '-.
400 \
300 :
200 -_
100 -.
n '
*p=0.001 1
/ |
T
{
1
•
1
•
I
1
m
1
1
I
•
•• MTR
1 — "1 VF
BF
1 1 CM
1
*p=0.0004
T
n p=0.1504
— B
Small
Medium
Size Class
Large
30
-------
Figure 14a, Peerless Eagle site. MIR «i top,
then clear-cut, then VF, Taken simmer 2000,
31
-------
Figure 14b. Peerless Eagle Transect. Stem density vs. distance. This is a
unique site, with a mountain-top removal at the top of slope, moving into a
clear-cut remnant forest and into a valley fill. Age estimated to be 12-15
years.
i^uuu -
10000 :_
8000 :
CM
E :
10
CN 6000 :
<5
Q.
>, 4000 )
/
'w /
c /-
-------
Figure 15. Shannon-Weiner diversity Index (H) for woody trees in all three size classes.
Comparison of mined lands to forest remnants (contour mines excluded). A paired t test
was performed with df= 8, t (small) = 2.92, t (medium) = 3.49, t (large) = 4.13.
Small
Medium
Large
Forest H
Mine H
33
-------
16a
60000
40000 -
• Forest Land
o Mined Land
9
7500
X
5000 -
6 *
2500 H I 0
^_ o -I ^W O- ©-—-I ©-»- © ?-
5 16b
-------
17a
o
s.
ID
3
<5
C
C
TO
17c
X
O)
T3
O
c
(0
16 •
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
250
200 -
150
100
50 -
0
3.0
2.5 -
2.0 -
1.5 -
1.0 -
0.5
Intact Forest
Engineered Forest
Distance from toe of slope (Om = toe) 0-1 10-11 20-21 30-31 40-41 50-51 60-61 70-71
Number of locations (E, I)
(5,11) (5,11) (5,11) (5,10) (2,10) (2,8) (0,1) (0,1)
Figures 17a-17c. Mean number of spring herb species (17a), stems (17b), and estimate of biodiversity
(H) (17c) for spring under story herbs in engineered forested and intact forested sites vs. distance from
toe of slope. Two-way ANOVA results: treatment effect in 17ap=0.0001,17bp=0.0016, 17cp=0.0030;
distance effect 17a p=0.0001, 17b p=0.125,17c p=0.0989; treatment and distance effect 17 a p=0.26,17b
p=0.9,17cp=0.3680.
35
-------
Figure 18. Diagram of mining activity eliminating toe of slope, compared to an intact
forest's position of toe. This situation is hypothetical. All values are arbitrary. Dashed
line indicates valley fill. Brackets indicate area sampled.
..70..met.ers...fro.m...b.as.e..
INTACT FOREST
ENGINEERED FOREST
36
-------
Table 1. West Virginia woody plant study sites. Age equals years since revegetation and were calculated for 2002.
-r'ransect
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
^ 28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Site Name
olony Bay: Cazy remnant forest
olony Bay: Cazy VF
Colony Bay: forest remnant
Colony Bay: planted slope VF
Colony Bay: WVU plots
)altex Mine: continuous forest - MT 32
Daltex Mine: Zapata remnant forest
Daltex Mine: Zapata VF
Hobet Mine: continuous forest
Hobet Mine: Bragg Fork plateau
lobet Mine: Bragg Fork remnant forest
lobet Mine: Bragg Fork VF
Hobet Mine: Lick Creek MTR
•lobet Mine: Lick Creek remnant forest
Hobet Mine: Lick Creek VF
Hobet Mine: Stanley Fork MTR
•lobet Mine: Stanley Fork remnant forest
Hobet Mine: Stanley Fork VF
sland Creek: L
sland Creek: L remnant forest
sland Creek: R
sland Creek: Valley fill
Leckie Smokeless: Briery Knob cluster planting
Leckie Smokeless: Briery Knob cluster planting rem. for.
Leckie Smokeless: Briery Knob forest strip
Leckie Smokeless: Briery Knob prairie
.eckie Smokeless: Briery Knob prairie remnant forest
Leckie Smokeless: Briery Knob remnant forest
Leckie Smokeless: Briery Knob ROPS backfill
Leckie Smokeless: Briery Knob VF
Leckie Smokeless: Pollock Knob 1
Leckie Smokeless: Pollock Knob 1 remnant forest
Leckie Smokeless: Pollock Knob 2
.odestar Energy: MT 75 remnant forest
Lodestar Energy: MT 75 VF - "Green Heron Pond"
Peerless Eagle Mine: remnant forest
Peerless Eagle Mine: valley fill
Pen Coal: 3 Remnant forest
Pen Coal: Alnus
Pen Coal: Alnus remnant forest
Pen Coal: continuous forest
Pen Coal: Elaeagnus
Pen Coal: Frank Branch Pond site
Pen Coal: Frank Branch remnant forest
Pen Coal: no planting 3L
Pen Coal: no planting 3R
Pen Coal: VF Robinia
Pigeon Roost: continuous forest - MT 45
Rockhouse: continuous forest- MT 25B
Sample Mine: Mynu VF
Samples Mine: Mynu remnant forest
Wylo Mine: Amherst remnant forest
Wylo Mine: Amherst VF
Wylo Mine: Amherst VF2
Wylo Mine: remnant forest 2
County
Boone/Logan line
toone/Logan line
Boone/Logan line
Joone/Logan line
Joone/Logan line
.ogan
-ogan
Logan
.incoln
.incoln
.incoln
Jncoln
.incoln
Jncoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
Nicholas
Nicholas
Nicholas
Nicholas
Greenbrier
Greenbrier
Greenbrier
Greenbrier
Greenbrier
Greenbrier
Greenbrier
Greenbrier
Greenbrier
Greenbrier
Greenbrier
Raleigh
Raleigh
Nicholas
Nicholas
Lincoln/Wayne line
Lincoln/Wayne line
Lincoln/Wayne line
Lincoln/Wayne line
Lincoln/Wayne line
Lincoln/Wayne line
Lincoln/Wayne line
Lincoln/Wayne line
Lincoln/Wayne line
Lincoln/Wayne line
Logan
Logan/Boone line
Kanawha/Boone line
Kanawha/Boone line
Logan
Logan
Logan
Logan
Site
Type
RF
VF
RF
VF
VF
CF
RF
VF
CF
VF
RF
VF
MTR
RF
VF
MTR
RF
VF
BF
RF
BF
VF
MTR
RF
RF
MTR
RF
RF
BF
VF
BF
RF
BF
RF
VF
RF
VF
RF
CM
RF
CF
CM
CM
RF
CM
CM
VF
CF
CF
VF
RF
RF
VF
VF
RF
Paired
Samples
*
*
**
**
***
***
•
#
»»
««
»••
*
*
<.*
»»»
*«
«**
***
•
••
••
•••
•••
•
Site
Age
~
21
._
7
17
—
...
25
—
25
—
25
13
—
13
8
—
8
14
—
14
14
17
...
_.
17
—
—
16
16
16
—
16
_.
10
—
???
—
12
—
—
12
12
—
12
12
12
—
—
26
—
—
23
10
#Spp
Found
16
15
22
22
14
23
19
19
15
4
20
11
8
15
12
11
26
12
10
25
15
6
2
18
8
4
16
17
1
3
5
11
4
23
13
13
17
12
12
16
19
10
6
25
19
13
15
22
20
22
16
19
20
14
17
Planted
—
Y
—
Y
Y
—
—
Y
—
Y
...
Y
Y
—
Y
Y
—
Y
N
—
N
Y
Y
—
—
N
~-
—
Y
N
Y
—
Y
—
Y
—
N
—
Y
—
—
Y
Y
—
N
N
Y
—
—
Y
—
—
Y
N
37
-------
Table 1 (Con't)
Date
IVisitedlsite Characterization
continuation from VF transect into woods
obinia pseudoacacia, Eleagnus umbellate, Paulownia tomentosa planted; longest landfill (1.2miles)
ocated adjacent to VF
lopes planted w/ different sp; olive, alder, locust, oak, sycamore, crabapple, persimmon, pine; RoPs seeded
WU experiment w/ treatments;R. pseudoacacia, P. virginiana, P. strobus, Quercus sp, A. glutinosa planted
oadside site, behind retention pond; same site as spring sampling (site w/ electrical lines running through)
orest remnant located adjacent to VF
leagnus umbellata & Robinia pseudoacacia plantings
ransect started at top of forested slope; dry woods, little leaf litter
lateau very compact from trucks filling BFs; located below RFs; very large & long VF hydroseeded w/ RoPs
orest remnant is adjacent to VF
ydroseeded w/ Robinia pseudoacacia
yiTR continues into RF below (VF is adjacent); planted w/ Fraxinus sp (not doing well) & £. umbellata
ransect runs up from VF bottom, through forest.
ransect runs down VF w/ forest at base; planted w/ Pinus virginiana, Eleagnus umbellata, Fraxinus sp
toove the forest remnant transect; 7 rows of Eleagnus umbellata planted
'ransect is adjacent to fill, runs up slope through forest and continues through MTR site above
Eleagnus umbellata planted in blocks, on slopes as opposed to terraces
tolling, grass dominated backfill; not planted, forest remnant at top
'orest remnant at top of transect L
at top and to side; not planted
Robinia pseudoacacia and Alnus glutinosa plantings
g Experimental Westvaco plantings include Aspen, Pine hybrids, Alnus glutinosa', large, flat MTR site
ig A continuation of the MTR transect, located to the right of the cluster plantings,
ig A very thin forest strip (37m wide) located above the backfill
g Not planted w/ woodies
.ocated to the left of the prairie; a very flat forest
rorest remnant located below the VF & small abondoned road
tydroseeded Robinia pseudoacacia, continues up from VF transect
ig A continuation of the remnant forest below; dense grass cover, no plantings
ig Rolling refuse hills; top planted w/ pine, Alnus glutinosa, Eleagnus umbellata, Robinia pseudoacacia
ig A continuation of the rolling refuse hill transect, at top of hill
Robinia pseudoacacia & pine planted
Located across the county road from the VF site
Robinia pseudoacacia planting
Forest remnant located next to "unique" transect
Jnique site = BF, then regenerating cut, then VF; not planted
:orest remnant located above transect 3R
Alnus glutinosa planted in blocks, transect runs through blocks, gaps b/t planting blocks & forest edge
A continuation of above CM transect, into woods
CF transect found on edge of mine property, by offices
E. umbellata planted in 37m wide block; transect runs through block; gap b/t planting block & forest edge
M located below forest remnant; top of slope planted very densely w/ Eleagnus umbellata
A continuation of above contour mine transect, into forest; Eleagnus umbellata block comes to forest edge
Transects 3L and 3R are 25m apart, w/ RF above them; CM not planted w/ woodies
Transects 3L and 3R are 25m apart, w/ RF above them; CM not planted w/ woodies
A VF with terraces planted with Robinia pseudoacacia
Same site as spring site
Not same site as spring sample, but was at a stream sample point.
Retention pond at base, VF is adjacent to forest; planted w/ Robinia pseudoacacia
Forest remnant is adjacent to VF
Forest remnant located adjacent to fill
Planted w/ scattered fruit trees & Robinia pseudoacacia
A very large VF, not planted
Forest remnant located adjacent to fill
20-Sep
20-Sep
19-Sep
19-Sep
20-Sep
22-Jul
17-Jul
17-Jul
23-Jul
20-Jul
20-Jul
20-Jul
22-Jun
23-Jun
23-Jun
22-Jun
22-Jun
22-Jun
21-Aug
21-Aug
21-Aug
21-Aug
19-Aug
19-Aug
17-Aug
19-Aug
19-Aug
17-Aug
17-Aug
17-Aug
20-Aug
20-Aug
20-Aug
18-Aug
15-Aug
22-Aug
22-Aug
17-Jun
18-Jun
18-Jun
24-Ju
17-Ju
14-Ju
14-Ju
16-Ju
17-Ju
15-Ju
22-Ju
23-Ju
18-Ju
18-Ju
21 -Ju
19-Ju
25-Ju
25-Ju
c
oi
oc
lo
\N\
lo
:OI
fe
ra
la
0
y<
Ml
re
n
Ab
Trj
Ek
Ro
Fo
RF
Re
Ex
A
A
Nc
Lo
Fc
Hy
A
Re
A
R<
Lc
R(
Fc
U
Fc
Al
A
C
~
C
A
T
T
A
S
N
R
F
F
P
A
F
38
-------
Table 2. West Virginia spring herbaceaous study sites (2000).
(m) = mine
(both) = mine and forest
(f) = forest
*** = no stem count conducted
Site*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Site*
1
/ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Site name
Cabin Creek MT51
White Oak MT 39
Old House Branch MT 42
Digeon Roost
Spruce Forks Mine, Left fork of Beach Creek MT32
Cookhouse Creek VF
Cow Creek, MT 107
Cow Creek Roadside Mt 52
Spruce Forks Mine roadside/RR side site B
Mud River VF + forest edge transect
Mud River VF
Site 2
Lodestar Energy: MT 75
Buffalo Fork
Toney Fork
Hughes Fork
Twentymile Creek
Peerless Eagle: Radar Fork
Peerless Eagle: Neff
County
Logan
Logan
Logan
Logan
Logan
Logan
Logan
Logan
Logan
Boone
Boone
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Kanawha
Kanawha
Nicholas
Nicholas
Engineered
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
# Spp Found
28
29
35
28
20
16
27
26
27
14
12
28
15(m), 5(both), 9(f)
21
26
28
28
33
35
# Stems
547
1401
784
1115
323
***
739
335
650
117
***
609
***
213
441
514
349
1446
1204
Date Visited
4/24/2000
4/25/2000
4/25/2000
4/25/2000
4/25/2000
4/25/2000
4/26/2000
4/26/2000
4/27/2000
4/27/2000
4/27/2000
5/1/2000
5/2/2000
5/2/00
5/2/2000
5/3/2000
5/3/2000
5/4/2000
5/4/2000
Site characteristics
ots of litter, old trees, healthy seedling & sapling cover
very rich & complete woods
lots of moss, moist woods
rich site; lots of herbivore damage
potential edge effect location for woody invasion
VF invasion site; RF was located above VF; in a 20m wide swath down the 68m slope, no woodland herbs were invading
sunny, cool slope
sunny, unmined slope
very degraded site. . . VF above & all over, tons of vines & weeds; large thicket under powerlines preventing further sampling
very sunny, dry, open slope w/ planted olive, lots of leaf litter, many grass spp; no woodland invaders 50+ m up VF
woody vegetation; very sunny, dry, open slope w/ planted olive, many grass spp, thickets
much herbivory at this site, heavy litter w/ many seedlings & saplings
VF area, mostly grasses & planted black locust, white pine
cow pasture nearby
very sunny, fairly open forest; very rich and large floodplain
very different forest from others so far, full of hemlock & rhododendron, rich, mesic
very dry, disturbed area, not many species, lots of sassafras seedlings/saplings
very dark, mesic forest
across road from stream, off left of main haul road, down the smaller log road some distance on right
39
-------
Table 3. List of woody species found on West Virginia study transects (a indicates alien species)
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Acernegundo
Acer pensylvanicum
Acerrubiwn
Acer saccharum
Aesculus octandra
Aesculus sp.
a Ailanthus altissima*
a Albizzia julibrissin*
a Alnus glutinosa*
Amelanchier arborea
Amelanchier sp.
Aristolochia macrophylla
Azalea sp.
Betula alleghaniensis
Betula lenta
Betula sp.
Carpinus caroliniana
Carya cordiformis
Car/a glabra
Carya ovata
Carya sp.
Carya tomentosa
Castanea dentata
Cercis canadensis
Comus florida
Corylus americana
Crataegus sp.
a Eleagnus umbellata*
Epigaea repens
Fagus grandifolia
Fraxinus americana
Fraxinus nigra
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Fraxinus sp.
Hamamelis virginiana
Hydrangea arborescens
Hydrangea sp.
Juniperus virginiana
Kalmia latifolia
a Lespedeza bicolor*
LJndera benzoin
LJriodendron tulipifera
a Lonicera japonica*
Magnolia acuminata
Magnolia grand/flora
Magnolia fraseri
a Magnolia soulangeana*
Magnolia tripetala
Magnolia virginiana
Moms sp.
Oplopanax horridus
Ostrya virginiana
Oxydendrum arboreum
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
a Paulownia tomentosa*
COMMON NAME
Boxelder
Striped maple
Red maple
Sugar maple
Yellow buckeye
Buckeye
Tree-of-heaven
Silk tree, mimosa
Black alder
Downy serviceberry
Serviceberry, shadbush
Dutchman's pipe
Azalea
Yellow birch
Black birch
Birch
Musclewood, ironwood
Bittemut hickory
Pignut hickory
Shagbark hickory
Hickory
Mockemut hickory
American chestnut
Redbud
Flowering dogwood
American hazelnut
Hawthorne
Autumn olive
Trailing arbutus
American beech
White ash
Black ash
Red ash
Ash
Witch hazel
American hydrangea
Hydrangea
Eastern red cedar
Mountain laurel
Japanese bush clover
Spice-bush
Tulip-tree, yellow poplar
Japanese honeysuckle
Cucumber-tree
Southern magnolia
Mountain magnolia
Saucer magnolia
Umbrella-tree
Sweetbay magnolia
Mulberry
Devil's club, Devil's walking stick
Hop-hornbeam
Sourwood
Virginia creeper
Princess-tree
40
-------
Table 3. (con't)
Pinus echinata
Pinus resinosa
Pinus rigida
Pinus strobus
Pinus virginiana
Platanus occidentalis
Populus balsamifera
Populus grandidentata
Pmnus pensylvanica
Prunus serotina
Prunus sp.
Pnjnus virginiana
Quercus alba
Quercus bicolor
Quercus coccinea
Quercus marilandica
Quercus prinus
Quercus rubra
Quercus velutina
Quercus sp.
Rhododendron maximum
Rhus copallinum
Rhus glabra
Rhus typhina
Robinia hispida
Robinia pseudoacacia
Rosa caroliniana
Rosa multiflora*
Rubus allegheniensis
Rubus recurvicutatus
Rubus sp.
Sassafras albidum
Smilax glauca
Smilax sp.
Tilia americana
Toxicodendron radicans
Tsuga canadensis
Ulmus rubra
Vaccinium angustifolium
Vaccinium pallidum
Vaccinium sp.
Viburnum acerifolium
Vitis aestivalis
Vitis sp.
Shortleaf pine
Red pine
Pitch pine
White pine
Scrub pine, Virginia pine
Sycamore
Balsam poplar
Bigtooth aspen
Fire cherry, Pin cherry
Black cherry
Cherry
Choke cherry
White oak
Swamp oak
Scarlet oak
Black-jack oak
Chestnut oak
Northern red oak
Black oak
Oak
Great rhododendron
Shining sumac
Smooth sumac
Staghorn sumac
Bristly locust
Black locust
Pasture rose
Multiflora rose
Common blackberry
Dewberry
Bramble
Sassafras
Saw brier
Catbrier
Basswood, American linden
Poison ivy
American Hemlock
Slippery or red elm
Common lowbush blueberry
Hillside blueberry
Blueberry
Maple-leaf viburnum
Summer grape
Grape
41
-------
Table 4: Woody species found on study sites ranked from most to least present. Does not include
contour mines. * denotes alien/non-native species
Ranked by most to least common on forest sites. Ranked by most to least common on mined sites.
Transect type
Number of transects
Species
Acer rubrum
Acer saccharum
Quercus rubra
Liriodendron tulipifera
Smilax sp.
Fagus grandifolia
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Rubus sp.
Betula lenta
Toxicodendron radicans
Magnolia acuminata
Vitis sp.
Cornus florida
Tilia americana
Viburnum acerifolium
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Carya cordiformis
Carpinus caroliniana
Acer pensylvanicum
Oxydendrum arboreum
Prunus serotina
Lindera benzoin
Robinia pseudoacada
Sassafras albidum
Quercus alba
Magnolia tripetala
Cercis canadensis
forest
total
23
19
19
19
18
18
16
15
14
13
12
12
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
Hamamelis virginiana | 7
Ailanthus altissima* II 5
Vaccinium sp. I 5
Quercus prinus 5
Hydrangea arborescens | S
Ostrya virginiana
Carya glabra
Betula alleghaniensis
Quercus velutina
Quercus marilandica
Carya tomentosa
Carya ovata
Aesculus octandra
Magnolia virginiana
Magnolia soulangeana*
Magnolia fraseri
Crataegus sp.
Carya sp.
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
Eleagnus umbellata* | 2
Rosa multiflora* || 2
mined
total
25
18
9
2
13
5
3
8
19
9
9
2
5
3
2
0
10
0
0
0
13
6
0
19
1
1
1
1
0
3
2
2
"i I
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
8
forest
total
23
14
7
19
2
18
8
9
19
13
12
15
2
2
1
8
0
18
10
1
0
4
16
10
5
1
0
19
12
10
5
5
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
7
7
5
4
2
mined
total
25
19
19
18
15
13
13
10
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ransect type
Number of transects
Species
Rubus sp.
Robinia pseudoacada
Acer rubrum
Eleagnus umbellata*
Liriodendron tulipifera
Oxydendrum arboreum
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Acer saccharum
Betula lenta
Toxicodendron radicans
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Prunus sp.
Rosa multiflora*
Platanus occidentalis
Prunus serotina
Lespedeza bicolor*
Smilax sp.
Vitis sp.
Rhus typhina
Alnus glutinosa*
Betula alleghaniensis
Fagus grandifolia
Cornus florida
Ailanthus altissima*
Amelanchier sp.
Populus grandidentata
Quercus rubra
Magnolia acuminata
Tilia americana
Quercus prinus
Vaccinium sp.
Fraxinus americana
Prunus pensylvanica
Acernegundo
Fraxinus sp.
Lonicera japonica*
Oplopanax horridum
Paulownia tomentosa*
Pinus rigida
Pinus virginiana
Cercis canadensis
Magnolia tripetala
Quercus alba
Sassafras albidum
Hydrangea arborescens
Quercus velutina
Fraxinus nigra
42
-------
Table 4 (con't)
Ranked by most to least common on forest sites.
Ranked by most to least common on mined sites.
ransect type
Number of transects
Species
Prunus sp.
Prunus pensylvanica
Fraxinus americana
Fraxinus nigra
Vaccinium angustifoiium
Castanea dentata
Azalea sp.
Platanus occidentalis
Rhus typhina
Amelanchier sp.
Rubus allegheniensis
Ulmus rubra
Tsuga canadensis
Rosa caroliniana
Rhododendron maximum
Quercus bicolor
Prunus virginiana
Worus sp.
Magnolia grand/flora
Katmia latifolia
Aristolochia macrophylla
Lespedeza bicolor*
Alnus glutinosa*
Populus grandidentata
Pinus virginiana
Pinus rigida
Paulownia tomentosa*
Oplopanax horridum
Lonicera japonica*
Fraxinus sp.
Acernegundo
Rubus recurviculatus
Robinia hispida
Rhus glabra
Rhus copallinum
Quercus coccinea
Populus balsamifera
Pinus strobus
Pinus resinosa
Pinus echinata
Juniperus virginiana
forest
total
23
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
mined
total
25
8
2
2
1
0
0
0
8
5
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
forest
total
23
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
9
9
9
8
7
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
mined
total
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Transect type
Number of transects
Species
Rubus allegheniensis
Juniperus virginiana
Pinus echinata
Pinus resinosa
Pinus strobus
Populus balsamifera
Quercus coccinea
Rhus copallinum
Rhus glabra
Robinia hispida
Rubus recurviculatus
Viburnum acerifolium
Acer pensylvanicum
Carpinus caroliniana
Carya cordiformis
Lindera benzoin
Hamamelis virginiana
Carya glabra
Ostrya virginiana
Aesculus octandra
Carya ovate
Carya tomentosa
Quercus marilandica
Carya sp.
Crataegus sp.
Magnolia fraseri
Magnolia soulangeana*
Magnolia virginiana
Azalea sp.
Castanea dentata
Vaccinium angustifoiium
Aristolochia macrophylla
Kalmia latifolia
Magnolia grand/flora
Morus sp.
Prunus virginiana
Quercus bicolor
Rhododendron maximum
Rosa caroliniana
Tsuga canadensis
Ulmus rubra
43
-------
Table 5: Woody species found at study sites by category. * denotes alien/non-native species
CF = Continuous forest MTR = Mountaintop removal BF = backfill
RF = Remnant forest VF = Valley fill CM = contour mine
ransect type
Number of transects
Species
Acernegundo
Acer pensylvanicum
Acer rubrum
Acer saccharum
Aesculus octandra
Ailanthus altissima*
Alnus glutinosa*
Amelanchier sp.
Aristolochia macrophylla
Azalea sp.
Betula alleghaniensis
Betula lenta
Carpinus caroliniana
Carya cordiformis
Carya glabra
Carya ovata
Carya sp.
Carya tomentosa
Castanea dentata
Cercis canadensis
Cornus florida
Crataegus sp.
Eleagnus umbeltata*
Epigaea repens
Fagus grandifolia
Fraxinus americana
Fraxinus nigra
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Fraxinus sp.
Hamamelis virginiana
Hydrangea arborescens
Juniperus virginiana
Kalmia latifolia
Lespedeza bicolor*
LJndera benzoin
Liriodendron tulipifera
Lonicera japonica*
Magnolia acuminata
Magnolia grandiflora
Magnolia fraseri
Magnolia soulangeana*
Magnolia tripetala
Magnolia virginiana
Morus sp.
Oplopanax horridum
Ostrya virginiana
FOREST
CF
5
3
5
3
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
2
1
3
5
4
3
2
1
3
5
5
1
1
2
RF
20
9
18
14
1
2
1
2
2
12
7
6
5
2
2
4
2
5
6
4
2
13
2
2
6
5
4
1
5
14
9
3
2
5
3
1
5
MINED
MTR
4
2
2
1
2
2
1
VF
16
2
13
7
3
3
2
3
6
1
3
11
3
2
1
8
2
1
1
6
10
2
1
1
BF
5
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
CM
5
1
5
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
FOREST
TOTAL
25
0
9
21
19
4
5
0
1
1
2
4
13
9
9
7
4
3
4
2
8
11
4
2
0
17
2
2
9
0
7
5
0
1
0
8
19
0
14
1
3
3
7
3
1
0
5
MINED
TOTAL
30
3
0
23
9
0
3
5
3
0
0
4
9
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
3
0
19
0
3
3
1
11
2
0
1
1
0
6
0
14
2
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
44
-------
Table 5. (con't)
Transect type
Number of transects
Species
Oxydendrum arboreum
Parthenocissus quinquefoli
Paulownia tomentosa*
Pinus echinata
Pinus resinosa
Pinus rigida
Pinus strobus
Pinus virginiana
Platanus occidentals
Populus balsamifera
Populus grandidentata
Prunus pensylvanica
Prunus serotina
Prunus sp.
Prunus virginiana
Quercus alba
Quercus bicolor
Quercus coccinea
Quercus marilandica
Quercus prinus
Quercus rubra
Quercus velutina
Rhododendron maximum
Rhus copallinum
Rhus glabra
Rhus typhina
Robinia hispida
Robinia pseudoacacia
Rosa caroliniana
Rosa multiflora*
Rubus allegheniensis
Rubus recurviculatus
Rubus sp.
Sassafras albidum
Smilax glauca
Smilax sp.
Tilia americana
Toxicodendron radicans
Tsuga canadensis
Ulmus rubra
Vaccinium angustifolium
Vaccinium sp.
Viburnum acerifolium
Vitis sp.
FOREST
CF
5
1
5
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
5
3
4
1
1
3
1
RF
20
8
11
1
1
1
2
6
2
1
6
1
4
4
18
4
1
2
1
7
1
2
1
14
8
1
14
7
10
1
3
4
7
9
MINED
MTR
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
VF
16
9
7
2
1
1
1
1
2
6
1
1
4
5
1
1
2
1
1
5
12
7
1
1
13
1
4
1
7
5
BF
5
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
4
4
1
1
2
CM
5
5
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
5
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
FOREST
TOTAL
25
9
16
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
2
8
2
1
8
1
0
5
5
20
4
1
2
0
1
0
7
1
2
1
0
15
9
1
19
10
14
1
1
3
5
10
10
MINED
TOTAL
30
18
12
2
1
1
2
1
3
9
1
3
2
6
8
0
3
0
2
1
2
3
2
0
3
1
6
1
19
0
10
3
1
24
3
1
7
2
11
0
0
1
3
0
6
45
-------
Table 6. Woody species ranked by abundance in forested and mined sites. Contour mines excluded.
(There were 33 forest transect points and 1601 mined points where no individual was found in range.)
* denotes alien/non-native species
Ranked by abundance on forested sites.
Species
Acer saccharum
Acer rubrum
Fagus grandifolia
Liriodendron tulipifera
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Magnolia acuminata
Toxicodendron radicans
Quercus rubra
Oxydendrum arboreum
Smilax sp.
Acer pensylvanicum
Magnolia tripetala
Quercus prinus
^ubus sp.
Tilia americana
Betula lenta
Robinia pseudoacacia
Prunus serotina
Quercus alba
Sassafras albidum
Lindera benzoin
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Vitis sp.
Fraxinus americana
Comus florida
Aesculus octandra
Hamamelis virginiana
Vaccinium sp.
Eleagnus umbellata*
Ailanthus altissima*
Carya cordiformis
Carpinus caroliniana
Castanea dentata
Magnolia fraseri
Carya ovata
Viburnum acerifolium
Prunus sp.
Carya sp.
Prunus pensylvanica
Cercis canadensis
Carya glabra
Carya tomentosa
Hydrangea arborescens
Magnolia grandiflora
Ostrya virginiana
Quercus bicolor
Betula alleghaniensis
Quercus velutina
Fraxinus nigra
Number of
forest mine
206
127
70
68
58
51
37
37
34
34
33
31
30
28
28
27
25
22
21
20
20
16
15
14
14
14
14
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
24
221
4
62
8
1
13
4
60
6
0
1
1
187
2
19
217
17
0
4
0
39
9
6
3
0
0
2
106
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
5
2
Ranked by abundance on mined sites.
Number of
forest mine
127
25
28
11
68
34
16
0
1
206
27
0
22
8
1
37
0
15
58
4
0
34
14
4
0
0
70
37
20
11
7
3
0
0
14
1
0
28
12
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
51
31
30
221
217
187
106
62
60
39
28
26
24
19
19
17
17
14
13
11
9
8
8
7
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Species
Acer rubrum
Robinia pseudoacacia
Rubus sp.
Eleagnus umbellate*
Liriodendron tulipifera
Oxydendrum arboreum
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Lespedeza bicolor*
Rhus typhina
Acer saccharum
Betula lenta
Rosa multiflora*
Prunus serotina
Prunus sp.
Platanus occidentalis
Toxicodendron radicans
Pinus strobus
Vitissp.
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Betula alleghaniensis
Pinus virginiana
Smilax sp.
Fraxinus americana
Quercus velutina
Pinus echinata
Rubus recurviculatus
Fagus grandifolia
Quercus rubra
Sassafras albidum
Ailanthus altissima*
Prunus pensylvanica
Rubus allegheniensis
Fraxinus sp.
Oplopanax hom'dum
Comus florida
Pinus rigida
Paulownia tomentosa*
Tilia americana
Vaccinium sp.
Fraxinus nigra
Acernegundo
Amelanchier sp.
Juniperus virginiana
Populus balsamifera
Populus grandidentata
Rhus glabra
Magnolia acuminata
Magnolia tripetala
Quercus prinus
46
-------
Table 6. (con't)
Ranked by abundance on forested sites.
Ranked by abundance on mined sites.
Species
Magnolia soulangeana*
Magnolia virginiana
Rubus allegheniensis
Crataegus sp.
Quercus marilandica
Vaccinium angustifolium
Aesculus sp.
Hydrangea sp.
Prunus virginiana
Rhus typhina
Platanus occidentalis
Pinus rig/da
Aristolochia macrophylla
Azalea sp.
Betula sp.
Kalmia latifolia
Magnolia sp.
Morus sp.
Rhus copallinum
Tsuga canadensis
Ulmus rubra
UNK- yellow fruit
UNK-w/photos
Lespedeza bicolor*
Rosa multiflora*
Pinus strobus
Pinus virginiana
Pinus echinata
Rubus recurviculatus
Fraxinus sp.
Oplopanax horridum
Paulownia tomentosa*
Acernegundo
Amelanchier sp.
Juniperus virginiana
Populus balsamifera
Populus grandidentata
Rhus glabra
Amelanchier arborea
Lonicera japonica *r*
Pinus resinosa
Quercus sp.
UNK-Amelanchier
UNK-shrub w/green-red berrie
Number of
forest mine
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
14
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
19
11
7
5
5
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total data points
Number of
forest
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
21
20
14
14
11
10
10
10
9
9
8
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
mine
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Species
Amelanchier arborea
Lonicera japonica *r*
Pinus resinosa
Quercus sp.
UNK-Amelanchier
UNK-shrub w/green-red berries
Acer pensylvanicum
Quercus alba
Lindera benzoin
Aesculus octandra
Hamamelis virginiana
Carya cordiformis
Carpinus caroliniana
Castanea dentata
Magnolia fraseri
Carya ovata
Viburnum acerifolium
Carya sp.
Cercis canadensis
Carya glabra
Carya tomentosa
Hydrangea arborescens
Magnolia grandiflora
Ostrya virginiana
Quercus bicolor
Magnolia soulangeana*
Magnolia virginiana
Crataegus sp.
Quercus marilandica
Vaccinium angustifolium
Aesculus sp.
Hydrangea sp.
Prunus virginiana
Aristolochia macrophylla
Azalea sp.
Betula sp.
Kalmia latifolia
Magnolia sp.
Morus sp.
Rhus copallinum
Tsuga canadensis
Ulmus rubra
UNK- yellow fruit
UNK-w/photos
1299 1207
1299 1207 Total data points
47
-------
Table 7a: List of West Virginia herbaceous species found on transects sampled for
the EIS terrestrial analyses (2000). (a indicates aiien species)
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Actaea pachypoda
Adiantum pedatum
Agrimonia striata
Allium tricoccum
Anemonella thalictroides
Antennaria plantaginifolia
Arisaema triphyllum
Asarum canadense
a Asparagus officinalls*
Aster sp.
Botrychium sp.
Carex blanda
Carex plantaginea
Carex sp.
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Chimaphila maculata
Claytonia caroliniana
Delphinium tricome
Dentaria maxima
Dentaria multifida
Dicentra cucultaria
Dioscoria quaternata
Disporum languinosum
Epifagus virginiana
Erythronium americanum
Fragaria virginiana
Galium aparine
Gallum circaezans
Galium sp.
Galium tinctorum
Galium triflorum
Geranium maculatum
a Glechoma hederaea*
Good/era repens
Hepatica acutifoba
Hydrophyllum macrophyllum
Impatiens capensis
Lactuca sp.
a Lamium purpureum*
Lycopus virginicus
Medeola virginiana
Meehania cordata
Mltchella repens
Osmorhiza claytonii
Panax trifolium
Pedicularis canadensis
Phlox sp.
Phlox stolonifera
Podophyllum peltatum
Polemonium reptans
Polygonatum biflorum
Polygonum sp.
Polystichum acrostichoides
Potentilla canadensis
COMMON NAME
White baneberry
Maidenhair fern
Woodland agrimony
Wild leek/ ramps
Rue anemone
Plantain pussytoes
Jack-in-the-pulpit
Wild ginger
Wild asparagus
Aster sp.
Rattlesnake fern
Charming sedge
Plantain-like sedge
Sedge sp.
Blue cohosh
Striped wintergreen
Spring beauty
Dwarf larkspur
Large toothwort
Fine-leaved toothwort
Dutchman's breeches
Four-leaved wild yam
Fairy bells
Beechdrops (epifagus)
Trout lily
Strawberry
Cleavers
Wild licorice
Galium sp.
Clayton's bedstraw
Sweet scented bedstraw
Wild geranium
Gills-over-the-ground
Dwarf rattlesnake plantain
Sharp-lobed hepatica
Broad-leaved waterleaf
Impatiens, Spotted touch-me-not
Wild lettuce
Purple dead nettle
Virginia bugleweed
Indian cucumber root
Meehania
Partrtdgeberry
Hairy sweet Cicely
Dwarf ginseng
Wood betony, lousewort
Phlox
Creeping phlox
Mayapple
Greek valerian (Jacob's ladder)
Smooth Solomon's seal
Polygonum sp.
Christmas fern
Dwarf cinquefoil
48
-------
Table 7a. (cent)
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Potentilla sp.
Ranunculus sp.
Sanguinaria canadensis
Sedum tematum
Senecio aureus
Senecio obovatus
Silene virginica
Smilacina racemosa
Smilax sp.
Solidago sp.
Stellaria media
i Stellaria pubera*
Tiarella cordifolia
Trillium grandiflorum
i Tussilago farfara*
Urtica dioica
Vicia caroliniana
Viola blanda
Viola canadensis
Viola macloskeyi (V. pallens)
Viola papilionacea
Viola pedata
Viola pennsylvanica
Viola rostrata
Viola rotundifolia
Viola sp.
Viola striata
Waldsteinia fragarioides
Zizia aurea
COMMON NAME
Potentilla sp.
Buttercup sp.
Bloodroot
Wild stonecrop
Golden ragwort
Round-leaved ragwort
Fire pink
False Solomon's seal
Catbrier
Golden rod
Common chickweed
Star chickweed
Foamflower
Large-flowered trillium
Coltsfoot
Stinging nettle
Wood vetch
Sweet white violet
Stemmed white violet
Wild white violet
Common blue violet
Bird's-foot violet
Smooth yellow violet
Long-spurred violet
Round-leaved yellow violet
Violet sp.
Creamy violet
Barren strawberry
Golden Alexanders
Grass sp.
Mustard sp.
Observed in area, but not in data
Carex sp.
Hieracium venosum
Houston/a longifolia
Iris cristata
Mitella diphylla
Obolaria virginica
Phlox divaricata
Ranunculus recurvatus
Ranunculus sceleratus
Smilax herbacea
a Stellaria aquatica
a Stellaria hoiostea*
Zizia aptera
Sedges
Rattlesnake weed
Long-leaved Houstonia
Wild crested iris
Bishop's cap
Pennywort
Wild blue phlox
Hooked crowfoot
Cursed crowfoot
Carrion flower
Giant chickweed
Easter bell
Heart-leaved Alexanders
49
-------
Table 7b. List of West Virginia spring herbaceous species observed on three valley fills.
* indicates alien/non-native species.
AHiaria petiolata *
Asarum canactense
Aster sp.
Brassicaceae
Coronilla varia*
Galium aparine
Galium tinctorum
Grass sp.
Lamium purpureum*
Lespedeza bicolor*
Phlox sp.
Polygonum sp.
Polystichum acrostichoides
Potentilla canadensis
Ranunculus sp.
Silene virginica
Stellaria pubera
Trifolium sp.*
Tussilago farfara*
Unk.
Vicia caroliniana
Viola sp.
Waldsteinia fragarioides
Zizia aurea
Garlic mustard
Wild ginger
Aster species
Mustard species
Crown vetch
Cleavers
Clayton's bedstraw
Grass species
Purple dead nettle
Bush clover
Phlox species
Polygonum species
Christmas fern
Dwarf cinquefoil
Buttercup species
Fire pink
Star chickweed
Clover species
Coltsfoot
Dandelion-like milky weed
Wood vetch
Violet species
Barren strawberry
Golden Alexanders
50
-------
Table 8. Herbaceous species found on study sites, ranked from most to least present.
idicates alien/non-native species
_^anked by most to least common in intact forest sites. Ranked by most to least common in engineered sites.
Species
Stellaria pubera*
Anemonella thalictroides
Polygonum sp.
Viola sp.
Tiarella cordifolia
Smilacina racemosa
Aster sp.
Geranium maculatum
Lactuca sp.
Sedum tematum
Osmorhiza claytonii
Arisaema triphyllum
Podophyllum peltatum
Polygonatum biflorum
Polystichum acrostichoides
Trillium grandiflorum
Fragaria virginiana
Asarum canadense
Botrychium sp.
Dentaria multifida
Erythronium americanum
Galium circaezans
Sanguinaria canadensis
Actaea pachypoda
~>isporum languinosum
lydrophyllum macrophyllum
' Galium triflorum
Claytonia caroliniana
Medeola virginiana
Mitchella repens
Urtica dioica
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Chimaphila maculata
Dicentra cucullaria
Hepatica acutiloba
Viola rostrata
Dioscoria guatemata
Galium aparine
Potentilla canadensis
Viola papilionacea
Glechoma hederaea*
Impatiens capensis
Viola blanda
Viola pennsylvanica
Delphinium tricome
Viola rotundifolia
Carex plantaginea
Dentaria maxima
Meehania cordata
Carex sp.
Viola canadensis
Galium sp.
Goodyera repens
Pedicularis canadensis
°Wox sp.
IPolemonium reptans
Smilax^).
Solidago sp.
ntact forest
(11 sites)
11
11
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
engineered
(5 sites)
4
1
4
4
2
1
4
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
intact forest
(11 sites)
11
10
10
9
3
1
9
9
9
8
8
7
6
3
10
7
6
5
5
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
0
0
11
10
9
8
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
engineered
(5 sites)
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Species
Stellaria pubera*
Polygonum sp.
Viola sp.
Aster sp.
Viola rostrata
Carex sp.
Geranium maculatum
Lactuca sp.
Sedum tematum
Arisaema triphyllum
Podophyllum peltatum
Polystichum acrostichoides
Fragaria virginiana
Dioscoria quatemata
Tiarella cordifolia
Trillium grandiflorum
Asarum canadense
Galium circaezans
Sanguinaria canadensis
Galium triflorum
Galium aparine
Potentilla canadensis
Viola papilionacea
Delphinium tricome
Viola rotundifolia
Viola canadensis
Agrimonia striata
Senecio aureus
Anemonella thalictroides
Smilacina racemosa
Osmorhiza claytonii
Polygonatum biflorum
Botrychium sp.
Dentaria multifida
Erythronium americanum
Actaea pachypoda
Disporum languinosum
Hydrophyllum macrophyllum
Claytonia caroliniana
Medeola virginiana
Mitchella repens
Urtica dioica
Glechoma hederaea*
Impatiens capensis
Galium sp.
Goodyera repens
Pedicularis canadensis
Phlox sp.
Polemonium reptans
Smilax sp.
Solidago sp.
Zizia aurea
Unk composite
Antennaria plantaginifolia
Carex blanda
Ranunculus sp.
Senecio obovatus
Stellaria media
51
-------
Table 8. (cont)
Ranked by most to least common in intact forest sites.
Ranked by most to least common in engineered sites.
Species
Zizia aurea
Unk composite
Adiantum pedatum
Allium tricoccum
Asparagus officinalis*
Epifagus virginiana
Lycopus virginicus
Panax trifolium
Phlox stolonifera
Potentilla sp.
Viola macloskeyi (V. pallens)
Waldsteinia fragarioides
Carex, narrow
Carex , pale & broad
Unk — very hirsute
Unk — round leaf
Unk- 3 mitten leaf
Unk 3-3 leaf
Unk fern
Unk -geranium like
Unk ground cover
Unk - purple flower "rue"
low 3-leave
Agrimonia striata
Senecio aureus
Antennaria plantaginifolia
Carex blanda
Ranunculus sp.
Senecio obovatus
Stellaria media
Viola pedata
Viola striata
Unk - tomentose
Unk 6 thin-leaved galium
Unk ground cover, purple
Unk heart leaf herb
intact forest
(11 sites)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
engineered
(5 sites)
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
intact forest
(11 sites)
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
engineered
(5 sites)
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Species
Viola pedata
Viola striata
Unk - tomentose
Unk 6 thin-leaved galium
Unk ground cover, purple
Unk heart leaf herb
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Chimaphila maculate
Dicentra cucullaria
Hepatica acutiloba
Viola Wanda
Viola pennsylvanica
Carex piantaginea
Dentaria maxima
Meehania cordate
Adiantum pedatum
Allium tricoccum
Asparagus officinalis*
Epifagus Virginians
Lycopus virginicus
Panax trifolium
Phlox stolonifera
Potentilla sp.
Viola macloskeyi (V. pallens)
Waldsteinia fragarioides
Carex , narrow
Carex , plae & broad
Unk — very hirsute
Unk — round leaf
Unk- 3 mitten leaf
Unk 3-3 leaf
Unk fern
Unk -geranium like
Unk ground cover
Unk -purple flower "rue"
low 3-leave
52
-------
Table 9a. Herbaceous species found at study sites, ranked from most to least abundant (number of stems counted) in engineered
and intact forests. * indicates alien/non-native species
Ranked by abundance in intact study sites.
Ranked by abundance in engineered study sites.
Species
Sedum ternatum
Tiarella cordifolia
Dicentra cucullaria
Aster sp.
Urtica dioica
Fragaria virginiana
Osmorhiza claytonii
Erythronium americanum
Dentaria maxima
Viola sp.
/leehania cordate
Stellaria pubera*
Botrychium sp.
Asarum canadense
Polygonum sp.
Podophyllum peltatum
Arisaema triphyllum
Polystichum acrostichoides
Anemonella thalictroides
Glechoma hederaea*
Claytonia caroliniana
Geranium maculatum
Trillium grandiflorum
Lactuca sp.
Smilacina racemosa
Delphinium income
Impatiens capensis
Viola blanda
Galium aparine
Dentaria multifida
Hydrophyllum macrophyllum
Medeola virginiana
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Hepatica acutiloba
Polygonatum biflorum
Viola rostrata
Lycopus virginicus
low 3-leave
Galium sp.
Mitchella repens
Unk 3-3 leaf
Panax trifolium
Sanguinaria canadensis
Galium triflorum
Actaea pachypoda
Phlox stolonifera
Dioscoria quatemata
Galium circaezans
Viola papilionacea
Disporum languinosum
Altium tricoccum
Polemonium reptans
Carex plantaginea
Carex , narrow
Potentilla canadensis
Viola canadensis
intact
8897 stems)
1043
872
702
377
305
292
292
279
270
256
245
241
236
215
192
182
179
172
171
149
143
139
136
107
99
94
92
89
85
77
76
75
73
65
57
52
50
50
47
38
38
36
35
27
26
26
24
23
23
23
21
18
17
17
16
16
engineered
1840 stems)
180
82
0
92
1
17
9
7
0
70
0
94
7
71
113
60
41
25
35
19
1
51
18
64
1
71
10
0
35
1
10
13
0
0
6
60
0
0
29
6
0
0
6
5
1
0
9
55
28
14
0
91
0
0
36
12
intact
(8897 stems)
1043
192
241
377
18
872
0
215
94
256
107
182
52
23
139
179
3
16
171
85
47
23
12
172
149
136
292
5
23
75
3
0
16
8
0
92
76
2
0
292
24
279
236
57
38
35
0
27
0
0
0
0
0
305
143
99
engineered
(1840 stems)
180
113
94
92
91
82
73
71
71
70
64
60
60
55
51
41
38
36
35
35
29
28
26
25
19
18
17
15
14
13
13
13
12
11
11
10
10
10
10
9
9
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
3
2
1
1
1
Species
Sedum tematum
Polygonum sp.
Stellaria pubera*
Aster sp.
Polemonium reptans
Tiarella cordifolia
Senecio aureus
Asamm canadense
Delphinium income
/iota sp.
Lactuca sp.
Podophyllum peltatum
/iola rostrata
Galium circaezans
Geranium maculatum
Arisaema triphyllum
Phlox sp.
Potentilla canadensis
Anemonella thalictroides
Galium aparine
Galium sp.
Viola papilionacea
Pedicularis canadensis
Polystichum acrostichoides
Glechoma hederaea*
Trillium grandifforum
Fragaria Virginians
Carex sp.
Disporum languinosum
Medeola virginiana
Smilax sp.
Viola pedata
Viola canadensis
Viola rotundifolia
Agrimonia striata
Impatiens capensis
Hydrophyllum macrophyllum
Goodyera repens
Unk ground cover, purple
Osmorhiza claytonii
Dioscoria quatemata
Erythronium americanum
Botrychium sp.
Polygonatum biflorum
Mitchell a repens
Sanguinaria canadensis
Unk heart leaf herb
Galium triflorum
/Antennana plantaginifolia
Carex blanda
Senecio obovatus
Unk 6 thin-leaved galium
Viola striata
Urtica dioica
Claytonia caroliniana
Smilacina racemose
53
-------
Table 9a. (con't)
Ranked by abundance in intact study sites.
Ranked by abundance in engineered study sites.
Species
Pedicularis canadensis
Unk composite
Chimaphila maculata
Viola macloskeyi (V. pallens)
Viola pennsylvanica
Viola rotund/folia
Carex , pale & broad
Carex sp.
Adiantum pedatum
Unk -geranium like
Phlox sp.
Smilax sp.
Potentilla sp.
Unk- 3 mitten leaf
Unk fern
Unk- purple flower "rue"
Goodyera repens
Zizia aurea
Epifagus virginiana
Waldsteinia fragarioides
Solidago sp.
Asparagus officinalis*
Unk — very hirsute
Unk — round leaf
Unk ground cover
Senecio aureus
Viola pedata
Agrimonia striata
Unk ground cover, purple
Unk heart leaf herb
Antennaria plantaginifolia
Carex blanda
Senecio obovatus
Unk 6 thin-leaved galium
Viola striata
Ranunculus sp.
Stellaria media
Unk - tomentose
intact
(8897 stems)
12
12
12
11
11
8
6
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
engineered
1840 stems)
26
1
0
0
0
11
0
15
0
0
38
13
0
0
0
0
10
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
73
13
11
10
6
5
5
5
3
2
1
1
1
intact
(8897 stems)
77
26
12
2
1
0
0
0
702
270
245
89
73
65
50
50
38
36
26
21
17
17
12
11
11
6
5
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
engineered
(1840 stems)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Species
Dentaria multifida
Actaea pachypoda
Unk composite
Zizia aurea
Solidago sp.
Ranunculus sp.
Stellaria media
Unk - tomentose
Dicentra cucullaria
Dentaria maxima
Meehania cordata
Viola blanda
Caulophyllum thalictmides
Hepatica acutiloba
Lycopus virginicus
low 3-leave
Unk 3-3 leaf
Panax trifolium
Phlox stolonifera
Allium tricoccum
Carex plantaginea
Carex , narrow
Chimaphila maculata
Viola macloskeyi (V. pallens)
Viola pennsylvanica
Carex , pale & broad
Adiantum pedatum
Unk -geranium like
Potentilla sp.
Unk- 3 mitten leaf
Unk fern
Unk- purple flower "rue"
Epifagus virginiana
Waldsteinia fragarioides
Asparagus officinalis*
Unk - very hirsute
Unk - round leaf
Unk ground cover
54
-------
Table 9b. Herbaceous species found at study sites, ranked by percent abundance (number of stems counted) in engineered
and intact forests. * indicates
Ranked by percent abundance on intact study sites.
Ranked by percent abundance on engineered sites.
Species
Sedum tematum
Tiarella cordifolia
D/'cenfra cucullaha
Aster sp.
Urtica dioica
Fragaria virginiana
Osmorhiza claytonii
Erythronium americanum
Dentaria maxima
Viola sp.
Meehania cordata
Stellaria pubera''
Botrychium sp.
Asarum canadense
Polygonum sp.
Podophyllum peltatum
Arisaema triphyllum
Polystichum acrostichoides
Anemonella thalictroides
Glechoma hederaea*
Claytonia caroliniana
Geranium maculatum
Trillium grandiflorum
Lactuca sp.
Smilacina racemosa
Delphinium tricome
Impatiens capensis
Viola blanda
Galium aparine
Dentaria multifida
Hydrophyllum macrophyllum
Medeola virginiana
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Hepatica acutiloba
Polygonatum biflorum
Viola rostrata
Lycopus virginicus
low 3-leave
Galium sp.
Mitchella repens
Unk 3-3 leaf
Panax trifolium
Sanguinaria canadensis
Galium triflorum
Actaea pachypoda
Phlox stolonifera
Dioscoria quaternata
Galium circaezans
Viola papilionacea
Disporum languinosum
Allium tricoccum
Polemonium reptans
Carex plantaginea
Carex, narrow
Potentilla canadensis
Viola canadensis
Pedicularis canadensis
intact
(of 8897)
11.7
9.8
7.9
4.2
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
ngineered
(of 1840)
9.8
4.5
0.0
5.0
0.1
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.0
3.8
0.0
5.1
0.4
3.9
6.1
3.3
2.2
1.4
1.9
1.0
0.1
2.8
1.0
3.5
0.1
3.9
0.5
0.0
1.9
0.1
0.5
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.3
3.3
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.5
3.0
1.5
0.8
0.0
4.9
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.7
1.4
intact
(of 8897)
11.7
2.2
2.7
4.2
0.2
9.8
0.0
2.4
1.1
2.9
1.2
2.0
0.6
0.3
1.6
2.0
0.0
0.2
1.9
1.0
0.5
0.3
0.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
3.3
0.1
0.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
1.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.3
3.1
2.7
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
1.6
1.1
0.9
engineered
(of 1840)
9.8
6.1
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.5
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.0
2.8
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Species
Sedum tematum
Polygonum sp.
Stellaria pubera*
Aster sp.
Polemonium reptans
Tiarella cordifolia
Senecio aureus
Asarum canadense
Delphinium income
Viola sp.
Lactuca sp.
Podophyllum peltatum
Viola rostrata
Galium circaezans
Geranium maculatum
Arisaema triphyllum
Phlox sp.
Potentate canadensis
Anemonella thalictroides
Galium aparine
Galium sp.
Viola papilionacea
Pedicularis canadensis
Polystichum acrostichoides
Glechoma hederaea*
Trillium grandiflorum
Fragaria virginiana
Carex sp.
Disporum languinosum
Medeola virginiana
Smilax sp.
Viola pedata
Viola canadensis
Viola rotundifolia
Agrimonia striata
Impatiens capensis
Hydrophyllum macrophyllum
Goodyera repens
Unk ground cover, purple
Osmorhiza claytonii
Dioscoria quaternata
Erythronium americanum
Botrychium sp.
Polygonatum biflorum
Mitchella repens
Sanguinaria canadensis
Unk heart leaf herb
Galium triflorum
Antennaria plantaginifolia
Carex blanda
Senecio obovatus
Unk 6 thin-leaved galium
Viola striata
Urtica dioica
Claytonia caroliniana
Smilacina racemosa
Dentaria multifida
55
-------
Table 9b. (con't)
Ranked by percent abundance on intact study sites.
Ranked by percent abundance on engineered sites.
Species
Unk composite
Chimaphila maculata
Viola macloskeyi (V. pallens)
Viola pennsylvanica
Viola rotundifolia
Carex, pale & broad
Carex sp.
Adiantum pedatum
Unk -geranium like
Phlox sp.
Smilax sp.
Potentilla sp.
Unk- 3 mitten leaf
Unk fern
Unk - purple flower "rue"
Goodyera repens
Zizia aurea
Epifagus virginiana
Waldsteinia fragarioides
Solidago sp.
Asparagus officinalis*
Unk — very hirsute
Unk — round leaf
Unk ground cover
Senecio aureus
Viola pedata
Agrimonia striata
Unk around cover, purple
Unk heart leaf herb
Antennaria plantaginifolia
Carex blanda
Senecio obovatus
Unk 6 thin-leaved galium
V7o/a striata
Ranunculus sp.
Stellaria media
Unk-tomentose
intact
(of 8897)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
engineered
(of 1840)
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
intact
(of 8897)
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.9
3.0
2.8
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
engineered
(of 1840)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Species
Actaea pachypoda
link composite
Zizia aurea
Solidago sp.
Ranunculus sp.
Stellaria media
Unk - tomentose
Dicentra cucullaria
Dentaria maxima
Meehania cordata
Viola blanda
Caulophyllum thalictmides
Hepatica acutiloba
Lycopus virginicus
low 3-leave
Unk 3-3 leaf
Panax trifolium
Phlox stolonifera
Allium tricoccum
Carex plantaginea
Carex, narrow
Chimaphila maculate
Viola macloskeyi (V. pallens)
Viola pennsylvanica
Carex, pale & broad
Adiantum pedatum
Unk -geranium like
Potentilla sp.
Unk- 3 mitten leaf
Unk fern
Unk - purple flower "rue"
Epifagus virginiana
Waldsteinia fragarioides
Asparagus officinalis*
Unk — very hirsute
Unk - round leaf
Unk ground cover
56
-------
Table 10. Herbaceous species found at study sites, ranked by abundance (number of stems) in engineered and intact sites. (Values have
been standardized by multiplying engineered numbers by 11/5 to even out difference in number of sites sampled.)
* indicates alien/non-native species
Ranked by abundance on intact sites. Ranked by abundance on engineered sites.
Species
Sedurn tematum
Tiarella cordifolia
Dicentra cucullaria
Aster sp.
Urtica dioica
Fragaria virginiana
Osmorhiza claytonii
Erythronium americanum
Dentaria maxima
Viola sp.
Meehania cordata
Stellaha pubera"
Botrychium sp.
Asarum canadense
Polygonum sp.
Podophyllum peltatum
Arisaema triphyllum
Polystichum acrostichoides
Anemonella thalictroides
Glechoma hederaea"
Claytonia caroliniana
Geranium maculatum
Trillium grandiflorum
Lactuca sp.
Smilacina racemose
Delphinium tricome
Impatiens capensis
Viola blanda
Galium aparine
Dentaria multifida
Hydrophyltum macrophyllum
Medeola virginiana
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Hepatica acutiloba
Polygonatum biflorum
Viola rostrata
Lycopus virginicus
low 3-leaves
Galium sp.
Mitchella repens
3-3 leaf
Panax trifblium
Sanguinaria canadensis
Galium trifiorum
Actaea pachypoda
Phlox stolon'rfera
Dioscoria quatemata
Galium circaezans
Viola papilionacea
Disporum languinosum
Allium tricoccum
Polemonium reptans
Carex plantaginea
Carex , narrow
Potentilla canadensis
Viola canadensis
Pedicularis canadensis
Unk composite
Chimaphila maculata
Viola macloskeyi (V. pa/tens)
intact
1043
872
702
377
305
292
292
279
270
256
245
241
236
215
192
182
179
172
171
149
143
139
136
107
99
94
92
89
85
77
76
75
73
65
57
52
50
50
47
38
38
36
35
27
26
26
24
23
23
23
21
18
17
17
16
16
12
12
12
11
engineered
396
180
0
202
2
37
20
15
0
154
0
207
15
156
249
132
90
55
77
42
2
112
40
141
2
156
22
0
77
2
22
29
0
0
13
132
0
0
64
13
0
0
13
11
2
0
20
121
62
31
0
200
0
0
79
26
57
2
0
0
intact
1043
872
702
377
305
292
292
279
270
256
245
241
236
215
192
182
179
172
171
149
143
139
136
107
99
94
92
89
85
77
76
75
73
65
57
52
50
50
47
38
38
36
35
27
26
26
24
23
23
23
21
18
17
17
16
16
12
12
12
11
engineered
396
249
207
202
200
180
161
156
156
154
141
132
132
121
112
90
84
79
77
77
64
62
57
55
42
40
37
33
31
29
29
29
26
24
24
22
22
22
22
20
20
15
15
13
13
13
13
11
11
11
11
7
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Species
Sedum tematum
Polygonum sp.
Stellaria pubera"
Aster sp.
Polemonium reptans
Tiarella cordifolia
Senecio aureus
Asarum canadense
Delphinium tricome
Viola sp.
Lactuca sp.
Podophyllum peltatum
Viola rostrata
Galium circaezans
Geranium maculatum
Arisaema triphyllum
Phlox sp.
Potentilla canadensis
Anemonella thalictroides
Galium aparine
Galium sp.
Viola papilionacea
Pedicularis canadensis
Polystichum acrostichoides
Glechoma hederaea"
Trillium grandiflorum
Fraaaria virginiana
Carex sp.
Disporum languinosum
Medeola virginiana
Smilax sp.
Viola pedata
Viola canadensis
Viola rotund/folia
Agrimonia striata
Impatiens capensis
Hydrophyllum macrophyllum
Goodyera repens
Unk ground cover, purple
Osmorhiza claytonii
Dioscoria guatemata
Erythronium americanum
Botrychium sp.
Polygonatum biflorum
Mitchella repens
Sanguinaria canadensis
heart leaf herb
Galium trifiorum
Antennaria plantaginifolia
Carex blanda
Senecio obovatus
6 thin-leaved galium
Viola striata
Urtica dioica
Claytonia caroliniana
Smilacina racemosa
Dentaria multifida
Actaea pachypoda
Unk composite
Z/'z/a aurea
57
-------
Table 10(cont)
Ranked by abundance on intact sites.
Ranked by abundance on engineered sites.
Species
Viola Pennsylvania
Viola rotundifolia
Sedge 2 (pale, broad)
Carex sp.
Adiantum pedatum
Unk -geranium like
Phlox sp.
Smilax sp.
Potentilla sp.
Unk- 3 mitten leaf
Unk fern
Unk - purple flower "rue"
Goodyera repens
Zizia aurea
Epifagus virginiana
Waldsteinia fragarioides
Solidago sp.
/Asparagus officinalis''
Unk — very hirsute
Unk - round leaf
Unk ground cover
Senecio aureus
Viola pedata
Agrimonia striata
Unk ground cover, purple
heart leaf herb
Antennaria plantaginifolia
Carex blanda
Senecio obovatus
Unk 6 thin-leaved galium
Viola striata
Ranunculus sp.
Stellaria media
Unk - tomentose
intact
11
8
6
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
engineered
0
24
0
33
0
0
84
29
0
0
0
0
22
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
161
29
24
22
13
11
11
11
7
4
2
2
2
intact
11
8
6
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
engineered
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Species
Solidago sp.
Ranunculus sp.
Stellaria media
Unk - tomentose
Dicentra cucullaria
Dentaria maxima
Meehania cordata
Viola blanda
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Hepatica acutiloba
Lycopus viroinicus
low 3-leave
3-3 leaf
Panax trifolium
Phlox stolonifera
Allium tricoccum
Carex plantaginea
Carex , narrow
Chimaphila maculata
Viola macloskeyi (V. pallens)
Viola pennsvlvanica
Sedge 2 (pale, broad)
Adiantum pedatum
Unk -geranium like
Potentilla sp.
Unk- 3 mitten leaf
Unk fern
Unk- purple flower "rue"
Epifagus virginiana
Waldsteinia fragarioides
Asparagus officinalis*
Unk — very hirsute
Unk — round leaf
Unk ground cover
58
-------
Fulk 2003 Study
Final Version
with Pagination
-------
Ecological Assessment of Streams in the Coal Mining Region of West Virginia Using Data
Collected by the U.S. EPA and Environmental Consulting Firms
February 2003
Prepared by:
Florence Fulk and Bradley Autrey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio
John Hutchens
Coastal Carolina University
Conway, South Carolina
Jeroen Gerritsen, June Burton, Catherine Cresswell, and Ben Jessup
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Owings Mills, Maryland
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Exposure Research Laboratory
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Oh 45268
-------
NOTICE
This research described in this report has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This document has been prepared at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Ecological Exposure Research
Division in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation of use.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Recently, the Mountaintop Mining (MTM) and Valley Fill (VF) operations in the
Appalachian Coal Region have increased. In these operations, the tops of mountains are
removed, coal materials are mined and the excess materials are deposited into adjacent valleys
and stream corridors. The increased number of MTM/VF operations in this region has made it
necessary for regulatory agencies to examine the relevant regulations, policies, procedures and
guidance needed to ensure that the potential individual and cumulative impacts are considered.
This necessity has resulted in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
concerning the MTM/VF activities in West Virginia. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Office of Surface Mining, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, in cooperation with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, are
working to prepare the EIS. The purpose of the EIS is to establish an information foundation for
the development of policies, guidance and coordinated agency decision-making processes to
minimize, to the greatest practicable extent, the adverse environmental effects to the waters, fish
and wildlife resources in the U.S. from MTM operations, and to other environmental resources
that could be affected by the size and location of fill material in VF sites. Furthermore, the EIS's
purpose is to determine the proposed action, and develop and evaluate a range of reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action.
The U.S. EPA's Region 3 initiated an aquatic impacts study to support the EIS. From the
spring 1999 through the winter 2000, U.S. EPA Region 3 personnel facilitated collection of water
chemistry, habitat, macroinvertebrate and fish data from streams within the MTM/VF Region. In
addition, data were also collected by three environmental consulting firms, representing four coal
mining companies. The National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) of the U.S. EPA's
Office of Research and Development assembled a database of U.S. EPA and environmental
consulting firm data collected from the MTM/VF Region. Using this combined data set, NERL
analyzed fish and macroinvertebrate data independently to address two study objectives: 1)
determine if the biological condition of streams in areas with MTM/VF operations is degraded
relative to the condition of streams in unmined areas and 2) determine if there are additive
biological impacts to streams where multiple valley fills are located. The results of these
analyses, regarding the aquatic impacts of MTM/VF operations, are provided in this report for
inclusion in the overall EIS.
-------
ANALYTICAL APPROACH AND RESULTS
Fish Data Analyses and Results
The Mid-Atlantic Highlands Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), was used in the analyses of
the fish data. This index is made up of scores from multiple metrics that are responsive to stress.
Each of the sites sampled was placed into one of six EIS classes (i.e., Unmined, Filled, Mined,
Filled/Residential, Mined/Residential, Additive). Due to inadequate sample size, the
Mined/Residential class was removed from analyses. The Additive class was analyzed separately
because it was made up of sites that were potentially influenced by multiple sources of stress.
The objectives of the IBI analyses were to examine and compare EIS classes to determine
if they are associated with the biological condition of streams. The distributions of IBI scores
showed that the Filled and Mined classes had lower overall IBI scores than the other EIS classes.
The Filled/Residential class had higher IBI scores than the Filled or Mined classes. The
combined Filled/Residential class and the Unmined class had median scores that were similar to
regional reference sites. Unmined and regional reference sites were primarily in the "fair" range
and a majority of the Filled/Residential sites fell within the "good" range.
A standard Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences among EIS
classes and the Least Square (LS) Means procedure using Dunnett's adjustment for multiple
comparisons tested whether the Filled, Filled/Residential, and Mined EIS classes were
significantly different (p < 0.01) from the Unmined class. The ANOVA showed that there were
significant differences among EIS classes. The LS Means test showed that the IBI scores from
Filled and Mined sites were significantly lower than the IBI scores from Unmined sites, and the
IBI scores from Filled/ Residential sites were significantly higher than the IBI scores from
Unmined sites. Of the nine metrics in the IBI, only the Number of Minnow Species and the
Number of Benthic Invertivore Species were significantly different in the Unmined class.
Therefore, it was determined that the primary causes of reduced IBI scores in Filled and Mined
sites were the reductions in these two metrics relative to the Unmined sites.
It was found that Filled, Mined, and Filled/Residential sites in watersheds with areas
greater than 10 km2 had "fair" to "good" IBI scores, while Filled and Mined sites in watersheds
with areas less than 10 km2 often had "poor" IBI scores. Of the 14 sites Filled and Mined) in
watersheds with areas greater than 10 km2, four were rated "fair" and ten were rated "good" or
better. Of the 17 sites (Filled and Mined) in watersheds with areas less than 10 km2, only three
were rated "fair" and 14 were rated "poor". The effects of fills were statistically stronger in
watersheds with areas less than 10 km2. Filled sites had IBI scores that were an average of 14
points lower than Unmined sites. It is possible that the larger watersheds act to buffer the effects
of stress.
Additive sites were considered to be subject to multiple, and possibly cumulative, sources,
and were not included in the analysis of the EIS classes reported above. From the additive
analysis, it was determined that the Twelvepole Creek Watershed, in which the land use was
-------
mixed residential and mining, had "fair" IBI scores in most samples, and there are no apparent
additive effects of the land uses in the downstream reaches of the watershed. Also, Twentymile
Creek, which has only mining-related land uses, may experience impacts from the Peachorchard
tributary. The IBI scores appear to decrease immediately downstream of the confluence of the
two creeks, whereas above the confluence, IBI scores in the Twentymile Creek are higher than in
the Peachorchard Creek. Peachorchard Creek may contribute contaminants or sediments to
Twentymile Creek, causing degradation of the Twentymile IBI scores downstream of
Peachorchard Creek.
The correlations between IBI scores and potential stressors detectable in water were
examined. Zinc, sodium, nickel, chromium, sulfate, and total dissolved solids were associated
with reduced IBI scores. However, these correlations do not imply causal relationships between
the water quality parameters and fish community condition.
Macroinvertebrate Data Analyses and Results
The benthic macroinvertebrate data were analyzed for statistical differences among EIS
classes. Macroinvertebrate data were described using the WVSCI and its component metrics.
The richness metrics and the WVSCI were rarefied to 100 organisms to adjust for sampling effort.
Four EIS classes (i.e.; Unmined, Filled, Mined, and Filled/Residential) were compared using one-
way ANOVAs. Significant differences among EIS classes were followed by the Least Square
(LS) Means procedure using Dunnett's adjustment for multiple comparisons to test whether the
Filled, Filled/Residential, and Mined EIS classes were significantly different (p < 0.01) from the
Unmined class. Comparisons were made for each of the sampling seasons where there were
sufficient numbers of samples.
The results of the macroinvertebrate analyses showed significant differences among EIS
classes for the WVSCI and some of its component metrics in all seasons except autumn 2000.
Differences in the WVSCI were primarily due to lower Total Taxa, especially for mayflies,
stoneflies, and caddisflies, in the Filled and Filled/Residential EIS classes. Sites in the
Filled/Residential EIS class usually scored the worst of all EIS classes across all seasons.
Using the mean values for water chemistry parameters at each site, the relationships
between WVSCI scores and water quality were determined. The strongest of these relationships
were negative correlations between the WVSCI and measures of individual and combined ions.
The WVSCI was also negatively correlated with the concentrations of Beryllium, Selenium, and
Zinc.
Multiple sites on the mainstem of Twentymile Creek were identified as Additive sites and
were included in an analysis to evaluate impacts of increased mining activities in the watershed
across seasons and from upstream to downstream of the Twentymile Creek. Sites were sampled
during four seasons. Pearson correlations between cumulative river kilometer and the WVSCI and
it's component metrics were calculated. The number of metrics that showed significant
iii
-------
correlations with distance along the mainstem increased across seasons. The WVSCI was
significantly correlated with cumulative river kilometer in Winter 2000, Autumn 2000 and Winter
2001. For Winter 2001, a linear regression of the WVSCI with cumulative river kilometer
indicated that the WVSCI decreased approximately one point upstream to downstream for every
river kilometer.
MAJOR FINDINGS AND SIGNIFICANCE
Fish Data Findings and Significance
It was determined that IBI scores were significantly reduced at Filled sites compared to
Unmined sites by an average of 10 points, indicating that fish communities were degraded below
VFs. The IBI scores were similarly reduced at sites receiving drainage from historic mining or
contour mining (i.e., Mined sites) compared to Unmined sites. Nearly all Filled and Mined sites
with catchment areas smaller than 10 km2 had "poor" IBI scores. At these sites, IBI scores from
Filled sites were an average of 14 points lower than the IBI scores from Unmined sites. Filled
and Mined sites with catchment areas larger than 10 km2 had "fair" or "good" IBI scores. Most of
the Filled/Residential sites were in these larger watersheds and tended to have "fair" or "good"
IBI scores.
It was also determined that the Twelvepole Creek Watershed, which had a mix of
residential and mining land uses, had "fair" IBI scores in most samples; there were no apparent
additive effects of the land uses in the downstream reaches of the watershed. Twentymile Creek,
which had only mining-related land uses, had "good" IBI scores upstream of its confluence with
Peachorchard Creek, and "fair" and "poor" scores for several miles downstream of its confluence
with Peachorchard Creek. Peachorchard Creek had "poor" IBI scores, and may have contributed
to the degradation of the Twentymile Creek's IBI scores downstream of their confluence.
Macroinvertebrate Data Findings and Significance
The macroinvertebrate analyses showed significant differences among EIS classes for the
WVSCI and some of its metrics in all seasons except autumn 2000. Differences in the WVSCI
were primarily due to lower Total Taxa and lower EPT Taxa in the Filled and Filled/Residential
EIS classes. Sites in the Filled/Residential EIS class usually had the lowest scores of all EIS
classes across all seasons. It was not determined why the Filled/Residential class scored worse
than the Filled class alone. U.S. EPA ( 2001 Draft) found the highest concentrations of sodium in
the Filled/Residential EIS class, which may have negatively impacted these sites compared to
those in the Filled class.
When the results for Filled and Unmined sites alone were examined, significant
differences were observed in all seasons except autumn 1999 and autumn 2000. The lack of
differences between Unmined and Filled sites in autumn 1999 was due to a decrease in Total
Taxa and EPT Taxa at Unmined sites relative to the summer 1999. These declines in taxa
richness metrics in Unmined sites were likely the result of drought conditions. Despite the
iv
-------
relatively drier conditions in Unmined sites during autumn 1999, WVSCI scores and EPT Taxa
richness increased in later seasons to levels seen in the spring 1999, whereas values for Filled
sites stayed relatively low.
In general, statistical differences between the Unmined and Filled EIS classes
corresponded to ecological differences between classes based on mean WVSCI scores. Unmined
sites scored "very good" in all seasons except autumn 1999 when the condition was scored as
"good". The conditions at Filled sites ranged from "fair" to "good". However, Filled sites that
scored "good" on average only represented conditions in the Twentymile Creek watershed in two
seasons (i.e., autumn 2000 and winter 2001). These sites are not representative of the entire
MTM/VF study area. On average, Filled sites had lower WVSCI scores than Unmined sites.
The consistently higher WVSCI scores and the Total Taxa in the Unmined sites relative to
Filled sites across six seasons showed that Filled sites have lower biotic integrity than sites
without VFs. Furthermore, reduced taxa richness in Filled sites is primarily the result of fewer
pollution-sensitive EPT taxa. The lack of significant differences between these two EIS classes in
autumn 1999 appears to be due to the effects of greatly reduced flow in Unmined sites during a
severe drought. Continued sampling at Unmined and Filled sites would improve the
understanding of whether MTM/VF activities are associated with seasonal variation in benthic
macroinvertebrate metrics and base-flow hydrology.
Examination of the Additive sites from the mainstem of Twentymile Creek indicated that
impacts to the benthic macroinvertebrate communities increased across seasons and upstream to
downstream of Twentymile Creek. In the first sampling season one metric, Total Taxa, was
negatively correlated with distance along the mainstem. The number of metrics showing a
relationship with cumulative river mile increased across seasons, with four of the six metrics
having significant correlations in the final sampling season, Winter 2001. Also in Winter of
2001, a regression of the WVSCI versus cumulative river kilometer estimates a decrease of
approximately one point in the WVSCI for each river kilometer. Season and cumulative river
kilometer in this dataset may be surrogates for increased mining activity in the watershed.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
INTRODUCTION i
ANALYTICAL APPROACH AND RESULTS ii
Fish Data Analyses and Results ii
Macroinvertebrate Data Analyses and Results iii
MAJOR FINDINGS AND SIGNIFICANCE iv
Fish Data Findings and Significance iv
Macroinvertebrate Data Findings and Significance iv
TABLES viii
FIGURES ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background 1
1.2. Environmental Impact Statement Development 1
1.3. Aquatic Impacts Portion of the EIS 3
1.4. Scope and Objectives of This Report 3
1.5. Biological Indices 3
2. METHODS AND MATERIALS 7
2.1. Data Collection 7
2.2. Site Classes 8
2.3. Study Areas 9
2.3.1. Mud River Water shed 9
2.3.2. Spruce Fork Watershed 11
2.3.3. Clear Fork Watershed 13
2.3.4. Twentymile Creek Watershed 15
2.3.5. Island Creek Watershed 19
2.3.6. Twelvepole Creek Watershed 21
2.4. Data Collection Methods 24
2.4.1. Habitat Assessment Methods 24
2.4.1.1. U.S. EPA Region 3 Habitat Assessment 24
2.4.1.2. BMI Habitat Assessment 25
2.4.1.3. POTESTA Habitat Assessment 25
2.4.1.4. REIC Habitat Assessment 25
2.4.2. Water Quality Assessment Methods 25
2.4.2.1. U.S. EPA Water Quality Assessment 25
2.4.2.2. BMI Water Quality Assessment 25
2.4.2.3. POTESTA Water Quality Assessment 25
2.4.2.4. REIC Water Quality Assessment 26
2.4.3. Fish Assemblage Methods 26
2.4.3.1. PSU Fish Assemblage Assessment 26
2.4.3.2. BMI Fish Assemblage Assessment 26
2.4.3.3. POTESTA Fish Assemblage Assessment 26
2.4.3.4. REIC Fish Assemblage Assessment Methods 28
vi
-------
2.4.4. Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Methods 29
2.4.4.1. U.S. EPA Region 3 Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Assessment 29
2.4.4.2. BMI Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Methods 29
2.4.4.3. POTESTA Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Assessment 30
2.4.4.4. REIC Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Assessment 30
3. DATA ANALYSES 32
3.1. Database Organization 32
3.1.1. Data Standardization 32
3.1.2. Database Description 32
3.1.2.1. Description of Fish Database 32
3.1.2.2. Description of Macroinvertebrate Database 33
3.2. Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control 36
3.3. Summary of Analyses 37
3.3.1. Summary of Fish Analysis 37
3.3.2. Summary of Macroinvertebrate Analysis 38
4. RESULTS 39
4.1. Fish Results 39
4.1.1. IBI Calculation and Calibration 39
4.1.2. IBI Scores in EIS Classes 39
4.1.3. Additive Analysis 46
4.1.4. Associations With Potential Causal Factors 48
4.2. Macroinvertebrate Results 49
4.2.1. Analysis of Differences in EIS Classes 49
4.2.1.1. Spring 1999 49
4.2.1.2. Autumn 1999 49
4.2.1.3. Winter 2000 50
4.2.1.4. Spring 2000 50
4.2.1.5. Autumn 2000 50
4.2.1.6. Winter 2001 51
4.2.2. Evaluation of Twentymile Creek 52
4.2.3. Macroinvertebrate and Water Chemistry Associations 53
4.2.4. The Effect of Catchment Area on the WVSCI 53
4.2.5. Additive Analysis 56
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 58
5.1. Fish Discussion and Conclusions 58
5.2. Macroinvertebrate Discussion and Conclusions 58
6. LITERATURE CITED 63
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY TABLES OF PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES USED BY
THE FOUR ORGANIZATIONS TO COLLECT DATA FOR THE MTM/VF STUDY A-1
APPENDIX B: IBI COMPONENT METRIC VALUES B-1
APPENDIX C: BOX PLOTS OF THE WVSCI AND COMPONENT METRICS C-1
APPENDIX D: SCATTER PLOTS OF THE WVSCI VERSUS KEY WATER QUALITY
PARAMETERS D-1
APPENDIX E: STANDARDIZATION OF DATA AND METRIC CALCULATIONS E-1
vii
-------
TABLES
Table 1-1. The nine metrics in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands IB I, their definitions and their
expected responses to perturbations 5
Table 1-2. The six metrics in the WVSCI, their definitions and their expected responses to
perturbations 6
Table 2-1. Sites sampled in the Mud River Watershed 11
Table 2-2. Sites sampled in the Spruce Fork Watershed 13
Table 2-3. Sites sampled in the Clear Fork Watershed 15
Table 2-4. Sites sampled in the Twentymile Creek Watershed. Equivalent sites are noted
parenthetically 17
Table 2-5. Sites sampled in the Island Creek Watershed 21
Table 2-6. Sites sampled in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed. Equivalent sites are noted
parenthetically 24
Table 2-7. Parameters used by each organization for lab analyzed water samples 27
Table 3-1. Number offish sites and samples in the study area, by EIS class and watershed 33
Table 3-2. Number of sites and D-frame kick net samples available in each watershed and in
each EIS class 34
Table 3-3. Correlation and significance values for the duplicate samples collected by the 35
U.S. EPA Region 3 with the WVSCI and standardized WVSCI metrics 35
Table 3-4. Number of sites and D-frame kick net samples used for comparing EIS classes after
the data set had been reduced 35
Table 4-1. The ANOVA for IBI scores among EIS classes (Unmined, Filled, Mined, and
Filled/Residential) 43
Table 4-2. Dunnett's test comparing IBI values of EIS classes to the Unmined class, with the
alternative hypothesis that IBI < Unmined IBI (one-tailed test) 43
Table 4-3. The results of t-tests of site mean metric values and the IBI in Unmined and Filled
sites in watersheds with areas less than 10 km2 (N= 11 Unmined, N = 12 Filled) 46
Table 4-4. Pearson correlations among the site means of selected water quality measurements
and IBI scores, including all sites in watersheds with areas smaller than 10 km2 48
Table 4-5. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in spring 1999. Uses Unmined
sites as a relative control for LS Means test 49
Table 4-6. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in autumn 1999 50
Table 4-7. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in winter 2000 51
Table 4-8. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in spring 2000 51
Table 4-9. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in autumn 2000 52
Table 4-10. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in winter 2001 52
Table 4-11. Results from Pearson correlation analyses between the WVSCI rarefied to 100
organisms and key water quality parameters 54
Table 4-12. Pearson correlation values and p-values for means of metric scores at Unmined sites
(n= 19) versus catchment area 55
Table 4-13. Pearson correlation values and p-values for metric scores at Additive sites on
Twentymile Creek versus cumulative river kilometer by season 56
Table 4-14. The Regression for WVSCI versus Cumulative River Mile for Additive Sites in
Twentymile Creek Winter 2001 57
viii
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1-1. A MTM operation in West Virginia. The purpose of these operations are to remove
mountaintops in order to make the underlying coal accessible 2
Figure 1-2. A VF in operation. The excess materials from a MTM operation are being placed in
this adjacent valley 2
Figure 2-1. Study area for the aquatic impacts study of the MTM/VF Region of West Virginia.. 8
Figure 2-2. Sites sampled in the Mud River Watershed 10
Figure 2-3. Sites sampled in the Spruce Fork Watershed 12
Figure 2-4. Sites sampled in the Clear Fork Watershed 14
Figure 2-5. Sites sampled in the Twentymile Creek Watershed 16
Figure 2-6. Sites sampled in the Island Creek Watershed 20
Figure 2-7. Sites sampled in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed 23
Figure 3-1. Scatter plots showing IBI scores of sites sampled multiple times. The left plot shows
autumn samples versus spring samples and the right plot shows spring Year 2 samples versus
spring Year 1 samples 38
Figure 4-1. Number of fish species captured versus stream catchment area 40
Figure 4-2. Calculated Fish IBI and watershed catchment area, all MTM fish samples from sites
with catchment > 2km2 40
Figure 4-3. A Box-and-Whisker plot of the mean IBI scores from sampling sites in five EIS
classes 41
Figure 4-4. Normal probability plot of IBI scores from EIS classes 43
Figure 4-5. The IBI scores for different site classes, by watershed area 45
Figure 4-6. The IBI scores from the additive sites in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed 47
Figure 4-7. IBI scores from additive sites and Peachorchard Branch in the Twentymile Creek
Watershed 47
Figure 4-8. The WVSCI and its metric scores versus catchment area in Unmined streams 55
Figure 5-1. Mean WVSCI scores in the Unmined and Filled EIS classes versus sampling season.
Error bars are 1 SE 60
Figure 5-2. (A) Mean Total Taxa richness in the Unmined and Filled EIS classes versus sampling
season. (B) Mean EPT Taxa richness in the Unmined and Filled EIS classes versus sampling
season 61
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report could not have been completed without the efforts of many individuals and
organizations. We would like to thank the U.S. EPA Region 3 personnel, especially Jim Green,
Maggie Passemore, Frank Borsuk, Gary Bryant and Bill Hoffman for providing data, guidance
and support for this study. We would like to thank Hope Childers of the Center for Educational
Technologies at the Wheeling Jesuit University for her role in supporting the U.S. EPA Region 3
in this study. We would like to thank the Pennsylvania State University's School of Forest
Resources, especially Jay Stauffer, Jr. and C. Paola Ferreri for providing data in support of this
study and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for supporting their work.
We would also like to thank Biological Monitoring, Incorporated; Potesta & Associates,
Incorporated; and Research, Environmental, and Industrial Consultants, Incorporated for
collecting data in support of this study. We also thank Arch Coal, the Massey Energy Company,
the Penn Coal Corporation, the Fola Coal Company and the West Virginia Coal Association for
providing access to sampling sites and supporting the collection of data.
We are grateful to Ken Fritz and David M. Walters of the U.S. EPA's National Exposure
Research Laboratory and Lori Winters of ORISE for reviewing this document. We are also
grateful to Alicia Shelton of SoBran, Inc. for her efforts in editing and formatting this document.
x
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Since the early 1990s, the nature and extent of coal mining operations in the Appalachian
Region of the U.S. have changed. An increased number of large (> 1,200-ha) surface mines have
been proposed and technology has allowed for the expanded role of Mountaintop Mining (MTM)
and Valley Fill (VF) operations. In these operations, the tops of mountains are removed in order
to make the underlying coal accessible (Figure 1-1). The excess materials from the mountaintop
removals typically have been deposited into adjacent valleys and their stream corridors (Figure
1-2). These depositions cover perennial streams, wetlands and tracts of wildlife habitat. Given
the increased number of mines and the increased scale of mining operations in the MTM/VF
Region, it has become necessary for federal and state agencies to ensure that the relevant
regulations, policies, procedures and guidance adequately consider the potential individual and
cumulative impacts that may result from these projects (U.S. EPA 1999).
1.2. Environmental Impact Statement Development
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), U.S. Office of Surface Mining (OSM), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in
cooperation with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), are
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concerning the MTM/VF activities in West
Virginia. The purpose of developing the EIS is to facilitate the informed consideration of the
development of policies, guidance and coordinated agency decision-making processes to
minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the adverse environmental effects to the waters, fish
and wildlife resources in the U.S. from MTM operations, and to other environmental resources
that could be affected by the size and location of fill material in VF sites (U.S. EPA 2001).
Additionally, The EIS will determine the proposed action, and develop and evaluate a range of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.
The goals of the EIS are to: (1) achieve the purposes stated above; (2) assess the mining
practices currently being used in West Virginia; (3) assess the additive effects of MTM/VF
operations; (4) clarify the alternatives to MTM; (5) make environmental evaluations of
individual mining projects; (6) improve the capacity of mining operations, regulatory agencies,
environmental groups and land owners to make informed decisions; and (7) design improved
regulatory tools (U.S. EPA 2000). The major components of the EIS will include: human and
community impacts (i.e., quality of life, economic), terrestrial impacts (i.e., visuals, landscape,
biota), aquatic impacts and miscellaneous impacts (i.e., blasting, mitigation, air quality).
-------
Figure 1-1. A MTM operation in West Virginia. The purpose of these operations are to
remove mountaintops in order to make the underlying coal accessible.
Figure 1-2. A VF in operation. The excess materials from a MTM operation are being
placed in this adjacent valley.
-------
1.3. Aquatic Impacts Portion of the EIS
The U.S. EPA's Region 3 initiated an aquatic impacts study to support the EIS. From the
spring (i.e., April to June) 1999 through the winter (i.e., January to March) 2000, the U.S. EPA
Region 3 collected data from streams within the MTM/VF Region. These data include water
chemistry, habitat, and macroinvertebrates. With cooperation and guidance from the U.S. EPA
Region 3, the Pennsylvania State University's (PSU's) School of Forest Resources collected fish
data from streams in the MTM/VF Region. In addition to the data that were collected by the
U.S. EPA Region 3 and PSU, data were also collected by three environmental consulting firms,
representing four coal mining companies. These environmental consulting firms were Biological
Monitoring, Incorporated (BMI); Potesta & Associates, Incorporated (POTESTA); and Research,
Environmental, and Industrial Consultants, Incorporated (REIC).
Three reports which describe the data collected by the U.S. EPA Region 3 and PSU's
School of Forest Resources were prepared. The first report summarized the condition of streams
in the MTM/VF Region based on the macroinvertebrate data that were collected (Green et al.
2000 Draft). This report provided a descriptive analysis of the macroinvertebrate data. The
second report described the fish populations in the MTM/VF Region based on the fish data
collected by the PSU's School of Forest Resources (Stauffer and Ferreri 2000 Draft). This report
used a fish index that was developed by the Ohio EPA for larger streams. The third report was a
survey of the water quality of streams in the MTM/VF Region based on the water chemistry data
collected by the U.S. EPA Region 3 (U.S. EPA 2002 Draft).
1.4. Scope and Objectives of This Report
In this document, the National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) of the U.S. EPA's
Office of Research and Development (ORD) has assembled a database of Region 3, PSU and
environmental consulting firm data collected from the MTM/VF Region. Using this combined
data set, NERL analyzed fish and macroinvertebrate data separately to address the study's
objectives. The results of these analyses will allow NERL to provide a report on the aquatic
impacts of the MTM/VF operations for inclusion in the EIS.
The objectives of this document are to: 1) determine if the biological condition of
streams in areas with MTM/VF operations is degraded relative to the condition of streams in
unmined areas and 2) determine if there are additive biological impacts in streams where
multiple VFs are located.
1.5. Biological Indices
One of the ways in which biological condition is assessed is through the use of biological
indices. Biological indices allow stream communities to be compared by using their diversity,
composition and functional organization. The use of biological indices is recommended by the
Biological Criteria portion of the U.S. EPA's National Program Guidance for Surface Waters
-------
(U.S. EPA 1990). As of 1995, 42 states were using biological indices to assess impacts to
streams (U.S. EPA 1996).
Two indices were identified as being appropriate for use with data collected from the
MTM/VF Region. These were the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for
fish (McCormick et al. 2001) and the West Virginia Stream Condition Index (WVSCI) for
invertebrates (Gerritsen et al. 2000).
Due to the lack of a state developed fish index for West Virginia, an index created for use
in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands was selected for evaluation of the fish data. The Mid-Atlantic
Highlands IBI (McCormick et al. 2001) was developed using bioassessment data collected by the
U.S. EPA from 309 wadeable streams from 1993 to 1996 in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands portion
of the U.S. These data were collected using the U.S. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) protocols (Lazorchak et al. 1998). Site selection was randomly
stratified. Fish were collected within reaches whose lengths were 40 times the wetted width of
the stream with minimum and maximum reach lengths being 150 and 500 m, respectively. All
fish collected for these bioassessments were identified to the species taxonomic level. An
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) showed that there were no differences between the ecoregions
in which the data were collected. A subset of the data was used to develop the IBI and another
subset was used to validate the IBI and its component metrics. Fifty-eight candidate metrics
were evaluated. Of these, 13 were rejected because they did not demonstrate an adequate range,
two were rejected because they had excessive signal-to-noise ratios, three were rejected because
they were redundant with other metrics, one was rejected because it remained correlated with
watershed area after it had been adjusted to compensate for area and 30 were rejected because
they were not significantly correlated with anthropogenic impacts. The remaining nine metrics
used in the IBI are described in Table 1-2 (McCormick et al. 2001). All metrics were scored on
a continuous scale from 0 to 10. Three sets of reference condition criteria (i.e., least restrictive,
moderately restrictive, most restrictive) were used to determine the threshold values for the
metrics. For the metrics which decrease with perturbation (Table 1-1), a score of 0 was given if
the value was less than the 5th percentile of the values from non-reference sites and a score of 10
was given if the value was greater than the 50th percentile of the values from reference sites
defined by the most restrictive criteria. For the metrics which increase with perturbation (Table
1-1), a score of 0 was given if the value was greater than the 90th percentile of the values from
non-reference sites and a score of 10 was given if the value was less than the 50th percentile of
the values from reference sites defined by the moderately restrictive criteria. The IBI scores
were scaled from 0 to 100 by summing the scores from the nine metrics and multiplying this sum
by 1.11.
-------
Table 1-1. The nine metrics in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands IBI, their definitions and their
expected responses to perturbations.
Predicted
Response to
Stress
Metric
Metric Description
Native Intolerant Taxa
Native Cyprinidae Taxa
Native Benthic Invertivores
Percent Cottidae
Percent Gravel Spawners
Percent Piscivore/Invertivores
Percent Macro Omnivore
Percent Tolerant
Percent Exotic
Number of indigenous taxa that are sensitive to pollution;
adjusted for drainage area
Number of indigenous taxa in the family Cyprinidae (carps
and minnows); adjusted for drainage area
Number of indigenous bottom dwelling taxa that consume
invertebrates; adjusted for drainage area
Percent individuals of the family Cottidae (i.e., sculpins)
Percent individuals that require clean gravel for
reproductive success
Percent individuals that consume fish or invertebrates
Percent individuals that are large and omnivorous
Percent individuals that are tolerant of pollution
Percent individuals that are not indigenous
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Increase
Increase
Increase
The WVSCI (Gerritsen et al. 2000) was developed using bioassessment data collected by
the WVDEP from 720 sites in 1996 and 1997. These data were collected using the U.S. EPA's
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP, Plafkin etal. 1989). From these bioassessments, 100
benthic macroinvertebrates were identified to the family taxonomic level from each sample. The
information derived from the analyses of these data were used to establish appropriate site
classifications for bioassessments, determine the seasonal differences among biological metrics,
elucidate the appropriate metrics to be used in West Virginia and define the thresholds that
indicate the degree of comparability of streams to a reference condition. The analyses of these
data showed that there was no benefit to partitioning West Virginia into ecoregions for the
purpose of bioassessment. The analyses also showed that variability in the data could be reduced
by sampling only from late spring through early summer. Using water quality and habitat
criteria, the reference and impaired sites were identified among the 720 sampled sites. Then, a
suite of candidate metrics were evaluated based on their abilities to differentiate between
reference and impaired sites, represent different aspects of the benthic macroinvertebrate
community (i.e., composition, richness, tolerance), and minimize redundancy among individual
component metrics. Based on these evaluations, it was determined that the metrics making up
the WVSCI should be EPT taxa, Total taxa, % EPT, % Chironomidae, the Hilsenhoff Biotic
Index (HBI) and % 2 Dominant taxa (Table 1-2). Next, the values for these metrics were
calculated for all 720 sites and those values were standardized by converting them to a O-to-100-
point scale. The standardized scores for the six metrics were averaged for each site in order to
-------
obtain index scores. Data collected from West Virginia in 1998 were used to test the index. This
analysis showed that the index was able to discriminate between reference and impaired sites
(Gerritsen et al. 2000).
Table 1-2. The six metrics in the WVSCI, their definitions and their expected responses to
perturbations.
Metric
EPT Taxa
Total Taxa
% EPT
% Chironomidae
HBI
% 2 Dominant taxa
Definition Expected
Response to
Perturbation
The total number of EPT taxa.
The total number of taxa.
The percentage of the sample made up of EPT individuals.
The percentage of the sample made up of Chironomidae
individuals.
An index used to quantify an invertebrate assemblage's tolerance
to organic pollution.
The percentage of the sample made up of the dominant two taxa
in the sample.
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Increase
Increase
Increase
-------
2. METHODS AND MATERIALS
2.1. Data Collection
The U.S. EPA Region 3 collected benthic macroinvertebrate and habitat data from spring
1999 through spring 2000. These data were collected from 37 sites in five watersheds (i.e., Mud
River, Spruce Fork, Clear Fork, Twentymile Creek, and Island Creek Watersheds) in the
MTM/VF Region of West Virginia (Figure 2-1). Two sites were added to the study in spring
2000. These additions were a reference site not located near any mining activities and a
supplementary site located near mining activities. Using these data, the U.S. EPA Region 3
developed a report (Green et al. 2000 Draft) which characterized the benthic macroinvertebrate
assemblages in the MTM/VF Region of West Virginia.
The PSU's School of Forest Resources collected fish data in the MTM/VF Region of
West Virginia and Kentucky. These data were collected from 58 sites in West Virginia and from
15 sites in Kentucky. The data collected from the Kentucky sites will not be used in this
document. All of PSU's West Virginia sites were located in the same five watersheds from
which the U.S. EPA Region 3 collected benthic macroinvertebrate, habitat and water quality data
and most of these sites were located near the locations from which the U.S. EPA Region 3
collected these data. Data were collected in autumn 1999 and spring 2000. The results of this
study were reported by Stauffer and Ferreri (2000 Draft).
The U.S. EPA Region 3 collected water quality data and water samples for chemical
analyses from October 1999 through February 2001. These data were collected from the same
37 sites from which the U.S. EPA Region 3 collected benthic macroinvertebrate and habitat data.
Using these data, the U.S. EPA Region 3 developed a report (U.S. EPA 2002 Draft) which
characterized the water quality of streams in the MTM/VF Region of West Virginia.
The environmental consulting firm, BMI, collected water quality, water chemistry,
habitat, benthic macroinvertebrate and fish data in the MTM/VF Region of West Virginia. These
data were collected for Arch Coal, Incorporated from 37 sites in the Twentymile Creek
Watershed and for Massey Energy Company from 11 sites in the Island Creek Watershed.
In addition, the environmental consulting firm, REIC, collected water quality, water
chemistry, habitat, benthic macroinvertebrate and fish data in the MTM/VF Region of West
Virginia. These data were collected for the Penn Coal Corporation from 18 sites in the
Twelvepole Creek Watershed. Although the Twelvepole Creek Watershed is not among the
watersheds from which the U.S. EPA Region 3 collected ecological data, some of these data will
be considered in this report.
Finally, the environmental consulting firm, POTESTA, collected water quality, water
chemistry, habitat, benthic macroinvertebrate, and fish data in the MTM/VF Region of West
Virginia. These data were collected for the Fola Coal Company from ten sites in the Twentymile
Creek Watershed (See Appendix E for a summary of benthic methods used by all groups).
7
-------
* SAMPLING STATIONS
rnfflJC-11 BOUNDARY
^ MTM/VF REGION
I WV COUNTIES
WILLI
Figure 2-1. Study area for the aquatic impacts study of the MTM/VF Region of West
Virginia.
2.2. Site Classes
Each of the sites sampled by the U.S. EPA Region 3, PSU or one of the participating
environmental consulting firms was placed in one of six classes. These six classes were: 1)
Unmined, 2) Filled, 3) Mined, 4) Filled/Residential, 5) Mined/Residential and 6) Additive. The
Unmined sites were located in areas where there had been no mining activities upstream. The
Filled sites were located downstream of at least one VF. The Mined sites were located
downstream of some mining activities but were not downstream of any VFs. The
Filled/Residential sites were located downstream of at least one VF, and were also near
residential areas. The Mined/Residential sites were located downstream of mining activity, and
were also near residential areas. The additive sites were located on a mainstem of a watershed
and were downstream of multiple VFs and VF-influenced streams.
-------
2.3. Study Areas
2.3.1. Mud River Watershed
The headwaters of the Mud River are in Boone County, West Virginia, and flow
northwest into Lincoln County, West Virginia. Although the headwaters of this watershed do
not lie in the primary MTM/VF Region, there is a portion of the watershed that lies
perpendicular to a five-mile strip of land in which mining activities are occurring. From the
headwaters to the northwestern boundary of the primary MTM/VF Region, the watershed lies in
the Cumberland Mountains of the Central Appalachian Plateau. The physiography is
unglaciated, dissected hills and mountains with steep slopes and very narrow ridge tops and the
geology is Pennsylvania sandstone, siltstone, shale, and coal of the Pottsville Group and
Allegheny Formation (Woods et al. 1999). The primary land use is forest with extensive coal
mining, logging, and gas wells. Some livestock farms and scattered towns exist in the wider
valleys. Most of the low-density residential land use is concentrated in the narrow valleys
(Green et al. 2000 Draft).
The U.S. EPA Region 3 sampled ten sites in the Mud River Watershed (Figure 2-2, Table
2-1). Brief descriptions of these sites are given below and more complete descriptions are given
in Green et al. (2000 Draft). Site MT01 was established on the Mud River and the major
disturbances at this site are a county road and residences. There also have been a few historical
mining activities conducted upstream of site MT01. Site MT02 was established on Rush Patch
Branch upstream of all residences and farms. While there is no history of mining in this sub-
watershed, there is evidence of logging and gas well development. Site MT03 was established
well above the mouth of Lukey Fork. Logging is the only known disturbance upstream of this
site. Site MT13 was established on the Spring Branch of Ballard Fork. Other than historical
logging activity, there is very little evidence of human disturbance associated with this site. Site
MT14 was established on Ballard Fork. It is located downstream of eight VFs for which the
mining permits were issued in 1985, 1988 and 1989. Site MT15 was established on Stanley
Fork, located downstream of six VFs for which mining permits were issued in 1988, 1989, 1991,
1992 and 1995. Site MT24 was established in a sediment control structure on top of the mining
operation located in the Stanley Fork sub-watershed. Site MT18 was established on Sugartree
Branch. It was located downstream of two VFs for which the mining permits were issued in
1992 and 1995. Site MT23 was established on the Mud River downstream of mining activities.
These activities include active and inactive surface mines and one active underground mine. In
the spring of 2000, Site MT16 was established on an unnamed tributary to Sugartree Branch.
This site was downstream of historical surface mining activities, but was not downstream of any
VFs (Green et al. 2000 Draft).
-------
1000 0 1000 Meters
Mud River
o Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
Figure 2-2. Sites sampled in the Mud River Watershed.
10
-------
Table 2-1. Sites sampled in the Mud River Watershed.
Site Stream Name EIS Class
ID/Organization
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT01
MT02
MT03
MT13
MT14
MT15
MT24
MT18
MT23
MT16
Mud River
Rushpatch Branch
Lukey Fork
Spring Branch
Ballard Fork
Stanley Fork
Unnamed Trib. to Stanley Fork
Sugartree Branch
Mud River
Unnamed Trib. to Sugartree Branch
Mined/Residential
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Sediment Control Structure
Filled
Filled/Residential
Mined
2.3.2. Spruce Fork Watershed
The Spruce Fork Watershed drains portions of Boone and Logan Counties, West
Virginia. The stream flows in a northerly direction to the town of Madison, West Virginia where
it joins Pond Fork to form the Little Coal River. Approximately 85 to 90% of the watershed
resides in the primary MTM region. Only the northwest corner of the watershed lies outside of
this region. The entire watershed lies in the Cumberland Mountains sub-ecoregion (Woods et al.
1999). The watershed has been the location of surface and underground mining for many years,
therefore, much of the watershed has been disturbed (Green et al. 2000 Draft).
The U.S. EPA Region 3 sampled eight sites in the Spruce Fork Watershed (Figure 2-3,
Table 2-2). Brief descriptions of these sites are given below and more complete descriptions are
given in Green et al. (2000 Draft). The U.S. EPA Region 3 Site MT39 was established on White
Oak Branch and no mining activities existed in this area. Site MT40 was established on Spruce
Fork. It is located downstream of seven known surface mining VFs and three VFs associated
with refuse disposal. Site MT42 was established on Oldhouse Branch, located upstream of all
residences and there is no known history of mining activities in this area. Site MT45 was
established on Pigeonroost Branch. This site was located upstream of all residences but
downstream of contour mining activities that occurred between 1987 and 1989. Site MT32 was
established on Beech Creek. It was located downstream of five VFs and surface and
underground mining activities. Site MT34B was established on the Left Fork of Beech Creek. It
was located downstream of VFs and surface and underground mining activities. Site MT48 was
established on Spruce Fork just upstream of Rockhouse Creek. There are known to be 22 VFs
and several small communities upstream of this site. Site MT25B was established on Rockhouse
Creek, located downstream of a sediment pond and a very large VF (Green et al. 2000 Draft).
11
-------
Spruce Fork
o Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
Figure 2-3. Sites sampled in the Spruce Fork Watershed.
12
-------
Table 2-2. Sites sampled in the Spruce Fork Watershed.
Site Stream Name EIS Class
ID/Organization
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT39
MT40
MT42
MT45
MT32
MT34B
MT48
MT25B
White Oak Branch
Spruce Fork
Oldhouse Branch
Pigeonroost Branch
Beech Creek
Left Fork
Spruce Fork
Rockhouse Creek
Unmined
Filled/Residential
Unmined
Mined
Filled
Filled
Filled/Residential
Filled
2.3.3. Clear Fork Watershed
Clear Fork flows north toward its confluence with Marsh Fork where they form the Big
Coal River near Whitesville, West Virginia. The entire watershed lies within Raleigh County,
West Virginia within the Cumberland Mountains sub-ecoregion and, except for a very small
portion, it lies within the primary MTM region (Woods et al. 1999). The coal mining industry
has been active in this watershed for many years. Both surface and underground mining have
occurred in the past and presently continue to be mined. There were no unmined sites sampled
from this watershed (Green et al. 2000 Draft).
The U.S. EPA Region 3 sampled eight sites in the Clear Fork Watershed (Figure 2-4,
Table 2-3). Brief descriptions of these sites are given below and more complete descriptions are
given in Green et al. (2000 Draft). The U.S. EPA Region 3 Site MT79 was established on Davis
Fork. It was located downstream of mining activities. Site MT78 was established on Raines
Fork. It was located downstream of historical contour and underground mining. Site MT81 was
established on Sycamore Creek. It was located downstream of historical contour and
underground mining and it is downstream of a plant that treats mine effluent. Site MT75 was
established on Toney Fork. It was located downstream of five VFs, MTM activities and
numerous residences. Site MT70 was established approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) downstream of
Site MT75. It was located downstream of six VFs, MTM activities and numerous residences.
This site was only sampled during autumn 1999 and winter and spring 2000. Site MT69 was
established on Ewing Fork. It was located downstream of some historical contour and
underground mining activities and a residence. Site MT64 was established on Buffalo Fork. It
was located downstream of historical contour mining, current MTM activities, five VFs and a
small amount of pasture. Site MT62 was established on Toney Fork. It was located downstream
of 11 VFs, numerous residences and a small amount of pasture (Green et al. 2000 Draft).
13
-------
800 A 800 1600 Meters
Clear Fork
o Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
Figure 2-4. Sites sampled in the Clear Fork Watershed.
14
-------
Table 2-3. Sites sampled in the Clear Fork Watershed.
Site
ID/Organization
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT79
MT78
MT81
MT75
MT70
MT69
MT64
MT62
Stream Name
Davis Fork
Raines Fork
Sycamore Creek
Toney Fork
Toney Fork
Ewing Fork
Buffalo Fork
Toney Fork
EIS Class
Mined
Mined
Mined
Filled/Residential
Filled/Residential
Mined/Residential
Filled
Filled/Residential
2.3.4. Twentymile Creek Watershed
Twentymile Creek drains portions of Clay, Fayette, Kanawha, and Nicholas Counties,
West Virginia. It generally flows to the southwest where it joins the Gauley River at Belva,
West Virginia. Except for a small area on the western edge of the watershed, it is within the
primary MTM region and the entire watershed lies within the Cumberland Mountains sub-
ecoregion (Woods et al. 1999). Upstream of Vaughn, West Virginia, the watershed is
uninhabited and logging, mining, and natural gas extracting are the primary activities. The
majority of the mining activity has been conducted recently. Downstream of Vaughn, there are
numerous residences and a few small communities (Green et al. 2000 Draft).
The U.S. EPA Region 3 sampled seven sites in the Twentymile Creek Watershed (Figure
2-5, Table 2-4). Brief descriptions of these sites are given below and more complete description
are given in Green et al. (2000 Draft). The U.S. EPA Region 3 Site MT95 was established on
Neil Branch. There were no known disturbances upstream of this site. Site MT91 was
established on Rader Fork. The only known disturbance to this site was a road with considerable
coal truck traffic. Site MT87 was established on Neff Fork downstream of three VFs and a mine
drainage treatment plant. Site MT86 was located on Rader Fork downstream of Site MT91 and
Neff Fork and it was, therefore, downstream of three VFs and a mine drainage treatment plant.
Site MT103 was established on Hughes Fork. It was downstream of six VFs. Site MT98 was
established on Hughes Fork. It was downstream of Site MT103 and eight VFs. Site MT104 was
established on Hughes Fork. It was downstream of Site MT103, Site MT98, eight VFs and a
sediment pond (Green et al. 2000 Draft).
15
-------
e> Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
Q Sites sam pled by
l consulting linns
Twentymile Creek
Figure 2-5. Sites sampled in the Twentymile Creek Watershed.
16
-------
Table 2-4. Sites sampled in the Twentymile Creek Watershed. Equivalent sites are noted
parenthetically.
Site ID/Organization
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT95 (=Neil-5)
MT91
MT87 (=Rader-4)
MT86 (=Rader-7)
MT103
MT98
MT104
BMI
Rader 8
Rader 9
PMC-TMC-36
PMC-TMC-35
PMC-TMC-34
PMC-TMC-33
PMC-TMC-31
PMC-TMC-30
PMC-TMC-29
PMC-TMC-28
PMC-TMC-27
PMC-TMC-26
PMC-7
PMC-6
PMC-5
PMC-TMC-4
PMC-TMC-5
PMC-TMC-314
PMC-TMC-2
PMC-TMC-1
Stream Name
Neil Branch
Rader Fork
NeffFork
Rader Fork
Hughes Fork
Hughes Fork
Hughes Fork
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
EIS Class
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Continued
17
-------
Table 2-4. Continued.
Site ID/Organization
BMI (Continued)
PMC-HWB-1
PMC-HWB-2
Neil-6 (=Fola 48)
Neil-7 (=Fola 49)
Neil-2 (=Fola 53)
Neil-5 (=MT95)
Rader-1
Rader-2
Rader-3
Rader-4 (=MT87)
Rader-5
Rader-6
Rader-7 (=MT86)
PMC-1
PMC- 11
PMC-12
PMC- 15
POTESTA
Fola 33
Fola 36
Fola 37
Fola 38
Fola 48 (=Neil-6)
Fola 49 (=Neil-7)
Fola 39
Fola 40
Fola 45
Fola 53 (=Neil-2)
Stream Name
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Neil Branch
Neil Branch
Laurel Run
Rader Fork
Trib. to Rader
NeffFork
NeffFork
Trib. to Neff
Rader Fork
Sugarcamp Branch
Right Fork
Road Fork
Tributary to Robinson Fork.
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Peachorchard Branch
Peachorchard Branch
Peachorchard Branch
Neil Branch
EIS Class
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled (2)
Filled (2)
Filled (1)
Filled (2)
Filled (1)
Filled (1)
Filled (1)
Filled (1)
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Filled (2 small)
Filled (1 small)
Unmined
Unmined
18
-------
2.3.5. Island Creek Watershed
Island Creek generally flows north toward Logan, West Virginia where it enters the
Guyandotte River. The entire watershed is confined to Logan County. With the exception of the
northern portion, the watershed lies within the primary MTM region and the entire watershed lies
within the Cumberland Mountains sub-ecoregion (Woods et al. 1999). Extensive underground
mining has occurred in the watershed for many years. As the underground reserves have been
depleted and the economics of the area have changed, surface mining has played a larger role in
the watershed (Green et al. 2000 Draft).
The U.S. EPA Region 3 sampled eight sites in the Island Creek Watershed (Figure 2-6,
Table 2-5). Brief descriptions of these sites are given below and more complete descriptions are
given in Green et al. (2000 Draft). The U.S. EPA Region 3 Site MT50 was located on Cabin
Branch in the headwaters of the sub-watershed and upstream of any disturbances. Site MT51
was also established on Cabin Branch located downstream of Site MT50 and a gas well. Site
MT107 was established on Left Fork in the spring of 2000, located upstream of the influence of
VFs. Site MT52 was established near the headwaters of Cow Creek. It was located upstream of
VFs, but downstream of an underground mine entrance, a small VF and a sediment pond. Site
MT57B was established on Hall Fork for sampling in the spring and summer 1999. It was
located downstream of a sediment pond and a VF. In the autumn 1999, Site MT57 was
established near the mouth of Hall fork. It was farther downstream than Site MT57B and was
downstream of a sediment pond and a VF. Site MT60 was established on Left Fork, downstream
of Site MT107. It was located downstream of two existing VFs and three proposed VFs. Site
MT55 was established on Cow Creek, downstream of Site MT52. It was located downstream of
four VFs associated with MTM, one VF associated with underground mining, residences, a log
mill, orchards, vineyards, cattle, and a municipal sewage sludge disposal site (Green et al. 2000
Draft).
19
-------
Island Creek Watershed
O Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
Sites sampled by
environmental consulting firms
500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Meters
Figure 2-6. Sites sampled in the Island Creek Watershed.
20
-------
Table 2-5. Sites sampled in the Island Creek Watershed.
Site ID/OrganizationStream
Name
Stream Name
EIS Class
U.S. EPA Region 3 Sites
MT50
MT51
MT107
MT52
MT57B
MT57
MT60
MT55
BMI
Mingo 34
Mingo 41
Mingo 39
Mingo 16
Mingo 11
Mingo 2
Mingo 86
Mingo 62
Mingo 38
Mingo 24
Mingo 23
Cabin Branch
Cabin Branch
Left Fork
Cow Creek
Hall Fork
Hall Fork
Left Fork
Cow Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled/Residential
Filled (1)
Filled (2)
Filled (1) + old mining
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Additive
Additive
Additive
2.3.6. Twelvepole Creek Watershed
The East Fork of the Twelvepole Creek Watershed drains portions of Mingo, Lincoln,
and Wayne Counties, West Virginia. The stream flows northwest to the town of Wayne, West
Virginia where it joins the West Fork of Twelvepole Creek then continues to flow on into the
Ohio River at Huntington, West Virginia. The East Fork of Twelvepole Creek is impounded by
East Lynn Lake near Kiahsville, West Virginia in Wayne County (West Virginia DEP, Personal
Communication).
The East Fork of the Twelvepole Creek Watershed encompasses approximately 445 km2
(172 mi2) of drainage area and is 93.3% forested. Prior to 1977, very little mining had occurred
in the watershed south of East Lynn Lake. Since 1987, several surface mining operations have
21
-------
been employed in the Kiah Creek and the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek watersheds (Critchley
2001). Currently, there are 23 underground mining, haul road and refuse site permits, and 21
surface mining permits in the watershed (West Virginia DEP, Personal Communication).
REIC has conducted biological evaluations in the East Fork of the Twelvepole Creek
Watershed since 1995. Five stations have been sampled on Kiah Creek (Figure 2-7, Table 2-6).
Station BM-003A was located in the headwaters of Kiah Creek, upstream from surface mining
and residential disturbances. Station BM-003 was located near the border of Lincoln and Wayne
Counties and it was downstream from several surface mining operations and several residential
disturbances. Station BM-004 was located on Kiah Creek downstream from the surface mining
operations on Queens Fork and Vance Branch, near the confluence of Jones Branch, downstream
from Trough Fork, and downstream of residential disturbances. Station BM-004A was located
downstream from the confluence of Big Laurel Creek, surface mining operations and residential
disturbances.
Two stations were sampled in Big Laurel Creek (Figure 2-7, Table 2-6). This tributary
has only residential disturbances in its watershed. Station BM-UBLC was located near the
headwaters of Big Laurel Creek. Station BM-DBLC was located near the confluence of Big
Laurel Creek with Kiah Creek.
Eight stations were sampled on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek (Figure 2-7, Table 2-
6). Station BM-001A was located just downstream from confluence of McCloud Branch and
was downstream of a residential disturbance. Station BM-001C was located downstream of the
confluence of Laurel Branch which currently has a VF, additional proposed VFs, and residences.
Station BM-001B was located downstream of the confluence of Wiley Branch which has
residences, numerous current VFs and additional VFs under construction or being proposed.
Station BM-001 was located upstream from the confluence of Bluewater Branch but downstream
from the Wiley Branch and Laurel Branch surface mining operations and residences. Station
BM-010 was downstream from the Franks Branch mining operation and residences. Station
BM-011 was located downstream from the Maynard Branch operations and residences. Station
BM-002 was located downstream from the Devil Trace surface mining operation and residences.
Station BM-002 A was located downstream of Milam Creek and all mining operations and
residences in this sub-watershed.
Two stations were located in Milam Creek, a tributary of the East Fork of Twelvepole
Creek (Figure 2-7, Table 2-6). Milam Creek has no mining operations or residential disturbances
in its watershed. Station BM-UMC was located near the headwaters of Milam Creek and station
BM-DMC was located near the confluence of Milam Creek with the East Fork of Twelvepole
Creek.
22
-------
Twelvepole Creek
Sites sampled by
environmental consulting firms
Figure 2-7. Sites sampled in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed.
23
-------
Table 2-6. Sites sampled in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed. Equivalent sites are noted
parenthetically.
Site ID/Organization Stream Name EIS Class
REIC
BM-003A
BM-003
BM-004
BM-004A
BM-DBLC
BM-UBLC
BM-001A
BM-001C
BM-001B
BM-001
BM-010
BM-011
BM-002
BM-002A
BM-UMC
BM-DMC
BM-005
BM-006
Kiah Creek
Kiah Creek
Kiah Creek
Kiah Creek
Big Laurel Creek
Big Laurel Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Milam Creek
Milam Creek
Trough Fork
Trough Fork
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Unmined
Unmined
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Unmined
Unmined
Additive
Additive
2.4. Data Collection Methods
The data for this study were generated by five different organizations (i.e., U.S. EPA
Region 3, PSU, BMI, POTESTA and REIC). The methods used to collect each of the four
different types of data (i.e., habitat, water quality, fish assemblage and macroinvertebrate
assemblage) are described below. This information is summarized in tabular form in Appendix
A.
2.4.1. Habitat Assessment Methods
2.4.1.1. U.S. EPA Region 3 Habitat Assessment
The U.S. EPA Region 3 used the RBP (Harbour et al. 1999) to collect habitat data at each
site. Although some parameters require observations of a broader section of the catchment area,
24
-------
the habitat data were primarily collected in a 100-m reach that includes the portion of the stream
where biological data (i.e., fish and macroinvertebrate samples) were collected. The RBP habitat
assessment evaluates ten parameters (Appendix A).
The U.S. EPA Region 3 measured substrate size and composition in order to help
determine if excessive sediment was causing any biological impairments (Kaufmann and
Robison 1998). Numeric scores were assigned to the substrate classes that are proportional to
the logarithm of the midpoint diameter of each size class (Appendix A).
2.4.1.2. BMI Habitat Assessment
The Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) submitted by BMI make no mention of
habitat assessment methods.
2.4.1.3. POTESTA Habitat Assessment
POTESTA collected physical habitat data using methods outlined in Kaufmann et al.
(1999) or in Barbour et al. (1999, Appendix A). The habitat assessments were performed on the
same reaches from which biological sampling was conducted. A single habitat assessment form
was completed for each sampling site. This assessment form incorporated features of the
selected sampling reach as well as selected features outside the reach but within the catchment
area. Habitat evaluations were first made on in-stream habitat, followed by channel morphology,
bank structural features, and riparian vegetation.
2.4.1.4. REIC Habitat Assessment
The SOPs submitted by REIC make no mention of habitat assessment methods.
2.4.2. Water Quality Assessment Methods
2.4.2.1. U.S. EPA Water Quality Assessment
The U.S. EPA Region 3 measured conductivity, pH, temperature and dissolved oxygen
(DO) in situ and the flow rate of the stream at the time of sampling. Each of these measurements
was made once at each site during each field visit. The U.S. EPA Region 3 also collected water
samples for laboratory analyses. These samples were analyzed for the parameters given in Table
2-7.
2.4.2.2. BMI Water Quality Assessment
The SOPs submitted by BMI make no mention of water quality assessment methods.
2.4.2.3. POTESTA Water Quality Assessment
25
-------
POTESTA measured conductivity, pH, temperature and DO in situ. These measurements
were taken once upstream from each biological sampling site, and were made following the
protocols outlined in U.S. EPA (1979). The stream flow rate was also measured at or near each
sampling point. One of the three procedures (i.e., velocity-area, time filling, or neutrally buoyant
object) outlined in Kaufmann (1998) was used at each site. POTESTA also collected water
samples at each site directly upstream of the location of the biological sampling. These samples
were analyzed in the laboratory for the suite of analytes listed in Table 2-7.
2.4.2.4. REIC Water Quality Assessment
REIC recorded water body characteristics (i.e., size, depth and flow) and site location at
each site. Grab samples were collected and delivered to the laboratory for analysis. The SOPs
submitted by REIC make no mention of which analytes were measured in the laboratory.
2.4.3. Fish Assemblage Methods
2.4.3.1. PSU Fish Assemblage Assessment
The PSU, in consultation with personnel from U.S. EPA Region 3, sampled fish
assemblages at 58 sites in West Virginia. The fish sampling procedures generally followed those
in McCormick and Hughes (1998). Fish were collected by making three passes using a backpack
electrofishing unit. Each pass proceeded from the downstream end of the reach to the upstream
end of the reach. Block nets were used only when natural barriers (i.e., shallow riffles) were not
present. The fish collected from each pass were kept separate. Fish were identified to the
species level and enumerated. The standard length of each fish was measured to the nearest mm
and each fish was weighed to the nearest 0.01 g.
2.4.3.2. BMI Fish Assemblage Assessment
The SOPs submitted by BMI make no mention offish assemblage assessment methods.
2.4.3.3. POTESTA Fish Assemblage Assessment
POTESTA collected fish by using the three-pass depletion method of Van Deventer and
Platts (1983) with a backpack electrofishing unit. Each of the three passes proceeded from the
downstream end of the reach to the upstream end of the reach. The fish collected from each pass
were kept separate. Additional passes were made if the numbers offish did not decline during
the two subsequent passes. Game fish and rare, threatened or candidate (RTC) fish species were
identified, their total lengths were recorded to the nearest mm, and their weights were recorded
to the nearest g. With the exception of small game and non-RTC fish, the captured fish were
released. Small game fish and non-RTC fish that were collected during each pass were
preserved separately and transported to the laboratory for analysis. Preserved fish were
identified and weighed to the nearest g.
26
-------
Table 2-7. Parameters used by each organization for lab analyzed water samples.
Parameter
Organizations
Acidity
Alkalinity
Chloride
Hardness
Nitrate(NOS) + Nitrite (NO2)
Sulfate
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Coarse Paniculate Organic Matter (CPOM)
Fine Paniculate Organic Matter (FPOM)
Total Dissolved Organic Carbon (TDOC)
Total Aluminum
Dissolved Aluminum
Total Antimony
Total Arsenic
Total Barium
Total Beryllium
Total Cadmium
Total Calcium
Total Chromium
Total Cobalt
Total Copper
Total Iron
U.S. EPA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
BMI
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
POTESTA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
REIC
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
(Continued)
27
-------
Table 2-7. Continued.
Parameter
Organizations
U.S. EPA
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Dissolved Iron
Total Lead
Total Magnesium
Total Manganese
Dissolved Manganese
Total Mercury
Total Nickel
Total Potassium
Total Phosphorous
Total Selenium
Total Silver
Total Sodium
Total Thallium
Total Vanadium
Total Zinc
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
2.4.3.4. REIC Fish Assemblage Assessment Methods
REIC collected fish by setting block nets across the stream and perpendicular to the
stream banks, then progressing upstream with a backpack electrofishing unit. The entire reach
was surveyed three times. After each survey, all large fish were identified using guidelines given
by Trautman (1981) and Stauffer et al. (1995). The total lengths of the fish were measured to the
nearest mm and they were weighed to the nearest g. After all three passes were completed, the
large fish were returned to the stream. Small fish which required microscopic verification of
their identification were preserved and transported to the laboratory. Once in the laboratory,
small fish were identified using guidelines given by Trautman (1981) and Stauffer et al. (1995).
After identification, the total lengths of the fish were measured to the nearest mm, they were
weighed to the nearest 0.1 g and their identifications were reconfirmed.
28
-------
2.4.4. Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Methods
2.4.4.1. U.S. EPA Region 3 Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Assessment
The U.S. EPA's Region 3 used RBPs to assess benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages
(Barbour et al. 1999). Samples were collected from riffles only. A 0.5 m wide rectangular dip
net with 595-um mesh was used to collect organisms in a 0.25 m2 area upstream of the net. At
each site, four samples were taken, and composited into a single sample, representing a total area
sampled of approximately 1.0 m2. The RBPs recommend the total area sampled to be 2.0 m2 but
that was reduced to 1.0 m2 for this study due to the small size of the streams. Benthic
macroinvertebrate samples were collected in each season except when there was not enough flow
for sampling. Approximately 25% of the sites were sampled in replicate to provide information
on within-season and within-site variability. These replicate samples were collected at the same
time, usually from adjacent locations in the same riffle.
The samples collected by the U.S. EPA Region 3 were sub-sampled in the laboratory so
that Vs of the composite samples were picked. All organisms in the sub-sample were identified
to the family level, except for oligochetes and leeches, which were identified to the class level.
Organisms were identified using published taxonomic references (i.e., Pennak 1989, Pecharsky
et al. 1990, Stewart and Stark 1993, Merritt and Cummins 1996, Westfall and May 1996,
Wiggins 1998).
2.4.4.2. BMI Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Methods
BMI collected samples using a kick net with a 0.5 m width and a 600 um mesh size. The
net was held downstream of the 0.25 m2 area that was to be sampled. All rocks and debris that
were in the 0.25 m2 area were scrubbed and rinsed into the net and removed from the sampling
area. Then, the substrate in the 0.25 m2 area was vigorously disturbed for 20 seconds. This
process was repeated four times at each sampling site and the four samples were composited into
a single sample.
BMI also collected samples using a 0.09 m2 (1.0 ft2) Surber sampler with a 600 um mesh
size. The frame of the sampler was placed on the stream bottom in the area that was to be
sampled. All large rocks and debris that were in the 1.0-ft2 frame were scrubbed and rinsed into
the net and removed from the sampling area. Then, the substrate in the 1.0 ft2 frame was
vigorously disturbed for 20 seconds. In autumn 1999 and spring 2000, no samples were collected
with Surber samplers. In autumn 2000, six Surber samples were collected at each site, and in
spring 2001, four Surber samples were collected. All Surber samples were kept separate.
In the laboratory, the samples were rinsed using a sieve with 700 um mesh. All
macroinvertebrates in the samples were picked from the debris. Each organism was identified to
the taxa level specified in the project study plan.
29
-------
2.4.4.3. POTESTA Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Assessment
POTESTA collected samples of macroinvertebrates using a composite of four 600 um
mesh kick net samples and following the U.S. EPA's RBPs (Barbour et al. 1999). For each of
the four kick net samples, all large debris within a 0.25 m2 area upstream of the kick net were
brushed into the net. Then, the substrate in the 0.25 m2 area was disturbed for 20 seconds. Once
all four kick net samples were collected, they were composited into a single labeled jar.
POTESTA used Surber samplers to collect macroinvertebrate samples at selected sites.
Surber samples were always collected in conjunction with kick net samples. At sites selected for
quantitative sampling, a Surber sampler was placed on the stream bottom in a manner so that all
sides were flat against the stream bed. Large cobble and gravel within the frame were
thoroughly brushed and the substrate within the frame was disturbed for a depth of up to 7.6 cm
(3.0 in) with the handle of the brush. The sample was then placed in a labeled jar. The SOPs
submitted by POTESTA make no mention of the area sampled or the number of samples
collected with the Surber samplers.
In the laboratory, all organisms in the samples were identified by qualified freshwater
macroinvertebrate taxonomists to the lowest practical taxonomic levels using Wiggins (1977),
Stewart and Stark (1988), Pennak (1989) and Merritt and Cummins (1996). To ensure the
quality of the identifications, 10% of all samples were re-picked and random identifications were
reviewed.
2.4.4.4. REIC Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Assessment
REIC collected macroinvertebrate samples using a 600 um mesh D-frame kick net. The
kick net was positioned in the stream with the net outstretched with the cod end on the
downstream side. The person using the net then used a brush to scrub any rocks within a 0.25 m2
area in front of the net, sweeping dislodged material into the net. The person then either kicked
up the substrate in the 0.25 m2 area in front of the net or knelt and scrubbed the substrate in that
area with one hand. The substrate was scrubbed or kicked for up to three minutes, with the
discharged material being swept into the net. This procedure was repeated four times so that the
total area sampled was approximately 1.0 m2. Once collected, the four samples were composited
into a single sample.
REIC also collected macroinvertebrate samples using Surber samplers with sampling
areas of 0.09 m2 (1 ft2). These samplers were only used in areas where the water depth was less
than 0.03 m (1 ft). The SOPs submitted by REIC make no mention of the mesh size used in the
Surber samplers. The Surber sampler was placed in the stream, with the cod end of the net
facing downstream. The substrate within the 1 ft2 area was scrubbed for a period of up to three
minutes and to a depth of approximately 7.62 cm (3 in). While being scrubbed, the dislodged
material was swept into the net. After scrubbing was complete, rocks in the sampling area were
checked for clinging macroinvertebrates. Once they had been removed, the material in the net
30
-------
was rinsed and the sample was deposited into a labeled sampling jar. Three Surber samples were
collected at each site where they were used. These samples were not composited.
In the laboratory, REIC processed all samples individually. Samples were poured
through a 250 um sieve and rinsed with tap water. The sample was then split into quarters by
placing it on a sub-sampling tray fitted with a 500 um screen and spread evenly over the tray.
The sample in the first quarter of the tray was removed, placed into petri dishes, and placed
under a microscope so that all macroinvertebrates could be separated from the detritus. If too
few organisms (this number is not specified in the SOPs submitted by REIC) were in the first
quarter, then additional quarters were picked until enough organisms had been retrieved from the
sample.
REIC used three experienced aquatic taxonomists to identify macroinvertebrates. They
identified the organisms under microscopes to their lowest practical taxonomic level, usually
Genus. Chironomids were often identified to the Family level and annelids were identified to the
Class level. As taxonomic guides, REIC used Pennak (1989), Stewart and Stark (1993), Wiggins
(1995), Merritt and Cummins (1996) and Westfall and May (1996).
-------
3. DATA ANALYSES
3.1. Database Organization
3.1.1. Data Standardization
All of the methods used to collect and process fish samples were compatible, thus it was
not necessary to standardize the fish data prior to analysis. However, there were differences
among the methods used to collect and process the benthic macroinvertebrate data which made it
necessary to standardize the macroinvertebrate data to eliminate potential biases before data
analysis.
The benthic macroinvertebrate database was organized by sampling device (i.e., D-frame
kick net or Surber sampler). Since not all organizations used Surber samplers and not all
organizations that used Surber samplers employed the same methods (Section 2.4.4), Surber data
were not used for the analyses in this report. All of the sampling organizations did use D-frame
kick nets with comparable field methods to collect macroinvertebrate samples. Use of the data
collected by D-frame kick net provides unbiased data with respect to the types, densities and
relative abundances of organisms collected. However, while identifying organisms in the
laboratory, the U.S. EPA sub-sampled 1/8 of the total material (with some exceptions noted in the
data), REIC sub-sampled 1/4 of the total material (with some exceptions), and BMI and
POTESTA counted the entire sample. To eliminate bias of the reported taxa richness data
introduced by different sizes of sub-samples, all organism counts were standardized to a 1/8 sub-
sample of the total original material. (Appendices A and E)
3.1.2. Database Description
3.1.2.1. Description of Fish Database
The fish database included 126 sampling events where the collection of a fish sample had
been attempted and the location and watershed area were known. Of these, five were regional
reference samples from Big Ugly Creek, outside of the study watersheds. Catchments with areas
of less than 2.0 km2 and samples with fewer than ten fish were excluded from the analysis
(section 4.1.1). A summary of the remaining 99 samples is shown in Table 3-1.
The Mined/Residential EIS Class consisted of only two samples. Due to insufficient
sample size for adequate statistical analysis, this class was eliminated.
32
-------
Table 3-1. Number offish sites and samples in the study area, by EIS class and watershed.
The first numbers in the cells represent the number of sites and the numbers in parentheses
represent the numbers of samples.
Watershed Unmined Filled Mined Filled/Res Additive Total
Mud River 3, (4)
Island Creek 1, (1)
Spruce Fork 1, (1)
Clear Fork
Twenty Mile Creek 5, (5)
Twelvepole Creekl 4, (6)
Total 14, (17)
4, (8)
2, (3)
3, (3) 1,(1)
1, (1) 3, (3)
7, (7)
17, (22) 4, (4)
1,(3)
2, (2)
3, (3)
3, (3)
9, (11)
1,(2)
2, (2)
1,(D
7, (16)
12, (24)
23, (45)
9, (17)
7, (8)
9, (9)
7, (7)
19, (28)
16, (30)
67, (99)
All sites in Twelvepole Creek were sampled by REIC; and were Additive and Unmined only.
3.1.2.2. Description of Macroinvertebrate Database
A total of 282 macroinvertebrate samples were collected from 66 sites in six watersheds
(Table 3-2). The samples from sites in the Mined/Residential EIS class were removed from the
analysis because there were too few sites (i.e., n < 3) to conduct statistical comparisons.
The U.S. EPA Region 3 collected a duplicate sample from the same site, on the same day,
42 different times, in five of the six sampled watersheds (i.e., no duplicate samples were taken
from the Twelvepole Creek Watershed). The WVSCI, the total # of families, and the total
number of EPT were highly correlated for duplicate samples (Table 3-3). Green et al. (2000)
found similar results with raw metric scores. Because of these correlations and in order to avoid
inflating the sample size, the only U.S. EPA Region 3 duplicate samples used for analyses were
those that were labeled Replicate Number 1.
One site in Twentymile Creek was sampled by more than one organization the same
season (i.e., autumn 2000 and winter 2001). To avoid sample size inflation, the means of the
sample values were used for each season, thereby reducing the total number of samples. The
means were used instead of the values from one of the samples because the samples were
collected between three and five weeks apart. The U.S. EPA and two other organizations
sampled the same site in the autumn 1999 and the winter 2000. In this case, the U.S. EPA data
were used because these data did not require making a correction for sub-sampling.
The samples taken from the Twelvepole Creek Watershed (four Unmined EIS class sites)
were made up of a mix of D-frame kick net and Surber sampler data that were inseparable by
sampler type. Therefore, these data could not be standardized and were removed from the EIS
analysis for the D-frame kick net data set.
33
-------
Table 3-2. Number of sites and D-frame kick net samples available in each watershed and
in each EIS class.
EIS Class
Watershed Unmined
Filled
Filled/
Residential
Mined
Mined/
Residential
Total
Site Samp Site Samp Site Samp Site Samp Site Samp Site Samp
Mud River
Island Creek
Spruce Fork
Clear Fork
Twenty mile
Creek
Twelvepole
Creek
Total
3 11
7 13
2 8
0 0
7 32
4 12
23 76
3 19
6 21
3 18
1 8
15 71
0 0
28 137
1 6
1 6
2 14
3 12
0 0
0 0
7 38
1 1
1 1
1 5
3 12
0 0
0 0
6 19
1 5
0 0
0 0
1 7
0 0
0 0
2 12
9 42
15 41
8 45
8 39
22 103
4 12
66 282
Because there were only two Mined/Residential sites, this EIS class was not used in any of the
analyses for this report.
These data reduction procedures lowered the total number of D-frame kick net samples for
EIS analysis from 282 (Table 3-2) to 215 (Table 3-4). The U.S. EPA Region 3 collected 150
(69.8%) of these samples and the other organizations collected 65 (30.2%) of these samples.
Hence, these other organizations provided 43% more samples for analysis than the U.S. EPA
Region 3 had collected. These samples also provided information from 23 additional sites in the
Unmined, Filled, Filled/Residential, and Mined EIS classes. However, these additional samples
were not distributed evenly across watersheds and EIS classes. Only the U.S. EPA Region 3
collected data from the Mud River, Spruce Fork, and Clear Fork Watersheds and the majority
(85%) of the samples collected by the private organizations were collected from the Twentymile
Creek Watershed. As a result, the additional data provided by the private organizations were
skewed to conditions in the Twentymile Creek Watershed, especially for sites in the Filled EIS
class. Furthermore, 100% of the data collected by the private organizations during autumn 2000
and winter 2001 were collected from the Twentymile Creek Watershed. Therefore, comparisons
made using data that were collected during these two seasons do not represent conditions across
the entire study area, and have less than half the number of samples that were collected during the
other seasons.
34
-------
Table 3-3. Correlation and significance values for the duplicate samples collected by the
U.S. EPA Region 3 with the WVSCI and standardized WVSCI metrics.
Metric
R
p-value
Total Number of Families Rarefied to 100 individuals
Total Number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera
(EPT) Families Rarefied to 100 individuals
WVSCI Rarefied to 100 individuals
0.863
0.897
0.945
O.001
O.001
O.001
Table 3-4. Number of sites and D-frame kick net samples used for comparing EIS classes
after the data set had been reduced.
EIS Class
Watershed
Unmined
Filled
Filled/
Residential
Total
Mined
Site Samp Site Samp Site Samp Site Samp Site Samp
Mud River
Island Creek
Spruce Fork
Clear Fork
Twenty-mile
Creek
Total
U.S.
EPA
Private
U.S.
EPA
Private
U.S.
EPA
Private
U.S.
EPA
Private
U.S.
EPA
Private
U.S.
EPA
Private
3 9
0 0
3 7
4 6
2 7
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 9
6 18
10 32
10 24
3 15
0 0
4 15
2 3
3 13
0 0
1 5
0 0
5 25
10 37
16 73
12 40
1 5
0 0
1 5
0 0
2 10
0 0
3 10
0 0
0 0
0 0
7 30
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 1
1 5
0 0
3 9
0 0
0 0
0 0
6 15
1 1
8 30
0 0
8 27
7 10
8 35
0 0
7 24
0 0
7 34
16 55
38 150
23 65
35
-------
3.2. Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The biological, water chemistry, and habitat data were received in a variety of formats.
Data were exported from their original formats into the Ecological Data Application System
(EDAS), a customized relational database application (Tetra Tech, Inc., 1999). The EDAS
allows data to be aggregated and analyzed by customizing the pre-designed queries to calculate a
variety of biological metrics and indices.
Throughout the process of exporting data, the original data sources were consulted for
any questions or discrepancies that arose. First, the original electronic data files were consulted
and proofread to ensure that the data had been migrated correctly from the original format into
the EDAS database program. If the conflict could not be resolved in this manner, hard copies of
data reports were consulted, or, as necessary, the mining companies and/or the organizations who
had originally provided the data were consulted. As data were migrated, Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) queries were used to check for import errors. If any
mistakes were discovered as a result of one of these QA/QC queries, the entire batch was
deleted, re-imported, and re-checked. After all the data from a given source had been migrated, a
query was created which duplicated the original presentation of the data. This query was used to
check for data manipulation errors. Ten percent of the original samples were checked at random.
If the data failed this QC check, they were entirely deleted, re-imported, and subjected to the
same QC routine until they were 100% correct.
The EDAS contained separate Master Taxa tables for fish and benthic
macroinvertebrates. Both Master Taxa tables contained a unique record for each taxonomic
name, along with its associated ecological characteristics (i.e., preferred habitat, tolerance to
pollution). To ensure consistency, Master Taxa lists were generated from all of the imported
MTM/VF data. Taxonomic names were checked against expert sources, such as Merritt and
Cummins (1996), Robins et al. (1991) and the online taxonomic database, Integrated Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS, www.itis.usda.gov). Discrepancies and variations in spellings of
taxonomic names were identified and corrected in all associated samples. Any obsolete
scientific names were updated to the current naming convention to ensure consistency among all
the data. Each taxon's associated ecological characteristics were also verified to assure QC for
biological metrics generated from that ecological information. Different organizations provided
data at different levels of taxonomic resolution. Because the WVSCI utilizes benthic
information at the Family level, the benthic macroinvertebrate Master Taxa table was used to
collapse all of the data to the Family level for consistency in analysis.
Minimum Detection Limits (MDLs) represent the smallest amount of an analyte that can
be detected by a given chemical analysis method. While some methods are very sensitive and,
therefore, can detect very small quantities of a particular analyte, other methods are less sensitive
and have higher MDLs. When an analytical laboratory is unable to detect an analyte, the value is
reported as "Below Detection", and the MDL is given. For the purpose of statistical analysis, the
"Below Detection" values were converted to 1A of the methods' MDLs.
36
-------
3.3. Summary of Analyses
The fish database and the macroinvertebrate database were analyzed separately to: 1)
determine if the biological condition of streams in areas with MTM/VF operations is degraded
relative to the condition of streams in unmined areas and 2) determine if there are additive
biological impacts to streams where multiple valley fills are located. The statistical approach to
evaluate these two objectives was the same for fish and macroinvertebrates. To address the first
objective, EIS classes (Filled, Filled/Residence, Mined, and Unmined) were compared using
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Assumptions for normality and equal variance were
assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk Test for normality and Brown and Forsythe's Test for
homogeneity of variance. If necessary, transformations were applied to the data to achieve
normality and/or stabilize the variance. Significant differences (p < 0.05) among EIS classes
were followed by the Least Square (LS) Means procedure using Dunnett's adjustment for
multiple comparisons to test whether the Filled, Filled/Residence, and Mined EIS classes were
significantly different (p < 0.01) from the Unmined EIS class. Additive sites from two
watersheds were analyzed to evaluate the second objective. Trends in biological condition along
the mainstem of Twentymile Creek and Twelvepole Creek were examined using Pearson
correlations and regression analysis. Pearson correlations were also used to investigate
correlations between biological endpoints and water chemistry parameters. Box plots were
generated to display the data across EIS classes and scatter plots were created to show
relationships between biological endpoints and chemistry parameters.
3.3.1. Summary of Fish Analysis
Endpoints for the fish analysis were the site averages for the Mid-Atlantic IBI and the site
averages for the nine individual metrics that comprise the IBI (Table 1-2). Site averages were
used in the analysis since the number of samples taken at a site was inconsistent across sites.
Some study sites had been sampled only once, and there were also sites in the database that had
been sampled on two or three separate occasions. Mean IBI and component metric values were
calculated for all sites sampled multiple times. The mean values were used in all subsequent
analyses. Figure 3-1 shows that there was no consistent difference between seasons or years,
although there was scatter among observations at some sites. Log-transformed site (geometric)
mean chemical concentrations were used as the endpoints for the chemistry analysis.
37
-------
MTM sites
MTM sites
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Spring IBI
* Filed/Res
35 A Additwe
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Spring IBI, Year 1
* Filed/Res
35 A Additwe
Figure 3-1. Scatter plots showing IBI scores of sites sampled multiple times. The left plot
shows autumn samples versus spring samples and the right plot shows spring Year 2
samples versus spring Year 1 samples.
3.3.2. Summary of Macroinvertebrate Analysis
Endpoints for the macroinvertebrate analysis were the WV SCI and its component metrics (Total
taxa richness, Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera [EPT] taxa richness, Hilsenhoff Biotic
Index [HBI], % dominant 2 taxa, % EPT abundance, and % Chironomidae abundance).
Richness metrics and the WV SCI were rarefacted to 100 organisms to adjust for sampling effort.
Comparisons among EIS classes were made for each season (Spring 1999 [April to June],
Autumn 1999 [October to December], Winter 2000 [January to March], Spring 2000, Autumn
2000, and Winter 2001). Data for Summer 1999 (July to September) were not compared because
of a lack of samples (n= 2) for the Unmined EIS class (i.e., the relative control). Furthermore, in
some seasons there were insufficient samples (n < 3) for the Mined and Filled/Residence classes.
The WVSCI scores were correlated against key water quality parameters using mean values for
each site. Only water chemistry data that were collected at or close to the time of benthos
sample collection were used in this analysis.
Habitat data was not evaluated due to the fact that it was not collected consistently and in
many cases was collected only once at a site.
38
-------
4. RESULTS
4.1. Fish Results
4.1.1. IBI Calculation and Calibration
Generally, larger watersheds tend to be more diverse than smaller watersheds (i.e., Kan-
el al. 1986, Yoder and Rankin 1995). This was found to be true in the MTM/VF study where the
smallest headwater streams often had either no fish present or only one or two species present
and the large streams had 15 to 27 fish species present (Figure 4-1). To ensure that differences
among fish communities were due to differences in stream health and not from the natural effect
of watershed size, the three richness metrics (i.e., Native Intolerant Taxa, Native Cyprinidae
Taxa and Native Benthic Invertivores) from the Mid-Atlantic Highlands IBI (Section 1.5) were
standardized to a 100-km2 watershed. If the calibration was correct, then there should have been
no residual relationship between catchment area and IBI scores. The resultant IBI scores were
plotted against catchment area (Figure 4-2) which showed that there was no relationship.
The Mid-Atlantic IBI was not calculated if the catchment area was less than 2.0 km2. If
fewer than ten fish were captured in a sample, then the IBI was set to zero (McCormick et al.
2001). This occurred in six samples. All six of these samples were in relatively small
catchments (i.e., 2.0 to 5.0 km2), where small samples are likely (Figure 4-2). Because small
samples may be due to natural factors, these samples were excluded from subsequent analysis..
4.1.2. IBI Scores in EIS Classes
The distributions of IBI scores in each of the EIS classes are shown in Figure 4-3.
Distributions of the nine component metrics of the IBI are shown in Appendix B. For
comparison, the regional reference sites sampled by the PSU in Big Ugly Creek were also
plotted. Figure 4-3 shows that the Filled and Mined classes have lower overall IBI scores than
the other EIS classes. The Filled/Residential class had higher IBI scores than any other class.
The Filled/Residential class and the Unmined class had median scores that were similar to the
regional reference sites. Figure 4-3 shows that more than 50% of the Filled and Mined sites
scored "poor" according to the ratings developed by McCormick et al. (2001). Unmined and
regional reference sites were primarily in the "fair" range and Filled/Residential sites were
mostly in the "good" ranges.
39
-------
MTM fish samples
30
25
20
15
10
i •
;
! LL
j 0
i L
: • •
; n
; D
; • o
: n •• • • •
i at d • • A
i • •• •• o
;
n
n
n
a
» fj
a*
• • a
• D D 1
• o
D con>-
urn •
» • o • • o
o • o
o a o
* • • * •
• A
•
n
n
--n
D»
D
D
10
100
• PSU
a Pen
o Fola
A Mingo
Catchment area, km
Figure 4-1. Number offish species captured versus stream catchment area. Symbols
identify sampling organizations: PSU=Penn State; Pen = Pen Coal (REIC); Fola = Fola
Coal (Potesta); Mingo = Mingo-Logan Coal (BMI).
MTM fish samples
100
80
60
40
20
v«^»
• o o
..O-
i.!
D
• PSU
D Pen
O Fola
A Mingo
10
100
Catchment Area, km
Figure 4-2. Calculated Fish IBI and watershed catchment area, all MTM fish samples
from sites with catchment > 2km2. Symbols identify sampling organizations: PSU=Penn
State; Pen = Pen Coal (REIC); Fola = Fola Coal (Potesta); Mingo = Mingo-Logan Coal
(BMI).
40
-------
MTM Site Means
90
80
in
o
_«
5 60
TJ
I
50
«
; T : o :
_l_ u
o : ' :
- ••- .^...:...T..-.:.
-L
~ ; 1
o : J_
5 ; 14 ; 17 •'
Reference Unmined Filled
T
- - - -
•
J_
" • " ~
4 ; 9
Mined Filled/Res
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
—I— Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
CZl 75%
25%
• Median
O Outliers
EIS Class
Figure 4-3. A Box-and-Whisker plot of the mean IBI scores from sampling sites in five EIS
classes. Catchments less than 2 km2 and samples with less than ten fish were excluded.
Numbers below boxes indicate sample size. Reference sites were the five regional reference
sites in Big Ugly Creek, outside of study area. All other sites were in the MTM study area.
Assessment categories (McCormick et al.2001) are shown on right side.
A one-way ANOVA was used to test for differences among EIS classes and the LS
Means procedure with Dunnett's adjustment was used to compare each class to the Unmined
class. The ANOVA showed that differences among the EIS classes were statistically significant
(Table 4-1) and the LS Means test showed that the IBI scores from the Filled sites were
significantly lower than the IBI scores from the Unmined sites (Table 4-2). The Filled/
Residential class had higher IBI scores than the Unmined sites (Figure 4-3). The IBI scores from
Mined sites were lower than the IBI scores from Unmined sites. However, the difference was
only marginally significant. This is most likely due to the small sample of Mined sites (n=4).
Diagnostics on the IBI analysis indicated that variance was homogeneous and residuals of the
model were normally distributed (Figure 4-4 and Appendix B).
The individual metrics that comprise the IBI are not uniform in their response to stressors
(McCormick et al. 2001). While some metrics may respond to habitat degradation, other metrics
may respond to organic pollution or toxic chemical contamination. Of the nine metrics in the
IBI, two (i.e., the number of cyprinid species and the number of benthic invertivore species)
were significantly different among the EIS classes. (Appendix B). On average, Filled sites were
missing one species of each of these two groups compared to Unmined sites. The third taxa
richness metric, Number of Intolerant Species, was not different between Filled and Unmined
sites (Appendix B). One additional metric, Percent Tolerant Individuals, showed increased
41
-------
degradation in Filled and Mined sites compared to Unmined sites, on average, but the difference
was not statistically significant (Appendix B). Four metrics, Percent Cottidae, Percent Gravel
Spawners, Percent Alien Fish and Percent Large Omnivores, were dominated by zero values
(Appendix B). Because of the zero values and the resultant non-normal distribution, parametric
hypothesis tests would be problematic.
It was concluded from this analysis that the primary causes of reduced IBI values in
Filled sites were reductions in the number of minnow species and the number of benthic
invertivore species. These two groups offish are dominant in healthy Appalachian streams.
Secondary causes of the reduction of IBI scores in Filled sites are decreased numbers of
intolerant taxa, and increased percentages offish tolerant to pollution. Although Filled sites had
IBI scores that were significantly lower than Unmined sites (Table 4-3), several Filled and
Mined sites had relatively high IBI scores, similar to regional reference and Unmined sites. In
addition, the Filled/Residential sites had higher overall IBI scores. Field crews had observed that
there were very few or no residences in the small watersheds of the headwater stream areas. This
suggests that the sites where fills and residences were co-located occurred most frequently in
larger watersheds and that watershed size may buffer the effects of fills and mines. This
possibility was examined and it was found that Filled, Mined, and Filled/Residential sites in
watersheds with areas greater than 10 km2 had fair to good IBI scores. However, Filled and
Mined sites in watersheds with areas less than 10 km2 often had poor IBI scores (Figure 4-5 A).
Of the 14 sites in watersheds with areas greater than 10 km2, four were rated fair and ten were
rated good or better (Figure 4-5 A). Of the 17 sites in watersheds with areas less than 10 km2,
only three rated fair and 14 rated poor (Figure 4-5). In contrast, the control and reference sites
showed no overall association with catchment area (Figure 4-5B). The smallest sites (i.e.,
watershed areas < 3.0 km2) were highly variable, with three of the five smallest sites scoring
poor.
42
-------
2
1
0
-1
-2
30 40 50 60 70
IBI Observed Value
80
90
Figure 4-4. Normal probability plot of IBI scores from EIS classes.
Table 4-1. The ANOVA for IBI scores among EIS classes (Unmined, Filled, Mined, and
Filled/Residential).
Source Degrees of
Freedom
Model 3
Error 40
Corrected Total 43
R-Square
0.334
Sum of Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Squares
2335.56 778.52 6.70 0.0009
4651.31 116.28
6986.87
Coefficient of Root MSB Index Mean
Variance
17.022 10.783 63.350
Table 4-2. Dunnett's test comparing IBI values of EIS classes to the Unmined class, with
the alternative hypothesis that IBI < Unmined IBI (one-tailed test).
EIS Class
Filled
Filled/Residential
Mined
Unmined
N
17
9
4
14
Mean
56.8
74.6
54.4
66.7
Standard Deviation
10.6
10.7
13.4
10.3
Dunnett's P-Value
0.0212
0.9975
0.0685
-
The effect of fills was statistically stronger in watersheds with areas less than 10 km
(Table 4-3). Filled sites had an average of one fewer Cyprinidae species, 1.6 fewer benthic
43
-------
invertivore species, 20% more tolerant individuals, and a mean IBI score that is 14 points lower
than Unmined sites (Table 4-3). In addition, Intolerant Taxa, % Cottidae and % Gravel
Spawners decreased slightly in the filled sites and the % Macro Omnivores increased slightly
(Table 4-3). There were too few small Mined sites (n=3) and too few small Filled/Residential
sites (n=2) to test against the Unmined sites within the small size category.
There is no definitive test to determine whether the high IBI scores of the
Filled/Residential sites in this data set are due solely to large catchment areas or if there may be
other contributing factors. The Filled/Residential class is consistent with the relationship
observed in the Filled sites, that large catchments are less susceptible to the effects of fills and
mines. A definitive test could be conducted if data were collected from several small
Filled/Residential catchments.
44
-------
A
MTM Site Means, Mined Sites
4 6 8 10 20
Catchment Area, km
40 60 80 100
IBI Rating
90
80
60
40
••
A
hlE
. *
m
A
^
•
K
A
B
•
m
f
*
A
A
'I'"'
•
A
Excellent
Good
^^^^~
Fair
Poor
• Filled
$ Mined
A Filled/Res
B
MTM Site Means, Unmined Sites
80
60
••"D'
o
8
o
,
o
n
o
c
o
00
o
0
Dr-h
c
4 6 8 10 20
Catchment Area, km
40 60 80 100
IBI Rating
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
O Unmined
D Reference
Figure 4-5. The IBI scores for different site classes, by watershed area. Assessment
categories (McCormick et al.2001) are shown on right. A) Filled, Mined, and Filled/
Residential sites. B) Unmined and Reference (Big Ugly Creek) sites.
45
-------
Table 4-3. The results of t-tests of site mean metric values and the IBI in Unmined and
Filled sites in watersheds with areas less than 10 km2 (N = 11 Unmined, N = 12 Filled).
Cyprinidae Taxa
Intolerant Taxa
Benthic Invertivore Taxa
% Exotic
% Cottidae
% Gravel Spawners
% Piscivore/Invertivores
% Tolerant
% Macro Omnivore
IBI
Mean Unmined
5.41
1.03
5.80
0.3
3.8
17.2
34.8
71.8
1.4
65.4
Mean Filled
4.37
0.85
4.22
0.9
0.4
7.0
38.8
93.8
4.8
51.5
t-value
2.93
1.23
3.73
-0.65
1.42
0.999
-0.34
-2.60
-1.54
3.80
P
0.008
0.232
0.001
0.524
0.172
0.329
0.739
0.0167
0.139
0.001
4.1.3. Additive Analysis
Sites on the mainstem of Twentymile Creek and all mining-affected sites in the
Twelvepole Creek watershed have been identified as Additive sites, and were not included in the
analysis of the EIS classes reported above. Instead, these sites were considered to be subject to
multiple and possibly cumulative sources (i.e., VFs, historic mining, non-point runoff, untreated
domestic sewage, non-permitted discharges).
The Twelvepole Creek watershed, in particular, has mixed land uses and has several
mining techniques in use. The stream valleys are often populated with residences and livestock.
Mining in the Twelvepole watershed includes deep mining, contour mining, and mountaintop
removal/VF. In contrast, there is little or no residential land use in the Twentymile Creek
watershed and all human activities in the Twentymile Creek are related to mining (i.e., logging
and grubbing).
The IBI scores of sites in three streams (i.e., Kiah Creek, Trough Fork, and Twelvepole
Creek) in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed are shown in Figure 4-6. Most of the sites are scored
in the "fair" range, although a few observations extend into the "good" and "poor" ranges
(Figure 4-6). There is no apparent pattern in these scores and there are no trends from upstream
to downstream in either of the larger streams (i.e., Kiah Creek and Twelvepole Creek).
46
-------
Additive sites, Twelvepole watershed
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
C
,
i
"I
q
I
;
: i
3 1
: i
i c
*
i i
i j
! I n
) 20
40
I
i i
i i
n !
i
! i
i
i
60 80 100 120
Good
Fair
Poor
• K
n T
o T
Catchment area, km
Figure 4-6. The IBI scores from the additive sites in the Ti
Multiple observations from single sites are connected with
Kiah Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Trough Fork
Twentymile Creek Watershed
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
i i •
! • [
A ! Peachorct
^ i i
i
l» i
iard Branch
<•
T i
1
i
t
i
1 i Recoven
j i L...V :
: ! : \
t — Below->- i •
1: : •
: •: !
: i • !
''• I • 1
|: i :
Good
Fair
Poor
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
• Twentymile
A Peach Orchard
Catchment Area, km
Figure 4-7. IBI scores from additive sites and Peachorchard Branch in the Twentymile
Creek Watershed. Multiple observations from single sites are connected with a vertical
line.
47
-------
Overall, the IBI scores in the Twentymile Creek watershed were higher than those in
Twelvepole Creek. There was a trend, from upstream to downstream, among the scores from the
Twentymile Creek Watershed (Figure 4-7). Above Peachorchard Branch, which has a catchment
area smaller than 68 km2, sites on the mainstem of Twentymile Creek were uniformly in the
"good" range of IBI scores, with moderate variability. Below the confluence of Peachorchard
Branch, IBI scores decrease overall and are more variable (Figure 4-7). Farther downstream
(i.e., Site PSU.54), the IBI score was higher (i.e., 78), indicating potential recovery from the
stressors in the lower portion of the stream. With a range of 48 to 52, Peachorchard Branch had
among the lowest IBI scores in the Twentymile Creek Watershed.
4.1.4. Associations With Potential Causal Factors
The correlations between IBI scores and water quality parameters that are potential
stressors (i.e., DO, pH, nutrients, TDS, TSS, salts, and metal concentrations) were examined.
For the correlation analysis, site mean IBI scores and log-transformed site (geometric) mean
chemical concentrations were used. The correlation analysis was restricted to sites in watersheds
with areas smaller than 10.0 km2. The IBI scores decreased with the increased concentrations of
several water quality parameters, and decreased significantly with increased zinc and sodium
(Table 4-4). However, these correlations do not imply causal relationships between water
quality parameters and fish community condition. Other substances or processes associated with
mining activity (i.e., erosion, sedimentation), but not measured, could also be proximal causal
factors.
Table 4-4. Pearson correlations among the site means of selected water quality
measurements and IBI scores, including all sites in watersheds with areas smaller than 10
km2.
Log
Log Cr Log Mg Log Ni (NO3+ Log Na Log SO4 Log TDS Log Zn
NO2)
LogMg
LogNi
Log (NO3+NO2)
LogNa
Log SO4
Log TDS
LogZn
IBI
0.11
-0.08
0.40
0.16
0.17
0.27
0.50
-0.35
0.53
0.65
0.40
0.96
0.42
0.34
-0.42
0.37
-0.08
0.43
-0.35
0.12
-0.33
0.65
0.76 0.58
0.79 0.90 0.65
0.47 0.34 0.38 0.42
-0.42 -0.60 -0.51 -0.47 -0.54
48
-------
4.2. Macroinvertebrate Results
4.2.1. Analysis of Differences in EIS Classes
For each season, analyses were conducted to determine if there were any differences
among the EIS classes. Only Unmined, Filled, Mined and Filled/Residential sites were used for
these analyses. Analysis endpoints were the WVSCI and its component metrics.
4.2.1.1. Spring 1999
This comparison only used U.S. EPA Region 3 data for each watershed. All of the tested
metrics were significantly different among EIS classes using ANOVA, and each met the
assumptions for normality and equal variance (Table 4-5). The WVSCI and the taxa richness
metrics differed significantly between Unmined sites and both Filled and Filled/Residential sites
in the LS Means test. Percent EPT Abundance was also significantly different between Unmined
sites and Filled/Residential sites. Box plots for each metric comparison are in Appendix C.
4.2.1.2. Autumn 1999
This comparison used data collected by both the U.S. EPA Region 3 and the private
organizations for each watershed. Only the WVSCI, Percent EPT and Percent Chironomidae
Abundance were significantly different among EIS classes (Table 4-6). However, the Unmined
sites were not significantly different from the other classes for these metrics. Box plots for each
metric comparison are in Appendix C. Drought conditions occurred during this season, and
streams were further impacted by a severe drought during the preceding summer.
Table 4-5. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in spring 1999. Uses
Unmined sites as a relative control for LS Means test. Total n = 34; Unmined n = 9, Mined
n = 4, Filled n = 15, Filled/Residential n = 6.
Metric
p-value Normality? Equal
Variance?
LS Means
WVSCI
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
Total Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
EPT Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
HBI
Percent Dominant Two Taxa
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent EPT Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent Chironomidae Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
O.0001
0.0001
O.0001
0.0017
0.0010
0.0010
0.0326
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled/Residential
49
-------
Table 4-6. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in autumn 1999. Uses
Unmined sites as a relative control for LS Means test. Total n = 35, Unmined n = 6, Filled n
= 23, Filled/Residence n = 6.
Metric
WVSCI
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
Total Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
EPT Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
HBI
Percent Dominant Two Taxa
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent EPT Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent Chironomidae Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
p-value
0.0454
0.3744
0.2401
0.1299
0.2672
0.0178
0.0253
Normality?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Equal LS Means
Variance?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
4.2.1.3. Winter 2000
This comparison used data collected by both the U.S. EPA Region 3 and the private
organizations for each watershed. All of the tested metrics were significantly different among
EIS classes, and each met the assumptions for normality (Table 4-7). The WVSCI and the HBI
failed the test for equal variance. The WVSCI and the Total Taxa metrics differed significantly
between Unmined sites and both Filled and Filled/Residential sites in the LS Means test. Percent
EPT abundance was also significantly different between Unmined sites and Filled/Residential
sites. Box plots for each metric comparison are in Appendix C.
4.2.1.4. Spring 2000
This comparison used only the data collected by the U.S. EPA Region 3 for each
watershed. All of the tested metrics were significantly different among EIS classes, and each
met the assumptions for normality (Table 4-8). The WVSCI, EPT Taxa, HBI, and Percent EPT
Abundance failed the test for equal variance. The WVSCI and the taxa richness metrics differed
significantly between Unmined sites and both Filled and Filled/Residence sites in the LS Means
test. Percent EPT abundance in the Unmined sites was also significantly different than in
Filled/Residence sites. Box plots for each metric comparison are in Appendix C.
4.2.1.5. Autumn 2000
This comparison used only the data collected by the private organizations for the
Twentymile Creek watershed. No metrics were significantly different among EIS classes (Table
4-9). Box plots for each metric comparison are in Appendix C.
50
-------
4.2.1.6. Winter 2001
This comparison used only the data collected by the private organizations for the
Twentymile Creek watershed. The WVSCI, Total Taxa, EPT Taxa, and Percent Dominant 2
Taxa were significantly different among EIS classes (Table 4-10). The Unmined sites were
significantly different than the Filled classes for the WVSCI and EPT Taxa, although both
metrics failed the equal variance test. Box plots for each metric comparison are in Appendix C.
Table 4-7. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in winter 2000. Uses
Unmined sites as a relative control for LS Means test. Total n = 53, Unmined n = 18,
Mined n = 4, Filled n =25, Filled/Residential n = 6.
Metric
WVSCI
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
Total Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
EPT Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
HBI
Percent Dominant Two Taxa
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent EPT Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent Chironomidae Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
p-value
<0.0001
O.0001
0.0001
O.0001
O.0001
0.0001
0.0001
Normality?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Equal Variance?
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
LS Means
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Table 4-8. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in spring 2000. Uses
Unmined sites as a relative control for LS Means test. Total n = 35, Unmined n = 10,
Mined n = 5, Filled n = 15, Filled/Residence n = 5.
Metric
WVSCI
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
Total Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
EPT Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
HBI
Percent Dominant Two Taxa
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent EPT Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent Chironomidae Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
p-value
0.0001
0.0004
O.0001
0.0002
O.0001
0.0027
0.0020
Normality?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Equal Variance?
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
LS Means
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled/Residential
51
-------
Table 4-9. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in autumn 2000. Uses
Unmined sites as a relative control for LS Means test. Total n = 15; Unmined n = 5, Filled n
= 10.
Metric
WVSCI
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
Total Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
EPT Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
HBI
Percent Dominant Two Taxa
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent EPT Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent Chironomidae Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
p-value
0.1945
0.4744
0.1897
0.7243
0.0846
0.3200
0.4417
Normality?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Equal Variance?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
LS
Means
Table 4-10. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in winter 2001. Uses
Unmined sites as a relative control for LS Means test. Total n = 16, Unmined n = 6, Filled n
= 10.
Metric
WVSCI
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
Total Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
EPT Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
HBI
Percent Dominant Two Taxa
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent EPT Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent Chironomidae Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
p-value
0.0110
0.0275
0.0074
0.4874
0.0012
0.3449
0.1180
Normality?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Equal Variance?
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
LS
Means
Filled
Filled
4.2.2. Evaluation of Twentymile Creek
Box plots were used to compare benthic macroinvertebrate metrics in the major
watersheds during spring 1999, autumn 1999, winter 2000, and spring 2000. Only data from
Twentymile Creek was available for autumn 2000 and winter 2001 and it was necessary to
examine whether the EIS data collected from the Twentymile Creek Watershed was similar to
the EIS data collected from the other four watersheds. ClearFork could not be used in this
52
-------
watershed analysis, since data for Clear Fork were limited (i.e., there were no Unmined sites and
only one Filled site).
No consistent differences in the benthic metrics between the Unmined sites and among
watersheds were observed (Appendix C). In contrast, there were consistent differences in the
benthic metrics between Filled sites and among watersheds in each season except autumn 1999.
Total Taxa, EPT Taxa, Percent EPT Abundance, and the WVSCI were consistently better in
Twentymile Creek and Island Creek watersheds than in the Mud River and Spruce Fork
watersheds (Appendix C).
4.2.3. Macroinvertebrate and Water Chemistry Associations
The WVSCI scores were correlated against key water quality parameters using mean
values for each site. Only water chemistry data that were collected at or close to the time of
benthos sample collection were used in this analysis.
The strongest associations were negative correlations between the WVSCI and measures
of individual and combined ions (Table 4-11, Appendix D). The WVSCI was also negatively
correlated with the metals Beryllium, Selenium, and Zinc.
4.2.4. The Effect of Catchment Area on the WVSCI
The WVSCI and its component metrics had not been evaluated for potential effects
related to stream size because of a lack of catchment area data during the original index
development. The WVSCI and its component metric scores calculated from the MTM/VF data
were plotted against catchment area. A Pearson correlation analysis was also run on these data
to investigate whether stream size influenced these scores for the MTM/VF EIS analysis. This
analysis was only conducted for the sites in the Unmined EIS class in order to limit any
confounding variation due to anthropogenic sources.
There were 20 Unmined sites available for this analysis. However, one site was dropped
because catchment area data for that site was unavailable. Because sample size varied greatly
among seasons and was very low in some seasons (i.e., n = 5 or 6), the mean score for each site
was used in the analyses.
Neither correlation analyses (Table 4-12) nor scatter plots (Figure 4-8) showed an effect
of catchment area on the WVSCI and its metric scores. Analyses with arcsin transformed
proportion metrics (i.e., Percent Dominant Two Taxa, Percent EPT Taxa, and Percent
Chironomid Taxa) also showed no relationship to catchment area ® = 0.269, -0.144, and 0.090,
respectively)
Although no relationship was found, these analyses were limited by the relatively low
sample sizes available, and the limited range in catchment area (0.29 - 5.26 km2) data for
Unmined sites. Additional data for larger and relatively undisturbed stream sites within the
53
-------
MTM/VF footprint is necessary to examine stream size effects for the three larger (i.e., area > 40
km2) Filled/Residence sites. It is unclear whether such sites exist in this area.
Table 4-11. Results from Pearson correlation analyses between the WVSCI rarefied to 100
organisms and key water quality parameters.
Parameter
Alkalinity
Total Aluminum
Total Beryllium
Total Calcium
Total Chromium
Conductivity
Total Copper
Hardness
Total Iron
Total Magnesium
Total Manganese
Total Nickel
Nitrate/Nitrite
DO
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Total Selenium
Total Sodium
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Zinc
n
53
47
52
53
53
53
53
23
49
53
49
53
21
60
53
53
51
53
53
53
53
R
-0.660
-0.208
-0.298
-0.624
-0.043
-0.690
-0.238
-0.650
-0.189
-0.569
-0.241
-0.166
-0.362
0.031
-0.165
-0.527
-0.476
-0.572
-0.598
-0.371
-0.343
P-value
O.001
0.161
0.032
O.001
0.761
O.001
0.086
0.001
0.193
O.001
0.095
0.235
0.106
0.815
0.237
0.001
O.001
0.001
O.001
0.006
0.012
54
-------
Table 4-12. Pearson correlation values and p-values for means of metric scores at
Unmined sites (n = 19) versus catchment area.
Metric
Tot_S100
EPT_S100
HBI
Dom2Pct
EPTPct
ChirPct
WVSCI100
20 1 1, 1
0
7 -
a
06- • o
m 0
1 5~
S 4_ °"
3-
2 - » « «
1- o
R p-value
-0.157 0.520
-0.165 0
0.228 0
0.255 0
-0.168 0
0.087 0
-0.312 0
i i
12 - «
11- o^
g 10- 0*^
w « *
Ed 8 -
«
7 -
-
6 - 0
501
348
293
493
724
194
i i i
-
0
s
-
»
;
01234
012345
\ "
Figure 4-8. The WVSCI and its metric scores versus catchment area in Unmined streams.
55
-------
4.2.5. Additive Analysis
Multiple sites on the mainstem of Twentymile Creek were identified as Additive sites and were
included in an analysis to evaluate impacts of increased mining activities in the watershed across
seasons and from upstream to downstream of the Twentymile Creek. Cumulative river kilometer
was calculated for each site along Twentymile Creek as the distance from the uppermost site,
Rader 8. The total distance upstream to downstream was approximately 17 kilometers. Sites
were sampled during four seasons, Autumn 1999 (n = 19), Winter 2000 ( n = 23), Autumn 2000 (
n = 24) and Winter 2001 ( n = 26 ). Pearson correlations between cumulative river kilometer and
the WVSCI and its component metrics were calculated for each season (Table 4-13). The
number of metrics that showed significant correlations with distance along the mainstem
increased across seasons. The WVSCI was significantly correlated with cumulative river
kilometer in Winter 2000, Autumn 2000 and Winter 2001. In Winter 2001, four of the six
individual metrics also showed significant correlations with distance along the mainstem of
Twentymile Creek. A linear regression of the WVSCI with cumulative river kilometer indicated
that the WVSCI decreased approximately one point upstream to downstream for every river
kilometer (Table 4-14).
Table 4-13. Pearson correlation values and p-values for metric scores at Additive sites on
Twentymile Creek versus cumulative river kilometer by season.
Metric
Tot_S100
EPT_S100
HBI
Dom2Pct
EPTPct
ChirPct
WVSCI100
Autumn
1999
-0.582 (0.009)
-0.480 (0.038)
-0.210 (0.387)
0.360(0.130)
0.018 (0.940)
-0.075 (0.759)
-0.353(0.138)
Winter
2000
0.051 (0.8169)
-0.230(0.196)
-0.227 (0.296)
0.521 (0.011)
-0.004 (0.986)
-0.377 (0.076)
0.762 (<001)
Autumn
2000
-0.670 (<001)
-0.688 (<001)
-0.228 (0.284)
0.626 (0.001)
0.145(0.499)
-0.048 (0.824)
-0.627 (0.001)
Winter
2001
-0.462
-0.593
(0.002)
0.410
(0.037)
0.545
(0.004)
-0.235
(0.248)
0.091
(0.658)
-0.608
(0.001)
56
-------
Table 4-14. The Regression for WVSCI versus Cumulative River Mile for Additive Sites in
Twentymile Creek Winter 2001.
Source
Model
Error
Corrected
Total
R-Square
0.369
Parameter
Intercept
Cumulative
River Km
Degrees of
Freedom
1
24
25
Estimate
92.66
-1.14
Sum of
Squares
658.99
1125.55
1784.54
Coefficient of
Variance
8.27
Standard
Error
2.95
0.30
Mean Square
658.99
46.90
Root MSE
6.848
t Value
31.38
-3.75
F Value
14.05
WVSCI Mean
82.80
Pr > |t|
<0001
0.001
Pr>F
0.0010
57
-------
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1. Fish Discussion and Conclusions
From the analysis of the fish data among the EIS classes, it was determined that IBI
scores were significantly reduced in streams below VFs, compared to unmined streams, by an
average of 10 points, indicating that fish communities were degraded below VFs. The IBI scores
were similarly reduced in streams receiving drainage from historic mining or contour mining,
compared to unmined streams. Nearly all filled and mined sites with catchment areas smaller
than 10.0 km2 had "poor" IBI scores, whereas filled and mined sites with catchment areas larger
than 10.0 km2 had "fair" or "good" IBI scores. In the small streams, IBI scores from Filled sites
were an average of 14 points lower than the IBI scores from Unmined sites. Most
Filled/Residential sites were in larger watersheds (i.e., areas > 10.0 km2), and Filled/Residential
sites had "fair" or "good" IBI scores.
From the additive analysis, it was determined that the Twelvepole Creek Watershed, in
which the land use was mixed residential and mining, had "fair" IBI scores in most samples, and
there are no apparent additive effects of the land uses in the downstream reaches of the
watershed. Also, Twentymile Creek, which has only mining-related land uses, has "Good" IBI
scores upstream of the confluence with Peachorchard Creek, and "Fair" and "Poor" scores for
several miles downstream of the confluence with Peachorchard Creek tributary. Finally,
Peachorchard Creek has "Poor" IBI scores, and may contribute contaminants or sediments to
Twentymile Creek, causing degradation of the Twentymile IBI scores downstream of
Peachorchard Creek.
5.2. Macroinvertebrate Discussion and Conclusions
The results of the macroinvertebrate analyses showed significant differences among EIS
classes for the WVSCI and some of its component metrics in all seasons except autumn 2000.
Differences in the WVSCI were primarily due to lower Total Taxa, especially for mayflies,
stoneflies, and caddisflies, in the Filled and Filled/Residential EIS classes.
Sites in the Filled/Residential EIS class usually scored the worst of all EIS classes across
all seasons (Appendix C). It was not determined why the Filled/Residential class scored worse
than the Filled class alone. U.S. EPA ( 2001 Draft) found the highest concentrations of Na in the
Filled/Residential EIS class, which may have negatively impacted these sites compared to those
in the Filled class.
When the results for Filled and Unmined sites alone were examined, significant
differences were observed in all seasons except autumn 1999 and autumn 2000. This can be
seen in the plots of the WVSCI, Total Taxa, and EPT Taxa versus season (Figures 5-1, 5-2a and
5-2b). The lack of differences between Unmined and Filled sites in autumn 1999 was due to a
decrease in Total Taxa and EPT Taxa in Unmined sites relative to a lack of change in Filled
sites. These declines in taxa richness metrics in Unmined sites was likely a result of the drought
58
-------
conditions of the summer 1999, which caused more Unmined sites to go dry or experience severe
declines in flow relative to Filled sites (Green et al., 2000). Wiley et al. (2001) also found that
Filled sites have daily flows that are greater than those in Unmined sites during periods of low
discharge. Despite the relatively drier conditions in Unmined sites during autumn 1999, WVSCI
scores and EPT Taxa richness increased in later seasons to levels seen in the spring 1999 season
whereas values for Filled sites stayed relatively low.
The lack of statistical differences between Unmined and Filled classes in the autumn
2000 appears to be due to a decline of Total Taxa richness in Unmined sites coupled with an
increase in Total Taxa richness in Filled sites (Figures 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3). Filled sites had higher
variability in WVSCI scores and metric values than did Unmined sites during the autumn 2000,
which also contributed to the lack of significant differences. It is important to note that this
comparison only uses data from the Twentymile Creek Watershed. Hence, the lack of
differences in metrics during the autumn 2000 between Unmined and Filled sites is only relevant
for the Twentymile Creek watershed, and not the entire MTM/VF study area examined in the
preceding seasons. Similarly, data for winter 2001 is only representative of the Twentymile
Creek watershed, but it is noteworthy that these data did show that Unmined and Filled sites
were significantly different. It was also found that Filled sites in the Twentymile Creek
Watershed scored better than filled sites in the Mud River and Spruce Fork Watersheds in all
seasons except for autumn 1999. These differences among watersheds indicate biological
conditions in Filled sites of the Twentymile Creek watershed are not representative of the range
of conditions in the entire MTM/VF study area. As a result, comparisons among EIS classes
during autumn 2000 and winter 2001 should not be considered typical for the entire MTM/VF
study area.
Statistical differences between the Unmined and Filled EIS classes corresponded to
ecological differences between classes based on mean WVSCI scores. Unmined sites scored in
the Very Good condition category in all seasons except autumn 1999 when the condition was
scored as Good. The conditions at Filled sites ranged from Fair to Good (Figure 5-1). However,
Filled sites that scored Good on average only represented conditions in the Twentymile Creek
watershed in two seasons (i.e., autumn 2000 and winter 2001), and these sites are not
representative of the entire MTM/VF study area. On average Filled sites were in worse
ecological condition than were Unmined sites.
59
-------
Twenty mile
Creek only
Very Good
Good
Fair
SPR99AUT99WINOO SPROOAUTOO WIN01
Season
Figure 5-1. Mean WVSCI scores in the Unmined and Filled EIS classes versus sampling
season. Error bars are 1 SE. Data for autumn 2000 and winter 2001 only used private
organization data for the Twentymile Creek Watershed. The condition categories are
based on Green et al. (2000 Draft).
60
-------
18
H
O
H
0
a
C/5
C/5
10 -
12
11
10
9
5 *
S 7H
C/5 6
C/5
5
4
Filled
Unmined
SPR99 AUT99 WINOO SPROO AUTOO WIN01
B
Filled
Unmined
SPR99 AUT99 WINOO SPROO AUTOO WIN01
Figure 5-2. (A) Mean Total Taxa richness in the Unmined and Filled EIS classes versus
sampling season. (B) Mean EPT Taxa richness in the Unmined and Filled EIS classes
versus sampling season. Error bars are 1 SE. Data for autumn 2000 and winter 2001 only
used private organization data for the Twentymile Creek Watershed.
61
-------
The consistently higher WVSCI scores and the Total Taxa in the Unmined sites relative
to Filled sites across six seasons showed that Filled sites have lower biotic integrity than those
sites without VFs. Furthermore, reduced taxa richness in Filled sites is primarily the result of
fewer pollution-sensitive EPT taxa. The lack of significant differences between these two EIS
classes in autumn 1999 appears to be due to the effects of greatly reduced flow in sites draining
unmined sites during a severe drought. Continued sampling in Unmined and Filled sites would
improve the understanding of whether MTM/VF activities are associated with seasonal variation
in benthic macroinvertebrate metrics and base-flow hydrology.
Examination of the Additive sites from the mainstem of Twentymile Creek indicated that
impacts to the benthic macroinvertebrate communities increased across seasons and upstream to
downstream of Twentymile Creek. In the first sampling season one metric, Total Taxa, was
negatively correlated with distance along the mainstem. The number of metrics showing a
relationship with cumulative river mile increased across seasons, with four of the six metrics
having significant correlations in the final sampling season, Winter 2001. Also in Winter of
2001, a regression of the WVSCI versus cumulative river kilometer estimates a decrease of
approximately one point in the WVSCI for each river kilometer. Season and cumulative river
kilometer in this dataset may be surrogates for increased mining activity in the watershed.
62
-------
6. LITERATURE CITED
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment
protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and
fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of
Water; Washington, D.C.
Critchley, M. 2001. Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment of East Fork of Twelvepole
Watershed. Department of Environmental Protection, Mining and Reclamation.
Green, J., M. Passemore, and H. Childers. 2000. A Survey of the Condition of Streams in the
Primary Region of Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Coal Mining (Draft). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3 - ESD, Aquatic Biology Group. Wheeling, WV.
Hurlbert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol.
Monogr. 54:187-211
ITIS, the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, www.itis.usda.gov.
Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running waters. A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History
Survey, Special Publication 5. 28p.
Kaufmann, P.R. 1998. Stream discharge. Pages 67-76 In J.M. Lazorchak, DJ. Klemm, and
D. V. Peck (eds.). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program - Surface Waters: Field
operations and methods for measuring the ecological condition of wadeable streams.
EPA/620/R-94/004F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Kaufmann, P.R., and E.G. Robison. 1998. Physical Habitat Characterization. Pages 77-118 In
J.M. Lazorchak, DJ. Klemm, and D.V. Peck (eds.). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program - Surface Waters: Field operations and methods for measuring the ecological condition
of wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Kaufmann, P.R., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. 1999. Quantifying
Physical Habitat in Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-99/003. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Lazorchak, J.M., DJ. Klemm, and D.V. Peck (eds.). 1998. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program - Surface Waters: Field operations and methods for measuring the
ecological condition of wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
63
-------
McCormick, F.H., and R.M. Hughes. 1998. Aquatic Vertebrates. Pages 161-1181 In J.M.
Lazorchak, D. J. Klemm, and D. V. Peck (eds.). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program - Surface Waters: Field operations and methods for measuring the ecological condition
of wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
McCormick, F.H., R.M. Hughes, P.R. Kaufmann, D.P. Peck, J.L. Stoddard, and A.T. Herlihy.
2001. Development of an index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic highlands region. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc. 130:857-877
Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North
America. Third Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Pecharsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, and DJ. Conklin, Jr. 1990. Freshwater
macroinvertebrates of northeastern North America. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, New York. 442 pp.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States. Protozoa to Mollusca.
Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid
bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington,
D.C. EPA 440-4-89-001.
REI Consultants, Inc. 2001. Comprehensive Quality Assurance Plan. REI Consultants, Inc.,
Beaver, West Virginia.
Robins, C. R., R. M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott
(Committee on Names of Fishes). 1991. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the
United States and Canada. 5th edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 20.
Stauffer, J.R., Jr., J.M. Boltz, and L.R. White. 1995. The fishes of West Virginia. Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.
Stauffer, J.R., and C.P. Ferreri. 2000. A survey offish populations in the primary region of
mountain top removal/valley fill coal mining. Draft. Pennsylvania State University, School of
Forest Resources.
Stewart, K. W., and B. P. Stark. 1988. Nymphs of North American Stoneflies. Entomological
Society of America. Thomas Say Foundation 12.
64
-------
Stewart, K.W., and B.P. Stark. 1993. Nymphs of North American stonefly Genera (Plecoptera).
University of North Texas Press, Denton.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1999. Ecological Data Application System (EDAS). A User's Manual.
Prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Revised edition. Ohio State University Press,
Columbus.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. In Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. EPA-600/ 4-79-020. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Biological criteria: national program guidance
for surface waters. Office of the Assistant Administrator for Water. Washington, D.C.
EPA/440/5-90/004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Summary of State Biological Assessment
Programs for Streams and Wadeable Rivers. EPA 230-R-96-007. Office of Water, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3. 1999. Environmental Impact Statement -
Work Assignment, .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Interim chemical/biological monitoring protocol
for coal mining permit applications. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3.
http://www.epa.gov/regi on03/mtntop/pdf/interim_monitorprotocol.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3. 2000. Mountaintop Mining-Valley Fill EIS;
OSM, EPA, COE, FWS with WVDEP: Goals for the EIS and Questions to be Addressed. June
8, 2000. .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3. 2001. US EPA Region 3 Mountaintop
Mining. September 7, 2001. .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3. 2001. A Survey of the Water Quality of
Streams in the Primary Region of Mountain Top Removal / Valley Fill Coal Mining (Draft).
Environmental Services Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. A survey of the water quality of streams in the
primary region of MTM/VF coal mining, WV: October 1999 - January 2001. Draft. U.S. EPA
Region 3, Wheeling, WV.
65
-------
Van Deventer, J.S., and W.S. Platts. 1983. Sampling and estimating fish populations from
streams (Statistical methods). Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference. 1983. (48th). pp. 349-354.
Walsh, S.J., and M.R. Meador. 1998. Guidelines for quality assurance and quality control for
fish taxonomic data collected as part of the National Water Quality Assessment Program. U.S.
Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4239. Raleigh, NC.
Westfall, M.J., Jr., and M.L. May. 1996. Damselflies of North America. Scientific Publishers,
Inc.
Wiggins, G.B. 1995. Larvae of the North American caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera). Second
edition. University of Toronto Press.
Woods, A.J., J.M. Omernik, D.D. Brown. 1999. Level III and IV Ecoregions of Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Dynamac Corporation and USEPA.
Corvallis, OR.
Wiley, J.B., R.D. Evaldi, J.H. Eychaner, and D.B. Chambers. 2001. Reconnaissance of stream
geomorphology, low streamflow, and stream temperature in the mountaintop coal mining region,
southern West Virginia, 1999-2000. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resource Investivations,
Report 01-4092. 34pp.
Yoder, C.O., and E.T. and Rankin 1995. Biological criteria program development and
implementation in Ohio, pp 109-144 In W. Davis and T. Simon, eds. Biological Criteria.
Zippin, C. 1956. An evaluation of the removal method of estimating animal populations.
Biometrics. 12:163-169
66
-------
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY TABLES OF PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES USED BY
THE FOUR ORGANIZATIONS TO COLLECT DATA FOR THE MTM/VF STUDY
A-l
-------
Table A-l. Habitat assessment procedures used by the four organizations participating in the MTM/VF Study.
>
Habitat Assessment Procedures
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Site Selection
Criteria
The watershed to be assessed began at
least one receiving stream downstream
of the mining operation and extended to
the headwaters. Monitoring stations
were positioned downstream in a similar
watershed representative of the future
impact scenario. Where possible, semi-
annual samples were taken where
baseline data were collected. Following
Phase II, but prior to final release,
samples to be taken where mining phase
data were collected. See benthic
macroinvertebrate procedures for further
details.
No information on
habitat data collection
given.
Based on agreement reached between the client and
regulatory agencies. Sites were selected to provide
quantitative, site specific identification and
characterization of sources of point and non-point
chemical contamination.
No information on
habitat data collection
given.
Methods Used
Habitat assessment made according to
Harbour etal. (1999). Riparian habitat
and substrate described using Kaufmann
and Robison (1998). Habitat assessment
is made as a part of the benthic
macroinvertebrate survey.
No information on
habitat data collection
given.
Habitat assessments performed at the same reach
from which biological sampling was conducted.
Used the protocols in Kaufmann and Robison
(1998) or Harbour et al. (1999).
No information on
habitat data collection
given.
Procedures
A habitat assessment made according to
Harbour et al. (1999) and the riparian
habitat and substrate described using
Kaufmann and Robison (1998).
No information on
habitat data collection
given.
A single habitat assessment form which
incorporated the features of the sampling reach and
of the catchment area was completed. Habitat
evaluations were made first on instream habitat,
followed by channel morphology, bank structural
features and riparian vegetation.
No information on
habitat data collection
Habitat QA/QC
A habitat assessment made according to
Harbour et al. (1999) and the riparian
habitat and substrate described using
Kaufmann and Robison (1998).
No information on
habitat data collection
Accepted QA/QC practices were employed during
habitat assessment. The habitat evaluations were
conducted by a trained field biologist immediately
following the biological and water quality
sampling. The completed habitat assessment form
was reviewed by a second field biologist before
leaving the sampling reach. The biologists
discussed the assessment. Photographs of the
sampling reaches were collected and used as a basis
for checks of the assessments. The habitat data
were entered into a database, then they were
checked against the field sheets.
No information on
habitat data collection
-------
Table A-2. Parameters and condition categories used in the U.S. EPA's RBP for habitat.
RBP Habitat
Parameter
1. Epifaunal
Substrate/
Available Cover
(high and low
gradient)
SCORE
2. Embeddedness
(high gradient)
SCORE
3. Velocity/Depth
Regimes
(high gradient)
SCORE
4. Sediment
Deposition
(high and low
gradient)
SCORE
5. Channel Flow
Status
(high and low
gradient)
SCORE
Condition Category
Optimal
Greater than 70% (50%
for low gradient streams)
of substrate favorable for
epifaunal colonization and
fish cover; mix of snags,
submerged logs, undercut
banks, cobble or other
stable
habitat and at stage to
allow full colonization
potential (i.e., logs/ snags
that are not new fall and
not transient).
20 19 18 17 16
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles are 0-
25% surrounded by fine
sediment. Layering of
cobble provides diversity
of niche space.
20 19 18 17 16
All four velocity/depth
regimes present (slow-
deep, slow- shallow, fast-
deep, fast- shallow).
(Slow is <0.3 m/s, deep is
>0.5 m).
20 19 18 17 16
Little or no enlargement
of islands or point bars
and less than 5% (<20%
for low-gradient streams)
of the bottom affected by
sediment deposition.
20 19 18 17 16
Water reaches base of
both lower banks, and
minimal amount of
channel substrate is
exposed.
20 19 18 17 16
Sub-optimal
40-70% (30-50% for low
gradient streams) mix of
stable habitat; well-suited
for full colonization
potential; adequate habitat
for maintenance of
populations; presence of
additional substrate in the
form of new fall, but not
yet prepared for
colonization (may rate at
high end of scale).
15 14 13 12 11
Gravel, cobble, and boulder
particles are 25-50%
surrounded by fine
sediment.
15 14 13 12 11
Only 3 of the 4 regimes
present (if fast-shallow is
missing, score lower than if
missing other regimes).
15 14 13 12 11
Some new increase in bar
formation, mostly from
gravel, sand or fine
sediment; 5-30% (20-50%
for low-gradient) of the
bottom affected; slight
deposition in pools.
15 14 13 12 11
Water fills >75% of the
available channel; or <25%
of channel substrate is
exposed.
15 14 13 12 11
Marginal
20 - 40% (10-30% for low
gradient streams) mix of
stable habitat; habitat
availability less than
desirable; substrate
frequently disturbed or
removed.
10 9 8 7 6
Gravel, cobble, and boulder
particles are 50-75%
surrounded by fine
sediment.
10 9 8 7 6
Only 2 of the 4 habitat
regimes present (if fast-
shallow or slow-shallow are
missing, score low).
10 9 8 7 6
Moderate deposition f new
gravel, sand or fine
sediment on old and new
bars; 30-50% 50-80% for
low-gradient) of the bottom
affected; sediment deposits
at obstructions,
constrictions, and bends;
moderate deposition of
pools prevalent.
10 9 8 7 6
Water fills 25-75% of the
available channel, and/or
riffle substrates are mostly
exposed.
10 9 8 7 6
Poor
Less than 20% (10% for
low gradient streams) stable
habitat; lack of habitat is
obvious; substrate unstable
or lacking.
5432 1 0
Gravel, cobble, and boulder
particles are more than 75%
surrounded by fine
sediment.
5432 1 0
Dominated by 1
velocity /depth regime
(usually slow-deep).
5432 1 0
Heavy deposits of fine
material, increased bar
development; more than
50% (80% for low-
gradient) of the bottom
changing frequently; pools
almost absent due to
substantial sediment
deposition.
5432 1 0
Very little water in channel
and mostly present as
standing pools.
5432 1 0
A-3
-------
Table A-2 (Continued).
6. Channel
Alteration
(high and low
gradient)
SCORE
7. Frequency of
Riffles (or bends)
(high gradient)
SCORE
8. Bank Stability
(score each bank)
(high and low
gradient)
SCORE LB
SCORE RB
9. Bank Vegetative
Protection
(score each bank)
(high and low
gradient)
SCORE LB
SCORE RB
10. Riparian
Vegetation Zone
Width (score each
bank riparian zone)
(high and low
gradient)
SCORE LB
SCORE RB
Channelization or dredging
absent or minimal; stream
with normal pattern.
20 19 18 17 16
Occurrence of riffles
relatively frequent; ratio of
distance between riffles
divided by width of the
stream <7: 1 (generally 5 to
7); variety of habitat is key.
In streams where riffles are
continuous, placement of
boulders or other large,
natural obstruction is
important.
20 19 18 17 16
Banks stable: evidence of
erosion or bank failure
absent or minimal; little
potential for future
problems. <5%ofbank
affected.
Left Bank 10 9
Right Bank 10 9
More than 90% of the
stream bank surfaces and
immediate riparian zone
covered by native
vegetation, including trees,
understory shrubs, or
nonwoody macrophytes;
vegetative disruption
through grazing or mowing
minimal or not evident;
almost all plants allowed to
grow naturally.
Left Bank 10 9
Right Bank 10 9
Width of riparian zone > 1 8
meters; human activities
(i.e., parking lots, roadbeds,
clear- cuts, lawns, or crops)
have not impacted zone.
Left Bank 10 9
Right Bank 10 9
Some channelization
present, usually in areas of
bridge abutments; evidence
of past channelization (i.e.,
dredging, greater than past
20 yr) may be present, but
recent channelization is not
present.
15 14 13 12 11
Occurrence of riffles
infrequent; distance
between riffles divided by
the width of the stream is
between 7 and 15.
15 14 13 12 11
Moderately stable;
infrequent, small areas of
erosion mostly healed over.
5-30% of bank in reach has
areas of erosion.
876
876
70-90% of the stream bank
surfaces covered by native
vegetation, but one class of
plants is not well
represented; disruption
evident but not affecting
full plant growth potential
to any great extent; more
than one-half of the
potential plant stubble
height remaining.
876
876
Width of riparian zone 12-
1 8 meters; human activities
have impacted zone only
minimally.
876
876
Channelization may be
extensive; embankments or
shoring structures present
on both banks; and 40 to
80% of stream reach
channelized and disrupted.
10 9 8 7 6
Occasional riffle or bend;
bottom contours provide
some habitat; distance
between riffles divided by
the width of the stream is
between 15 and 25.
10 9 8 7 6
Moderately unstable; 30-
60% of bank in reach has
areas of erosion; high
erosion potential during
floods.
543
543
50-70% of the stream bank
surfaces covered by
vegetation; disruption
obvious; patches of bare
soil or closely cropped
vegetation common; less
than one half of the
potential plant stubble
height remaining.
543
543
Width of riparian zone 6-12
meters; human activities
have impacted zone a great
deal.
543
543
Banks shored with gabion
or cement; over 80% of the
stream reach channelized
and disrupted. In-stream
habitat greatly altered or
removed entirely.
5432 1 0
Generally all flat water or
shallow riffles; poor
habitat; distance between
riffles divided by the width
of the stream is a ratio of
>25.
5432 1 0
Unstable; many eroded
areas; "raw" areas frequent
along straight sections and
bends; obvious bank
sloughing; 60-100% of
bank has erosional scars.
2 1 0
2 1 0
Less than 50% of the
stream bank surfaces
covered by vegetation;
disruption of stream bank
vegetation is very high;
vegetation has been
removed to 5 centimeters or
less in average stubble
height.
2 1 0
210
Width of riparian zone <6
meters; little or no riparian
vegetation due to human
activities.
2 1 0
210
A-4
-------
Table A-3. Substrate size classes and class scores.
Class Size Class Description
Score
Bedrock > 4000 mm 6 Bigger than a car
Boulder 250 to 4000 mm 5 Basketball to car
Cobble 64 to 250 mm 4 Tennis ball to
basketball
Coarse 16 to 64 mm 3.5 Marble to tennis ball
Gravel
Fine Gravel 2 to 16 mm 2.5 Ladybug to marble
Sand 0.06 to 2 mm 2 Gritty between fingers
Fines < 0.06 mm 1 Smooth, not gritty
A-5
-------
Table A-4. Water quality assessment procedures used by the four organizations participating in the MTM/VF Study.
Water Quality Procedures
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Site Selection Criteria
The watershed to be assessed began at
least one receiving stream downstream of
the mining operation and extended to the
headwaters. Monitoring stations were
positioned downstream in a similar
watershed representative of the future
impact scenario. Where possible, semi-
annual samples were taken where
baseline data were collected. Following
Phase II, but prior to final release,
samples to be taken where mining phase
data were collected. See benthic
macroinvertebrate procedures for further
details.
No information on water quality
assessment given.
Based on agreement reached between
the client and regulatory agencies.
Sites were selected to provide
quantitative, site specific identification
and characterization of sources of point
and non-point chemical contamination.
Not specified in Comprehensive
QA Plan.
Methods Used to Make Water
Quality Measurements in the
Field
Stream flow was measured.
Temperature, pH, DO, and conductivity
were also measured.
No information on water quality
assessment given.
Stream flow was measured at or near
the sampling point using techniques in
Kaufmann (1998). The data were
recorded on a field form. Temperature,
pH, DO and conductivity measurements
were made using protocols in U.S. EPA
(1983). These parameters were
measured in situ at all sites and
recorded on field sheets. The
measurements were made directly
upstream of the biological sampling
site.
Characteristics (i.e., size, depth and
flow) and site location are recorded.
Sample Collection
Samples were collected in accordance
with Title 40, Chapter I, Part 136 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
No information on water quality
assessment given.
Field personnel collected grab samples
at each station in conjunction with and
upstream of benthic macroinvertebrate
sampling events. Water samples were
labeled in the field. Samples were
collected in accordance with Title 40,
Chapter I, Part 136 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Grab samples are collected with a
transfer device or with the sample
container. Transfer devices are
constructed of inert materials.
Samples are placed in appropriate
containers. Samples are labeled in
the field.
Preservation
Samples were preserved in accordance
with Title 40, Chapter I, Part 136 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
No information on water quality
assessment given.
Samples were preserved in the field
Samples are preserved in the field.
Samples are placed in temperature
controlled coolers (4o C)
immediately after sampling
Laboratory Transfer
No guidance on water sample transport
given.
No information on water quality
assessment given.
Samples were transferred to a state-
certified laboratory for analysis. Chain-
of-custody forms accompanied samples
to the laboratory.
Samples are delivered to the
laboratory as soon as possible. A
chain-of-custody record
accompanies each set of samples.
(Continued)
A-6
-------
Table A-4. Continued.
Water Quality Procedures (Continued)
Parameters Analyzed in the
Laboratory
General QA/QC
U.S. EPA Region 3
Recommended Parameters:
dissolved iron
dissolved manganese
dissolved aluminum
calcium
magnesium
sodium
potassium
chloride
total suspended solids
total dissolved solids
alkalinity
acidity
sulfate
dissolved organic carbon
hardness nitrate/nitrite
total phosphorous
A QA/QC plan should be developed.
BMI
No information on water sample
analyses given.
No information on water chemistry
QA/QC practices given.
POTESTA
alkalinity
acidity
total suspended and dissolved solids
sulfate
nitrate/nitrite
total phosphorus
chloride
sodium
potassium
calcium
magnesium
hardness
total iron
total and dissolved manganese
total and dissolved aluminum
total antimony
total arsenic
total beryllium
total cadmium
total chromium
total copper
total lead
total mercury
total nickel
total selenium
total silver
total thallium
total zinc
coarse particulate organic matter
fine particulate organic matter
total organic carbon
Accepted QA/QC practices are employed
during sampling and analysis.
REIC
Not specified for this project in
the QA Plan.
QA/QC practices are detailed in
REI Consultants, Inc. (2001).
(Continued)
A-7
-------
Table A-4. Continued.
Water Quality Procedures (Continued)
Field QA/QC
Sample Collection QA/QC
Laboratory QA/QC
U.S. EPA Region 3
A QA/QC plan should be developed.
A QA/QC plan should be developed.
A QA/QC plan should be developed.
BMI
No information on water chemistry
QA/QC practices given.
No information on sample
collection QA/QC practices given.
No information on water sample
analysis laboratory QA/QC
practices given.
POTESTA
Temperature, pH, DO and conductivity
measurements are made using protocols in
U.S. EPA (1983).
Dissolved oxygen and pH meters are
calibrated daily. Calibrations are checked
after unusual readings and adjusted if
needed. All probes are thoroughly rinsed
with distilled water after all calibrations
and between sampling sites.
All containers and lids are new.
All containers, preservatives and holding
times meet the requirements given in Title
40 (Protection of the Environment), Part
136 (Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants)
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Each container is labeled with the site
identification, date and preservative.
Chain-of custody forms are filled out for
each group of samples and accompany the
samples to a state-certified laboratory.
The laboratory analysis of water chemistry
follows Standard Methods and/or EPA
approved methods. Any deviations from
these methods are noted.
REIC
No information on field
measurement QA/QC practices
given.
No information on sample
collection QA/QC practices given.
No information on water sample
analysis laboratory QA/QC
practices given.
A-8
-------
Table A-5. Fish assemblage assessment procedures used by the four organizations participating in the MTM/VF Study.
Fish Procedures
U.S. EPA Region 3 (PSU)
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Site Selection Criteria
At least one site was established at the
most downstream extent of the impact
area. This site was permanently recorded
and revisited annually.
See benthic macroinvertebrate procedures
for further details.
No information on fish data
collection given.
Sites were designated in consultation with
regulatory agencies.
1) Within vicinity of
macroinvertebrate and water
quality sampling locations.
2) Reaches contained variety of
habitat, cover, water velocities
and depths.
3) Representative of the stream.
4) If bracketing a confluence,
were as close to the tributary as
possible, while allowing a
downstream buffer for mixing.
5) If used for comparative
purposes, contained similar
amounts of fish habitat and cover
and frequency of riffles and pools.
Station Preparation
Protocols generally followed those in
McCormick and Hughes (1998). The
stream reach was 40 times the wetted
width of the stream, with a maximum
reach of 150 m.
No information on fish data
collection given.
Stream reach lengths were at least 40
times the stream width and did not exceed
150m.
A stream reach of 150 m was
used. Block nets of c-in mesh
were set perpendicular to stream
by approaching from the shore.
Nets were set tight against the
substrate and remained in place
throughout the survey.
Electro fishing Procedures
Protocols generally followed those in
McCormick and Hughes (1998). Block
nets were set at the ends of the reach.
Amps, voltage and pulse were set
according to the stream's conductivity.
The surveys began at the downstream end
of the reach and proceeded upstream.
Netters retrieved the fish and placed them
in buckets. The fish were processed at the
end of each transect. The survey
proceeded until all transects had been
fished.
No information on fish data
collection given.
Fish were collected at each site using a
backpack electrofishing unit. Collections
began at the downstream end of the reach
and proceeded upstream for the entire
reach. Fish collected during the first pass
were placed in a bottle labeled
" Collection # 1". Two additional passes
were made and fish from the second and
third pass were placed in bottles labeled
"Collection #2" and "Collection #3,
respectively. If the number of fish in the
latter passes did not decline from the
previous pass, additional passes were
made.
Surveys were conducted in first-,
second- and third-order streams
by a backpack electrofishing unit.
The output voltage and pulse
frequency were controlled by the
biologist. The biologist
progressed slowly upstream
moving the wands across the
entire stream width. Technicians
positioned on each side of the
biologist netted the stunned fish
and placed them in buckets
containing water. Three passes
were conducted at each station.
(Continued)
A-9
-------
Fish Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3 (PSU)
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Field Measurements
Fish were identified, tallied and examined
for external anomalies. The standard
length of each fish was measured to the
nearest mm and each fish was weighed to
the nearest 0.01 g.
No information on fish data
collection given.
Fish from each pass were kept separate.
Game fish (except small specimens) and
rare, threatened or candidate species were
counted, measured (total length), weighed
and released. These data were recorded
on field sheets. The majority of fish
captured were preserved in 10% formalin
and taken to the laboratory, g^
collection was preserved separately.
After each pass, fish were
identified, measured to the nearest
mm of total length and weighed to
the nearest 0.1 gm or 1.0 gm
(depending on fish size). Large
fish were held in a live well until
the completion of the survey, then
released to their original reach.
Small fish requiring microscopic
verification were preserved in
10% formalin and taken to the
laboratory.
Specimen Preparation,
Identification and Validation
Fish were labeled and preserved in 10%
formalin and transported to the PSU Fish
Museum where they were deposited for
permanent storage in 50% isopropanol.
Voucher collections of up to 25
individuals of each taxon collected
(except very large individuals of easily
identified species) were prepared.
No information on fish data
collection given.
Preserved specimens were taken to the
laboratory and temporarily stored in 50%
isopropanol or 10% ethanol. They were
identified and weighed. All preserved
fish were placed in permanent storage in
a recognized museum collection or
offered for use in the federal EIS on
MTR/VF mining in West Virginia.
Small fish were identified in the
laboratory. All fish were sorted
by species and their identities
were verified when they were
weighed to the nearest 0.1 gm and
their total lengths were measured.
Identified fish were stored.
Unidentified fish were identified
and validated by West Virginia
DNR personnel.
Fish Data Analysis
Total biomass caught, biomass per m2
sampled and abundances of each species
were calculated.
No information on fish data analysis
given.
Fish data sheets were transferred into
spreadsheets. Data entered into the
spreadsheets were routinely checked
against field and laboratory sheets
immediately following data entry. Any
discrepancies were documented and
corrected. Population and community
structure were determined at each site.
Age classes based on length, frequency
analysis and standing crop (kg/ha) were
calculated for each species at each pass.
Data were entered into a
spreadsheet and confirmed. ^
each sampling station, total taxa,
number and percent of pollution-
intolerant fish, number and
percent of intermediately
pollution- tolerant fish, Number
and percent of pollution-tolerant
fish, Shannon-Weiner diversity
Index, Percent species similarity
index were made. por each
species at each sampling station,
Total abundance, Mean length,
Mean weight, Standing stock, and
Sensitivity index (U.S. EPA 1999)
were calculated.
(Continued)
A-10
-------
Fish Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3 (PSU)
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Fish Population Estimates
No information on fish population
estimates given.
No information on fish data analysis
given.
Population estimates of each species at
each site were made using the triple pass
depletion method of Van Deventer and
Platts(1983).
Population estimates for each
species and each reach were
calculated using the Zippin (1956)
depletion method and based on
observed relative abundance.
Total fish weight by species was
extrapolated to calculate an
estimated total standing stock.
Fish Identification and
Verification QA/QC
The interim protocols stated that a
QA/QC plan should be developed.
No information on fish data QA/QC
given.
Implemented the QA/QC plan from the
U.S. Geological Survey (Walsh and
Meador 1998). The plan outlines
methods used to ensure accurate
identification of fish collected. A
voucher collection including one
specimen of each taxon collected was
made available for verification.
Data entered into spreadsheets were
routinely checked against field and
laboratory sheets.
The QA/QC protocols called for
the use of two Fisheries Biologists
with the appropriate
qualifications: Any species
captured whose distribution did
not match Stauffer et al. (1995)
was recorded and the
identification was confirmed by
West Virginia DNR personnel.
All identifications were confirmed
by both Fisheries Biologists.
Small fish which required
microscopic identification were
stored for future reference or
identification. A reference
collection of all captured taxa was
kept. Any species of questionable
identification were kept and
verified by West Virginia DNR
personnel. All retained specimens
were permanently labeled.
A-ll
-------
Table A-6. Macroinvertebrate assemblage assessment procedures used by the four organizations participating in the MTM/VF Study.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Procedures
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Site Selection Criteria
The watershed to be assessed began at
least one receiving stream downstream
of the mining operation and extended to
the headwaters.
Monitoring stations were positioned
downstream in a similar watershed
representative of the future impact
scenano. where possible, semi-annual
samples were taken where baseline data
were collected.
A minimum of two stations were
established for each intermittent and
perennial stream where fills were
proposed. One station was as close as
possible to the toe of the fill and the
other was downstream of the sediment
pond location. If the sediment pond was
more than 0.25 mi from the toe of the
fill, a third station was placed between
the two. Additional stations were placed
in at least the first receiving stream
downstream of the mining operation.
BMI located one sampling station as
close as possible to the toe of the
proposed VF. Another sampling
station was located below the
proposed sediment pond. If the
proposed sediment pond was to be >
0.25 miles below the toe of the fill,
an additional station was located
between the toe of the fill and the
sediment pond. Two sampling
stations were located within the next
order receiving stream downstream.
One of these stations was located
above the confluence and one was
located below the confluence. jn
general, an unmined reference
station was located at a point that
represented the area proposed for
mining. In addition, a mined and
filled reference station was located
at a point that represents a similar
level of mining.
Based on an agreement
reached between the client
and regulatory agencies.
Selected to provide
quantitative and qualitative
characterizations of
benthic macroinvertebrate
communities.
The sampling station locations contained
habitat which was representative of the overall
habitat found within stream reach, stations
that were to be used for comparative purposes
contained similar habitat characteristics.
Stations bracketing a proposed fill tributary
were close (approximately 100 m) to the
impacted tributary. The general locations
were usually pre-determined by the client and
the permit writer. When descriptions of
predetermined sites were vague, professional
judgements were made in an attempt to
incorporate the studies' goals. For selecting
sampling sites for proposed VFs, site were
located at the toe of the valley, below the
sediment pond at the mouth of the fill stream,
upstream and downstream of the fill stream on
the receiving stream and on the next order
receiving stream.
Sampling Point selection
The sampling point was at the middle of
the reach. It was moved upstream or
downstream to avoid tributary effects,
bridges or fords.
No information given on specific
sampling point selection.
No information given on
specific sampling point
selection.
One of three methods (i.e., completely
randomized, stratified-random or stratified)
was used to select the sampling points at a site.
Generally, the stratified-random method was
used in large streams and the stratified method
was used in small streams. In small
intermittent streams or when there was little
water, samples were taken from wherever
possible.
(Continued)
A-12
-------
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Sampler Used
Sampling was conducted according to
Harbour etal. (1999).
A 0.5-m rectangular kick net was used to
composite four %-m2 samples.
In the autumn of 1999 and the spring
of 2000, four !/4-m2 samples
collected with a D-frame kick net
were composited. In the autumn of
2000, six Surber samples were
collected and four %-m2 samples
collected with a D-frame kick net
were composited. In the spring of
2001, four Surber samples, were
collected and four %-m2 samples
were collected with a D-frame kick
net and composited.
Four %-m2 samples were
taken using a D-frame kick
net and composited.
Surber samplers were used
at selected sampling
stations.
The sampling devices were dependent on the
permit. Three samples were taken using a
Surber sampler. These were not composited.
Four %-m2 samples were taken using a D-
frame kick net. These were composited, j^g
Surber samplers were usually used in riffle
areas and the kick net samples were usually
taken from deeper run or pool habitats.
Surber Sampler Procedures
Surber samplers were not used.
The frame of the sampler was placed
on the stream bottom in the area that
was to be sampled. All large rocks
and debris that are in the 1.0-ft2
frame were scrubbed and rinsed into
the net and removed from the
sampling area. Then, the substrate
in the frame was vigorously
disturbed for 20 seconds. gacn
sample was rinsed and placed into a
labeled container with two additional
labels inside the sample containers.
The Surber sampler was
placed with all sides flat
on the stream bed. Large
cobble and gravel within
the frame were brushed.
The area within the frame
was disturbed to a depth of
three in with the handle of
the brush. The sample was
transferred to a labeled
plastic bottle.
The sampler was placed with the cod end
downstream. The substrate upstream of the
sampler was scrubbed gently with a nylon
brush for up to three minutes. Water was kept
flowing into sampler while scrubbing. Rocks
were checked and any clinging
macroinvertebrates were removed and placed
in the sampler. The material in the sampler
was rinsed and collected into a bottle.
Kick Net Procedures
The procedures in Barbour et al. (1999)
were modified so that 1 m2 of substrate
was sampled at each site.
The net was held downstream of the
0.25-m2 area that was to be sampled.
All rocks and debris that were in the
0.25-m2 area were scrubbed and
rinsed into the net and removed from
the sampling area. Then, the
substrate in the 0.25-m2 area was
vigorously disturbed for 20 seconds.
This process was repeated four times
at each sampling site. The
composited sample was rinsed and
placed into a labeled container.
The kick net samples were
collected using protocols
in Barbour et el. (1999).
All boulders, cobble and
large gravel within 0.25
m2 upstream of net were
brushed into the net. The
substrate within 0.25 m2
upstream of the net was
kicked for 20 seconds.
Four samples were
collected and composited.
The sample was
transferred to a labeled
plastic bottle.
The sampler was placed with the net
outstretched and the cod end downstream. The
substrate was kicked or scrubbed for up to
three minutes. Discharged material was swept
into the net. An area of approximately 0.25m2
was sampled. The procedure was repeated
four times.
(Continued)
A-13
-------
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Additional information collected from
sites
The physical/chemical field sheets
were completed before sampling and
they were reviewed for accuracy after
sampling. A map of the sampling
reach was drawn. A GPS unit was
used to record latitude and longitude.
After sampling, the Macroinvertebrate
Field Sheet was completed. The
percentage of each habitat type in the
reach was recorded and the sampling
gear used was noted. Comments were
made on conditions of the sampling..
Observations of aquatic flora and fauna
were documented. Qualitative
estimates of macro invertebrate
composition and relative abundance
were made. A habitat assessment was
made. Riparian habitat was described
using Kaufmann and Robison (1998).
Additional information collected
was not described.
A field data sheet (from Barbour
et al. 1999) was completed and
photographic documentation was
taken at the time of sampling.
Photographs showed an upstream
view and a downstream view from
the center of the sampling reach.
Additional information collected
was not described.
Sample Preservation
Samples were preserved in 95%
ethanol.
Samples were preserved in 70%
ethanol.
Quantitative samples were
preserved in 50% isopropanol.
Semi-quantitative samples were
preserved in either 50%
isopropanol or 70% ethanol.
Samples were preserved in the field
with formaldehyde (30% by wt).
Approximately 10% of the samples'
volume was added.
Logging samples
All samples were dated and recorded in
a sample log notebook upon receipt by
laboratory personnel. All information
from the sample container label was
included on the sample log sheet
(Barbour et al. 1999).
Samples were logged onto Chain-
of-Custody forms. Logs were
maintained throughout the
identification process.
When samples arrived at the
laboratory, they were entered in a
log book and tracked through
processing and identification.
Sample logging procedure was not
described.
(Continued)
A-14
-------
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Benthic Macro-
invertebrate Metrics
Calculated
Data were used to calculate the metrics
oftheWVSCI.
No information on metrics was
provided.
1. Taxa Richness
2. Total Number of Individuals
3. Percent Mayflies
4. Percent Stoneflies
5. Percent caddisflies
6- Total Number of EPT Taxa
7. Percent EPT Taxa
8. Percent Chironomidae
1. Taxa Richness
2. Modified HBI: Summarizes overall
pollution tolerance.
3. Ratio of Scrapers to Filtering
Collectors
4. Ratio of EPTs to Chironomidae
5. Percent of May flies
6. Percent of Dominant Family
7. EPT Index: Total number of
distinct taxa within EPT Orders.
8. Ratio of Shredders to Total Number
of Individuals
9. Simpson's Diversity Index
10. Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index
11. Shannon-Wiener Evenness
12. West Virginia Stream Condition
Index: a six-metric index of ecosystem
health.
Laboratory Procedures
Samples were thoroughly rinsed in a
500 um-mesh sieve. Large organic
material was rinsed, visually inspected,
and discarded. Samples that had been
preserved in alcohol, were soaked in
water for approximately 15 minutes.
Samples stored in more than one
container were combined. After
washing, the sample was spread evenly
across a pan marked with grids
approximately 6 cm x 6 cm. A random
numbers table was used to select four
grids. All material from the four grids
(c of the total sample) was removed
and placed in a shallow white pan. A
predetermined, fixed number of
organisms were used to determine
when sub-sampling was complete.
Samples were rinsed using a #24 sieve
(0.0277-in mesh) and then transferred
to an enamel tray. Water was added to
the tray to a level that covered the
sample. All macroinvertebrates in the
sample were picked from the debris
using forceps and then transferred to a
vial that contained 70% ethanol. One
of the labels from the sample jar was
placed on the organism vial. After
identification and processing, the
samples were then stored according to
the project plan.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were
processed using the single habitat
protocols in Barbour et al. (1999). j^g
entire samples were processed.
Identifications were recorded on
standard forms. Ten percent of the
samples are re-picked and
identifications are randomly reviewed.
Samples were processed individually.
They were poured into a 250-um sieve.
Then rinsed with water and transferred
to a four-part sub-sampler with a 500-
um screen and distributed evenly on the
with water. The first % of the sample
was put into petri dishes and the
aquatic insects were sorted from the
detritus. All macroinvertebrates were
placed in a labeled bottle with formalin.
If too few individuals were found in the
%, the second % was picked. Then,
either a portion of the picked detritus
was re-checked, or a single sorter
checked all petri dishes. If organisms
were present, the sample was re-picked.
After sample sorting was complete,
picked and unpicked detritus was
stored.
(Continued)
A-15
-------
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Benthic Macro-
invertebrate Identification
Organisms were identified to the
lowest practical taxon by a qualified
taxonomist. Each taxon found in a
sample was recorded and enumerated
in a bench notebook and then
transcribed to the laboratory bench
sheet for subsequent reports. Any
difficulties encountered during
identification were noted on these
sheets. Labels with specific taxa
names were added to the vials of
specimens. The identity and number of
organisms were recorded on the bench
sheet. Life stages of organisms were
also recorded (Barbour et al. 1999).
Using a binocular compound
microscope, each organism was
identified to the taxa level specified in
the project study plan. The numbers of
organisms found in each taxa were
recorded on bench sheets. Then, the
organisms and sample label were
returned to the organism vial and
preserved with 70% ethanol. por QQ
purposes, 10% of all samples were re-
identified.
Samples were identified by qualified
freshwater macroinvertebrate
taxonomists to the lowest practical
taxon.
Aquatic insects were identified under a
microscope to the lowest practical
taxonomic level. Unless specified
otherwise, Chironomids were identified
to the Family level and Annelids were
broken into classes. Identified
specimens were returned to the sample
bottle and preserved in formalin. New
or extraordinary taxa were added to
reference collections. Random samples
are re-identified periodically.
Macro-invertebrate
Sample Storage
Samples were stored for at least six
months. Specimen vials were placed in
jars with a small amount of 70%
ethanol and tightly capped. The
ethanol level in these jars was
examined periodically and replenished
as needed. A label was placed on the
outside of the jar indicating sample
identifier, date, and preservative.
No information on sample storage was
provided.
No information on sample storage was
provided.
Samples were stored for at least six
months.
Database Construction
No information on database
construction was provided.
No information on database
construction was provided.
The data from the taxonomic
identification sheets were transferred
into spreadsheets. Data entered into
the spreadsheets were routinely
checked against field and laboratory
sheets.
No information on database
construction was provided.
Benthic Macro-
invertebrate Data
Analysis
Data were used to calculate the
WVSCI.
No information on data analysis was
provided.
Eight bioassessment metrics were
calculated for each sampling station.
Twelve benthic macroinvertebrate
metrics were calculated for each of the
sampling stations. Abundance data
from sub-sampling was extrapolated to
equal the entire sample amount.
A-16
-------
APPENDIX B: IBI COMPONENT METRIC VALUES
B-l
-------
MTM Site Means
90
60
50
40
o
5
|
•
I
O
14
j j
O I I
0 I T I
L
1.
17 !
1
•
~L-
4
T
•
1
9
Reference Unmined Filled Mined Filled/Res
Excel
Good
Fair
Poor
CZl
•
O
EIS Class
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
Figure B-l. Box plot of the IBI among EIS classes and regional reference sites. All taxa
richness metrics were adjusted to a catchment area of 100 km2.
Table B-l. The ANOVA for IBI scores among EIS classes (Unmined, Filled, Mined, and
Filled/Residential).
Source
Degrees of
Freedom
Sum of
Squares
Mean Square F Value
Pr>F
Model
Error
Corrected Total
R-Square
0.334
40
43
2335.56
4651.31
6986.87
Coefficient of
Variance
17.022
778.52
116.28
Root MSB
10.783
6.70
Index Mean
63.350
0.0009
B-2
-------
Table B-2. Dunnett's test comparing IBI values of EIS classes to the Unmined class, with
the alternative hypothesis that IBI < Unmined IBI (one-tailed test).
EIS Class
N
Mean
Standard Deviation
Dunnett's P-
Value
Filled 17
Filled/Residential 9
Mined 4
Unmined 14
56.8
74.6
54.4
66.7
10.6
10.7
13.4
10.3
0.0212
0.9975
0.0685
MTM Site Means
12
10
Reference Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Mined Filled/Res
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
n Median
O Outliers
Figure B-2. Box plot of the Number of Benthic Invertivore Species among EIS classes and
regional reference sites.
B-3
-------
Table B-3. The ANOVA for Number of Benthic Invertivore Species among EIS classes
(Unmined, Filled, Mined, and Filled/Residential).
Source
Model
Error
Corrected
Total
R-Square
0.269
Degrees of
Freedom
3
40
43
Sum of
Squares
22.32
60.66
82.98
Coefficient of
Variance
23.504
Mean Square
7.44
1.51
Root MSE
1.231
F Value
4.91
Index Mean
5.239
Pr>F
0.0054
Table B-4. Dunnett's test comparing Numbers of Benthic Invertevores to the Unmined
class, with the alternative hypothesis that IBI < Unmined IBI (one-tailed test).
EIS Class
Filled
Filled/Residential
Mined
Unmined
N
17
9
4
14
Mean
4.8
5.4
3.6
6.0
Standard Deviation
1.3
1.2
0.76
1.2
Dunnett's
Value
0.0182
0.3234
0.0017
~
P-
MTM Site Means
50 •
10
*
*
° 1 ! -r- !
-CH j 1-4-1 -"- ! ' i ' ;
T
n
ll^rl
R
1 Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
25%
O Outliers
$6 Extremes
EIS Class
Figure B-3. Box plot of the Percent Cottidae( Sculpins) among EIS classes and regional
reference sites.
B-4
-------
MTM Site Means
Rp
O
n
1
i
feren
ce
M
O
ffl
J_
o
Unmined
.=!=..
Filled
r
D
i/linec
Fil
T
n
1
ed/R
es
1 Non-Outlier Max
1 1 75%
25%
n Median
O Outliers
3K Extremes
EIS Class
Figure B-4. Box plot of the Number of Native Cyprinidae (Minnow Species) among EIS
classes and regional reference sites. This metric was adjusted to a catchment area of 100
km2.
Table B-5. The ANOVA for Number of Native Cyprinidae (Minnow Species) among EIS
classes (Unmined, Filled, Mined, and Filled/Residential).
Source
Model
Error
Corrected
Total
R-Square
0.302
Degrees of
Freedom
3
40
43
Sum of
Squares
11.36
26.19
37.56
Coefficient of
Variance
17.777
Mean Square
3.79
0.65
Root MSE
0.809
F Value
5.79
Index Mean
4.55
Pr>F
0.0022
B-5
-------
Table B-6. Dunnett's test comparing Numbers of Native Cyprinidae (Minnows Species) to
the Unmined class, with the alternative hypothesis that IBI < Unmined IBI (one-tailed test).
EIS Class
Filled
Filled/Residential
Mined
Unmined
N
17
9
4
14
Mean
4.3
4.4
3.5
5.2
Standard Deviation
0.58
0.73
0.51
1.1
Dunnett's
Value
0.0089
0.0311
0.0008
~
P-
MTM Site Means
IUU
S2
C
O.
CO 60
I
2
O 40
15
8
| 20
Q.
0
— c
D—
T
1
i T
i -- -- J -
: 1
! n
Mined
Filled/R
-I— Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
ZD 75%
25%
n Median
Referenc Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Figure B-5. Box plot of the Percent Gravel Spawners among EIS classes and regional
reference sites.
B-6
-------
0)
g
"(0
CD
ol
I
CD
r\
50
40
30
20
10
0
*
T
I
i u I , -JTJ- , n Q i — g — i
Unmined
I Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
cn 75%
25%
Filled/Res n Median
Mined * Extremes
EIS Class
Figure B-6. Box plot of the Percent Piscivore/Invertivores (Predators) among EIS classes
and regional reference sites.
MTM Site Means
Reference Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Mined
Filled/Res
n
O
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
Figure B-7. Box plot of the Number of Intolerant Species among EIS classes and regional
reference sites. This metric was adjusted to a catchment area of 100 km2.
B-7
-------
Table B-7. The ANOVA for Number of Intolerant Species among EIS classes
(Unmined, Filled, Mined, and Filled/Residential).
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Degrees of
Freedom
3
40
43
Sum of
Squares
5.29
11.83
17.12
Mean Square
1.76
0.29
F Value
5.96
Pr>F
0.0019
R-Square
0.308
Coefficient of Root MSE
Variance
44.209 0.543
Index Mean
1.23
Table B-8. Dunnett's test comparing Numbers of Intolerants to the Unmined class,
with the alternative hypothesis that IBI < Unmined IBI (one-tailed test).
EIS Class
Filled
Filled/Residential
Mined
Unmined
N
17
9
4
14
Mean
1.1
1.9
0.8
1.1
Standard Deviation
0.49
0..83
0.35
0.40
Dunnett's P-
Value
0.7075
1.0000
0.3504
-
MTM Site Means
j;-
jcn
CO
0
-*-_,
5
a*
12
10
6
4
2
0
o
: . ... 4- ;
{ :
j
_ ,i ,„. _ :
"
* *
^ _.. L „„
*
i
j
j
j
!
" "!
-JL-
!
!
Mined
Filled/Res
—1— Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
C^l 75%
25%
n Median
* Extremes
Reference Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Figure B-8. Box plot of the Percent Exotic ( Non-Native Fish) among EIS classes
and regional reference sites.
B-8
-------
MTM Site Means
20
10
'
t
I
I
I
7
I
I
T
n
*
i
Reference Unmined
O
\
|
i
n
j
Filled Mined
0
A
Filled/Res
I Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
IZZl 75%
25%
D Median
O Outliers
SK Extremes
EIS Class
Figure B-9. Box plot of the Percent Macro Omnivores among EIS classes and
regional reference sites.
MTM Site Means
60
40
20
f^l
I u '
0
I
O
I
O
O
:
C
:
)
cp |
*
i
i
*
t 1 D [ "
_l_
Referenc Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Mined Filled/R
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
IZZI 75%
25%
n Median
O Outliers
3K Extremes
Figure B-10. Box plot of the Percent Tolerant Fish among EIS classes and regional
reference sites.
B-9
-------
Table B-9. The ANOVA for Number of Tolerant Species among EIS classes
(Unmined, Filled, Mined, and Filled/Residential).
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Degrees of
Freedom
3
40
43
Sum of
Squares
21001.35
19956.38
40957.73
Mean Square
7000.45
498.91
F Value
14.03
Pr>F
<0.0001
R-Square
0.512
Coefficient of
Variance
32.055
Root MSE
22.336
Index Mean
69.681
Table B-10. Dunnett's test comparing Numbers of Tolerant Species to the Unmined
class, with the alternative hypothesis that IBI < Unmined IBI (one-tailed test).
EIS Class N Mean Standard Deviation Dunnett's P-
Value
Filled
17
Filled/Residential 9
Mined
Unmined
4
14
82.9
28.9
97.2
71.8
21.5
24.1
5.6
24.6
0.2080
1.0000
0.0681
-
B-10
-------
APPENDIX C: BOX PLOTS OF THE WVSCI AND COMPONENT METRICS
C-l
-------
Filled Mined
Filled/Resid Unmined
Filled HJ
Filled/Resid
EISCLASS2
Filled/Resid
EISCLASS2
1.0,
0.9
0.8
0.7
DOM2PCT
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Filled/Resid
EISCLASS2
EISCLASS2
Filled/Resid
Figure C-l. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus the EIS class for the
spring 1999 season. Circles represent site scores.
C-2
-------
T
C D
C D
T
Filled/Resid
EISCLASS2
Filled/Resid
0.8
0.7
DOM2PCT 0 . 6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
- A
cEj
C
Of
(
1
m
S?
r°
>0
I -
_
if
1
l
J -
_
i
ooo
o
-
"
c
1
«
G
C
»
D
D
DOOC
>eee
see*
^
1 1
X
o
T
9
f "
Figure C-2. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus the EIS class for the
autumn 1999 season. Circles represent site scores.
-------
Filled Mined
Filled/Resid Unmined
neeep
Filled Mined
Filled/Resid Unmined
Filled Mined
Filled/Resid
0.8
0.7
DOM2PCT 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
I Q ' '
' $ e "
EC
[oc
- foe
| o
O(
c
a
"
o r*~i
y oo
H *
o 1 ®$*
hr T
1 1 1 1
Filled Mined
Filled/Resid Unmined
EISCLASS2
Filled Mined
Filled/Resid Unmined
EISCLASS2
Filled Mined
Filled/Resid Unmined
EISCLASS2
100
90
80
00
ep
OHO
<3 Mined
Filled/Resid Unmined
Figure C-3. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus the EIS class for the
winter 2000 season. Circles represent site scores.
C-4
-------
TOT_S100 15
Filled/Resid
Filled/Resid
T
Filled/Resid Unmined
EISCLASS2
1.0,
0.9
O.t
DOM2PCT 0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Filled/Resid
Filled/Resid
EISCLASS2
EISCLASS2
Filled/Resid
EISCLASS2
Filled/Resid
EISCLASS2
Figure C-4. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus the EIS class for the
spring 2000 season. Circles represent site scores.
C-5
-------
TOT_S10015 .
®
-
n~n 1 p^° 1
nn
e
Filled Unmined
EISCLASS2
A '
CD
T
^-/^-/
©
op Lo^J
1
Filled Unmined
EISCLASS2
" JL & "
£to ouo
oo
o
: V ;
Filled Unmined
EISCLASS2
EPT_S10
90
EPTPCT
50
40
30
20
10
1 1
QO ^
0
0
Filled Unmined
EISCLASS2
1 1
.
'
Filled Unmined
EISCLASS2
6
5
3
60
50
CHIRPCT
40
30
20
-
.
O Qp
FATi 1
®
©
Filled Unmined
EISCLASS2
^ 1
"
-
" r1! "
®
gg.
bad ,
Filled Unmined
EISCLASS2
Figure C-5. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus the EIS class for the
autumn 2000 season. Circles represent site scores.
C-6
-------
ee
Filled unmlned
EISCLASS2
EPT_S100 8
Filled Unmin
EISCLASS2
Filled Unmined
EISCLASS2
0.8
0.7
DOM2PCT
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
•
1
T
HH
e
s
1
i
90
80
EPTPC
T 70
60
50
GJO $
jOC
oo
,
Filled Unmined Filled Unmined
EISCLASS2 EISCLASS2
Filled Unmined
EISCLASS2
OP
rvFn
o
Filled Unmined
EISCLASS2
Figure C-6. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus the EIS class for the
winter 2001 season. Circles represent site scores.
C-7
-------
Island Creek Spruce Fork
Hud River Twentymile C
Island Creek Spruce Fork
Hud River Twentymile
WATERSHED
®
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHED
DOM2PCT
0.4
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHED
Island Creek Spruce Fork
Hud River Twentymile C
WATERSHED
Island Creek Spruce Fork
Hud River Twentymile C
WATERSHED
Island Creek ^-^ Spruce Fork
Hud River Twentymile C
WATERSHED
Figure C-7. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed for
unmined sites in the spring 1999 season.
-------
e
I
WATERSHED
e
e
A
Island Creek Twentymile C
WATERSHED
•e-
WATERSHED
0.9
0.8
0.7
DOM2PCT 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
e
d
o
Island Creek Twentymile C
WATERSHED
O
WATERSHED
Island Creek Twentymi
WATERSHED
e
Island Creek
O
WATERSHED
Figure C
unmined
•8. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed for
sites in the autumn 1999 season.
C-9
-------
Twentymile C
o
ffi
Island creek
®
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHED
Island Creek
0.7
0.6
DOM2PCT
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
<1
-
-
X
o
f
3
"
©•
—
e-
c
2
9
-
)
C
¥
-
©
Island Creek Spruce Fork
Hud River Twentymile C
WATERSHED
Island Creek Spruce Fork
Hud River Twentymile C
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
Figure C-9. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed for
unmined sites in the winter 2000 season.
C-10
-------
Island Creek Spruce Fork
Hud River Twentymile
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHED
Island Creek
WATERSHED
0.5
DOM2PCT
I
Jud River Twentymile
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
Qffi
Island Creek Spruce Fork
Hud River Twentymile C
Figure C-10. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed for
unmined sites in the spring 2000 season.
C-ll
-------
- -e-
I I I I I
Clear Fork Mud River Twentymile C
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHED
• -e-
Clear Fork Mud River Twentymile C
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHED
®
I I
Clear Fork Mud River Twentymile C
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHE
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHED
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHED
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHE
t I I
Clear Fork Mud River Twentymile C
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHED
Figure C-ll. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed for
Filled sites in the spring 1999 season. Circles represent site scores.
C-12
-------
• -e-
Clear Fork Hud River Twentymile C
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHED
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHED
o
07CO
oedo
Island Creek Sprv
WATERSHED
DOM2PCT
0.6
Clear Fork Hud River Twentymile C
WATERSHED
Island Creek Spruce Fork
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
Clear Fork Hud River Twentymile C
WATERSHED
Figure C-12. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed for
Filled sites in the autumn 1999 season. Circles represent site scores.
C-13
-------
Clear Fork Hud Rivi
Twentymile C
WATERSHED
Island Creek Spru.
WATERSHED
Clear Fork Hud River Twentymile
WATERSHED
- -e-
DOM2PCT
0.6
Fork Hud River Twentymile C
. -e-
Island creek
. -e-
CHIR5J-
WATERSHED
Island creek spruce
WATERSHED
O«0
O
O 5CO
OODO -
clear Fork Hud River Twentymile C
WATERSHED
Figure C-13. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed for
Filled sites in the winter 2000 season. Circles represent site scores.
C-14
-------
TOT s:
0
Q&C
0
h -©-
© •
OGDO
EPT_S10
0
I I I
WATERSHE
HE
I 5
QfflO
I I I
^fclear Mud
Fork River
Island
DOM2gC
T
3 clear
Fork
EPTPC
T 50
-e-
® -
- -e-
CHIRPC5
T °
® -
_J I I
WATERSHE
WATERSHE
- -e-
©
>rk Island River spruce
creek Fork
Figure C-14. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed for
Filled sites in the spring 2000 season. Circles represent site scores.
C-15
-------
APPENDIX D: SCATTER PLOTS OF THE WVSCI VERSUS KEY WATER QUALITY
PARAMETERS
D-l
-------
IUU,
90 i.
80 V-. • •
70 •
60 •
50 •
40 -
30 -
20
•^x • •
• • xa
• X
• • Xx • •
• • x*
• .
• X
• x^
1 1 1
1 UU
90
80
70 •
60
50
40
30
20
V-
• •)
• ^^^
• ^^^^
• ^^
:*:. ^^-
2
•
*
11111
0 100 200 300 400 0 1 2 3 4 £
Alkalinity Aluminum
100 -I
90
80
70 •
60
50
40
30
20
[••
i ^^
x^Si
• Xfc
i ^^
• ^s.
•
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
b.
• ^ ,
"^x" *
xx/
•• %^x
.
• x
0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 g gg A gg A gg 200 2C
Beryllium
Calcium
IUU
90
80
7f\
/ U
60
50
40
30
on
! •• •
I.' .. •
1
•
:*V /
•
1 UU
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
on
lj«...
nX-X' ••
• v^.
. * "•x^"
. •• *x^«
• \
• -
•
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Chromium
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Conductivity
Figure D-l. The WVSCI, rarefied to 100 organisms, versus water quality parameters.
Dashed line represents best fit line using linear regression.
D-2
-------
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20
0.00 20.02
IUU
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
on
»••".*
'" * •. *v" •
__*J_~ -£---
. *•
• »u •...*
'.' •* *
\ " •
•
-------
iuu i
90 £
fe" •-
80 •£>,.•
70 •
60 -
50 •
40 -
30 -
20
!(• x.
• x *B
N. • •
• •*•£
* • '! x\"
• *
0
11111
IUU
90 i
70
60
50
40
30
20
*
•^ •
*^^ • •
*^^
• ^^
- . " ^^^-»
•
0 200 400 600 800 10001200 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Sulfate Total Dissolved Solids
-i nn
1 UU
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
on
•
I * *
r\
• x»
* ** ^^
•
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Zinc
Figure D-l. Continued.
D-4
-------
APPENDIX E: STANDARDIZATION OF DATA AND METRIC CALCULATIONS
E-l
-------
Standardization and Statistical Treatment of MTM/VF Fish Data
Fish Sample Collection Methods
Fish communities, like benthic communities, respond to changes in their environment.
Some fish species are less tolerant of degraded conditions; as stream health decreases, they will
either swim away or perish. Other species are more tolerant of degraded conditions, and will
dominate the fish community as stream health declines.
Fish are collected using a backpack electrofisher. In electrofishing a sample area, or
"reach", is selected so that a natural barrier (or a block net, in the absence of a natural barrier)
prevents fish from swimming away upstream or downstream. An electrical current is then
discharged into the water. Stunned fish float to the surface and are captured by a net, and held in
buckets filled with stream water. The fish are identified, counted and often measured and/or
weighed. Three passes are made with the electrofisher to collect all the fish in the selected
stream reach. After the three passes are complete and the fishes have recovered, they are
released back to their original habitat. Some fish may be retained as voucher specimens. The
data collected from the three passes are composited into a single sample for the purposes of the
MTM-VF project.
Pennsylvania State University (PSU) conducted fish sampling for USEPA. PSU
collected fish from 58 sites located on first through fifth order streams in West Virginia. Fish
were also sampled by REIC, Potesta, and BMI, following the same protocols. The only
exceptions were five samples taken by REIC that were made with a pram electrofisher. In a
pram unit, the electrofishing unit is floated on a tote barge rather than carried in a backpack.
Otherwise, the pram samples followed the same protocols.
The Mid-Atlantic Highland IBI
The Mid-Atlantic Highland Index of Biotic Integrity, or IBI, (McCormick et al. 2001),
provides a framework for assessing the health of the fish community, which, like the WV SCI,
indicates the overall health of a stream. The IBI was developed and calibrated for the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands using samples from several Mid-Atlantic states, including West Virginia.
The IBI is a compilation of scores from nine metrics that are responsive to stress (Table E-l).
E-2
-------
Table E-l. Metrics included in the Mid-Atlantic Highland IBI, with descriptions and
expected response to increasing degrees of stress.
Metric
Native Intolerant Taxa
Native Cyprinidae Taxa
Native Benthic Invertivores
Percent Cottidae
Percent Gravel Spawners
Percent
Piscivore/Invertivores
Percent Macro Omnivore
Percent Tolerant
Percent Exotic
Metric Description
Number of indigenous taxa that are sensitive to pollution;
adjusted for drainage area
Number of indigenous taxa in the family Cyprinidae
(carps and minnows); adjusted for drainage area
Number of indigenous bottom dwelling taxa that consume
invertebrates; adjusted for drainage area
Percent individuals of the family Cottidae (sculpins)
Percent individuals that require clean gravel for
reproductive success
Percent individuals that consume fish or invertebrates
Percent individuals that are large and omnivorous
Percent individuals that are tolerant of pollution
Percent individuals that are not indigenous
Predicted Response
to Stress
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Increase
Increase
Increase
Watershed Standardization
In nature, larger watersheds are naturally more diverse than smaller watersheds. Not
surprisingly, this was found to be true in the MTM-VF project. To ensure that differences
among fish communities are due to differences in stream health and not from the natural effect of
watershed size, three richness metrics were standardized to a 100km2 watershed.
This standardization applies only to the three richness metrics; percentage metrics are not
affected by watershed size and required no adjustment before scoring.
The regression equations used in the watershed standardization were developed by McCormick
et al. 2001. They studied the relationship between watershed size and fish community richness
in minimally stressed sites, and derived equations that predict the number of taxa that would be
expected in a healthy stream of a given watershed size. The equations were not published in the
original 2001 paper, but were obtained from McCormick in a personal communication.
First, the predicted numbers of taxa were calculated using the regression equations. Then
residual differences were calculated:
Residual difference = Actual number in sample - Predicted number
Finally, an adjustment factor was added to the residual difference (see Table E-2), depending on
the richness metric.
E-3
-------
Table E-2. Regression equations and adjustment factors for standardizing richness metrics
to a 100 km2 watershed. (McCormick, personal communication)
Richness Metric
Native
Intolerant Taxa
Native
Cyprinidae
Taxa
Native Benthic
Invertivores
Regression Equation
predicted = 0.440071 + 0.515214 * Loj
predicted = 0.306788 + 2.990011 * Loj
predicted = 0.037392 + 2.620796 * Loj
;10 (Drainaj
;10 (Drainaj
;10 (Drainaj
*e Area [km2])
*e Area [km2])
l& Area [km2])
Adjustment
Factor
1.470
6.287
5.279
Metric Scoring and IBI Calculation
After the necessary watershed adjustments had been made, metric scores were applied to the
adjusted richness metrics and the raw percentage metrics. The scoring regime was originally
derived from the distribution characteristics of the large Mid-Atlantic Highlands data set upon
which the IBI was calibrated (McCormick et al. 2001).
Some metrics decrease in value with increasing stress, such as the richness metrics. For
example, the number of intolerant species (those sensitive to poor water quality) decreases as
stream health declines. Each of the metrics that decreases in value with increasing stress was
given a score ranging from 0-10 points. Zero points were given if the adjusted value was less
than the 5th percentile of McCormick's non-reference sites; 10 points were given if the adjusted
value was greater than the 50th percentile of McCormick's high quality reference sites.
Intermediate metric values, those between 0 and 10, were interpolated between the two end
points.
Other metrics increase in value with increasing stress, such as the percent of tolerant fish species.
As stream health declines, only the tolerant species thrive. Metrics that increase in value with
increasing stress are also given a score ranging from 0 to 10. A score of 0 points is given to
values greater than the 90th percentile of McCormick's non-reference sites. A score of 10 points
are given to values less than the 50th percentile of McCormick's moderately restrictive reference
sites. Intermediate metric values were scored by interpolation between 0 and 10.
After all nine metrics have been scored, they are summed. Nine metrics scoring a possible 10
points each equals a possible maximum of 90 points; to convert to a more easily understood 100-
point scale, the raw sum score is multiplied by 1.11. The Mid-Atlantic Highlands IBI is this
resulting number, on a scale of 0-100 (Table E-3).
E-4
-------
Table E-3. Mid-Atlantic Highland IBI: Metric scoring formulas. Richness metrics were
adjusted for drainage area before calculating scores.
Metric
Native Intolerant Taxa
(Adjusted for watershed)
Native Cyprinidae Taxa
(Adjusted for watershed)
Native Benthic Invertivore Taxa
(adjusted for watershed)
Percent Cottidae
Percent Gravel Spawners
Percent Piscivore/Invertivores
Percent Macro Omnivore
Percent Tolerant
Percent Exotic
SUM of all 9 metric scores
Mid-Atlantic Highland IBI score
(0-100 range)
Scoring formulas (X=metric value)
If X>1. 51, then 10. If X<0.12, then 0. Else 10*X/1.39
IfX>6.24,then 10. If X<1.54, then 0. Else 10*X/4.70
IfX>5.34, then 10. If X<1.27, then 0. Else 10*X/4.07
If X>7, then 10. Else 10*X/7
IfX>72, then 10. If X<21.5, then 0. Else 10*X/50.5
If X>9, then 10. Else 10*X/9
IfX>16,thenO. If X<0.2, then 10. Else 10*(16-X)/15.8
IfX>97, thenO. If X<28, then 10. Else 10*(97-X)/69
IfX>24,thenO. If X<0.2, then 10. Else 10*(24-X)/23.8
Raw Score
Raw Score x 1 . 1 1
Standardization and Metric Calculations of Benthic Data
Benthic Sample Collection Methods
What do we know about healthy Appalachian streams? There are many species of
organisms that live in streams (insects, crustaceans, mussels, worms), and in general, healthy
streams have a greater variety of animals than unhealthy streams. Three groups of insects in
particular, the mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies, are sensitive to pollution and degradation and
tend to disappear as a stream's water quality decreases. Other insect groups are more tolerant to
pollution, and tend to increase as a percentage of the total benthic (bottom-dwelling)
communities in unhealthy streams. In order to determine whether a stream is healthy or
unhealthy, we must obtain a representative estimate of the variety and identity of species in the
stream.
How do biologists sample stream communities to get a representative and precise
estimate of the number of species? First, we must know where the organisms live in the stream.
An Appalachian stream bottom is not a uniform habitat: there are large rocks, cobble, gravel,
patches of sand, and tree trunks in the streambed. Each of these is a microhabitat and attracts
species specialized to live in the microhabitat. For example, some species live on the tops of
rocks, in the current, to catch food particles as they drift by. Some species crawl around in
protected areas on the underside of rocks; some cling to fallen tree trunks or branches; yet others
live in gravel or sand. Clearly, if we sample many microhabitats, we will find more species than
if we sample only one. In order to characterize the stream section, we need to sample a large
enough area to ensure that we have sampled most of the microhabitats present.
How do we "measure" the biological effects of human activities, such as mining, on
stream ecosystems? What is the unit of the stream that we characterize? Typically, we wish to
E-5
-------
know the effects on a wide variety of organisms throughout the stream. However, sampling
everything is expensive and potentially destructive. Selecting a single, common habitat that is an
indicator of stream condition is analogous to a physician measuring fever with an oral
thermometer at a single place (the mouth). Therefore, biologists selectively sample riffles, which
are prevalent in Appalachian streams, and are preferred habitat for many sensitive species.
When we sample a riffle, we wish to characterize the entire riffle, not just an individual rock or
patch of sand, and sampling must represent the microhabitats present. By taking several samples,
even with a relatively small sampling device such as a Surber Sampler, we can ensure that
enough microhabitats have been sampled to obtain an accurate estimate of diversity in the
stream.
Sampling Gear
Sampling also depends on the gear and equipment that biologists use to capture
organisms. Small samplers and nets can be easily and economically handled by one or two
persons; larger sampling equipment requires larger crews. In the MTM-VF project, the sampling
protocol calls for 6 Surber samples (0.09 square meter each, for 0.56 square meter total from
each site), or 4 D-frame samples (0.25 square meter each, for 1 square meter from each site). If
the Surber or D-frame grabs are spread out throughout the riffle (preferably in a random
manner), then they will adequately represent most of the microhabitats present, and total
diversity of the riffle can be characterized.
Standardization of data
Many agencies were involved in the collection of data for the Mountain Top Mining
Environmental Impact Statement. Not all organizations used the same field sampling methods,
and during the two-year investigation, some organizations changed their sampling methods. In
order to "compare apples to apples," it is necessary to standardize the data, so that duplicate
samples taken using different methods will yield the same results after standardization.
We begin here with a description of the sampling methods used, a general discussion of
sampling, analysis of a set of paired samples using two methods, and finally the specific steps
used to standardize the samples from the different organizations.
MTM/VF Benthic Sampling Methods
The two methods used in the MTM/VF study, which we term the "D-frame method" and
the "Surber method," differ in sampling gear and in the treatment of the collected material. The
methods are compared below.
E-f
-------
D-frame Method
Equipment: A D-frame net is a framed net, in
the shape of a "D", which is attached to a pole.
Procedure: The field biologist positions the D-
frame net on the stream bottom, then dislodges
the stream bottom directly upstream to collect
the stream-bottom material, including sticks
and leaves, and all the benthic organisms. The
net is 0.5 meter wide, and 0.25m2 area of
streambed is sampled with each deployment.
In the MTM/VF study, the net was deployed 4
times at each site, for a total area of 1.0 m2.
Compositing: All the collected materials were
composited into a single sample.
Subsampling: Samples collected in the D-
frame method are often quite large, and two
organizations "subsampled" to reduce
laboratory processing costs. In subsampling,
the samples are split using a sample splitter
(grid), and a subsample consisting of l/8th (or,
in the case of samples with few organisms,
l/4th or 1/2) of the original material was
analyzed. All organisms in the subsample were
identified and counted.
Surber Method
Equipment: A Surber sampler is a square frame,
covering 1 square foot (0.093m2) of stream
bottom.
Procedure: The Surber is placed horizontally on
cobble substrate in shallow stream riffles. A
vertical section of the frame has the net attached
and captures the dislodged organisms from the
sampling area.
In the MTM/VF study, the Surber sampler was
deployed 3 to 6 times at each site, for a total area
sampled of 3 to 6 square feet (0.28 to 0.56m2).
Compositing: The materials collected were not
composited, but were maintained as discrete
sample replicates.
Subsampling: The materials collected in each of
the Surbers were not subsampled. All organisms
were identified and counted.
The D-frame sampler was most consistently used by participants. EPA and Potesta used
only D-frame sampling; BMI used only D-frame sampling in the first two sets of samples, and
afterwards used both Surber and D-frame samplers. REIC collected both Surber and D-frame
samples throughout the study. The various methods used by the organizations participating in
the MTM/VF study are summarized in Table E-4.
E-7
-------
Table E-4. A comparison of each organization's methods of collecting and compositing
samples, and laboratory subsampling protocols.
Organization
USEPA
REIC
(Twelvepole
Creek)
Potesta (Twenty
Mile Creek)
BMI
(Twenty Mile
Creek)
BMI
(Island Creek):
Sample Method
4 times l/4m2 D-frame net
3 times Surber
and
4 times l/4m2 D-frame net
4 times 1/4 m2 D-frame net.
Fall 1999 and Spring 2000: 4
times 1/4 m2 D-frame net.
Fall 2000, 6 times Surber, and
four times 1/4 m2 D-frame
net.
Spring 2001, 4 times Surber
and four times l/4m2 D-frame
sample.
Fall 1999 and Spring 2000,
four times 1/4 m2 D-frame
net,
Fall 2000, 4 times Surber,
kept separate, and four times
1/4 m2 D-frame net,
composited.
Spring 2001: No data.
Compositing
Composited samples
All Surber samples were
analyzed separately (no
compositing).
Composited samples.
Composited samples
Composited samples.
Surber samples kept separate.
D-frame samples were
composited.
Surber samples kept separate.
D-frame samples were
composited.
Composited samples.
Surber samples were kept
separate. D-frame samples
were composited.
Subsampling
1/8 of original sample. If
abundance was low, the
laboratory subsampled to 1/4
or Vi of the original sample, or
did not subsample at all.
The D-frame samples were
subsampled to 1/4 of original
sample if necessary. All 7
samples were combined for
reporting, representing
approximately 1.3 m2 of
stream bottom.
Not subsampled; counted to
completion.
Not subsampled; counted to
completion.
Not subsampled; counted to
completion.
Not subsampled; counted to
completion.
Not subsampled; counted to
completion.
Not subsampled; counted to
completion.
Treatment of Sampler Data
How do we treat data from the samplers? A common method is to take the average of
measures from several (4 or 6) samplers. The problem with this approach is that we know that
each sampler, individually, underestimates species richness of the stream site; thus the average of
underestimates will also be an underestimate (see Table E-5). In addition to species (or family)
richness, a measure important in the West Virginia Stream Condition Index, and in many other
similar condition indexes, is the degree to which a community is dominated by the most
abundant species found. In degraded streams, communities are often dominated by one or a few
species tolerant of poor habitat or poor water quality. In a healthy stream, dominance over the
E-S
-------
entire community is low. However, a single microhabitat, such as a large rock, is likely to be
dominated by one or two species adapted to that microhabitat. A different species will be
dominant in a sand habitat. The entire riffle is diverse and has low dominance when we consider
several microhabitats. Thus, if we calculate the average dominance over several small sampling
devices, such as Surbers, we overestimate community dominance. Each Surber sample may be
highly dominated by a different species, yet the overall community may not dominated by any of
those species. This is shown with data from one of the sites (Table E-5): average richness of
Surbers is lower than richness of the composited Surbers (representing the entire riffle). Average
dominance of the Surbers is higher than the composited sample. By averaging, this site appears
to be in poorer condition than it really is, especially if compared to West Virginia's Stream
Condition Index.
Standardizing Sampling Effort
Sampling effort is a combination of the total riffle area sampled, the heterogeneity of the
stream bottom sampled, and the number of organisms identified. As previously discussed, a
composited sample that consists of several smaller samples from throughout the riffle area will
adequately characterize the abundances and relative abundances of most of the common species
at a site. It will not, however, necessarily characterize all of the rare species at a site (those
making up less than about 2% of the total community). Sampling to collect all rare species is
prohibitively expensive and destructive of the riffle. But we must consider the effects of rare
species since they contribute to diversity and richness measures in proportion to sampling effort.
For example, the D-frame net, which covers 1 m2, (10.8 square feet) will capture more rare
species than 4 or 6 Surber samplers, which cover only 0.37 m2 (4 square feet) and 0.56 m2 (6
square feet) respectively. By the same token, subsampling, or counting only a portion of the
total sample, also undercounts rare species.
Fortunately, it is relatively easy to standardize sampling effort among different sampling
methods so that the bias is removed. Standardization is done by adjusting taxa counts to
expected values for subsamples smaller than an original sample, using the following binomial
probabilities for the capture of each taxon (Hurlbert 1971; Vinson and Hawkins 1996).
i-
= The expected number of species in a
sample of n individuals selected at
random from a collection containing N
individuals, S species, and Nt individuals
in the rth species.
E-9
-------
Taxa counts (number of species or families) can only be adjusted down to the level of the
smallest sampling effort in the data set; it is not possible to estimate upwards (and effectively
"make up" data). In the MTM/VF data, benthic samples were standardized to 200 individuals,
which is the standard WV SCI practice, and to 100 individuals, to accommodate those samples
that contained less than 200 organisms. Individual taxa are not removed from a sample in the
standardization process; only the taxa counts are standardized. Estimates of abundance per area
and relative abundance are unaffected by sampling effort, and are not adjusted.
E-10
-------
Table E-5. Six Surber replicates from site MT-52 (Island Creek), Fall 1999. The dominant family for each Surber is in bold,
outlined with a heavy line. The subdominant family is outlined with a light line. Either Taeniopterygidae or Nemouridae are
dominant in each Surber, but they tend not to co-occur in the same Surber. Metrics are shown at the bottom.
Order and fam ily
Beetles
Elm idae
Psephenidae
Caddisflies
Hydropsychidae
Philopotam idae
Polycentropodidae
Rhyacophiloidea
Uenoidae
Mayflies
Ameletidae
Baetidae
Baetiscidae
Ephem erellidae
Heptageniidae
Stoneflies
Chloroperlidae
Nem ouridae
Perlidae
Perlodidae
Taeniopterygidae
True flies
Chironom idae
Em pididae
Sim uliidae
Tipulidae
Other
metrics
Total Individuals
Num ber of Fam ilies
Dom inance (1 )
Dom inance (2)
Dom inant fam ily
Subdom inant fam ily
A
11
6
13
8
1
11
1
3
1
| 51)
1 25
2
5
2
A
139
15
0.36
0.54
Nemouridae
Chironomidae
B
13
2
8
2
3
6
2
]
1
23
1 '1
| 26
4
B
161
12
0.44
0.60
Taeniopterygidae
Chironomidae
Surber
C
3
4
4
1
4
1
1
4
1 "T
] 1
I 15
1
2
C
102
14
0.60
0.75
Nemouridae
Chironomidae
D
3
4
6
2
I 8
5
3
]
1
1 "
] 7
1
3
4
1
D
73
14
0.34
0.45
Taeniopterygidae
Polycentropodidae
E
14
9
8
H 5
5
| 18
16
1 "
11
1
6
E
188
12
0.51
0.60
Taeniopterygidae
Baetidae
F
11
6
3
19
10
1
Z4
9
2
2
F
87
11
0.28
0.49
Nemouridae
Ameletidae
Com posite
44
25
42
3
13
26
11
31
27
1
42
2
2
1
24
I 1S)Z 1
93
1
1 1
11
13
Com posite
750
25
0.26
0.44
Taeniopterygidae
Nemouridae
Average
125
13
0.42
0.57
?
-------
Comparison of Paired Samples
We analyzed matched data collected by EPA and Potesta Associates at 21 sites in Island
Creek, Mud River, and Spruce Fork over 3 sampling periods from Summer 1999 to Winter 2000.
EPA sampled using its D-frame method described above, and Potesta used the 6-Surber method
described above. EPA also took an additional 21 samples using both methods, at 10 different
sites. Sample crews visited sites simultaneously. The objective of this analysis was to determine
the comparability of samples collected using two different methods. If sample pairs collected in
both ways, at the same site and time, show no bias relative to each other, then the two sampling
methods would be considered comparable and valid for assessments.
Figure E-l shows the cumulative number of families in 6 Surbers at 5 representative
sites, showing that each successive Surber captures new families not captured by the previous
Surbers.
30
25
20
15
10
0
1
23456
Replicate
Figure E-l. Cumulative number of families identified in successive Surber samplers from 5
MTM sites.
If we consider the number of organisms captured per unit area of the stream bottom, the 2
methods are unbiased. Figure E-2 compares the individuals per square meter as estimated using
Surbers, with individuals per square meter estimated using D-frame samples. The diagonal
dotted line represents exact agreement (1:1). While there is scatter about the line, there is no bias
above or below the line. Note that Potesta and EPA samples overlap and are unbiased with
respect to each other.
E-12
-------
Total Individuals / m'
10000
6000
2000
800
400
100
..
/ ^
A US EPA Surbers
* Potesta Surbers
US EPA D-frame Samples
Figure E-2. Total number of individuals from 6 Surber samplers and from EPA D-frame
samples. Each point represents a comparison of Surber and D-frame results from the same
site at the same time. The vertical axis is the Surber results, and the horizontal axis is the
D-frame results. The dotted line is the 1:1 slope of exact agreement between methods.
Potesta Surber results are shown with solid diamonds; EPA Surbers with open triangles.
All D-frame samples were from EPA.
As explained above, calculating the average number of families from 6 Surbers
underestimates richness, as a result of each individual Surber underestimates richness. This is
shown graphically in Figure E-3. The average number of families from the Surbers is shown on
the vertical axis, and the total families from the D-frame on the horizontal axis. Nearly all the
points lie below the 1:1 line. The average bias is approximately 5 families. If we plot the total,
cumulative families using Surbers against those using D-frames (Figure E-4), then the D-frames
underestimate relative to the Surbers by about 5 taxa, because the D-frames were subsampled to
l/8th the total sample volume. However, if both Surber and D-frame samples are composited
and standardized to a constant number of organisms (200), then there is no bias in the family
richness (Figure E-5). Note also in Figure 5 that the scatter of points about the 1:1 line is much
smaller than for the unstandardized data shown in Figures 3 and 4, and that both Potesta and
EPA Surber are unbiased to each other (note 2 symbols in figure).
E-13
-------
25
20
15
10
Total Families
••••"" A
...-••" A. A
- < A *
;: _ * . *
t A
A US EPA Surbers
* Potesta Surbers
10 15 20
US EPA D-frame nets
25
Figure E-3. Number of families per site, averaged over 6 Surbers (vertical), against total
numbers from D-frame samples. See Figure E-2 caption.
35
30
25
20
15
10
A
Total Families
• • A •
*
A..- •-""
• • * A
» A * ,
* ..*"
•'
* *.-
,-•••""*
A US EPA Surbers
* Potesta Surbers
10 15 20
US EPA, D-frame net
25
30
Figure E-4. Total families per site, from composite of 6 Surbers (cumulative), compared to
EPA D-frame results. As in Figures E-2 and E-3.
E-14
-------
Number of Families, Standardized
20
15
10
„* .,...-*" A
A
A-"'
X.,,-" A »* **
:••-""' A •
*-*" * *
A
•
US EPA Surbers
Potesta Surbers
5 10 15 20
US EPA, D-frame net (standardized)
Figure E-5. Number of taxa in standardized Surber samples (vertical) compared to
standardized D-frame samples (horizontal). As in Figures E-2-4.
The West Virginia Stream Condition Index (WV SCI) is calculated from 6 metric scores.
When the index was developed, the scoring formulas were calibrated to a 200 organism sample
(Gerritsen et al. 2000). If samples were larger than 200 organisms, they were standardized
before the scoring formulas were applied.
Summary: Standardization of Benthic Data
In summary, the data collected by the participants differed in sampling, subsampling and
reporting methods. Despite the differences, any one of these sampling, subsampling, and
reporting methods is unbiased with respect to the types of organisms collected (all used the same
mesh size), the density of organisms (numbers per unit area), and the relative abundances
(percent of community). The only bias is that of the number of families (taxa richness) as
affected by sampling effort. Sampling effort is a combination of the total area sampled, the
heterogeneity of the stream bottom sampled, and the size of the subsample. Since all participants
used the same field methods for the D-frame samples, 4 D-frames in the field, use of the D-frame
data standardizes the field sampling effort. However, EPA subsampled to l/8th of the total
material (with some exceptions noted in the data); REIC to l/4th the total material (with some
exceptions); and all others counted the entire sample. Therefore, taxa richness was standardized
to be equivalent to a subsample of l/8th the total, original material. Unfortunately, REIC data
was reported as combined D-frame and Surber samples and could not be standardized for both
sampling effort and subsampling in the laboratory.
E-15
-------
Metric Calculations for Benthic Data
The West Virginia Stream Condition Index (WV SCI) rates a site using an average of six
standard indices, or metrics, each of which assesses a different aspect of stream health.
The WV SCI metrics include:
• Total Taxa - a count of the total number of families found in the sample. This is a
measure of diversity, or richness, and is expected to increase with stream health.
• Number of EPT Taxa - a count of the number of families belonging to the Orders
Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), or Tricoptera (caddisflies) Members
of these three insect orders tend to be sensitive to pollution. The number tends to
increase with stream health.
• Percent EPTs (Number of EPT families / Total number of Families) - this measures the
contribution of the pollution-sensitive EPT families to the total benthic macroinvertebrate
community. It tends to increase with stream health.
• Percent Chironomidae - the percentage of pollution-tolerant midge (gnat) larvae in the
family Chironomidae tends to decrease in healthy streams and increase in streams that are
subjected to organic pollution.
• Percent 2 dominant families - a measure of diversity of the stream benthic community.
This metric tends to decrease with stream health.
• Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) - The HBI assigns a pollution tolerance value to each
family (more pollution-tolerant taxa receive a higher tolerance value). Tolerance values
were found in the literature (Hilsenhoff 1987, Barbour et al. 1999) or were assigned by
EPA biologists from Wheeling, WV or Cincinnati, OH. The HBI is then calculated by
averaging the tolerance values of each specimen in a sample. The HBI tends to increase
as water quality decreases
Several taxa were excluded from the analysis because they inhabit terrestrial, marginal, or
surface areas of the stream. The excluded taxa included Aranae, Arachnida, Collembola, and
Cossidae.
After all the benthic data had been migrated to EDAS, and after all the data had been
collapsed to the Family level, the six WV SCI metrics were calculated from composited
enumerations, or counts.
Metric Scoring and Index Calculation
As discussed previously, richness metrics are affected by sampling effort, and were
therefore standardized to a 100 or 200 organism subsample before scoring. Other WV SCI
metrics are independent of sampling effort and did not require standardization. Each of the
metrics was then scored on a scale of 0 to 100 using scoring formulae derived for 100 and 200
organism subsamples (Table E-6). The WV SCI was calculated as an average of the six metric
scores.
E-16
-------
Table E-6. WV SCI: Metric scoring formulas. The richness metrics have two scoring
formulas each, depending on the standardized sample size (100 or 200 organisms). The
scoring formulas are from unpublished analyses for 100 organism richness metrics and
Gerritsen et al. (2000) for 200 organism richness metrics and other metrics.
Metrics that decrease with stress Scoring formulas (X=metric value)
Total taxa
EPT taxa
%EPT
Metrics that increase with stress
%Chironomidae
% 2 dominant
HBI
scorelOO = 100 x (X/18), score200 = 100 x (X/21)
scorelOO = 100 x (X/12), score200 = 100 x (X/13)
score = 100 x (X/91.9)
score = 100 x [(100-X)/(100-0.98)]
score = 100 x [(100-X)/(100-36.0)]
score = 100 x [(10-X)/(10-2.9)1
References
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish. 2nd
edition.
Gerritsen, J., J. Burton, M.T. Barbour. 2000. A stream condition index for West Virginia
wadeable streams.
Vinson, M.R., and C.P. Hawkins. 1996. Effects of sampling area and subsampling procedure on
comparisons of taxa richness among streams. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society. 15:392-399.
Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes
Entomologist 20:31-39.
Hurlbert, S.H. 1971. The nonconcept of Species Diversity: a Critique and Alternative
Parameters. Ecology 52(4): 577-586.
McCormick, F. H., R. M. Hughes, P. R. Kaufmann, D. V. Peck, J. L. Stoddard, A. T. Herlihy.
2001. Development of an index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands region.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:857-877.
E-17
-------
"Amphibian utilization of sediment control structures
compared to a natural vernal pool located on mine
permitted areas in southern West Virginia."
Conducted for Pen Coal by R.E.I. Consultants, report
dated 22 April 2000.
-------
AMPHIBIAN UTILIZATION
OF SEDIMENT CONTROL STRUCTURES
COMPARED TO A NATURAL VERNAL POOL
LOCATED ON MINE PERMITTED AREAS
IN SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA
Conducted For:
PEN COAL CORPORATION
KIAH CREEK MINE OFFICE
P.O. BOX 191
DUNLOW, WEST VIRGINIA 25511
By:
R.E.I. CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED
ED J. KIRK, AQUATIC BIOLOGIST
225 INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD
BEAVER, WEST VIRGINIA 25813
04/22/00
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ii
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS iii
INTRODUCTION 1
LOCATION OF STUDY SITES 3
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 4
SPECIFIC SITE LOCATIONS / PHYSICAL DESCRIPTIONS 5
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS 7
HABITAT ASSESSMENT 8
HABITAT RESULTS 9
AMPHIBIAN RESULTS 10
DISCUSSION 11
CONCLUSIONS 12
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Physical water-quality variables from the Reference Pool, Vance Branch
(Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch Number CDS),
Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-
3), and the Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6), 10 April
2000 13
TABLE 2. Chemical water-quality variables from the Reference Pool (sample collected
10 April 2000), Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine;
Combination Ditch Number CD3), Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface
Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-3), and the Left Fork of Parker Branch
(Sediment Ditch Number 6), 10 April 2000 14
TABLE 3. Habitat descriptions for the individual sediment control structures located at
the Pen Coal Corporation, 10 April 2000 15
TABLE 4. Summary of amphibians surveyed from the Reference Pool, Vance Branch
(Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch Number CD3),
Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-
3), and the Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6), 10 April,
2000 17
TABLE 5. Total number of amphibians physically collected per pool (all 10 D-Frame
sweeps combined) from the Reference Pool, Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number
3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch Number CD3), Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork
Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-3), and the Left Fork of
Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6), 10 April 2000 18
TABLE 6. Daytime visual observation of amphibians from the Reference Pool, Vance
Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch Number
CD3), Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch
Number SD-3), and the Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6),
08 October 1999 19
TABLE 7. List of amphibians identified from nighttime calls from the Reference Pool,
Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch
Number CD3), Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment
Ditch Number SD-3), and the Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch
Number 6), 08 October 1999 20
11
-------
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
PHOTOGRAPH 1. Reference Site (Vernal pool located below Kiah Creek and Laurel
Branch confluence) 22
PHOTOGRAPH 2. Reference Site (Vernal pool located below Kiah Creek and Laurel
Branch confluence) 22
PHOTOGRAPH 3. Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination
Ditch Number CD3) 23
PHOTOGRAPH 4. Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination
Ditch Number CD3) 23
PHOTOGRAPH 5. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch
Number SD-3) 24
PHOTOGRAPH 6. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch
Number SD-3) 24
PHOTOGRAPH 7. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6) 25
PHOTOGRAPH 8. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6) 25
PHOTOGRAPH 9. Spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer tadpoles 26
PHOTOGRAPH 10. Red-spotted newt Notophthalmus viridescens 26
PHOTOGRAPH 11. Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatus egg masses 27
PHOTOGRAPH 12. Green Frog Rana clamitans egg masses 27
PHOTOGRAPH 13. Eastern American Toad Bufo americanus egg masses 28
111
-------
AMPHIBIAN UTILIZATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL STRUCTURES
COMPARED TO A NATURAL VERNAL POOL
LOCATED ON MINE PERMITTED AREAS
IN SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA
INTRODUCTION
Typically, sediment ditches and diversion ditches are constructed as part of the mining
process for 3 purposes: 1) to divert surface runoff into more desirable locations and away from
work areas and roads 2) to combine flows from several sources into fewer, more manageable
discharges, and 3) to slow surface runoff, often laden with sediments, to allow for a settling of
the sediments to occur prior to flows entering receiving streams. The larger, sediment control
ponds are also generally constructed as part of the mining process for 3 purposes: 1) to slow
surface runoff, laden with sediments, in order to allow for settling to occur prior to flows
entering streams 2) to provide a flow-control structure which allows the operators to manage
downstream stream flows during periods of either very low, or very high flows, and 3) to provide
a point of chemical/physical treatment in the event the water quality needs to be adjusted prior
to entering the lower portions of the stream.
Construction of these sediment ditches, diversion ditches, and sediment control ponds is
not something that is performed without giving serious consideration to the natural conditions
which exist on the area in question. Design and construction is performed on a case-by-case
analysis which includes the natural hydrology, geomorphology, watershed size, and aquatic life
inhabiting the stream. In essence, these ponds are nothing short of professionally engineered
structures, designed to address the stream flows as well as the surface runoff which can be
expected from the watershed size, and are devised to conform to the natural topography of the
area.
Although generally these structures are not designed with many aesthetic qualities in
mind, the conditions which exist after construction of the ponds and ditches automatically create
circumstances necessary for the natural creation of wetlands. The presence of the warmer, slow-
moving, sediment-laden water provides the nutrients and sediment sizes necessary for the
production of several aquatic emergent and submerged aquatic plants such as cattails, milfoil,
rushes, and sedges. The existence of the continuous water overlying the pond's bottom initiates
the chain of events necessary for the creation of hydric soils which are necessary for aquatic
vegetation. In addition, the placement of the designed ponds, usually located directly in the
stream channel at the base of a hollow, or on a wide, flat bench where subsurface and surface
runoff will support the on-bench pond, are planned so that they are self-sustaining. Water from
the stream as well as from surface runoff are adequate to ensure the existence of the pond for
decades.
1
-------
The construction of these sediment control structures inadvertently created habitat
suitable for amphibians. Fishless ponds and wetlands form important breeding habitats for
amphibians native to West Virginia. Amphibians can often reach higher densities and diversity
in ponds where fish predation is minimal. Natural ponds and lakes are often uncommon in the
steep mountains, and amphibians readily utilize any available habitat. These man-made
sediment structures and pools provide the lentic waters necessary for amphibians and reptiles as
well as those benthic macroinvertebrates such as Odonates (dragonflies and damselflies) which
require that type of habitat. By their construction, they add a facet to the environment which
had previously not been present. Frogs can quickly colonize new wetlands because the juvenile
stages disperse widely. Salamanders colonize new ponds more slowly because they do not
disperse as readily as frogs. Many amphibians can be found at ponds only when they are mating
or laying their eggs, or in the immature egg or larval stage, since the majority of their annual
activity occurs in terrestrial habitats. Monitoring these animals away from ponds is very
difficult, but since amphibians congregate at discreet breeding sites and larval stages are present
for months at a time, focusing monitoring efforts on ponds is a feasible way of obtaining data on
these populations and individual pond use.
According to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection-Off ice of
Mining and Reclamation, upon completion of mining in the area, the constructed sediment
control pond and/or drainage ditches must be removed prior to the coal company being released
from permitting regulations, and receiving back their mining bond. Breaching of the dam is
therefore required from the point of view that in order to return the stream back to its original
state, the stream channel must be change back to its original shape.
The purpose of this study was to provide an unbiased, professional examination of the
amphibian usage of these sediment control ditches which currently exist on mine permitted areas
in southern West Virginia. This would add yet another facet to the studies previously conducted
on these ponds including benthic sampling, water chemistry analysis, and habitat evaluations.
This study compared three man-made sediment ditches to a naturally occurring vernal pool
located in an unmined section of the watershed beginning approximately 3.2 stream miles from
the reference pool. The sediment ditches were used instead of the deeper sediment control
ponds because the ditches more closely resembled the hydrologic characteristics of the vernal
pool. Several structures of various ages were studied as to their aquatic and wetland status, and
to their usefulness as quality habitats for amphibians inhabiting the area.
-------
LOCATION OF STUDY SITES
The study area is located in south-central Wayne County, in southwestern West Virginia.
Samples were collected from sediment ditches located on Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number
3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch Number CDS), Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2
Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-3), and Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch
Number 6). A naturally occurring vernal pool about 75 feet from Kiah Creek, was located 2,000
feet below the confluence of Kiah Creek with Laurel Branch, and was sampled as a reference
site.
-------
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
At each sampled pond or sediment ditch, measurements for physical water quality were
taken. Water samples were collected, and were analyzed for several parameters. Amphibian
samples were collected, structure usage observations were recorded, and the habitat of the
structures were evaluated. The individual methodologies are described below.
Physical Water Quality / Water Chemistry
Physical water quality was analyzed on-site at each station. Water temperature,
Dissolved Oxygen (DO), pH, and conductivity was measured with a Hydrolab™ Datasonde
multi-parameter probe.
Water samples were collected at each of the three sediment ditches on October 08, 1999,
and from the vernal pool on April 10, 2000, appropriately preserved, and transported to R.E.I.
Consultant's laboratory for analysis. All analyses utilized current EPA-approved protocols.
Parameters measured at each station were Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Suspended
Solids (TSS), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), hardness, alkalinity, total sulfates, total acidity,
sodium, total aluminum, calcium, total iron, total magnesium, total manganese, chlorides, fecal
coliform, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc.
Amphibian Usage of Structures
Amphibian usage of the sediment control structures as well as the reference pond was
evaluated by three methods as outlined in "Amphibian Monitoring Protocol - George
Washington and Jefferson National Forest, Virginia" (Mitchell, 1997): 1) physical samples 2)
daytime visual observations, and 3) nighttime call identification of frogs and toads.
The physical samples were conducted via D-frame nets with 500|im mesh size netting.
At each sediment structure or pond, 10 replicate sweeps were conducted a minimum of 5 meters
apart and included all habitat types in the pools. The contents of each sweep were then
examined for amphibians, and identified.
The pools were thoroughly inspected following the sweeps. Daytime visual observations
included animals that were seen at the ponds, but not captured in the dipnets. This type of
sampling is especially important in locating egg masses. Lastly, each structure was re-visited
after dark, and the calls of frogs and toads were used to identify the species present at each pool.
Habitat
The habitat at each of the sites was assessed emphasizing the quantity and types of
vegetation present, pond/ditch slopes, surface acreage, depth, substrate composition, and
composition of surrounding area (forested, open field, heavy haul traffic area, etc...).
-------
SPECIFIC SITE LOCATIONS / PHYSICAL DESCRIPTIONS
Reference Site (vernal pool located below Kiah Creek and Laurel Branch confluence)
This station is located about 75 feet from Kiah Creek, and was formed in about 1995
(PHOTOGRAPHS 1 - 2). This age is uncertain, but thee structure is at least 5-10 years
old. The pond is approximately 180 feet in length, and is approximately 60 feet wide,
and has an area of approximately 0.25 acres. The elevation of the pond bottom is about
950 feet above sea level. The current water depth was a maximum of about 2.5 feet. The
banks were very well vegetated with various trees and saplings, but shrubs and
herbaceous vegetation were also present. Much of the vegetation was recently inundated.
The structure is noted to completely dry up during late summer or fall, and is dependant
upon heavy precipitation events. Emergent aquatic vegetation was found along the
edges, and included spike rushes. The banks were not steep along the hillsides, and were
noticeably stable due to their low gradient and thick vegetation. Soils were very organic
and rich due to this structure being located directly in a forested floodplain, and
receiving enormous amounts of detrital materials. There was a full canopy cover
provided by the dense surrounding deciduous forest. The substrate was comprised
mostly of detrital material over silt (TABLE 4).
Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine: Combination Ditch Number CD3)
This station was located on Vance Branch, and was constructed in 1999
(PHOTOGRAPHS 3 - 4). The series of three combination sediment structures are
approximately 2,250 feet in length, and are approximately 41 feet wide, and have an area
of approximately 2.12 acres. The approximate size of the single sediment structure
sampled was 300 feet long and 30 feet wide (0.21 acres). The elevation of the structure's
bottom is about 1,000 feet above sea level. The existing water depth was only about a
foot, but the structure provides for 4.28 acre/feet of accumulative sediment storage.
Even though the sediment structure was constructed in 1999, the banks were moderately
vegetated, and this was with various grasses and clover for erosion control. Aquatic
vegetation was minimal except for a small quantity of cattails. The banks were not too
steep along the hillsides, and were noticeably stable due to their low gradient and
vegetation. Soils had not yet established due to the young age of this structure. This
sediment ditch had noticeably higher levels of suspended solids (TABLE 1) probably due
to sediments being washed into the structure easier than at older, more established ones.
There was no canopy cover, and the nearest undisturbed forested area was approximately
1/4 mile away. The substrate was comprised mostly of silt and clay (TABLE 4).
Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine: Sediment Ditch Number SD-3)
This station was located on Rollem Fork, and was constructed in 1997
(PHOTOGRAPHS 5 - 6). The series of three sediment control structures are
approximately 900 feet in length, are approximately 40 feet wide, and have an area of
approximately 0.83 acres. The approximate size of the single sediment structure sampled
was 225 feet long and 25 feet wide (0.13 acres). The elevation of the structure's bottom
is about 950 feet above sea level. The existing water depth was only about six inches,
5
-------
but the structures provide for 1.67 acre/feet of accumulative sediment storage. Even
though the structure was constructed in 1997, the banks were 100% vegetated, and this
was with various grasses, clover, and sedges. Aquatic vegetation was dominated by
cattails which covered the pond. The banks were not too steep along the hillsides, and
were noticeably stable due to their low gradient and vegetation. Soils had established
and were noted to be gleyed at about 1.5" within the area of the wetland. There was no
canopy cover, and the closest undisturbed forested area was approximately 75 feet away.
The substrate was comprised mostly of vegetated silt (TABLE 4).
Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6)
This station was located on the Left Fork of Parker Branch, and was constructed in 1994
(Figure 6). The series of two sediment structures are approximately 600 feet in length,
are approximately 40 feet wide, and have an area of approximately 0.55 acres. The
approximate size of the single sediment structure sampled was 300 feet long and 40 feet
wide (0.28 acres). The elevation of the structure's bottom is about 950 feet above sea
level. The existing water depth was about 5 feet, and this sediment structure provides for
over 2.5 acre/feet of accumulative sediment storage. The banks were well vegetated, and
this was with various grasses, clover, sedges, and goldenrod. Aquatic vegetation
consisted of cattails, pondweeds (Potamogeton sp.), and water milfoil (Myriophyllum
sp.) (PHOTOGRAPHS 7 - 8). There was a fairly heavy algae growth which was
presumed to be a result of the higher pH level of this structure (TABLE 1). The banks
were not too steep along the hillsides, and were noticeably stable due to their low
gradient and heavy vegetation. Soils were well established due to the older age of this
structure. There was no canopy cover, and the nearest undisturbed forested area was
approximately 1/3 mile away. The substrate was comprised mostly of clay and silt
(TABLE 4).
-------
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Physical and chemical water quality was analyzed at each of the pool and sediment
control structures sampled on Vance Branch, Rollem Fork, and the Left Fork of Parker Branch.
The physical and chemical water quality results are presented in TABLE 1. Many of the
sediment structures had large differences between some of the parameters. For instance, the pH
on Rollem Fork's sediment ditch was slightly low with a pH of 6.37, whereas the pH for the
sediment ditch on Vance Branch was high (probably because of the use of hydrated lime in the
vicinity) with a pH of 10.44. Most of the chemical values such as dissolved solids, hardness,
sulfates, alkalinity, and most metals were considered fairly high. Although in a previous study,
several of these values were considered limiting to the benthic macroinvertebrate communities,
it should be remembered that one of the primary purposes of the ponds and sediment control
structures is to reduce the high levels of solids and metals by settling them out prior to their
reaching the downstream portions of the receiving streams.
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT
Several habitat measurements were determined (TABLE 4) at each of the sites sampled.
The individual parameters are described below.
Pond/Ditch Surface Acreage - Actual size of the structure in acres. Smaller, shallower ponds
and ditches, may not last as long or have as much sediment holding potential, but they
will have a larger wetland value as there is less open water and more wetland vegetated
area.
Length x Width - Longer, narrower ponds and sediment ditches will eventually have better
wetland values for filtering incoming waters and provide more useable habitat for some
aquatic organisms than wider, deeper ponds and sediment ditches.
Accumulative Sediment Storage Potential - Amount of sediment the structure can potentially
hold. Larger, deeper ponds and sediment ditches can obviously hold more sediments,
but may not have as desirable "wetland" potential.
Bottom Substrate Type - The availability of habitat for support of aquatic organisms. A variety
of substrate materials and habitat types is desirable. For pond and wetland type habitats,
the ability of the substrate to support vegetation is important.
Bank Stability - Bank stability is rated by observing existing or potential detachment of soil
from the upper and lower banks and its potential movement into the structure. Ponds
and ditches with poor banks will often have poor aquatic habitat.
Bank Vegetative Stability - Bank soil is generally held in place by plant root systems. An
estimate of the density of bank vegetation covering the bank provides an indication of bank
stability.
Vegetation Type - Describes the vegetation type present. Newer structure will likely have only
grasses planted along banks. Older structures can have grasses, several herbaceous
species, as well as shrubs and tree saplings. Wetland vegetation on newer structures may
not be present, but can consist of several types of algae, submerged and emergent aquatic
species at older, more established structure.
Pond/Ditch Cover - Cover vegetation is evaluated in terms of provision of shading. An estimate
is obtained by visually determining the dominant vegetation type covering the pond
bottom, bank, and top of bank. Riparian vegetation dominated by shrubs and trees
provides the CPOM source in allochthonous systems.
-------
HABITAT RESULTS
Reference Pool (vernal pool located on Kiah Creek below confluence with Laurel Branch)
This naturally occurring vernal pool had a surface area of 0.25 acres, was 180 feet long
by 60 feet wide. Although it had a fairly recent origination date (no later than 1995), the banks
were very well vegetated, and with trees, saplings, shrubs, and herbaceous plants due to the
dense surrounding forest. The substrate was silt covered with a dense layer of leaves and other
detrital matter. This structure has very good wetland potential as it stays wet except during
extreme periods of drought. The dense surrounding forest provides food inputs for benthic
organisms, shade, and is close enough for the animals which head to the pond at night such as
frogs and toads. However, because it is cut off from Kiah Creek except during periods of very
heavy precipitation, it will most likely not perform well as a water filtration structure, since
water does not regularly flow through the pond.
Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine: Combination Ditch Number CD3)
This sediment control structure had a surface area of 0.21 acres, was 300 feet long by 30
feet wide, and had an accumulative sediment storage potential of 4.28 acre/feet (TABLE 4).
Although it had a recent completion date (1999), banks were moderately vegetated, but only
with erosional control grasses. The substrate was silty clay. Because this structure has
tremendous storage potential, it should serve well as a combination ditch. This structure has
fairly good wetland potential as it becomes more established, especially due to its longer,
narrower size. Because of its size, it should also do very well as a water filtration structure.
However, because it is separated from forested areas by about a 1/4 mile, animals such as
salamanders may be restricted from using the pond.
Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine: Sediment Ditch Number SD-3)
This sediment control structure had a surface area of 0.13 acres, was 225 feet long by 25
feet wide, and had an accumulative sediment storage potential of 1.67 acre/feet (TABLE 4).
Although it also had a recent completion date (1997), banks were well vegetated, but only with
grasses, herbaceous plants, and a few shrubs. The substrate was silt, and the pond was
completely covered with cattails. Although this structure has a low sediment storage potential, it
has a tremendous wetland potential, as it is shallow and long. Because of its length and depth, it
should do very well as a water filtration structure. This pond is considerably closer
(approximately 75 feet) to undisturbed forested areas than either of the other two sediment
control structures.
Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6)
This sediment control structure had a surface area of 0.28 acres, was 300 feet long by 40
feet wide, and had an accumulative sediment storage potential of at least 2.5 acre/feet (TABLE
4). Because of its older completion date (1994), banks were very well vegetated, but only with
grasses, herbaceous plants, and a few shrubs. The substrate was vegetated silty clay. This
structure has a higher sediment storage potential, and should perform well as a sediment control
device. It also has good wetland and open water habitat potential. However, because this
sediment pond is also separated from the woods by a considerable distance (approximately 1/3
-------
mile), animals such as salamanders may be restricted from using the pond.
AMPHIBIAN RESULTS
Reference Pool (vernal pool located on Kiah Creek below confluence with Laurel Branch)
Adult and larvae spring peepers Pseudacris crucifer, adult green frogs Rana clamitans,
and mountain chorus frogs Pseudacris brachyphona, and spotted salamander Ambystoma
maculatus egg masses were observed at the reference pond (see TABLE 5). This is a typical
species assemblage for a woodland vernal pool in the mountains of West Virginia.
Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine: Combination Ditch Number CD3)
Adult and larvae spring peepers were observed at the 14 month old Vance Branch pond.
Adult mountain chorus frogs were heard calling nearby. Single eggs were found attached to the
underside of vegetation, possibly those of red-spotted newts Notophthalmus viridescens,
although no adults were observed (see TABLE 5).
Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine: Sediment Ditch Number SD-3)
Adult and larvae spring peepers, adult and egg-stage American toads Bufo americanus,
adult and egg-stage red spotted newts, and spotted salamander egg masses were observed at the
2-3 year old Rollem Fork pond (see TABLE 5).
Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6)
Adult red spotted newts, and adult and egg stage green frogs were observed at the 4-5
year old Left Fork of Parker Branch pond (see TABLE 5).
10
-------
DISCUSSION
All of the ponds or pools studied had different amphibian assemblages (see TABLE 5).
The reference pool and Rollem Fork pond had the highest diversity with four amphibian species
each. Only spring peepers were found at all of the ponds surveyed. This result is not
unexpected since spring peepers are the most highly mobile and abundant of all the species
encountered. They were most likely the first specie to colonize the newly created ponds.
Red spotted newts were found at Vance Branch pond, Rollem Fork pond, and Left Fork
of Parker pond, but not at the reference pond. Since these animals are very mobile as juveniles,
and spend up to seven years wandering the forest before going to ponds to breed, it is expected
that they too would readily colonize new ponds. The absence of newts from the reference pond
could be a function of the large mass of detrital material covering the pond bottom, making
viewing and capture of the newts difficult, or the major influence of the nearby stream, since red
spotted newts are not normally stream dwelling creatures. In addition, although not a primary
objective of the study, it was noted that caddisflies, odonates, mayflies, and waterbugs were also
absent from the reference pool, whereas they were abundant in the sediment control structures
(TABLE 5). One reason for this observation is that the reference pool is vernal, and therefore, is
dry for part of the year. Many of the above mentioned insects have 2-year life cycles, and
consequently, require water year round.
Another notable difference between the pond amphibians is the much greater abundance
of spring peeper tadpoles found at the reference site (see TABLE 6). Not only were there many
more found at that pond, but they were much larger and further along in their development. One
would think this would be a function of pond age, however, no spring peeper tadpoles were
found in the oldest of the constructed ponds, Left Fork of Parker pond. It may possibly be
related to other factors such as amount of vegetation, temperature, chemistry, and/or predators.
Amphibians are known to be relatively tolerant to low pH, but less tolerant to high pH
conditions. As shown in TABLE 1, the pH of the Left Fork of Parker Branch and the Vance
Branch sediment control structures was 8.18 and 10.44, respectively, and these two structures
contained the least number of spring peepers.
From the data collected for this study, a critical aspect in the colonizing of these ponds
by amphibians is the proximity of undisturbed, or wooded areas. Rollem Fork pond and the
reference pond were the only two to contain egg masses of the spotted salamander. This animal
is highly terrestrial and spends the majority of the year underground in the forest. Although
aquatic habitat is essential to reproduction, mole salamanders, such as the spotted salamander,
are very susceptible to predation or dessication when traveling long distances without cover, and
are reluctant to do so. Therefore, the closeness to forested areas and robust populations, are
likely the determining factors in spotted salamander use of created ponds, as well as use by other
amphibians.
11
-------
CONCLUSIONS
All the ponds sampled were shown to be utilized by amphibians for a necessary part of
their life stage. Overall, the sediment control ditches sampled were represented by amphibians
that would be expected of ponds that age. The amount of vegetation and distance to forested
areas seemed to be key factors in the ponds ability to recruit nearby amphibians.
These sediment ponds and sediment ditches have added an additional facet to the
available habitat that is currently present on mine permitted lands. Regarding the sediment
ditches and channels, the Pen Coal Corporation has currently constructed over 6 miles of
additional sediment channels. Most of these constructed channels were not stream channels
prior to their construction. With regards to the "on-bench" ponds, it is very important to
remember that no lentic aquatic habitat (which amphibians require) was present in the
immediate area prior to their construction. On land owned or leased by the Pen Coal
Corporation, there are currently over 20 on-bench ponds. With each of these averaging about l/i
acre in size, Pen Coal has provided over 10 acres of pond and wetland habitat with just their on-
bench ponds. These lower ponds, on-bench ponds, and sediment ditches are readily used by
aquatic insects, waterfowl, amphibians, reptiles, turkeys and other wildlife creatures.
It appears to be an ill-conceived policy that all sediment ditches and sediment control
ponds have to be removed in order for coal companies to have fulfilled their obligation to
"return the stream to its original state". Return of a stream to its original condition may never be
achieved as dramatic changes to the geomorphology of the area have most likely occurred
during active mining practices. If surrounding areas become heavily vegetated or even wooded,
the fill materials exposed can alter water chemistry for many years after mining has ceased in the
area. In addition, destruction of these ponds and sediment ditches along with their established
wetland areas seems to be a direct violation of the practices established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of avoiding
elimination of any wetland areas.
If constructed properly, these sediment control ponds, sediment ditches, and their
subsequent wetlands can do a splendid job in removing solids and other water contaminants
both by filtration and by precipitation prior to reaching downstream areas. They also provide
aquatic habitats for countless abundances of aquatic insects, amphibians, reptiles, and
potentially even fish. Once mining has ceased in the immediate area, these sedimentation ponds
could easily be converted into an aesthetic and useful habitat feature, and provide an additional
facet to the aquatic, semi-aquatic, and terrestrial wildlife currently found in area.
12
-------
TABLE 1. Physical water-quality variables from the Reference Pool, Vance Branch (Rollem
Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch Number CDS), Rollem Fork (Rollem
Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-3), and the Left Fork of
Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6), 10 April 2000.
PARAMETER
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
pH (SU)
Conductivity (|imhos)
Reference
Pool
(1995)
8.08
4.49
6.37
13.2
Vance Branch
(1999)
11.51
12.53
10.44*
456.9
Rollem Fork
(1997)
17.05
9.20
6.90
695.9
Left Fork
Parker
(1991)
16.14
9.54
8.18
205.1
= Most likely a result of hydrated lime usage in the vicinity.
13
-------
TABLE 2. Chemical water-quality variables from the Reference Pool (sample collected 10 April
2000), Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch
Number CDS), Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch
Number SD-3), and the Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6), 10 April
2000.
PARAMETER
BOD (mg/1)
TDS (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
DOC (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform
Hardness (mg/1)
Alkalinity (mg/1)
Total Acidity (mg/1)
Chlorides (mg/1)
Sulfates (mg/1)
Aluminum (mg/1)
Antimony (mg/1)
Arsenic (mg/1)
Barium (mg/1)
Beryllium (mg/1)
Cadmium (mg/1)
Calcium (mg/1)
Chromium (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Magnesium (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Mercury (mg/1)
Nickel (mg/1)
Phosphorous (mg/1)
Selenium (mg/1)
Silver (mg/1)
Sodium (mg/1)
Thallium (mg/1)
Reference
Pool
(1995)
<2
26
<1
2.4
NA
15.9
11.4
<1.0
1.3
10.2
0.156
<0.001
<0.002
ND
<0.001
<0.0003
2.94
<0.001
<0.005
0.356
<0.001
2.08
0.025
<0.0002
<0.020
<0.05
<0.003
<0.004
1.41
<0.001
Vance Branch
(1999)
<2
302
172
NA
>270
285
39.2
<1.0
<1.0
243
0.714
<0.001
0.002
0.023
<0.001
<0.0003
71.6
<0.001
<0.005
0.422
<0.001
25.8
1.44
<0.0002
<0.020
NA
<0.003
<0.004
1.12
<0.001
Rollem Fork
(1997)
<2
288
16
NA
49
182
5.8
13.2
1.3
210
0.491
<0.001
0.002
0.048
<0.001
<0.0003
43.0
<0.001
<0.005
1.28
<0.001
18.2
3.94
<0.0002
0.036
NA
0.003
<0.004
1.08
<0.001
Left Fork
Parker
(1991)
<2
84
3
NA
14
71.0
67.1
<1.0
1.2
15.8
0.109
<0.001
<0.002
0.034
<0.001
<0.0003
17.7
<0.001
<0.005
0.132
<0.001
6.50
0.017
<0.0002
<0.020
NA
<0.003
<0.004
0.690
<0.001
14
-------
Zinc (mg/1)
0.010
0.023
0.074
<0.002
15
-------
TABLE 3. Habitat descriptions for the individual sediment control structures located at the Pen Coal Corporation, 10 April 2000.
Reference Pool
(1995)
Pond/Ditch Surface Acreage
0.25
Length x Width
Total (all ponds
(feet)
180x60
in series) Accumulative Sediment
Vance Branch
(1999)
0.21
300 x 30
Storage (Acre/feet)
Rollem Fork
(1997)
0.13
225 x 25
Left Fork
(1994)
0.28
300 x 40
NA 4.28
1.67
>2.58
Bottom Substrate Type
Bank Stability
Bank Vegetation Stability
leaves over silt
stable
100% vegetated
with trees, shrubs,
herbaceous plants
silty, clay
moderately stable
moderately vegetated
(soils not fully
developed)
vegetated silt
stable
100% vegetated
clay, silty
stable
100% vegetated
16
-------
TABLES. CONTINUED.
Vegetation Types
heavily vegetated
with trees, shrubs,
herbaceous plants, and
submerged and
emergent aquatics
(forested pond)
grasses (terrestrial),
some aquatic vegetation
grasses, shrubs,
herbaceous plants,
filamentous algae,
submerged & emergent
aquatics
grasses, shrubs,
herbaceous plants,
filamentous algae,
submerged & emergent
aquatics
Organic Input Sources
mostly allochthonous,
but also autochthonous
autochthonous
mostly autochthonous
autochthonous
Pond/Ditch Cover
full cover
open
some
open
17
-------
TABLE 4. Summary of amphibians surveyed from the Reference Pool, Vance Branch (Rollem
Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch Number CDS), Rollem Fork (Rollem
Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-3), and the Left Fork of
Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6), 10 April, 2000.
POOL
Reference Vance Rollem Left Fork
Pool Branch Fork Parker
Red-spotted newt E A, E A
Notophthalmus viridescens
Spring Peeper A, L A, L A, L A
Pseudacris crucifer
Spotted salamander E (22) E (3)
Ambystoma maculatus
Eastern American Toad A, E
Bufo americanus
Mountain Chorus Frog A A
Pseudacris brachyphona
Green Frog A A, E (4)
Rana clamitans
Total number of species 4343
A = Adult
L = Larvae
E = Egg Masses (number counted)
18
-------
TABLE 5. Total number of amphibians physically collected per pool (all 10 D-Frame sweeps
combined) from the Reference Pool, Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface
Mine; Combination Ditch Number CDS), Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface
Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-3), and the Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment
Ditch Number 6), 10 April 2000.
POOL
Reference Vance Rollem Left Fork
Pool Branch Fork Parker
Red-spotted newt adults 2
Notophthalmus viridescens
Spring Peeper tadpoles 379 49 1
Pseudacris crucifer
Other organisms collected:
Crayfish
Earthworms
Isopods
Midges
Caddisflies
Odonates
Baetidae mayflies
Hemiptera (water buss)
1
5
many
many many
many
many
many
many
many
many
many
many
many
many
many
19
-------
TABLE 6. Daytime visual observation of amphibians from the Reference Pool, Vance Branch
(Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch Number CDS), Rollem Fork
(Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-3), and the Left Fork
of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6), 08 October 1999.
POOL
Reference Vance Rollem Left Fork
Pool Branch Fork Parker
Red-spotted newt A, E A
Notophthalmus viridescens
Spring Peeper L L L
Pseudacris crucifer
Spotted salamander E (22) E (3)
Ambystoma maculatus
Eastern American Toads E
Bufo americanus
Green Frogs A, E (4)
Rana clamitans
A = Adult
L = Larvae
E = Egg Masses (number counted)
20
-------
TABLE 7. List of amphibians identified from nighttime calls from the Reference Pool, Vance
Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch Number CDS),
Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-3), and
the Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6), 08 October 1999.
POOL
Reference Vance Rollem Left Fork
Pool Branch Fork Parker
Northern Spring Peepers many many many many
Pseudacris crucifer
Green Frogs several
Rana clamitans
Mountain Chorus Frogs several few
Pseudacris brachyphona
Eastern American Toads few
Bufo americanus
21
-------
APPENDIX A
22
-------
r^-1
/ Bm
PHOTOGRAPH 1. Reference Site (Vernal pool located below Kiah Creek and Laurel
Branch confluence).
-, i \
PHOTOGRAPH 2. Reference Site (Vernal pool located below Kiah Creek and Laurel
Branch confluence).
23
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 3. Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination
Ditch Number CD3).
PHOTOGRAPH 4. Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination
Ditch Number CD3).
24
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 5. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch
Number SD-3).
PHOTOGRAPH 6. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch
Number SD-3).
25
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 7. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6).
PHOTOGRAPH 8. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6).
26
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 9. Spring peeper Pseudacris crudfer tadpoles.
PHOTOGRAPH 10. Red-spotted newt Notophthalmus viridescens.
27
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 11. Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatus egg masses.
PHOTOGRAPH 12. Green Frog Rana clamitans egg masses.
28
-------
PHOTOGRAPH 13. Eastern American Toad Bufo americanus egg masses.
29
-------
"A History of the Benthic Macroinvertebrate and Water
Chemistry Studies of two Long-term Monitoring
Stations on Trough Fork" Conducted for Pen Coal by
R.E.I. Consultants, report dated 20 June 2000.
-------
ESD020362
A HISTORY OF THE
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE AND
WATER CHEMISTRY STUDIES'OF TWO
LONG-TERM MONITORING STATIONS
ON TROUGH FORK
Conducted For:
PEN COAL CORPORATION
KIAH CREEK MINE OFFICE
P.O. Box 191
DUNLOW, WEST VIRGINIA 25511
Prepared by:
RE.I. CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED
ED J. KIRK, AQUATIC BIOLOGIST/PROJECT MANAGER
JIM HEDRICK & LARA RAS, AQUATIC BIOLOGISTS
225 INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD
BEAVER, WEST VIRGINIA 25813
June 20, 2000
-------
ESD020363
A HISTORY OF THE
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE AND
WATER CHEMISTRY STUDIES
OF TWO LONG-TERM MONITORING STATIONS
ON TROUGH FORK
Conducted For:
PEN COAL CORPORATION
KIAH CREEK MINE OFFICE
P.O. BOX 191
DUNLOW, WEST VIRGINIA 25511
By:
R.E.I. CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED
ED J. KIRK, AQUATIC BIOLOGIST / PROJECT MANAGER
JIM HEDRICK & LARARAS, AQUATIC BIOLOGISTS
225 INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD
BEAVER, WEST VIRGINIA 25813
JUNE 20, 2000
-------
ESD020364
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES v
INTRODUCTION 1
SURFACE IMPACTS 2
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 3
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 4
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS 6
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE ANALYSIS 7
October Data 7
April Data 8
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE BIOMASS ANALYSIS 10
HABITAT ANALYSIS 11
DISCUSSION 12
CONCLUSION 14
-------
ESD020365
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Approximate location of macroinvertebrate and fisheries sampling stations on
Trough Fork. Pen Coal Coloration, April 2000 15
FIGURE 2. Total abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in October at the
upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) Trough Fork stations. Pen
Coal Corporation, May 2000 16
FIGURE 3. Total abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in April at the
upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) Trough Fork stations. Pen
Coal Corporation, May 2000 16
FIGURE 4. Total number of taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in October at
the upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) Trough Fork stations. Pen
Coal Corporation, May 2000 17
FIGURE 5. Total number of taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in April at the
upstream (BM-005) and downstream (BM-006) Trough Fork stations. Pen Coal
Corporation, May 2000 17
FIGURE 6. Number of EPT taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in October at
the upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) Trough Fork stations. Pen
Coal Corporation, May 2000 18
FIGURE 7. Number of EPT taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in April at the
upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) Trough Fork stations. Pen
Coal Corporation, May 2000 18
FIGURE 8. Sensitivity of the October benthic macroinvertebrate community at the
upstream station on Trough Fork. Pen Coal Corporation, May 2000 19
FIGURE 9. Sensitivity of the October benthic macroinvertebrate community at the
downstream station on Trough Fork. Pen Coal Corporation, May 2000 19
FIGURE 10. HilsenhofTBiotic Index (HBI) of the October benthic macroinvertebrate
communities at the upstream (BM-005) and downstream (BM-006) stations on
Trough Fork. Pen Coal Corporation, May 2000 20
FIGURE 11. Sensitivity of the April benthic macroinvertebrate community at the
upstream station on Trough Fork. Pen Coal Corporation, May 2000 20
FIGURE 12. Sensitivity of the April benthic macroinvertebrate community at the
downstream station on Trough Fork. Pen Coal Corporation, May 2000 21
iii
-------
ESD020366
FIGURE 13. HilsenhoffBiotic Index (HBI) of the April benthic macroinvertebrate
communities at the upstream (BM-005) and downstream (BM-006) stations on
Trough Fork. Pen Coal Corporation, May 2000 21
FIGURE 14. Total macroinvertebrate biomass from the October samples from the
upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) stations on Trough Fork. Pen
Coal Corporation, May 2000 22
FIGURE 15. Total macroinvertebrate biomass from the April samples from the upstream
(BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) stations on Trough Fork. Pen Coal
Corporation, May 2000 22
FIGURE 16. Cumulative macroinvertebrate biomass from the combined 5 years of
samples from the upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) stations on
Trough Fork. Pen Coal Corporation, May 2000 23
FIGURE 17. Average biomass per macroinvertebrate sample from the combined 5 years
of samples from the upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) stations
on Trough Fork. Pen Coal Corporation, May 2000 23
IV
-------
ESD020367
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1A. Selected water quality parameters of Stations BM-005 (Upstream) and BM-
006 (Downstream) on Trough Fork; October data 1995 -1999. Pen Coal
Corporation 24
Table IB. Selected water quality parameters of Stations BM-005 (Upstream) and BM-
006 (Downstream) on Trough Fork; April data 1996 - 2000. Pen Coal
Corporation 25
Table 2 A. Selected benthic macroinvertebrate metrics of Stations BM-005 (Upstream)
and BM-006 (Downstream) on Trough Fork; October data 1995 - 1999. Pen Coal
Corporation 26
Table 2B. Selected benthic macroinvertebrate metrics of Stations BM-005 (Upstream)
and BM-006 (Downstream) on Trough Fork; April data 1996 - 2000. Pen Coal
Corporation 27
-------
ESD020368
A HISTORY OF THE
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE AND
WATER CHEMISTRY STUDIES
OF TWO LONG-TERM MONITORING STATIONS
ON TROUGH FORK
INTRODUCTION
Pen Coal Corporation has extensive mining operations located near Dunlow, in southern
Wayne County, West Virginia. The operations consist of an active underground mine in the
Coalburg Seam, two active underground mines and two active surface mines in the 5-BIock seam,
a preparation plant, a refuse fill, and an impoundment. Each of these operations are located in the
watershed of the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek, a tributary of East Lynn Lake.
Mining operations began at the Honey Branch Surface Mine in September 1987. This
operation consisted of contour mining and valley 611 construction associated with the Coalburg
Seam. During the summer of 1988, Pen Coal began mining operations at the Frank Branch
Surface Mine which involved contour mining and point removal with valley fill construction
associated with the 5-Block Seam. The mining operations involving the 5-Block Seam have
continued to expand to involve the drainage areas of Kiah Creek and Trough Fork, which are also
tributaries of the East Lynn Lake.
Some minor water quality problems were detected during 1990, which were easily treated
and corrected. As mining progressed northward, the elevation of the 5-Block Seam has continued
to drop closer to drainage. This created some operational problems due to the lack of available
valley fill areas. This also caused an increase in the quantity of surface water which entered the
mining area. During 1993, the water quality problem associated with the surface mining of the 5-
Block Seam became more pronounced, and required a more intensive effort to control and abate.
Pen Coal began an extensive "Water Quality Improvement Plan" in February 1994 to determine
the most cost effective method for treatment of the existing problems and methods to prevent or
minimize future problems.
As part of the "Water Quality Improvement Plan", Pen Coal began an extensive benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring program in the affected watersheds during the Fall of 1995. The
Trough Fork watershed was undisturbed during the Fall of 1995, but mining was projected for the
area, therefore Trough Fork was included in the monitoring program. This monitoring has
continued each spring and fall since that time.
Since 1995, Pen Coal Corporation has continued to increase the number of monitoring
points, and has recently added intensive macroinvertebrate and fish habitat evaluations, as well as
fisheries sampling, at many of their locations. Also, benthic macroinvertebrate biomass data has
been examined for these two long-term monitoring points on Trough Fork. Currently, Pen Coal
is monitoring 38 sites on 11 streams, bi-yearly for benthic macroinvertebrates, as well as several
sediment control structures for benthic macroinvertebrates, water chemistry, and amphibians.
-------
ESD020369
:, SURFACE IMPACTS
Trough Fork is a first-order stream which has a watershed of approximately 2,882 acres.
Currently permitted activities will impact approximately 580 acres, or 20% of the Trough Fork
watershed. Trough Fork has approximately 16,200 linear feet of perennial stream with
approximately 44,400 linear feet of intermittent tributaries (based on USGS topographic
mapping). The mining activities by Pen Coal will directly Impact approximately 19,800 linear feet
of these tributaries either by direct mineral removal, or by valley fill construction. This equates to
about 44% of the intermittent tributaries of Trough Fork. Only one of these individual tributaries,
Vance Branch, exceeds 250 acres.
The post-mining configuration of the reclaimed mine sites will consist of six valley fills of
various sizes, eighteen ponds, approximately 40,000 linear feet of sediment or diversion channels,
and approximately 575 acres of re-graded land. This land will then be re-vegetated with various
grasses, legumes, shrubs, and trees to enhance wildlife habitat. This scenario will replace the pre-
mining site which originally consisted of 580 acres of unmanaged forestland and 19,800 linear feet
of intermittent streams.
-------
ESD020370
.';. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The purpose of this paper is to identify trends in the benthic macroinvertebrate and water
chemistry data which Pen Coal Corporation has collected at two long-term sites on Trough Fork
(FIGURE 1) between 1995 and 2000. In addition, these data need to be shared with the coal
mining industry and'other interested parties, due to recent concerns over the mountaintop mining
issues.
-------
ESD020371
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
A modified EPA Rapid BJoassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers
(EPA 841-B-99-002) as well as methods outlined in "Interim Chemical/Biological Monitoring
Protocol For Coal Mining Permit Applications" (January 19, 2000, US EPA, Region III) and the
"Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (A Survey of the Condition of Streams in the
Primary Region of Mountain Top Removal/ Valley Fill Coal Mining" - March 1999, US EPA,
Region IS) were followed in the collection of the benthic macroinvertebrate specimens, water
chemistry, and habitat evaluations. Since 1995, measurements for flow, physical water quality,
and chemical water quality have been collected in April and October at an upstream and a
downstream stations on Trough Fork. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were also collected
since October 1995, and the physical habitat was evaluated and since April 1999. Fisheries
evaluations have been added in the Spring 2000 sampling regime, as well as substrate
characterization and geomorphological characteristics. The individual methodologies are
described below.
Physical Water Quality
Physical water quality was analyzed on-site at both stations. Water temperature,
Dissolved Oxygen (DO), pH, and conductivity was measured with a Hydrolab™ Minisonde multi-
parameter probe. Flow was measured with a Marsh-McBimey1" Model 2000 portable flow meter.
Stream widths, depths, and velocities were measured, and the resulting discharge was reported for
both stations.
Water Chemistry
Water chemistry samples were collected at both stations and returned to R.E.I.
Consultants, Incorporated for processing. Parameters analyzed included acidity, alkalinity, total
hardness, fecal coliform, nitrate/ nitrite, sulfate, chloride, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS), dissolved organic carbon, total phosphorous, total aluminum, dissolved
aluminum, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, copper, total iron,
dissolved iron, lead, total manganese, dissolved manganese, magnesium, mercury, nickel,
selenium, sodium, thallium, and zinc.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
A modified EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers
(EPA 841-B-99-002) as well as methods outlined in "Interim Chemical/Biological Monitoring
Protocol For Coal Mining Permit Applications" (January 19, 2000, US EPA, Region III) and the
"Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (A Survey of the Condition of Streams in the
Primary Region of Mountain Top Removal/ Valley Fill Coal Mining" - March 1999, US EPA,
Region HI) were followed in the collection of the benthic macroinvertebrate specimens. At both
stations, macroinvertebrate collections were made via a 0.1-m2 Ellis-Rutter™ Portable
Invertebrate Box Sampler (PCBS) and a kick-net (1-m2 area) sampler. Both samplers were fitted
-------
ESD020372
with a 500-fj.m mesh size net. Three quantitative replicate PEBS samples were collected in a riffle
area, and a semi-quantitative kick-net sample was colleted from a riffle/run area. Samples were
placed in 1-liter plastic containers, preserved in 35% formalin, and returned to the laboratory for
processing. Samples were then picked under microscope and detrital material was discarded only
after a second check to insure that no macroinvertebrates had been missed. All
macroinvertebrates were identified to lowest practical taxonomic level and enumerated. Several
benthic macroinvertebrate metrics were then calculated for each station.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Biomass Analysis
The individual PEBS and kick-net samples were resorted and any non-insects such as
crayfish, amphipods, and isopods were removed. The macroinvertebrates from the individual
samples were dried to constant weight at 100°C. Biomass from individual samples was calculated
and estimates were extrapolated to an area of 1-m2, and averaged to estimate station biomass.
Station biomass for the two seasons was then plotted against time for both stations. Other
biomass comparisons were also examined.
-------
ESD020373
/PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Physical and chemical water quality was analyzed in April and October at the two stations
on Trough Fork beginning in October 1995 (TABLES 1A and IB). October flow has remained
relatively constant at both the upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) stations, since
mining activities began in 1996 (TABLE 1A). Likewise, pH has remained nearly neutral at both
the upstream and downstream stations on Trough Fork. However, the pH has became more basic
at the downstream site since mining activities began in 1996 (pre-mining downstream pH 6.08).
Although Total Suspended Solids (TSS) has not changed since 1995 at either location, Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) has increased dramatically at the downstream station since mining
activities began. Conductivity, hardness, alkalinity, sulfates, sodium, calcium, and the metals iron,
magnesium, and manganese have increased at the downstream (BM-006) station, but have
remained fairly constant at the upstream (BM-005) station since 1995.
April flow data has fluctuated at both the upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-
006) stations between 1996 and 2000 (TABLE IB). The pH has remained nearly neutral at both
the upstream and downstream stations on Trough Fork. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) has
remained constant since 1996 at both locations and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) has increased
substantially at the downstream station since mining activities began. Similar to the October data,
conductivity, hardness, alkalinity, sulfates, sodium, calcium, and the metals iron, magnesium, and
manganese have increased at the downstream (BM-006) station, but have remained fairly constant
at the upstream (BM-005) station since 1996.
-------
ESD020374
;. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE ANALYSIS
October Data
A slight increase in the number of individuals collected at the upstream (BM-005) station,
and a sharper increase in the number of individuals collected at the downstream (BM"006) station
has occurred since 1995 (TABLE 2A, FIGURE 2). Total abundances were lowest in 1995,
however this may have resulted from a poor year, but no previous data are available to support
this theory. Total number of taxa have remained very similar at both the upstream and the
downstream stations. There does not appear to be changes in the total number of taxa collected
at either station for the October sampling events (TABLE 2A, FIGURE 4). The number of EPT
taxa, mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera), from
October data suggests no change in total number of EPT taxa at the upstream station, but a
possible slight decline in total EPT taxa at the downstream station since October 1995 (TABLE
1A, FIGURE 6).
Benthic macroinvertebrate data was also analyzed to determine if mining related activities
have effected three of the major functional feeding groups (scrapers, collector/filterers, and
shredders). The relative abundances of both the scraper group and the collector/filterer group
have been very sporadic in abundance during the October sampling events (TABLE 2A). No
apparent trends between water quality or mining related activities and the abundance of these two
functional feeding groups could be ascertained. However, the downstream station usually
contained more scrapers than the upstream, and more collector/filterers were present at the
downstream station than the upstream station when this functional feeding group was collected.
No apparent trends could be determined for the shredder group but the downstream station
usually contained a smaller relative abundance of shredders than the upstream station during the
October sampling events (TABLE 2A). This likely resulted from the availability of detrital input
rather than changes in water quality.
The Simpson's Diversity Index, the Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index, and the Shannon-
Wiener Evenness indices have been calculated at the Trough Fork station since 1995. Both
diversity indices indicated a difference between the upstream and downstream stations starting in
October 1998 Prior to 1998, no differences in diversity measures occurred between the upstream
and downstream stations during October. The Shannon-Wiener Evenness metric indicated similar
results. A difference in the equitability of abundances of taxa between the two stations became
apparent since 1998. The downstream (BM-006) station became noticeably less diverse, and
abundances were less evenly distributed among the taxa, than the upstream (BM-005) station
since October 1998 (TABLE 2A).
The most noticeable changes in these October macroinvertebrate data collected since 1995
has been a change in the sensitivity of the benthic community at the downstream station. The
sensitivity at the upstream station has remained fairly unchanged since 1995, with similar
percentages of the three sensitivity groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) (TABLE 2 A and
-------
ESD020375
FIGURE 8), A trend towards a less sensitive, and more tolerant community is noticeable at the
downstream station although some potential outliers occur in the data (FIGURE 9). Similarly, a
steady increase in the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) occurred at the downstream station for the
October data which indicates an increase in to!erance(TABLE 2A and FIGURE 10).
*
April Dafa
A slight increase in the number of individuals collected at the upstream (BM-005) station,
and a pronounced increase in the number of individuals collected at the downstream (BM-006)
station has occurred since 1996 (TABLE 2B, FIGURE 3). Dramatic increases in the benthic
macroinvertebrate community occurred in 1999, however this increase appears to be an anomaly.
The total number of taxa collected have remained fairly constant at both the upstream and the
downstream stations during the April sampling events (TABLE 2B, FIGURE 5). The number of
EPT taxa, mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera),
indicated no change in total number of EPT taxa at the upstream station, and a slight decline in
total EPT taxa at the downstream station since April 1996 (TABLE IB and FIGURE 7).
Benthic macroinvertebrate data was analyzed to determine if mining related activities have
effected the three major functional feeding groups (scrapers, collector/filterers, and shredders).
The relative abundances of both the scraper group and the collector/filterer group have been very
sporadic in abundance during the April sampling events (TABLE 2B). No apparent trends
between water quality or mining related activities and the abundance of these two functional
feeding groups could be ascertained. However, the downstream station usually contained more
scrapers, and always contained more collector/filterers than the upstream station (TABLE 2B).
Likewise, no apparent trends between water quality or mining related activities could be identified
for the shredder group. However, the downstream station usually contained a smaller relative
abundance of shredders than the upstream station during the April sampling events. As with thee
October data, this likely resulted from the availability of detrital input rather than changes in water
quality
The Simpson's Diversity Index and the Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index both indicated a
difference in diversity between the upstream and downstream stations in April 2000 (TABLE 2B).
Previously, no differences in diversity measures occurred between the upstream and downstream
stations during April. The Shannon-Wiener Evenness metric indicated similar results. A
difference in the equitability of abundances of taxa between the two stations became apparent in
2000. The downstream (BM-006) station became noticeably less diverse, and abundances were
less evenly distributed among the taxa, than the upstream (BM-005) station in April 2000
(TABLE 2A).
The most noticeable changes in these April macroinvertebrate data collected since 1996
has been a change in the sensitivity of the benthic community at the downstream station. The
sensitivity at the upstream station has remained fairly unchanged since 1996, with similar
percentages of the three sensitivity groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) (TABLE 2B and
-------
ESD020376
FIGURE 11)., Although, a dramatic increase in the benthic macroinvertebrate community
occurred in 1999, this increase appears to be an anomaly. A trend towards a less sensitive, and
more tolerant community is noticeable at the downstream station (FIGURE 12), Similarly, a
steady increase in the HilsenhoffBiotic Index (HBI) occurred at the downstream station for the
April data (TABLE 2B and FIGURE 13).
-------
ESD020377
- BENTfflC MACROINVERTEBRATE BIOMASS ANALYSIS
Total biomass at the upstream (BM-005) station on Trough Fork remained similar
between years with a sharp drop in biomass during the October 1999 sampling event (FIGURE
14). However, total biomass at the downstream (BM-006) station on Trough Fork showed
dramatic fluctuations between years, with no obvious trend. However, there may be somewhat of
an increase in the biomass occurring at the downstream station since October, 1997.
Total biomass at the upstream (BM-005) station on Trough Fork was slightly more
sporadic in the April data than in the October data, with no apparent trend (FIGURE 15). Similar
to the October results, the April total biomass at the downstream (BM-006) station showed some
dramatic fluctuations with a dramatic drop in biomass during April 1998, but a huge increase in
biomass since the April 1999 sampling event.
Cumulative and average biomass per station for the five year sampling period indicated
that biomass was slightly greater during the October (fall) sampling events for the upstream (BM-
005) station, but that biomass was greater during the April (spring) sampling events for the
downstream (BM-006) station (FIGURES 16 and 17). One very important aspect of the biomass
evaluations is that cumulative and average biomass has been greater at the downstream station
during both the April and October sampling events compared to the respective upstream sampling
station (FIGURES 16 and 17). This is important because it indicates that with the increases in
total abundances of aquatic insects occurring at the downstream station over time, biomass has
remained greater at the downstream station, regardless of the change in species sensitivities or
taxa.
10
-------
ESD020378
HABITAT ANALYSIS
BM-005 (Upstream station on Trough Fork)
This station located on Trough Fork, downstream of the confluence with Tomblin Branch,
has continued to receive marginal to optimal scores for substrate and instream cover
(primary) ratings, marginal to optimal channel morphology (secondary) ratings, and poor
to sub-optimal riparian and bank structure (tertiary) ratings. This station has recently
received a marginal score for "embeddedness" due to increases in sedimentation. Small
substrate sizes such as sand and silt can decrease interstitial spaces and reduce aquatic
habitat. The increases in sedimentation have been due to road widening in the immediate
area, and are not related to mining activities since this station is upstream from any mining
or logging activities. Therefore, a marginal score for "channel alteration" has been
recently given to this station. Stream banks have been moderately stable, and have had
poor (< 50% of the stream bank surface covered in vegetation) vegetative cover. The
"riparian zone width" has been poor on both banks because human disturbance (road and
a private residence) is within 6 meters. This station has had a variety of flows during the
sampling events, and provides marginal aquatic habitat.
BM-006 ("Downstream station on Trough Fork)
This station located on Trough Fork, downstream from the confluence with Sugarcamp
Branch, has received marginal to optimal scores for substrate and instream cover
(primary) ratings, marginal to optimal channel morphology (secondary) ratings, and poor
to optimal riparian and bank structure (tertiary) ratings. This station has recently received
a marginal score for "embeddedness" due to increases in sand and silt substrates. Small-
sized substrates can decrease interstitial spaces and reduce aquatic habitat. Stream banks
have been stable, and 70 - 90% of the left stream bank was covered by native vegetation.
However, vegetative cover has been poor on the right stream bank and covered 50% or
less of the bank. The "riparian zone width" has been optimal on the left bank because
human disturbance is greater than 18 meters. The "riparian zone width" has been poor on
the right bank because human disturbance (roads) is within less than 6 meters. This
station has had excellent flow at the time of sampling, and provides sub-optimal aquatic
habitat.
II
-------
ESD020379
DISCUSSION
Benthic macroinvertebrate data has been collected at two stations on Trough Fork for the
past five years. The primary purpose of this report was to detect any trends in the water
chemistry, benthic macroinvertebrate, and habitat data collected over the five year period. Pre-
mining data were collected in October 1995 and April 1996 to represent the Trough Fork
watershed prior to mining-related influences. These pre-mining data, and post mining data since
1996 were examined to identify trends that may have occurred as a result of mining influences.
Annual and seasonal variations in benthic macroinvertebrate and physical parameters
(temperature, flow, water chemistry, and available habitat) are common. Therefore these data
were analyzed on the basis of long-term trends rather than year-to-year, or seasonal, comparisons.
Stream flow has varied at both Trough Fork stations during both April and October
sampling events for the past 5 years (TABLES 1A and IB). Flow variations are common, and
naturally increase as a result of precipitation events, or can become very low during drought or
dry periods of the year. There does not appear to be any change in flow as a result from mining
activity in the Trough Fork watershed. Change in flow as a result of mining activities may have
been detectable if daily records of flow were recorded. The semi-annual measurements of flow
from this report would not likely identify true changes in the Trough Fork flow regime. However,
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), conductivity, hardness, alkalinity, sulfates, sodium, calcium, iron,
magnesium, and manganese have all increased at the downstream site during the past 5 years.
The increases in these water quality constituents likely resulted from mining related activities
which can include road construction and maintenance, vegetation clearing, and vehicle traffic.
Although increases in these water quality constituents have occurred at the downstream station,
no single parameter should severely inhibit the macroinvertebrate community in the downstream
portion of Trough Fork. Changes in the benthic macroinvertebrate community is likely resulting
from a combination of several parameters near limiting levels which may have initiated changes in
the tolerances of the benthic macroinvertebrate community. Parameters such as Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) and pH have remained relatively consistent following mining activities.
A slight increase in the number of individuals collected at the upstream Trough Fork
station and a more obvious increase at the downstream station has occurred in the past 5 years
(TABLES 2A and 28). However, no changes in the total number of taxa collected has occurred
at the upstream or downstream stations since 1995. The abundances of functional feeding groups
such as the scrapers, collector/filterers, and shredders has varied between years, and no trends
could be identified. The diversity and evenness metrics have all indicated a decline in the diversity
and equatability of abundances at the downstream station in the past two years. Typically, when
large increases in abundance occurs, the number of taxa also should increase which results in
higher species diversity indices. However, despite the large increases in abundance at the
downstream Trough Fork station, the diversity indices have declined due to the increases in
abundance from only a couple of tolerant taxa. Evenness represents the equatability among taxa,
and a community with taxa consisting of fairly equal abundances is healthier than a community
dominated by a few very abundant taxa.
12
-------
ESD020380
The most obvious change in the benthic macroinvertebrate community at the downstream
station has been a decline in the number of sensitive individuals and an increase in the number of
tolerant individuals. This is demonstrated by the increase in the HilsenhoffBiotic Index (HBI),
and changes in the three sensitivity groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) (TABLES 2A and
2B). During both sampling seasons, the upstream community has remained fairly well balanced
with relatively equal percentages of organisms from the three sensitivity groups. However, the
downstream station has continually shifted from a fairly well balanced community to a community
dominated by tolerant individuals. The shift to a community dominated by tolerant individuals
may be related to the continued increase in some water chemical constituents at the downstream
station. The declines in diversity and evenness metrics at the downstream Trough Fork station are
also likely related to mining activities. This more tolerant community now consists largely of the
midges, Chironomidae, and the aquatic worms, Oligochaeta. These two taxa are very prolific,
producing many cohorts per year, and can become very predominant in some areas. These large
increases in abundance of these two taxa have caused the diversity and evenness metrics to
decline.
Cumulative and average benthic macroinvertebrate biomass data indicates that biomass
has been greater in the fall (October) at the upstream station, and greater in the spring (April) at
the downstream station (FIGURES 16 and 17). Cumulative biomass and average biomass per
station indicate that biomass is also greater at the downstream station than at the upstream
station. This larger biomass at the downstream station is solely the function of the much greater
abundances collected at the downstream station. Resource agencies have expressed the concern
and need to determine if mining activity results in a decrease in the benthic macroinvertebrate
biomass. Although there may be an increase in October biomass occurring at the downstream
station since mining activities began in 1996, this increase has not been identified for the April
data since downstream April biomass has been more sporadic than downstream October data.
There may be an increase in biomass occurring at the downstream station, but it will take a few
more sampling events to positively evaluate this claim. It is interesting to note that biomass has
remained fairly consistent at the upstream station throughout the life of this study, with relatively
dramatic increases appearing at the downstream station after April 1998.
No dramatic change in the physical habitat at either station has occurred, with the
exception of an increase in the amount of sand and silt to the substrate. Some of this change in
the substrate composition is likely due to mining related activities such as road maintenance, but
some may also be from natural increases resulting from erosion during heavy precipitation events
An increase in sedimentation is usually followed by the dramatic reduction of the scraper group of
aquatic insects. Sedimentation can reduce the amount of interstitial spaces between pebbles and
gravel and reduce the amount of available habitat. Scrapers also require smooth surfaces to feed
on the periphyton which attaches to larger substrate particles, usually gravel size and larger.
Heavy sand and silt deposits can abrade the algae from the substrate or cover the surface of the
substrate and prevent algal growth. Scrapers abundances have been similar over the past five
years, and therefore sedimentation has not likely inhibited periphyton growth.
13
-------
ESD020381
CONCLUSION
Two long-term monitoring stations on Trough Fork have been sampled semi-annually for
five years. Water chemistry, benthic macroinvertebrate, and habitat information has been
collected. The initial sampling periods were conducted prior to mining related disturbances, and
therefore represent the pre-mining conditions. The upstream station is located above the mining
area and upstream of most human influences. The downstream station encompasses active mining
areas and is influenced by sediment control structures/treatment ponds, and haul road traffic.
Water quality at both stations on Trough Fork indicated fluctuations in flow, and
undetectable levels of most metals. Although several chemical parameters have increased over
time at the downstream station, no single physical or chemical water quality parameter appears to
be limiting to the benthic community at the downstream station. However, the combination of
several parameters at near limiting levels may be responsible for changes in the benthic
macroinvertebrate community.
The benthic macroinvertebrate community has shifted from a sensitive, well balanced
benthic community with relatively equal numbers of sensitive, facultative, and tolerant individuals,
to a community dominated by tolerant and facultative individuals. This shift has resulted in
diversity and evenness metrics that indicated a less diverse and less evenly distributed community
at the downstream station. Nevertheless, total taxa collected at the downstream station has
remained unchanged, and total abundances have actually increased substantially. These increases
in total abundance resulted from more tolerant individuals.
Biomass of the benthic macroinvertebrate samples revealed that biomass was usually
greater at the downstream station than at the upstream station for most sampling events.
Cumulative and average biomass for the past five years is considerably greater at the downstream
station compared to the upstream station. Cumulative biomass for the upstream station is greater
in the fall than in the spring; cumulative biomass for the downstream station is greater in the
spring than in the fall.
14
-------
ESD020382
04
04
OS Mies
FIGURE 1. Approximate location of macroinvertebrate and fisheries sampling stations on
Trough Fork. Pen CoaJ Corporation, April 2000.
15
-------
ESD020383
UJ
o
z
z
CD
_l
O
Total Abundances of Benthlc Macroinvertebrates
at the Trough Fork Stations, October, 1995 - 2000
4000 -
3000 -
2000 -
1000 -
0 -
•
^ ^*__
/C-^-^X,. / *
$£-"" \£/""
i i i i i
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
YEAR
--•4-- BM-005 -»- BM-006
FIGURE 2. Total abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in October at the upstream
(BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) Trough Fork stations. Pen Coal Corporation,
May 2000.
6000 -
z
O 1 nnn -
^_ 1 UUU
n -
Total Abundances of Benthlc Macroinvertebrates
at the Trough Fork Stations, April, 1996 - 2000
A
/ V
/ ^
IJ-T^r-— +^r^~-+' '-•*
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
YEAR
* RM nn*i • RM ODfi
» DM UUO • tJlVl UUD
FIGURE 3. Total abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in April at the upstream
(BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) Trough Fork stations. Pen Coal Corporation,
May 2000,
16
-------
ESD020384
Total Taxa of Benthic Macroinvertebrates at the
Trough Fork Stations, October, 1995 - 2000
q c
OO
|
h- 25
L_ H C
~ 1 0
m
I U
^ -••-•"""•-- -^f-
•••»•...„.,,__• i
M
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
YEAR
»•+•• BM-005 -«— BM-006
FIGURE 4. Total number of taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in October at the
upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) Trough Fork stations. Pen Coal
Corporation, May 2000.
35
30
25
20
15
10
Total Taxa of Benthic Macroinvertebrates at the
Trough Fork Stations, April, 1996 - 2000
1996
1997
1998
YEAR
1999
2000
•• BM-005
BM-006
FIGURE 5. Total number of taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in April at the upstream
(BM-005) and downstream (BM-006) Trough Fork stations. Pen Coal Corporation, May
2000.
17
-------
ESD020385
Number of EPT Taxa for Benthlc Macrolnvertebrates
at the Trough Fork Stations, October, 1995 - 2000
1995
1996
1997
YEAR
1998
1999
BM-005
FIGURE 6. Number of EPT taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in October at the
upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) Trough Fork stations. Pen Coal
Corporation, May 2000.
Numberof EPT Taxa forBenthlc Macrolnvertebrates
atthe Trough Fork Stations, April, 1996 -2000
n
X
ra
t-
t—
CL
Ul
0
h_
1)
S3
E
z
0 C
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
n
•— ^__
•~ijf^^ *••-... .^^~~~^_^_
_-•»
..--•*
- —..-Tr— ^ m
1996 1
997 1998 1999 2000
YEAR
A PM nns • RM nnfi
1 * D fVl • U U J ^ D IV! • U U D
FIGURE 7. Number of EPT taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in April at the upstream
(BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) Trough Fork stations. Pen Coal Corporation,
May 2000.
18
-------
ESD020386
Sensitivity Index forStation BM-005 on Trough
Fork, October/1995 - 1999
1995
1996
1997
YEAR
1998
1999
% Tolerant E3 % Facultative H% Sensitive
FIGURE 8. Sensitivity of the October benthic macroinvertebrate community at the upstream
station on Trough Fork. Pen Coal Corporation, May 2000.
Sensitivity Index forStation BM-006 on Trough
Fork, October, 1995 -1999
100%
1995
1996
1997
YEAR
1998
1999
% Tolerant 0% Facultative B% Sensitive
FIGURE 9, Sensitivity of the October benthic macroinvertebrate community at the downstream
station on Trough Fork. Pen CoaJ Corporation, May 2000.
19
-------
ESD020387
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) for Benthic Macroinvertebrates at the
Trough Fork Stations, October, 1995 - 2000
1995
1996
1997
YEAR
1998
1999
••>•• BM-005
BM-006
FIGURE 10. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) of the October benthic macroinvertebrate
communities at the upstream (BM-005) and downstream (BM-006) stations on Trough
Fork. Pen Coal Corporation, May 2000.
Sensitivity of macroinvertebrates collected at
upstream station BM-005 on Trough Fork,
April 1996 - 2000
1996
1997
1998
Year
1999
2000
% Tolerant %% Facultative •% Sensitive
FIGURE 11. Sensitivity of the April benthic macroinvertebrate community at the upstream
station on Trough Fork. Pen Coal Corporation, May 2000.
20
-------
ESD020388
Sensitivity of macrolnvertebrates at downstream
station BM-006 on Trough Fork,April 1996 -2000
100% i
1996
1997
1998
Year
1999
2000
% Tolerant a % Facultative
% Sensitive
FIGURE 12. Sensitivity of the April benthic macroinvertebrate community at the downstream
station on Trough Fork. Pen Coal Corporation, May 2000.
Hilsenhoff Biotlc Index (HBI) for Benthic Macroinvertebrates at
the Trough Fork Stations, April, 1996 -2000
7 -
/
R -
o
5_
S A H
X 4
o
o
r> .
-------
ESD020389
Total biomass from October samples for 1995 -1999 from
stations BM005 and BM006
w
in
w
E
_o
OQ
95
96
97
Year
98
99
FIGURE 14. Total macroinvertebrate biomass from the October samples from the upstream (BM-
005) and the downstream (BM-006) stations on Trough Fork. Pen Coal Corporation,
May 2000.
Total bjo mass from April samples for 1 996 - 2000 from
stations BM005 and BM006
to
a
E
o
in
96
97
98
Year
99
00
FIGURE 15. Total macroinvertebrate biomass from the April samples from the upstream (BM-
005) and the downstream (BM-006) stations on Trough Fork. Pen Coal Corporation,
May 2000.
22
-------
ESD020390
Cumulative Bio mass from October 1995 to
April 2000 for stations BM005 and BM006
BM005 spring BM005 fall
Station
BM006spring BM006 fall
FIGURE 16. Cumulative macroinvertebrate biomass from the combined 5 years of samples from
the upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) stations on Trough Fork. Pen
Coal Corporation, May 2000.
Average Biomass from October 1995 to April 2000
for stations BM005 and BM006
BM005 spring 8M005 fuil
BM006sprmg 8M006 fall
Sita
FIGURE 17. Average biomass per macroinvertefarate sample from the combined 5 years of
samples from the upstream (BM-005) and the downstream (BM-006) stations on Trough
Fork. Pen Coal Corporation, May 2000.
-------
: ; 1 f
1
1 :
i i
Table 1 A. Selected water quality parameters of Stations BM-005 (Upstream) and BM-006 (Downstream) on Trough Fork; October data 1995 - 1999.
Corporation*
Flow (ftVscc)
pH(SU)
Conductivity (p
-------
Table IB. Selected water quality parameters of Stations BM-005 (Upstream) and BM-006 (Downstream) on Trough Fork; April data 19% - 2000. Pen Coal
Corporation.*
APRIL 1996
Row (ftVsec)
pH(SU)
Conductivity (Mmhos)
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Hardness (mg/1)
Alkalinity (mgA)
Acidity (mg/1)
Sulfatcs (mg/1)
Total Sodium (mg/1)
Total Aluminum (mg/1)
Total Calcium (mg/1)
Total Iron (mg/1)
Total Magnesium (mg/1)
Total Manganese (mg/1)
Chlorides (mg/1)
BM-005
1.6
7.75
58
54
<1.0
19.9
22.6
19.8
13.6
1.08
0.19
4.09
0 19
2.35
<0.05
—
BM-006
4.8
7.69
64
64
15
22.4
20.9
19.3
15.3
1.05
0.60
4.44
0.72
2.74
006
—
APRIL 1997
BM-305 BM-006
1.3
7.29
67
49
5
25.8
9.0
<1.0
15.8
1.27
0.052
5.52
0.089
2.92
0.005
1.6
5.0
7.35
221
129
5
99.2
27.9
<1.0
55.7
2.36
0.064
25.2
0.107
8.82
0.236
1.8
APRIL 1998
BM-005 BM-006
3.75
6.92
53.6
31
<10
20.4
11.7
<1.0
14.6
1.06
0.224
4.36
0.240
2.32
<0.05
<1.0
8.66
6.54
611
407
9
303
66.4
<10
214
3.48
0.127
80.2
1.03
24.9
2.33
1.3
APRIL 1999
BM-005 BM-006
1.24
6.88
59
43
<1
27.4
9.7
<1
19.0
1.81
0.045
6.46
0.118
2.73
0.004
1.4
1.80
7.41
470
281
<1
154
36.9
<1
208
48.2
<0.030
31.3
0.219
18.4
0.080
2.4
APRIL 2QOQ
BM-005 BM-006.
2.83
6177
90.2
33
3
20.7
10.4
5.9
15.2
1.30
0.240
4.74
0.335
2.16
0.010
1.5
1.83
7.50
530
103
5
66.9
22.0
<1.0
49.1
2.46
0.224
16.6
0.350
6.19
0.165
2.5
m
CO
D
o
TO
C
CO
-------
Table 2A. Selected benthic macroinvenebrate metrics of Stations BM-005 (Upstream) and BM-006 (Downstream) on Trough Fork; October data 1995 - 1999.
Pen Coal Corporation
Total Individuals Collected
Taxa Richness
% Sensitive Abundance
(Taxa)
% Facultative Abundance
(Taxa)
% Tolerant Abundance
(Taxa)
Scrapers : CoUcctor/Filterers
% Shredders
# of EFT Taxa
HilsenhoffBiotic Index (HBI)
Simpson's Diversity Index
Shannon-Wiener Diversity
Index
Shannon-Weiner Evenness
OCT
BM-005
220
20
18%
(6)
51%
(5)
30%
(4)
18:0
3%
9
4 44
0 84
321
079
1995
BM-006
496
16
29%
(7)
43%
(5)
28%
(4)
113:0
0%
9
4.08
0.86
3.06
0.76
OCT
BM-005
1519
23
58%
(7)
24%
(12)
17%
764:88
7%
16
3.80
090
3.81
0.84
1996
BM-006
2277
20
45%
(8)
31%
(7)
23%
(4)
647:171
0%
12
4.59
0.90
3.60
0.83
OCT
BM-005
907
19
10%
(6)
37%
(7)
53%
(6)
61:0
5.0%
10
4.58
0.79
2.90
0.68
1997
BM-006
308
15
48%
(5)
8%
(6)
43%
(4)
129:0
1.6%
9
4.73
0.76
266
0.68
OCT
BM-005
1009
21
17%
(7)
7%
(8)
76%
(6)
58:4
0.3%
11
5.40
0.69
2.43
0.55
1998
BM-006
2777
20
11%
(5)
7%
(6)
83%
(9)
250:88
0.0%
6
5.65
0.47
1.64
0.38
OCT
BM-005
1462
20'
16%
(6)
29%
(9)
56%
(5)
40:8
2.9%
10
4.47
0.82
3.01
0.70
1999
BM-006
2984
20
4%
(6)
31%
(7)
65%
(7)
68:16
3.1%
8
5.83
0.62
2.02
0.47
m
if)
O
o
ro
CO
26
-------
Table 2B. Selected benthic macroinvertebrate metrics of Stations HM-005 (Upstream) and BM-006 (Downstream) on Trough Fork; April data 19% - 2000.
Pen Coal Corporation
Total Individuals Collected
Taxa Richness
*/• Sensitive Abundance
(Taxa)
% Facultative Abundance
(Taxa)
% Tolerant Abundance
(Taxa)
Scrapers : Collector/Filterers
% Shredders
# of EFT Taxa
HilscnhoffBiotic Index (HBI)
Simpson's Diversity Index
Sliannon-Weiner Diversity Index
Shannon-Weiner Evenness
APRIL
BM-005
193
21
16%
(6)
45%
(11)
39%
<4)
12:6
6%
14
3.77
0.81
3.17
0.72
.1996
BM-006
651
26
45%
(13)
37%
W
18%
(4)
211:76
10%
19
3.57
0.87
3.48
0.74
APRIL
BM-005
398
24
27%
(5)
53%
(13)
20%
(6)
95:15
18%
17
3.28
0.88
3.39
0.74
1997
BM-006
328
26
27%
(6)
34%
(13)
39%
(7)
77:18
11%
16
4.14
0.82
3.27
0.71
APRIL
BM-005
676
27
12%
(7)
35%
(12)
53%
(7)
68:5
11.8%
17
4.91
0.76
3.08
0.65
1998
BM-006
1303
30
22%
(6)
50%
(17)
28%
(7)
279:58
14.2%
19
4.79
0.86
3.13
0.64
APRIL
BM-005
2050
22
6.5%
(7)
4.7%
(9)
88.4%
(6)
94:2
2.5%
13
5.64
0.36
1.42
0.32
1999
BM-006
5292
23
15.2%
(9)
6.5%
(9).
78.3%
(5)
784:216
1.4%
15
5.42
0.49
1.53
0.34
APRIL
BM-005
543
36
27.8%
(8)
40.9%
d5)
31.3%
(7)
96:13
30.0%
18
3.53
0.91
4.07
0.83
2000
BM-006
2325
21
2.9%
(4)
23.7%
(ID
73.5%
(5)
47:118
6.1%
12
5.35
0.57
2.03
0,46
m
w
D
o
K
p
C*3
CO
-pa
27
-------
Weakland, Cathy, A., and Wood, Petra Bohall.
"Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica Cerulea) Microhabitat
and Landscape-level Habitat Characteristics in
Southern West Virginia in Relation to Mountaintop
Mining/Valley Fills". Final Project Report. USGS
Biological Resources Division and West Virginia
University, Division of Forestry. December 2002.
-------
CERULEAN WARBLER (DENDROICA CERULEA) MICROHABITAT AND
LANDSCAPE-LEVEL HABITAT CHARACTERISTICS IN SOUTHERN WEST
VIRGINIA IN RELATION TO MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS
Final Project Report
December 2002
Submitted by:
CATHY A. WEAKLAND AND PETRA BOHALL WOOD
West Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
USGS Biological Resources Division
and West Virginia University, Division of Forestry
P.O. Box 6125, Morgantown, WV 26506
Submitted to:
USGS Biological Resources Division
Species-At-Risk Program
-------
CERULEAN WARBLER (DENDROICA CERULEA) MICROHABITAT AND LANDSCAPE-LEVEL HABITAT
CHARACTERISTICS IN SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA IN RELATION TO MOUNTAINTOP
MINING/VALLEY FILLS
CATHY A. WEAKLAND AND PETRA BOHALL WOOD, West Virginia Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit, USGS, BRD and West Virginia University, Division of Forestry, P. O.
Box 6125, Morgantown, WV 26506
ABSTRACT
The Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) is a species of conservation concern in eastern
North America, where declines in its population have been documented over the last several
decades. Both habitat fragmentation and increased edge may negatively impact Cerulean Warbler
populations. A high proportion of this species' population occurs in forested areas of southern West
Virginia, where it may be threatened by loss and degradation of forested habitat from mountaintop
mining/valley fills (MTMVF). We examined the impact of forest fragmentation (in particular the
effects of fragment size and response to edges) on Cerulean Warbler densities from a landscape
perspective using territory mapping techniques and geographic information system (GIS)
technology. Specific objectives were: (1) to quantify Cerulean Warbler territory density and indices
of reproductive success in forests fragmented by MTMVF mining and in relatively intact blocks of
forest, (2) to quantify landscape characteristics affecting Cerulean Warbler territory density, and (3)
to quantify territory-level characteristics of Cerulean Warbler habitat. The study area included
portions of 4 counties in southwestern West Virginia. Territory density was determined using spot-
mapping procedures, and reproductive success was estimated using the proportion of mated males
as an index of reproductive performance. We quantified landscape characteristics (cover types and
fragmentation metrics) from digitized aerial photographs using Arcview® with the Patch Analyst®
extension and measured microhabitat characteristics on spot-mapping plots.
Territory density of Cerulean Warblers was greater in intact (4.6 terr/10 ha) than fragmented
forests (0.7 terr/10 ha), although mating success of males was similar in both (60%). Habitat
models that included both landscape and microhabitat variables were the best predictors of territory
density. The best model indicated that territory density increased with increasing snag density,
percent canopy cover >6-12m and >24m, and distance from mine edge. Models for predicting
microhabitat use at the territory level were weak, indicating that microhabitat characteristics of
territories were similar to habitat available on spot-mapping plots. The species did not appear to
avoid internal edges such as natural canopy gaps and open or partially-open canopy roads.
Territory placement on ridges was greater than expected and in bottomlands (ravines) and west-
facing slopes less than expected based on availability in both intact and fragmented forest. In
fragmented forest, 92% of territories occurred only in fragments with ridgetop habitat remaining.
Preference for ridges suggests that MTMVF may have a greater impact on Cerulean Warbler
populations than other sources of forest fragmentation since ridges are removed in this mining
process. Generally, our data indicate that Cerulean Warblers are negatively affected by
mountaintop mining from loss of forested habitat, particularly ridgetops, and from degradation of
remaining forests (as evidenced by lower territory density in fragmented forests and lower territory
density closer to mine edges).
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cemled), a species of concern in the eastern United States,
occurs at high densities in southern West Virginia. Cerulean Warblers have been declining in many
parts of their range (Sauer et al. 2000), and southwestern West Virginia may represent a significant
source population for this species in the eastern United States (Rosenberg and Wells 2000). A
recent status assessment by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that the population is
declining at "precipitous rates" and that the primary threat to the species is loss of habitat (Hamel
2000). The assessment also suggests that successful management will depend upon managing high
quality habitat in forested landscapes (Hamel 2000). It is estimated that 47% of the Cerulean
Warbler population in North America occurs in the Ohio Hills physiographic area (Rosenberg
2000), which includes part of southern West Virginia. Partners in Flight (PIF) identified the
Cerulean Warbler as priority species for conservation in the upland forest community of the Ohio
Hills and Northern Cumberland Plateau physiographic areas (Rosenberg 2000, C. Hunter, personal
communication), the 2 areas within which our study sites fall. This species also is listed as being at
Action level II (in need of immediate management or policy range-wide) by PIF (Rosenberg 2000).
A current potential risk to Cerulean Warbler populations is the coal mining technique of
mountaintop mining/valley fill (MTMVF). These extensive surface mines can impact areas on the
order of 2000 ha in size, converting a landscape that is predominantly forested to a landscape of
predominantly early successional habitats with remnant forest fragments (Wood et al. 2001). It is
imperative to understand how these landscape-level changes could impact Cerulean Warblers, a
species that inhabits large tracts of mature deciduous forest with large, tall trees (Hamel 2000). The
species appears to use edges of small canopy gaps within large tracts; however, the use of openings
and edges needs further study. Other high priority research needs include occurrence and density of
this species relative to landscape characteristics, especially in relation to forest fragmentation,
habitat preferences in relation to vegetation structure, and response of populations to land
management activities (Hamel 2000).
Fragmentation and loss of forest habitat from a variety of human-induced disturbances are
major issues in wildlife conservation due to negative effects on a number of wildlife species,
including Cerulean Warblers. Because West Virginia is predominantly forested, it provides
important habitat for forest interior songbird species that require large tracts of unbroken forest.
Mountaintop mining/valley fill sets back successional stages, essentially converting large areas of
-------
mature hardwood forest to early successional habitat. Forested valleys located below the target coal
seams and beyond the reach of the valley fills often appear vegetatively similar to nearby
contiguous tracts of forest, but are partially surrounded by actively mined or reclaimed areas
resulting in large amounts of edge habitat. These edges may attract known nest predators, such as
American Crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and Blue Jays (Cyanocitta cristata), and a known nest
parasite, the Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater\ which may negatively affect songbird
populations by reducing productivity (reviews by Yahner 1988, Paton 1994).
The current federal status assessment indicates that "habitat destruction, fragmentation, and
modification on breeding and nonbreeding areas" are most likely responsible for the decline of this
species (Hamel 2000). The major effect of MTMVF on Cerulean Warblers is the loss and
fragmentation of forested habitat. Fragmentation may negatively affect forest-dwelling songbirds
because of isolation effects, area effects, edge effects, and competitive species interactions (Finch
1991, Faaborg et al. 1995). In a forested landscape, fragmentation results from timber harvests,
roads, powerlines, stand diversity, and natural canopy gaps. This is a much finer scale than occurs
in agricultural areas, where forests appear as islands in a sea of crops and/or pastureland.
Fragmentation in a forested landscape might be viewed as "internal" or soft fragmentation, whereas
fragmentation in an agricultural landscape might be viewed as "external" or hard fragmentation
(Hunter 1990). Fragmentation in an agricultural landscape is often permanent, but fragmentation in
forested landscapes is usually temporary (Faaborg et al. 1995). Faaborg et al. (1995) suggested that
the latter type of fragmentation is less severe to forest birds than permanent fragmentation, but
nonetheless, "detrimental effects still exist." For example, Duguay et al. (2001) found that the
number of Wood Thrush fledglings produced in clearcuts was less than in unharvested forest, but
the number produced was still high enough to prevent the clearcuts from being sink habitat.
Weakland et al. (2002) found that the abundance of some forest interior species declined after
diameter-limit harvesting, but the abundance of most species was not affected when a large
diameter-limit (>45cm) was used. There are no published studies documenting the effect of
MTMVF on forest-dwelling songbirds as forests are lost and fragmented due to mining activities.
Thus, it is unclear whether or not MTMVF acts as an internal or external fragmentation event to
songbird species. The severity of the habitat loss/fragmentation will depend on whether MTMVF
areas are re-forested or if they are allowed to remain in early stages of succession. Even when
natural succession occurs on reclaimed MTMVF sites, it can be very slow due to soil compaction
-------
and lack of a seed bank. Non-timber post-mining land uses such as grazing or development will
result in permanent fragmentation of forest habitats.
During 1999 and 2000, we quantified the effects of MTMVF on songbird populations
(Wood et al. 2001). Using point count methodology, we found Cerulean Warblers at relatively high
abundances in both intact (47 point count stations) and fragmented forest (36 point count stations).
They were detected at 62% of intact forest point counts and at 44% of fragmented forest point
counts. However, the number of fragmented forests that we were able to sample (8) was relatively
low, and we did not sample a large range of different-sized fragments. Additionally, presence of an
individual does not imply that it bred there (Van Home 1983).
In 2001 and 2002, we re-sampled our existing study sites and quantified Cerulean Warbler
density using territory mapping techniques. Territory mapping can be a more accurate and precise
method of estimating bird abundance (Bibby et al. 1992) and allowed us to make inferences
concerning the relationships between bird density and habitat and landscape variables. We also
added study sites in additional forest fragments resulting from MTMVF to assess the effects of
fragment size and edge type. We measured microhabitat characteristics in the field and landscape
characteristics from aerial photographs and related these to Cerulean Warbler territory density. Our
specific objectives were: (1) to compare Cerulean Warbler territory density and an index of
reproductive success in forests fragmented by MTMVF mining with those in relatively intact blocks
of forest in southern West Virginia, (2) to quantify landscape characteristics affecting Cerulean
Warbler territory density, and (3) to quantify territory-level characteristics of Cerulean Warbler
habitat.
METHODS
Study Sites
Our study sites were located in mature forest surrounding three mountaintop mine/valley fill
complexes within three watersheds in Boone, Logan, Kanawha, and Fayette counties, West Virginia
(Figs. 1-4). One mine complex (2003 ha) in Kanawha and Fayette counties was in the Ohio Hills
physiographic province; the other two (1672 and 1819 ha) were in the Northern Cumberland
Plateau. These sites were used in our previous study of the impact of MTMVF on terrestrial
wildlife in 1999 and 2000 (Wood et al. 2001).
Intact forest sites were relatively large, unfragmented areas of forest that were undisturbed
by mining activities but located near reclaimed MTMVF complexes, either within the same
-------
watershed as the reclaimed site or in an adjacent watershed. Although these sites were relatively
contiguous forest, they did have some breaks in canopy cover from streams, roads, powerlines, and
natural canopy gaps. Some intact forest sites were located in close proximity to MTMVF areas, but
no intact forest site shared more than one edge with an MTMVF area. We defined fragmented
forest as a tract of forest located within a MTMVF complex and primarily surrounded by reclaimed
mine land. Because these tracts are often long, narrow peninsulas of forest, they generally are
surrounded by reclaimed land on at least three sides.
The intact and fragmented forest areas are comprised mostly of mature hardwood species
including oaks (Quercus spp.), hickories (Carya spp.), tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), American
beech (Fagus grandifolia), red maple (Acer mbrum), sugar maple (A. saccharum), and white ash
(Fraxinus americana). These stands are second growth forests that appeared to be approximately
60-80 years old. Although forested, these stands may have been periodically disturbed over the last
several decades from firewood cutting, single tree harvesting, thinning, and understory forest fires.
Surveys/sampling
In 2001, we established six intact forest plots (two within each watershed) and 19 plots in 15
fragments. Two additional intact plots were added to the study in 2002.
We surveyed Cerulean Warblers using a territory-mapping technique called spot-mapping
(Bibby et. al 1992). Plots were placed near the center of 15 forest fragments ranging from 1-290 ha,
allowing us to examine territory density relative to fragment size. In 2 larger fragments, two 10 ha
plots were established, 1 near the center and 1 adjacent to a reclaimed grassland mine edge to
examine response to major edge type (Table 1). In the largest fragment, 3 plots were established, 1
adjacent to edge (10 ha), 1 interior on a mid-slope (7.5 ha), and 1 along a stream (10 ha). In
fragments <10 ha in size, the whole fragment was surveyed for Cerulean Warblers; therefore plot
size was equal to fragment size (Table 1). All intact forest plots were 10 ha in size. Although intact
forest plots were at least 100 m from the mine edge, they still contained internal edges due to the
presence of roads, streams, and natural canopy gaps, giving us the opportunity to assess the effects
of these edge types on Cerulean Warbler densities.
Each fragmented forest and intact forest plot was surveyed at least 10 times from the first
week of May to the first week of July each year (Bibby et al. 1992). Surveys were conducted from
one-half hour after sunrise to 1030 hr EST. All surveys were conducted by 3-5 observers
experienced in songbird identification and trained in territory-mapping procedures. The maximum
number of territories/10 ha on each plot between years was used in statistical analyses.
-------
Assessing Reproductive Success
Information on Cerulean Warbler reproductive success is greatly needed, but it was
logistically unfeasible to find enough nests of this canopy-nesting species to have an adequate
sample size needed to determine survival rates. Therefore to evaluate reproductive performance, we
opportunistically gathered evidence of breeding, such as nest location and nestling food
provisioning, and male/female interactions on each plot by observing Cerulean Warbler activity
during territory mapping. Although these methods are limited, we believe they provided us with at
least some information on the reproductive success of Cerulean Warblers within our study area.
Vickery et al (1992) applied a similar method while studying sparrow species in Maine, for which
they could find few nests. Researchers studying the Kirtland's Warbler (D. kirtlandif) (Probst and
Hayes 1987), Ovenbirds (Seiums aurocapillus)., and Kentucky Warblers (Oporornis formosus)
(Gibbs and Faaborg 1990) also used similar methods to estimate pairing success.
Microhabitat Sampling
We quantified microhabitat characteristics within each plot using modified methods from
BBIRD (Martin et. al 1997) and James and Shugart (1970). We established two 0.04-ha quadrats
per hectare in each territory-mapping plot. Quadrats were systematically distributed approximately
every 50 m throughout the plot (Ratti and Garton 1994), except at sites that were used in our
previous study in 1999-2000. We used existing microhabitat information from these sites (sampling
methods were the same in both studies and habitat conditions had not changed) and only collected
additional microhabitat measurements if the sample size was <2 quadrats/ha. One 0.04-ha quadrat
was established at the center of each territory. Measurements included tree densities and diameters,
density of snags >8 cm dbh (diameter-at-breast height), canopy height, aspect, percent slope, and
percent canopy cover and ground cover as measured using an ocular tube (James and Shugart
1970). Snags were defined as standing dead trees >8 cm in diameter with no live foliage present.
We also determined the distance from the center of the territory to the closest edges using aerial
photographs, compass, and pacing. Internal edge types included the following: open-canopy road,
partially-open canopy road (including skidder trails), development (i.e. houses, buildings, etc.),
river or stream, and natural canopy gap. Open-canopy roads were those that were not overtopped
by trees and from which open sky was observed. Partially-open canopy roads were overtopped by
trees and revealed little open sky. Natural canopy gaps were openings created by snags and/or
windfalls. Mine edge was considered an external edge and was measured at the territory-level only
when mine was the closest edge type. The mean of quadrat measurements for each variable for each
-------
plot was used in statistical analyses. Microhabitat measurements also were made at Cerulean
Warbler nests using the methods described above.
Landscape Analyses
We quantified landscape characteristics by digitizing georeferenced copies of the 1996-97
National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP) photographs for our study areas into 7 land use/land
cover categories: mature deciduous forest, mature mixed coniferous/deciduous forest, grassland,
barren, shrub/pole, water/wetlands, and developed. Roads, trails, and streams were overlaid on
cover maps to examine territory placement relative to these canopy gaps. Fragment size was
measured from aerial photographs. Final maps were corrected to reflect changes since 1996. We
used these maps to calculate the amount of each cover type within 1 km of the center of each study
plot and to calculate fragmentation indices that may predict the density of Cerulean Warblers.
Fragmentation indices included contrast-weighted edge density (Appendix 1), core area of mature
forest, area of fragment or continuous forest (within 2-km of the plot center), and distance from
mine edge. We used a 100-m buffer to calculate core area and edge density. Arcview®
(Environmental Systems Research Institute 1996) with the Patch Analyst0 extension (McGarigal
and Marks 1994, Elkie et al. 1999) was used for all landscape analyses.
Statistical Analyses
Habitat models
To develop habitat models, we followed the recommendations of Burnham and Anderson
(1998) who advocate an information-theoretic approach, which is based the principle of parsimony.
This principle implies that a model should be as simple as possible with respect to the included
variables, the model structure, and the number of parameters. They recommend the use of
Kullback-Leibler information and Aikaike's information criterion (AIC) as the basis for modeling
rather than null hypothesis testing. With this approach, one selects a set of candidate models prior
to examining the empirical data. The a priori models are selected based on previous knowledge of
the species in question. Variables are dropped or combined before modeling with the actual data.
When little is known about the system in question, a large number of candidate models may be
examined in an exploratory analysis. As Burnham and Anderson state, this method emphasizes
thinking about the set of candidate models, excluding those variables that probably are not relevant
to the species, and looking for potentially important variables in the literature. Models are
evaluated by comparing relative AIC values among models and by examining Aikaike weights to
7
-------
determine the probability of each model being selected for the given data relative to all the others
(Burnham and Anderson 1998).
Habitat available for Cerulean Warblers was evaluated 3 ways: at the microhabitat level (plot),
landscape level, and the territory level. We began model selection at the microhabitat and
landscape levels by first examining the frequency distribution of Cerulean Warbler territories,
which was found to be a Poisson distribution (Neter et. al 1988). We then modeled the relationship
between territories and habitat variables using Poisson regression (Stokes et al. 1995).
Microhabitat variables included in the candidate models were density of large trees (>38 cm
dbh) and snags, distance from the closest edge, and canopy cover in 4 height classes (Table 2). We
excluded understory stem densities, ground cover, and low canopy cover (<6 m) which likely have
little influence on habitat selection by this canopy-dwelling species. Average canopy height also
was excluded. Since Ceruleans are known to select the tallest trees as singing perches, we felt that
including this variable would bias the results.
At the landscape level, variables were combined or excluded based on known preferences of
the species or because they were highly correlated to one another. The area of mature deciduous
forest was removed from the analysis because it was highly correlated to core area of mature forest.
Cover of shrub/pole, grassland, wetlands/ponds, and barren were combined into one cover class
(mine) to help reduce the overall number of variables in the model because the species is not likely
to select any of these habitats. Landscape variables included in the candidate models were mine
cover, mature mixed conifer/deciduous cover, development cover, as well as 4 fragmentation
indices (Table 2).
Because little is known about Cerulean Warbler habitat use in West Virginia and there is no
information regarding landscape effects from mountaintop removal on this species, we proceeded
with an exploratory analysis and examined a large number of candidate models (n=488) using a top-
down approach by starting with the full model and deleting variables (Burnham and Anderson
1998). The full model included all 14 microhabitat and landscape variables (Table 2). We then
calculated AIC values with a correction factor (AICc), because our sample size to parameter ratio
was <40 (Burnham and Anderson 1998). Models examined included all 14 univariate models,
microhabitat-only models, landscape-only models, and combined models with both microhabitat
and landscape variables.
To examine territory-level habitat use, we developed logistic regression models from use/non-
use data with the same variables used in microhabitat analyses. Use data were measurements taken
-------
at the center of territories (primarily singing male core areas or nest sites). Non-use data were
measurements taken on subplots that fell outside the areas used by singing males, as determined
from spot-maps (Figs. 5-14). Two sets of logistic regression models were developed. The first used
data from all vegetation subplots in all plots. The second used data only from plots where Cerulean
Warblers were found, to exclude plots where Ceruleans may not have been detected because of the
landscape. We selected the 5 best models from a set of 20 candidate logistic models initially
developed from knowledge of Cerulean Warbler habitat preferences from the literature and from
consulting with others who study this species. AICC values were used to select the 5 best models.
Comparisons between treatments
We used chi-square analysis (Zar 1999) to examine the difference between the used and
available habitat in fragmented and intact forest. We then calculated Bonferroni 95% confidence
intervals (Neu et al. 1974) for the proportion of occurrence in each habitat category and compared
them to the available habitat.
Cerulean Warbler density relative to slope, aspect and edges
Cerulean Warbler territory placement relative to slope position, aspect, and edges was
examined using chi-square analysis (Zar 1999) and Bonferroni 95% confidence intervals (Neu et al.
1974). The occurrence of Cerulean Warbler territories in each category was determined by using
the position of the center of the territory. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were calculated
to examine the difference between the proportion of occurrence and the proportion of available
habitat in each category.
We measured the area of each spot-mapping plot that was ridge, mid-slope, and low-slope to
determine the proportion available for each slope position. The expected number of territories in
each category was determined by multiplying the total number of territories by the proportion of
available habitat in each category. Ridge was considered the area of the plot at the peak with little
or no slope. Low slope was the area of the plot that was at the foot of the slope <25 m from a
stream or creek bottom. Mid slope was all the area between the low slope and the ridge. We
determined the area of each plot that faced east (0-180°), and west (>180-359°), as well as the area
in ridge top and bottomland that have no slope and thus no aspect. Aspects could not be broken
down further because of small sample sizes.
We used chi-square (Zar 1999) to compare use and availability of edge types. Edge type use
was the closest edge to each territory. We determined the availability of edge types using data from
the non-use vegetation quadrats. The proportion of quadrats in each closest edge category was
-------
considered available edge habitat. The expected total number of territories was the product of the
total number of observed territories and the proportion of edge types available in each edge
category. We compared the proportion of edge types available between fragmented and intact
forests using a paired t-test (Neter et al. 1988).
Mating success
We attempted to observe mating and reproductive behavior on all plots in 2001, and on a sub-
sample of plots in 2002. Initially we planned to rank male reproductive success using the
reproductive index score of Vickery et al. (1992). However, because these birds stay relatively high
in the canopy, females are notoriously secretive, and few active nests were found, the reproductive
index score was not effective for use with our data. However, we present findings for all males that
were followed and observed for at least 60 min. Males were considered mated if a female was
observed on the territory, the male was observed feeding fledglings, or the male sang the "whisper"
song, which is only sung by mated males (J. Barg, pers. comm.). Males were considered unmated if
they never sang the whisper song, females were never observed on the territory, fledglings were not
observed, and the male had a high rate of singing.
RESULTS
Treatment Comparisons
We mapped 14 territories on 175.3 ha of fragmented forest in 2001 and 10 in 2002 (Figs. 5-
11) for an average territory density of 0.7 territories/10 ha. In intact forest, we mapped 24
territories on 60 ha in 2001 and 40 on 80 ha in 2002 (Figs. 12-14) yielding a mean territory density
of 4.6 territories/10 ha. The proportion of observed territories was less in fragmented forest and
greater in intact forest than the proportion expected based on the habitat available in each treatment
(Table 3, Fig. 15). Seventy-three percent of all territories were in intact forest, although only 28.5%
of the total area surveyed was intact forest. Territory density was over 6 times higher in intact than
fragmented forest.
Microhabitat and Landscape Models
The 5 best habitat models were combined models that included both microhabitat and
landscape variables (Table 4). All 5 models included 3 microhabitat variables (percent canopy
cover >6-12 m (Fig. 16), percent canopy cover >24 m (Fig. 17), and snag density (Fig. 18)) and the
landscape variable distance from mine edge (Fig. 19) as predictor variables. All variables were
positively related to Cerulean Warbler territory density. The best model had an Aikaike weight of
10
-------
0.58 relative to the other 487 models, indicating that it had a 58% probability of being chosen given
the data. The next best model had a much lower weight, of 0.09. Although distance from mine
edge appeared to have a weak relationship with density when all distances were examined, a closer
inspection of the data showed a strong relationship up to 500m from the mine (Fig. 19).
The best microhabitat model contained snag density, percent canopy cover >6-12 m, and
percent canopy cover >24 m as predictor variables, but had a low weight (w <0.01) compared to the
combined models. The best landscape model contained area of mature mixed conifer/deciduous
forest and core area of mature forest (Fig. 20) as predictors but also had a very low weight (w
<0.01). Area of fragment/continuous forest also was one of the better predictors (Fig. 21).
Territory-level Models
To identify microhabitat characteristics that Cerulean Warblers may use for placement of
their territories within a plot, we developed logistic regression models comparing territory and
available sites. The 5 best models developed from all plots and only from plots with Cerulean
Warbler territories all had low Aikaike weights (Table 5) indicating that these variables are poor
predictors of Cerulean Warbler territory placement. Means and standard errors for these variables
indicate only a small difference between non-use subplots and territory subplots (Appendix 2),
which may not be biologically significant.
Density relative to aspect, slope position, and edges
For all plots combined, ridge habitat use by Cerulean Warblers was greater than availability
whereas mid slope habitat use was less than availability (Table 3, Fig. 22). The proportion of
occurrence on low slopes did not differ from what was available. This trend was the same in both
fragmented and intact forests (Table 3). Territory density was over twice as high on ridges than on
low and mid slopes (Table 3).
The proportion of Cerulean Warbler occurrence was less than the proportion available on
west-facing slopes and bottomlands and greater than what was available on ridges; it did not differ
from what was available on east-facing slopes (Table 3). Again, this trend was similar between
intact and fragmented forests. Density was twice as high on ridges than east-facing slopes and 4
times greater on ridges than west-facing slopes and bottomlands (Table 3).
When territories in fragmented and intact forest were combined, territory placement in
relation to closest edge type was different from expected (%2=36.82, df=4, P<0.001) based on edges
available on the territory-mapping plots (Table 6). Territories were adjacent to streams less than
expected and adjacent to partially-open canopy roads greater than expected (Table 6). The
11
-------
distribution of closest edge types did not differ between fragmented and intact forest (t<0.01, df=4,
P=l .00) (Fig. 23), so a similar pattern of selection was observed in each treatment. In both
treatments, territories were adjacent to streams less than expected and adjacent to partially-open and
open canopy roads greater than or equal to expected.
Most territories (63%) crossed either an open or partially-open canopy road/trail (Figs. 5-
14). The mean distance to the closest internal edge was 30.3 m from a territory center and 34.4 m
from a non-use subplot (Table 7). Both the logistic and the Poisson regression models showed a
negative relationship between Cerulean Warbler territory presence/density and distance from closest
edge indicating that they preferred areas closer to internal edges. Two territories in very small
fragments were not included in analyses of closest internal edge because their closest edge was an
external (mine) edge.
Mating Success
We were able to follow 10 males in fragmented forest (on 6 plots) and 30 males in intact
forest (on 6 plots) in the 2 years of the study to determine mate status. Of the 10 males that were
followed in fragmented forest, 60% were confirmed mated based on the presence of a female on the
territory or observations of the male feeding fledglings, whereas 40% were assumed unmated, based
on singing behavior and no observed female on the territory. Similarly, in intact forest, 60% of the
30 males observed were assumed to be mated based on observations of females with the male
(30%) or because of "whisper singing" behavior (30%). Forty percent were assumed to be unmated.
Males were observed feeding fledglings on 2 fragmented forest plots and 1 intact forest plot. One
of these males was in one of the smaller fragments (9.4 ha), that had a considerable amount of edge
habitat.
Four nests were found, 1 in 2001 and 3 in 2002. Three nests were in intact forest and 1 was
in fragmented forest. One nest was successful, 2 were unsuccessful (possibly due to abandonment
after severe weather), and 1 fate was unknown. Habitat characteristics around nest sites are
summarized in Table 8. Nest tree species were northern red oak (Quercus rubra), tuliptree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), american basswood (Tilia americana), and bitternut hickory (Carya
cordiformes).
DISCUSSION
Our data indicate that loss and fragmentation of forests by MTMVF mining in southern
West Virginia is negatively affecting populations of Cerulean Warblers. Cerulean Warbler territory
12
-------
density was lower in forests fragmented by mining than in intact forests. Both microhabitat and
landscape components are important factors influencing territory densities.
Consistent predictors of territory density at the microhabitat level were percent canopy cover
>6-12 m, >24 m, and snag density. Previous research indicates that Cerulean Warblers prefer a
canopy divided into distinct vertical layers in flood plain forests of North Carolina, where tall, old-
growth trees dominate the canopy (Lynch 1981). This bird typically nests at heights between 4.6-
18.3 m (summarized in Hamel 2000), and thus it is not surprising that Cerulean Warbler territory
density was higher in stands with a high amount of canopy cover from >6-12 m. Preference for
areas with canopy cover >24 m is in agreement with studies that found this species in areas with
large, tall trees and a dense upper canopy (Lynch 1981, Robbins et al. 1992, Oliarnyk 1996).
Additionally, Hamel (2000) suggests that the vertical distribution of foliage may be more important
than individual values of canopy cover at different heights. Thus, it is not surprising that canopy
covers at 2 height classes were identified as predictors of Cerulean Warbler density.
The preference for a high density of snags is likely related to the apparent preference for
areas with gaps in the canopy as noted by other researchers (Oliarnyk 1996, Oliarnyk and Robertson
1996). Snags likely contribute to the complex canopy structure apparently preferred by Ceruleans
by opening the canopy allowing development of understory trees and by increasing heterogeneity of
the canopy. Further, our data indicate that Cerulean Warblers in our study area are not avoiding
internal edges. We often observed both males and females in or near canopy gaps, such as open and
partially-open trails and roads and natural tree fall gaps. Two of the 4 nests we observed were
within 10m of a canopy gap (a natural tree fall gap and a partially-open canopy road).
Landscape factors also were significant predictors of Cerulean Warbler territory density.
Distance from mine was positively related to density, particularly within 500 m (Fig. 19), indicating
that Ceruleans are avoiding the large-scale edges produced by the mines. Cerulean density also was
positively associated with core area of mature forest (Fig. 20) and area of fragment (Fig. 21),
indicating a preference for large-blocks of mature forest similar to findings of Robbins et al. (1989)
and Robbins et al. (1992). Density was negatively associated with area of mixed conifer/deciduous
forest, which is primarily composed of Eastern hemlock. (Tsuga canadensis) on our study sites.
This result also is not surprising given that this species is known to be restricted to mature
deciduous forests (Hamel 2000).
Results at the territory level were inconclusive. Our data indicate that there was little
difference in microhabitat between territories and non-use areas. It is possible that Cerulean
13
-------
Warbler habitat is not limited within the mixed mesophytic forests of southwestern West Virginia
and that suitable areas are not being occupied. Males may settle where others are already present
and form loose "colonies" (Hamel 2000). If this is true, then Cerulean Warblers would exhibit a
clumped distribution across the landscape, and it would appear that suitable habitat is not being
used. Our data suggest that Cerulean Warblers may follow this pattern (Fig. 5-14). Single males
occurred on only 3 plots where Cerulean Warblers were present.
Other studies identified large-diameter trees as being important for Cerulean Warblers
(Robbins et al. 1992, Oliarnyk 1996, Hamel et al. 1994). We did not find tree diameter to be an
important predictor of Cerulean Warbler occurrence. We often observed clusters of territories on
ridges with "small" trees relative to tree size in other areas of the forest. Our data suggest that tree
size may be less important for Cerulean Warblers in West Virginia than in other areas. Hamel
(2000) suggested that tree diameters and heights may not accurately reflect Cerulean Warbler
habitat and cannot be extrapolated among areas because these metrics are a function of topography,
soils, and the site on which the forest is growing.
Both slope and aspect influenced Cerulean Warbler territory placement in our study.
Territories were found more than expected on ridges. Brooks (1908) was the first to note the
tendency of Cerulean Warblers to occupy breeding territories at or near the top of hills in West
Virginia. Researchers in Indiana also have observed a similar trend in territory distribution (K.
Islam, personal communication). Researchers with the Cerulean Warbler Atlas Project (CEWAP)
in West Virginia also found Ceruleans to be more prevalent on dry slopes and ridges; approximately
65% of their sightings were in these areas (Rosenberg et. al 2000). Ridgetops may have structural
features that attract Cerulean Warblers. Our data indicate that plots with ridgetops may have higher
densities of snags (^=-2.57, df=21, P=0.0l) than plots without ridges. Thus canopy gaps, which
may be important for Ceruleans, likely are more prevalent on plots with ridges. However, neither
canopy cover >6-12 m or >24 m differed between plots with ridges and those without ridges. More
research is needed to determine the factors on ridges that attract Cerulean Warblers.
The preference for ridges could result in significant impacts on Cerulean Warbler
populations in the MTMVF region. Because ridges are removed with this type of mining, Cerulean
Warbler preferred habitat is lost. This could be one factor contributing to lower territory densities
in forests fragmented by MTMVF mining. The majority of Cerulean Warbler territories in
fragmented forest plots were on those that had ridges remaining. Of fragments without ridges, only
2 out of 7 had Cerulean Warbler territories (mean=0.17/10 ha), compared to 6 out of 8 with ridges
14
-------
that had Cerulean Warbler territories (mean=0.95/10 ha). On intact plots, those with ridges had a
mean territory density of 6.0/10 ha compared to 0.80/10 ha on those without ridges. Analysis of
point counts from our earlier study of MTMVF mining also indicates that Cerulean Warblers were
found greater than expected at points on ridges (Weakland and Wood, unpub. data). Thus,
continued removal of ridges in southern West Virginia by MTMVF mining could have serious
negative effects on Cerulean Warbler populations.
The preference for placing territories on ridges also has implications for using BBS data for
monitoring populations. Most BBS routes in this part of West Virginia are run primarily along
valleys, where territory density is likely lowest; therefore density or abundance estimates based on
BBS data are likely underestimates. However, we have found that Cerulean Warbler abundance at
off-road point counts in West Virginia generally follows a similar pattern to BBS trends, although
abundance estimates cannot be compared directly (Weakland et al. in review).
One limitation of our study was lack of information on breeding success. Although we
anticipated difficulty in finding nests, we had expected the reproductive index of Vickery et. al
(1992) to be more effective. Although we were not able to follow all of the males that we mapped
on the plots, our data do provide some insight into reproductive performance. The proportion of
mated males is likely to be an underestimate rather than an overestimate, since males we classified
as unmated could have had a female that we did not detect. However, based on evidence of nesting
and sightings of fledglings, it appears that Cerulean Warblers are breeding in both intact and
fragmented forests in southern West Virginia and that the proportion of mated males (60%) is
similar.
Researchers from Ontario who mistnetted males on our plots captured 5 males in fragmented
forests and 14 in intact forest. In fragmented forests, 40% were second-year (SY; i.e. 1-year-old)
males, and in intact forests, 21% were SY birds (K. Girvan, unpub. data). Although the data are
limited, they suggest that Cerulean Warblers are breeding successfully in this area, but SY birds
may be displaced into fragmented forests, which may be less suitable habitat.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, both landscape and microhabitat factors are influencing Cerulean Warbler
density in southern West Virginia. Cerulean Warblers appear to prefer ridgetops within large
blocks of mature forest with a high percent canopy cover from >6-12m and >24m, and a high
density of snags. They do not appear to be avoiding internal (soft) edges such as roads and trails,
15
-------
but do appear to be avoiding the external (hard) edges created by mining. Generally, MTMVF
mining reduces the amount of forested habitat available for use by Cerulean Warblers and is
lowering the suitability of the remaining forest habitat as evidenced by lower territory density in
fragmented forest and near mine edges. Because of the large size of most MTMVF areas, it is
possible that they may have negative effects on populations of the Cerulean Warbler that require
large blocks of unfragmented forest for breeding. Loss of ridgetop habitat appears to be particularly
important in reducing territory density. The 3 MTMVF complexes on our study areas totaled 7,244
ha with approximately 76% in grassland habitat, 14% shrub/pole, and 10% fragmented forest
(Wood et al. 2001). If we assume that this area was approximately 80% intact forest before mining,
take into account that some fragmented forest remained after mining, and use a mean territory
density of 4.6 territories/lOha in intact forest and 0.7 territories/1 Oha in fragmented forest, then
potentially 2,625 Cerulean Warbler males could have been displaced by these 3 mines. However, at
this point we do not know if nesting success differs between intact and fragmented forests or among
different slope positions. So, although territory density may be higher in intact forest and on
ridgetops, fledging success may not necessarily be higher than other areas.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for this study was provided through the Species-at-Risk program of the USGS,
Biological Resources Division. We thank staff of Arch Coal and Cannelton mining companies for
logistical support and for access to their properties. Ark Land Company provided field housing.
We also thank the field technicians who assisted with data collection: S. Bosworth, A. Carroll, J.
Hartman, M. Jones, S. Marchetti, J. Simmons. R. Dettmers, T. Muir, K. Rosenberg, and C. Tibbott
provided helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. The West Virginia Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (BRD/USGS) provided field vehicles, access to computers, and
logistical and administrative support. WVU Division of Forestry also provided logistical and
administrative support.
LITERATURE CITED
Bibby, C. J., N. D. Burgess, and D. A. Hill. 1992. Bird census techniques. Academic Press Inc.,
San Diego, Ca.
Brooks, E. A. 1908. Notes from West Virginia. Auk 25:235-238.
16
-------
Burnham and Anderson 1998. Model selection and inference: a practical information-thoeretic
approach. Springer, New York, N. Y.
Duguay, J. P., P.B. Wood, and J. V. Nichols. 2001. Songbird abundance and avian nest survival
rates in forests fragmented by different silvicultural treatments. Conservation Biology 15:
1405-1415.
Elkie, P. C., Rempel, R. S., and A. P. Carr. 1999. Patch Analyst® User's Manual. Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources, Northwest Science and Technology, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.
Environmental Systems Research Institute. 1996. Using Arc View® GIS. Environmental Systems
Research Institute, Redlands, Ca.
Faaborg, J., M. Brittingham, T. Donovan, and J. Blake. 1995. Habitat fragmentation in the
temperate zone. Pages 357-380 in Martin, T. E. and D. M. Finch, Eds. Ecology and
Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New
York.
Finch, D.M. 1991. Population ecology, habitat requirements, and conservation of neotropical
migratory birds. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-205.
Gibbs, J. P. and J. Faaborg. 1990. Estimating the viability of Ovenbird and Kentucky Warbler
populations in forest fragments. Conservation Biology 4:193-196.
Hamel, P. B., W. P. Smith, R. J. Cooper, and C. A. Woodson. 1994. Empirical prediction of
habitat variables of Cerulean Warblers in bottomland hardwood forests. ABSTRACT. Paper
presented at First North American Ornithological Conference, Missoula, Mont.
Hamel, P. B. 2000. Cerulean Warbler status assessment. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
http://www.fws.gov/r3pao/eco_serv/endangrd/birds/cerwasa.pdf
Hunter, M. L., Jr. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry: principles of managing forests for
biological diversity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.
James, F. C. and H. H. Shugart. 1970. A quantitative method of habitat description. Audubon
Field Notes 24:727-737.
Lynch, J. M. 1981. Status of the Cerulean Warbler in the Roanoke River basin of North Carolina.
Chat 45:29-3 5.
McGarigal, K., and B. J. Marks. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for
quantifying landscape structure. U. S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW -351.
17
-------
Martin, I.E., C. Paine, CJ. Conway, W. M. Hockachka, P. Allen, and W. Jenkins. 1997. BBIRD
Field Protocol. U.S.G.S., Biological Resources Division, Montana Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit, Missoula, Mont.
Neter, J., W. Wasserman, and G. A. Whitmore. 1988. Applied statistics. Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
Boston, Mass.
Neu, C. W., C. R. Byers, and I. M. Peek. 1974. A technique for analysis of utilization-availability
data. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:541-545.
Oliarnyk, C. J. 1996. Habitat selection and reproductive success of Cerulean Warblers in
southeastern Ontario. M. S. Thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Oliarnyk, C. J. and R. J. Robertson. 1996. Breeding behavior and reproductive success of Cerulean
Warblers in southeastern Ontario. Wilson Bulletin 108:673-684.
Paton, W. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence?
Conservation Biology 8:17-26.
Probst, J. R. and J. P. Hayes. 1987. Pairing success of Kirtland's Warblers in marginal vs. suitable
habitat. Auk 104:234-241.
Ratti, J. T. and E. O. Garton. 1996. Research and experimental design. Pages 1-23 in Boohout, T.
A., Ed. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. The Wildlife
Society, Bethesda, Md.
Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding
forest birds of the Middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs 103.
Robbins, C. S., J. W. Fitzpatrick, and P. B. Hamel. 1992. A warbler in trouble: Dendroica cerulea.
Pages 549-562 in Hagan, J. M. Ill and D. W. Johnston, Eds. Ecology and conservation of
neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
Rosenberg, K. V. 2000. Partners in Flight landbird conservation plan: physiographic area 22: Ohio
Hills, unpublished draft.
Rosenberg, K. V., S. E. Barker, and R. W. Rohrbaugh. 2000. An atlas of Cerulean Warbler
populations. Final report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service., December 2000.
Rosenberg, K. V., and J. V. Wells. 2000. Global perspectives on neotropical migrant conservation
in the Northeast: long-term responsibility vs. immediate concern. In Bonney, R., D. N.
Pashley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Niles, Eds. Strategies for bird conservation: the Partners in
Flight planning process. Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop, October 1995,
18
-------
Cape May, N.J. Proceedings RMRS-P-16. Department of Agriculture, U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallen, and G. Gough. 2000. The North American Breeding
Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 1999. Version 98.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center, Laurel, Md.. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html
Stokes, M. E., C. S. Davis, and G. G. Koch. 1995. Categorical data analysis using the SAS System.
SAS Insititute, Inc. Cary, N. C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Mountaintop removal mining/valley fill
environmental impact statement (preliminary draft). U.S. E.P.A. Region 3, Philadelphia, Pa.
Van Home, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of Wildlife
Management 47:893-901.
Vickery, P. D., M. L. Hunter, and J. V. Wells. 1992. Use of a new reproductive index to evaluate
relationships between habitat quality and breeding success. Auk 109:697-705.
Weakland, C. A., P. B. Wood, and W. M. Ford. 2002. Responses of songbirds to diameter-limit
cutting in the central Appalachians of West Virginia, USA. Forest Ecology and
Management 155:115-129.
Weakland, C. A., P. B. Wood, G. E. Williams, J. P. Duguay, T. DeMeo, and J. Nichols, in review.
Cerulean Warbler habitat characteristics in West Virginia.
Wood, P. B., C. A. Weakland, and J. W. Edwards. 2001. Mountaintop removal mining/valley fill
environmental impact statement technical study: terrestrial vertebrate (breeding songbird,
raptor, small mammal, herpetofaunal) populations of forested and reclaimed sites. Final
project report. 15 Jan. 2001
Yahner, R. H. 1988. Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation Biology 2:333-
339.
Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis, fourth edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N. J.
19
-------
Table 1. Mine sites, treatments, study plots, and size of plots used to map Cerulean Warbler
territory densities in southern West Virginia in 2001 and 2002.
Treatment Mine
Fragmented Cannelton
Daltex
Hobet
Intact Cannelton
Daltex
Hobet
Site
Center A
Center B
Center C
Jim Hollow/Hughes Fork
Hurricane
Beech Creek
Jenny
Monclo
Warehouse #1
Warehouse #2
Lavender Fork
Big Horse Creek
Stanley Fork East
Stanley Fork North
Stanley Fork West
Total
A
B
C
Pigeonroost A
Pigeonroost B
Oldhouse Branch
Ballard Fork
Spring Branch
Total
#of
Plots
1
1
2
O
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
21
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
Plot sizes
(ha)
8.6
9.4
10.0
7.5, 10.0, 10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
19.7
1.0
2.8
10.0,10.0
10.0,10.0
11.6
9.7
5.0
175.3
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
80.0
Forest Size
(ha)a
8.6
9.4
36.0
290.5
48.5
15.9
20.5
19.7
1.0
2.8
153.8
113.6
11.6
9.7
23.9
1079
752
926
1177
1211
828
789
930
a Forest size for fragments is the actual size of the fragment and for intact forest it is area of
continuous forest within 2-km of the plot center.
20
-------
Table 2. Microhabitat and landscape variables used to model the territory density of Cerulean
Warblers in southern West Virginia.
Variables
Code
Microhabitat
Percent Canopy Cover:
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24m
Density of trees >38 cm dbh
Density of snags >8 cm dbh
Distance to closest edge
CC6-12m
CC12-18m
CC18-24m
CC24m
Trees38cm
Snags
DstEdge
Landscape
Area of:
Reclaimed mine Mine
Mature mixed conifer/deciduous MatMix
Development Devel
Contrast-weighted edge density CWED
Core area of mature forest CoreArea
Area of fragment/continuous forest ForArea
Distance to mine DstMine
21
-------
Table 3. Occurrence and density of Cerulean Warbler territories in fragmented and intact forests, at different slope positions, and
aspects in southwestern West Virginia.
Test
Treatments
Fragmented
Intact
Slope Position
All Plots
Low
Mid
Ridge
Fragmented Forest
Low
Mid
Ridge
Intact Forest
Low
Mid
Ridge
Aspect
All Plots
East
West
Ridge
Bottom
Total ha
350.6
140
32.2
344.4
114
19.2
252.4
79
13
92
35
198.8
145.6
114
32.2
Prop, of
total ha
(Pio)
0.715
0.285
0.066
0.702
0.232
0.055
0.720
0.225
0.093
0.657
0.250
0.405
0.297
0.232
0.066
No.
CERW
Observed
24
64
5
39
44
1
12
11
4
26
34
37
5
45
1
No.
CERW
Expected
63
25
6
62
20
1
17
6
6
58
22
36
26
20
6
Prop, of
observed in
each area
(Pi)
0.273
0.727
0.055
0.440
0.505
0.040
0.480
0.440
0.076
0.394
0.500
0.407
0.055
0.484
0.022
95% Confidence
Interval for pf
Lower
0.180
0.634
-0.002
0.315
0.380
-0.009
0.355
0.316
0.009
0.272
0.375
0.278
-0.005
0.352
-0.016
Upper / df
0.366 84.98 1
0.820
0.112 37.33 2
0.564
0.631
0.089 5.64 2
0.605
0.564
0.142 23.32 2
0.516
0.625
0.535 48.45 3
0.115
0.614
0.060
Territories
P-value /lOha
O.01 0.7
4.6
O.001 1.6
1.1
3.9
0.10 0.5
0.5
1.4
P0.001 3.8
2.8
9.4
P0.001 1.9
0.3
3.9
0.6
-------
Fragmented Forest
East
West
Ridge
Bottom
Intact Forest
East
West
Ridge
Bottom
136.8
115.6
79
19.2
62
30
35
13
0.390
0.330
0.225
0.055
0.443
0.214
0.250
0.093
12
1
11
0
25
4
34
1
9
8
6
1
28
14
16
6
0.480
0.040
0.440
0.000
0.379
0.061
0.500
0.030
0.349
-0.011
0.310
0.000
0.252
-0.002
0.369
-0.015
0.611 12.29 3
0.091
0.570
0.000
0.506 28.19 3
0.123
0.631
0.075
<0.01 0.9
0.1
1.4
0.0
P0.001 4.0
1.3
9.4
1.5
aPi represents the theoretical proportion of occurrence and is compared to corresponding/?^ to determine if the hypothesis of
proportional use is accepted or rejected (Neu et al. 1974)
-------
Table 4. Independent variables for the 5 best combined, microhabitat, and landscape Poisson
regression models used to predict Cerulean Warbler territory density in southern West Virginia,
with their AICc values, A AICc values, Aikaike weights (w), and rank (out of 488 models). The
'+' and '-' signs before each variable indicate the direction of the relationship between the variable
and territory density.
Models AICc A w Rank
Combined
+CC6-12m,+CC24m,+Snags,+DstMine -38.46 0.00 0.58 1
+CC6-12m,+CC24m,+Snags,+DstMine,-MatMix -34.64 3.82 0.09 2
+CC6-12m,+CC24m,+Snags,+DstMine,+CoreArea -34.34 4.12 0.07 3
+CC6-12m,+CC24m,+Snags,+DstMine,+FragArea -32.89 5.56 0.04 4
+CC6-12m, +CC24m, +Snags, +DstMine, +Devel, -MatMix -32.75 5.71 0.03 5
Microhabitat
+CC6-12m,+CC24m,+Snags -26.31 12.14 <0.01 36
+CC6-12m,+CC24m,+Snags,-DstEdge -25.34 13.12 <0.01 41
+CC6-12m,+CC24m,+Snags,+Trees38cm -24.94 13.52 <0.01 46
+CC6-12m,+CC24m,+Snags,+Trees38cm,-DstEdge -24.16 14.30 <0.01 52
+CC6-12m,+CC24m,+Snags,-CC12-18,+Trees38cm -24.13 14.33 <0.01 53
Landscape
-MatMix,+CoreArea -22.62 15.84 <0.01 59
-MatMix,+CoreArea,+DstMine -21.75 16.71 <0.01 60
-MatMix,+CoreArea,-Mine -21.64 16.81 <0.01 62
-MatMix,+CoreArea,-Mine,+Devel -19.96 18.49 <0.01 80
-MatMix,+FragArea -19.75 18.71 <0.01 82
24
-------
Table 5. The 5 best microhabitat logistic regression models used to predict Cerulean Warbler
presence in southern West Virginia, with their AICc values, A AICc values, and Aikaike
weights (w). The '+' and '-' signs before each variable indicate the direction of the relationship
between the variable and territory density.
Models AICc A w
All plots
+CC18-24m 467.18 0.00 0.15
+Snags 467.75 0.57 0.11
+CC18-24m,+Snags 467.81 0.63 0.11
-DstEdge 468.35 1.17 0.08
+CC24m 468.48 1.30 0.08
Only plots with Cerulean Warblers
+CC18-24m 413.99 0.00 0.13
-DstEdge 414.00 0.01 0.13
+Snags 414.09 0.10 0.12
+CC12-18m 414.19 0.19 0.12
+Trees38cm 414.84 0.85 0.08
25
-------
Table 6. Occurrence of Cerulean Warblers (CERW) adjacent to different closest internal edge types in southwestern West Virginia.
Availability
Test/Edge types
All Plots
Natural gap
Stream
Partially open road
Open road
>2 Types
Fragmented forest
Natural gap
Stream
Partially open road
Open road
>2 Types
Intact forest
Natural gap
Stream
Partially open road
Open road
>2 Types
Number
quadrats
33
138
125
79
17
13
98
79
49
12
20
40
46
30
5
Proportion
(Pro}
0.084
0.352
0.319
0.202
0.043
0.052
0.390
0.315
0.195
0.048
0.142
0.284
0.326
0.213
0.035
CERW
Expected
7
29
26
17
4
1
8
7
4
1
9
18
20
13
2
CERW
Observed
10
5
40
27
1
1
1
16
3
0
9
4
24
24
1
Prop, of
Observed
(Pi)
0.120
0.060
0.482
0.325
0.012
0.048
0.048
0.762
0.143
0.000
0.145
0.065
0.387
0.387
0.016
95% Confidence
Interval for/?"
Lower
0.029
-0.007
0.341
0.193
-0.019
-0.072
-0.072
0.523
-0.053
0.000
0.030
-0.016
0.228
0.228
-0.025
Upper
0.212 =b
0.127 <
0.623 >
0.457
0.043
0.167
0.167 <
1.000 >
0.339
0.000 <
0.260
0.145 <
0.546
0.546 >
0.057
rf df P-value
36.82 4 O.001
18.95 4 O.001
21.50 4 O.001
api represents the theoretical proportion of occurrence and is compared to corresponding^ to determine if the hypothesis of
proportional use is accepted or rejected (Neu et al. 1974)
b Symbols indicate use equals availability (=), use less than availability so avoids (<), and use greater than availability so prefers (>).
-------
Table 7. Mean distance (m) of Cerulean Warbler territory centers (n=83) and non-use subplot centers (n=392) from the closest
internal edge in fragmented forests, intact forests, and combined forests in southern West Virginia.
Fragmented Forest
Non-use
Edge Types
Natural Gap
Stream
Partially-open canopy road
Open-canopy road
More than one type
Any edge
n
13
98
79
49
12
251
Mean
27.3
32.0
20.1
77.1
39.2
37.1
Territory
n
1
1
16
3
0
21
Mean
50.0
15.0
12.5
68.3
—
22.4
Intact Forest
Non-use
n
20
40
46
30
5
141
Mean
18.5
28.5
22.6
42.2
68.0
29.5
Territory
n
9
4
24
24
1
62
Mean
14.3
27.5
20.0
54.4
20.0
33.0
Combined
Non-use
n
33
138
125
79
17
392
Mean
22.0
31.0
21.0
63.8
47.6
34.4
Territory
n
10
5
40
27
1
83
Mean
17.9
25.0
17.0.
55.9
20.0
30.3
-------
Table 8. Means and standard errors (SE) of microhabitat variables surrounding nests of Cerulean
Warblers (n=3) in southern West Virginia.
Variables
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to closest edge (m)
Nest Height (m)
Stem Density (no./ha)
<2.5 cm
>2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>38 cm
Snags >8 cm
Canopy Cover (%)
>0.5-3 m
>3-6m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24m
Mean
0.9
47.3
20.0
15.8
6916.7
541.7
408.3
141.7
116.7
241.7
13.3
25.0
31.7
36.7
45.0
30.0
SE
0.5
1.9
10.4
3.3
2387.4
150.2
93.9
65.1
104.4
41.7
7.3
11.5
16.4
18.6
13.2
16.1
Range
0.5-1.8
45-51
5-40
9-20
2625-10875
250-750
250-575
25-250
0-325
200-325
0-25
5-45
0-55
0-60
25-70
5-60
28
-------
Figure 1. Location of the Hobet, Daltex, and Cannelton mountaintop mine complexes in southern West Virginia.
-------
, - l^fef--.
4 Kilometers
Figure 2. Aerial photo showing the location of study plots on and near the Cannelton mine complex. Plot boundaries are in red.
-------
g^^g?yy:::"gg|;-^Siig:-;-'«;;™-;":-" j:_v"
IfSflitl^ii^ssalSiSI
5|fsS*i^Pi*;3s.ie
Figure 3. Aerial photo showing the location of study plots on and near the Daltex mine complex. Plot boundaries are in red.
-------
' ------ V—• *?—.• - Wr - -• TiaiBPt 'T • ••'m'H'ifilitS_• " "•" f—MfffflHr"- ~ - y- ..-— -1 -•" -•-;»•-'.-=«,-=nS-«*v^' -• • ••-
:--,: ^ •--: -=
srg, "--'•- ' i jipi:
'-.----/-.-.:-"?£-.-4.- =gi^^^V -! --•'.-'.-•%•*::." " "" ="i --.Be-. ::;:-»-^s='JS|F-*^g-|.-:J*-": -""-C" :-'-w.^B»BBto-•'-
- ~-~.~f,^,^ „- a".'™---wa aj. t~.,.<. r^^flS>-_.:yf..T.n. ....... ..:.= _._ ^-j. -.....-..-.*... "^... iS - .,..^™.(-,"C-. i j ,-3jS
liS.-"-1 -'' &-|f :r-:"-!;j^3fcSc: '-**-^iS^*-"•"-":"!:.-:--• jag:-/- v--"••"-::-'™ ::"-~-™:: --T-::: ^JP
r:&-=jc=^ •l--~:/7jeH*..^K?^:™vr-->--jir£:-::::-f-:'as:j-::: \-3«H/fjHaH&"^-r-!i : .-.="::::: r.«. ^-j
•.:'.•>*•-"!>*_««(;
*:,:^p,.,-.-
y-^m
-m
:.:
is
Shfe
s
6 Kilometers
Figure 4. Aerial photo showing the location of study plots on and near the Hobet mine complex. Plot boundaries are in red.
-------
"""I Plot Boundaries
Streams
Roads & Trails
Territories 2002
Territories 2001
Land Covers
| | Barren
I | Developed
Grassland
Mature Deciduous
Mature Mixed Conifer/deciduous
| Shrufoipole
Water/wetlatid
O.i
0,6
1.2 Kilometers
A
Figure 5. Fragmented forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2002 at the Cannelton Mine.
-------
"""] Plot Boundaries
•••/'Streams
Roads & Trails
Territories 2002
Territories 2001
Land Covers
I | Barren
I | Developed
| | Grassland
Mature Deciduous
Mature Mixed Conifer/deciduous
| Shrub.'pole
Water/Wetland
0.6
0.6
1.2 Kilometers
A
Figure 6. Fragmented forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2002 at the Cannelton Mine.
-------
[ ; Plot Boundaries
A .Streams
Roads & Trails
Territories 2002
; Territories 2001
Land Covers
| | Barren
I | Developed
I | Grassland
Mature Deciduous
Mature Mixed Conifer/deciduous
| | Shrub/pole
liiil Water; wet I am!
0.5
0.5
1 Kilometers
A
j
Figure 7. Fragmented forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2002 at the Daltex Mine.
-------
•=::] Plot Boundaries
..'•./Streams
Roads & Trails
Territories 2002
; Territories 2001
Land Cowers
Barren
Developed
Grassland
Mature Deciduous
Mature Mixed Conifer/deciduous
| | Shrub/pole
Wat or, wetland
0.5
0.5
1 Kilometers
A
Figure 8. Fragmented forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2002 at the Daltex Mine.
-------
Plot Boundaries
/••. /'Streams
Roads & Trails
Territories 2002
• : Territories 2001
Land Covers
I [ Barren
| | Developed
I | Grassland
Mature Deciduous
Mature Mixed Conifer/deciduous
WaterAwetland
0,5
1 Kilometers
Figure 9. Fragmented forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2002 at the Hobet Mine.
-------
Plot Boundaries
\ Streams
Roads & Trails
Territories 2002
; ; Territories 2001
Land Covers
| | Barren
I | Developed
| | Grassland
Mature Deciduous
Mature Mixed Conrfer, deciduous
Shrub/pole
WaterAwetland
0,4
0.4
0,8 Kilometers
Figure 10. Fragmented forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2002 at the Hobet Mine.
-------
'°~ Plot Boundaries
, \ Streams
Roads & Traits
Territories 2002
; I Territories 2001
Land Covers
| | Barren
j | Developed
| | Grassland
Mature Deciduous
Mature Mixed Conifer/deciduous
| | Shrub/pole
Water .(wetland
0.5
0.5
1 Kilometers
A
N
Figure 11. Fragmented forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2002 at the Hobet Mine.
-------
l^n Plot Boundaries
.". / Streams
Roads & Trails
Territories 2002
; Territories 2001
Land Covers
| | Barren
I | Developed
I I Grassland
Mature Deciduous
Mature Mixed Conifer/deciduous
| | Shrub/pole
Waterfwetland
0.5
0.5
1 Kilometers
A
n
Figure 12. Intact forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2002 at the Cannelton Mine.
-------
r
"""] Plot Boundaries
/Streams
Roads & Trails
Territories 2002
Territories 2001
Land Covers
I | Barren
I | Developed
| | Grassland
Mature Deciduous
Mature Mixed Conifer/deciduous
| | Shrub.'pole
••Water/Wetland
0.8
0.8
1.6 Kilometers
A
Figure 13. Intact forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2002 at the Daltex Mine.
-------
^^| Plot Boundaries
/"\ Streams
Roads & Trails
Territories 2002
^2 Territories 2001
Land Cowers
| | Barren
I | Developed
I | Grassland
| Mature Deciduous
| Mature Mixed ConiTer'deciduous
Water/Wetland
0.6
0.6
1.2 Kilometers
A
Figure 14. Intact forest plots and Cerulean Warbler territories in 2001 and 2002 at the Hobet Mine.
-------
. 6°-
0)
i W-
E 40 -
0)
" 30 -
jj 20 '
J 10 -
n .
Fragmented Forest Intact Forest
Treatment
D Observed D Expected
Figure 15. Observed and expected number of Cerulean Warbler (CERW) territories per 10 ha in forests fragmented by MTMVF
mining and in intact forests in southern West Virginia 2000-2001. Expected number of territories are based on the amount of
available habitat.
-------
12
10 •
0) o
O
•r 6H
0)
4-
LJJ
O
45
55
65
75
85
Percent Canopy Cover >6-12m
Figure 16. Relationship between Cerulean Warbler (CERW) territory density and percent canopy cover >6-12m.
-------
CO
0)
0)
i
LJJ
o
10
20
30
Percent Canopy Cover >24m
Figure 17. Relationship between Cerulean Warbler (CERW) territory density and percent canopy cover >24m.
-------
20
40
60
Snags/ha
80
100
Figure 18. Relationship between Cerulean Warbler (CERW) territory density and snag density (standing dead trees >8 cm dbh).
-------
a.)
12
re
o
CD
i
LU
O
10-
8-
6-
4-
2-
0-
• •
b.)
re
o
(0
0)
0)
I-
K
LU
O
14
12-
10-
8-
6-
4-
2-
0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Distance from Mine Edge (m)
3000
100 200 300 400
Distance from Mine Edge (m)
500
Figure 19. Relationship between Cerulean Warbler (CERW) territory density and distance from
mine edge at a) all distances, and b) distances <500m.
47
-------
CO
0)
0)
a:
LJJ
o
12
10 -
8-
6-
4-
2-
* *
50
100
150
200
250
Core Area of Mature Forest (ha)
Figure 20. Relationship between Cerulean Warbler (CERW) territory density and core area of forest (forest >100m from an edge).
-------
CO
0)
0)
i
LJJ
o
250
500
750
1000
1250
Area of Fragment/Forest (ha)
Figure 21. Relationship between Cerulean Warbler (CERW) territory density and area of forest fragment or area of continuous forest
within 2-km of plot centers.
-------
a.
16 -
14-
12 -
10 -
8 -
6 -
4-
2 -
0.
CERW Territories
-». 10 co £» en a>
DOOOOOOC
J 70
60 -
50 -
40 -
30-
20 -
10-
Fragmented Forest
i i i
Low Mid Ridge
Intact Forest
Low Mid Ridge
All
Low Mid Ridge
Slope Position
[p Observed D Expected |
Figure 22. Observed and expected number of Cerulean Warbler (CERW) territories relative to
slope position in a) fragmented, b) intact, and c) both fragmented and intact forests combined in
southern West Virginia. Expected territories are based on the amount of available habitat.
50
-------
-£ °-40"
•o 0.35 -
| 0-30 \
•g 0.25 H
g 0.20 H
'-E 0.15 H
i. 0.10 H
o
£ 0.05 H
0.00
Natural Stream Partially Open road >2 Types
gap open road
Closest Edge Types
Fragmented D Intact
Figure 23. Distribution of closest edge types in forests fragmented by MTMVF mining and intact forests in southern West Virginia.
-------
Appendix 1. Contrasts and weights used to calculate the contrast-weighted edge density51.
Ecotone Contrasts Weight
Mature Deciduous - Mature Mixed Conifer/Deciduous 0.00
Mature Deciduous - Grassland 1.00
Mature Deciduous - Barren 1.00
Mature Deciduous - Shrub/pole 0.50
Mature Deciduous - Water/wetland 0.25
Mature Deciduous - Developed 1.00
Mature Mixed Conifer/Deciduous - Grassland 1.00
Mature Mixed Conifer/Deciduous - Barren 1.00
Mature Mixed Conifer/Deciduous - Shrub/pole 0.50
Mature Mixed Conifer/Deciduous - Water/wetland 0.25
Mature Mixed Conifer/Deciduous - Developed 1.00
Grassland - Barren 0.25
Grassland - Shrub/pole 0.50
Grassland - Water/wetland 0.25
Grassland - Developed 0.25
Barren -Shrub/pole 0.75
Barren - Water/wetland 0.25
Barren - Developed 0.00
Shrub/pole - Water/wetland 0.25
Shrub/pole - Developed 0.75
Water/wetland - Developed 0.25
aEdge is the sum of the perimeters of all habitat patches. Edge density (m/ha) is amount of edge
relative to the landscape area. Contrast-weighted edge density allows edges of different types to
contribute varying amounts to this metric. Weights represent the magnitude of contrast between
adjacent habitat patches. Ecotones were given weights relative to differences in vegetation
structure.
52
-------
Appendix 2. Means and standard errors of microhabitat variables at territory centers in fragmented (n=23) and intact forest (n=62)
and at non-use subplots (fragmented=272, intact=140)
Non-use Subplots
Fragmented
Variables
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to closest edge (m)
Average canopy height (m)
Percent Canopy Cover:
>0.5-3m
>3-6m
>6-12 m
>12-18m
>18-24m
Mean
1.0
TerritQ£i|s
22.6
18.5
34.8
59.3
66.5
69.8
46.1
8.7
SE
0.1
4.9
6.3
1.0
5.1
6.0
4.4
5.1
6.5
3.2
(nu./ ia) 9462.0 2725.9
<2.5 cm
2.5-8 cm
>8-23 cm
>23-38 cm
>^R§9#§S>8 cm
809.8
3315.2
1065.2
413.0
630.4
97.8
241.6
118.9
78.0
84.5
Intact
Mean
1.5
47.7
33.2
17.6
34.8
53.6
68.6
62.7
45.2
19.0
6633.2
698.8
3438.5
954.9
532.8
586.1
SE
0.1
2.1
4.1
0.4
2.9
3.1
2.6
2.7
3.2
3.0
615.7
60.8
177.6
93.3
55.2
75.4
Fragmented
Mean
1.0
38.6
38.4
19.8
45.1
64.6
68.7
61.5
36.2
11.3
6204.5
852.0
403.4
96.4
41.5
48.9
SE
0.0
1.3
2.5
0.3
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.8
1.3
451.6
37.1
13.6
3.7
2.1
2.8
Intact
Mean
1.1
44.7
29.5
18.5
37.3
57.6
64.5
61.3
46.2
17.9
6797.9
859.0
343.1
97.7
47.2
49.3
SE
0.1
2.1
2.8
0.4
1.8
2.1
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.8
508.2
57.7
13.5
4.7
3.7
4.7
Combined
Territories
Mean
1.4
45.0
30.2
17.9
34.8
54.6
67.5
64.4
45.7
16.8
7389.7
722.1
338.5
101.5
49.7
59.7
SE
0.1
2.1
3.4
0.4
2.5
2.8
2.2
2.4
2.9
2.4
863.9
51.6
14.4
7.5
4.6
5.9
Non-use
Mean
1.0
40.7
35.4
19.4
42.4
62.2
67.3
61.4
39.6
13.5
6407.1
854.4
382.8
96.9
43.4
49.0
SE
0.0
1.1
1.9
0.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.1
343.9
31.3
10.1
2.9
1.9
2.4
-------
Appendix 3. Means and standard errors of microhabitat and landscape variables in fragmented
forests (n=15) and intact forest (n=8) in southern West Virginia.
Fragmented Forest
Variables
Microhabitat
Aspect Code
Slope (%)
Distance to closest edge (m)
Average canopy height (m)
Percent Canopy Cover:
>0.5-3m
>3-6m
>6-12m
>12-18m
>18-24m
>24m
Stem Densities (no. /ha):
<2.5cm
2.5-8cm
>8-23cm
>23-38cm
>38cm
Snags (>8cm)
Landscape
Cover (ha):
Barren
Grassland
Shrub/pole
Water/wetlands
Mature deciduous forest
Mature mixed conifer/deciduous forest
Developed
Fragmentation Indices:
Contrast-weighted edge density
Core area mature forest
Distance to mine edge (m)
Area of fragment/intact forest
Mean
0.9
41.5
35.3
19.6
41.4
64.5
67.7
63.4
40.0
9.8
5821.3
877.0
392.9
96.4
41.6
51.7
5.5
146.0
47.7
2.0
91.1
14.0
6.5
43.0
25.6
113.3
51.0
SE
0.1
2.8
4.3
0.6
3.5
3.0
2.1
2.9
4.8
2.7
517.2
87.5
29.4
6.4
4.8
4.5
1.0
16.1
10.1
0.3
9.6
2.7
3.1
3.1
6.0
14.5
20.4
Intact Forest
Mean
1.2
45.6
28.8
18.1
35.5
56.9
66.0
61.2
46.7
18.5
7191.3
796.2
350.2
95.9
48.0
54.1
3.5
31.5
12.0
0.4
247.0
13.3
5.0
24.8
193.4
957.2
961.7
SE
1.3
5.1
4.8
2.2
6.1
6.8
6.8
6.1
5.6
6.7
1220.5
118.3
53.9
11.3
6.7
8.5
2.1
32.8
5.6
1.4
38.9
4.3
2.4
4.6
33.8
295.2
176.7
54
-------
Selenium Workshop,
April 13th, 2004
Charleston, WV.
Summary
-------
Selenium Workshop
2004 Char!
Summary
April 13th, 2004 Charleston, WV
A brief summary of the selenium workshop held in Charleston, WV, on April 13th. The
workshop, sponsored by the West Virginia District of the U. S. Geological Survey Water
Resources Discipline, was attended by 74 representatives of state and federal agencies
and academia. A list of attendees, their affiliation, and email addresses are supplied as an
attachment to this summary.
The session's first presentation was from John Wilts, Environmental Resources Manager
with West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection's Watershed assessment
Program. Water-quality studies conducted as part of the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill
EIS found selenium concentrations in streams to exceed WVDEP's limit of 5 [ig/L.
These findings resulted in the listing of 9 streams on WVDEP's 2002 Section 303(d) list
of impaired streams; 4 streams in the Coal River basin, 4 in the Guyandotte River Basin
and 1 in the Gauley River Basin. John described results of WVDEP studies conducted as
part of routine stream condition monitoring, development of TMDLs, and one study
assessing potential impacts of the "King Coal" highway to be built in southern W. Va.
Of the five stream basins sampled as part of the WVDEP's Watershed Assessment
Program and TMDL development, the Coal, Elk, North Branch of the Potomac, Lower
Kanawha, and Tygart River Basins, selenium was found primarily in the Coal River
Basin, 121 of 126 detections, and largely in association with surface mining operations.
Analysis of "King Coal" highway samples found that exceedance of Se criteria was not
related to storm flow events, but associated with base flow conditions.
Cindy Tibbott, a biologist with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Pennsylvania Field
Office, presented results of the analysis offish tissues collected downstream from
mountaintop mining areas. Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) and blacknose dace
(Rhinichthys atratulus) were primarily targeted for collection, bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus) were collected from one sediment pond. Selenium was present in all
sampled tissue. At several locations tissue concentrations exceeded 4 ppm, a level that
can result in reproductive failure and juvenile mortality. Some tissues approached a 7
ppm Se concentration that can result in reproductive failure in birds consuming these
tissues. It is apparent that Se is entering food webs in the areas sampled, a situation that
deserves further attention.
USEPA comments on the regulatory environment were presented by Dan Sweeney,
NPDES coordinator for Region 3, Philadelphia.
Roger Calhoun, Director of the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation's Charleston
Field Office, provided OSM's perspective on selenium in the mountaintop mining/valley
fill region. Roger described OSM's roles providing oversight of state-run regulatory
programs, providing technical support and research assistance, and acting in a regulatory
capacity in some states.
-------
Preliminary results of selenium analyses of care samples from the central Appalachian
coal basin were provided by Elaine Cecil of USGS Geologic Division's Eastern Energy
Resource Team. Elaine has been working with colleagues from the West Virginia
Geologic and Economic Survey (WVGES) and West Virginia University (WVU) to
determine the selenium content of coal-bearing strata. The selenium content of coal has
been thoroughly examined in West Virginia and this data is available at WVGES's
website (http://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/datastat/te/index.htm). From the analysis of
coal, it was apparent that the coal beds targeted by mountaintop mining are enriched in Se
compared to coal beds both lower and higher in the geologic sequence. Analysis of coal-
bearing strata has been completed for only one core to date; therefore any conclusions
based upon this data are highly preliminary in nature. The results of analysis of the first
core indicate that the rock, as well as the coal, is enriched in Se relative to both older and
younger strata. Main points of Elaine's talk were that regional, three-dimensional
patterns in coal-bearing strata cannot be determined on the basis of one core, but the one
core analyzed thus far (USGS 9) indicates that Se concentrations in rock follows trends in
coal, and that Se concentrations for both rock and coal were relatively higher in the
interval targeted by mountaintop mining.
Theresa Presser, research chemist working in Se biogeochemistry with the USGS's
National Research Program in Menlo Park Ca., presented a short course in
"Environmental selenium 101" supported by case studies. Selenium is an essential
micronutrient in bacteria and animals. Beneficial effects in humans stem mainly from
Se's role as an antioxidant. However, Se is the most toxic of all biologically essential
elements in mammals. Fish and birds are the most sensitive taxa to aquatic Se
contamination. Although extreme Se contamination causes death in adults, the responses
of greatest concern are: impairment of reproductive success (failure of eggs to hatch); and
teratogenesis (monstrosities in juveniles— lethal or sub lethal deformities). Selenium is
passed from parents to their offspring in eggs.
During critical stages of development and growth, toxic effects occur via biochemical
pathways unable to distinguish Se from sulfur, thus substituting Se-containing amino
acids, e.g. seleno-methionine or seleno-cysteine, in structural and functional proteins.
Both fish and bird embryos may be deformed by selenium. Teratogenesis, however, is not
the most sensitive toxic endpoint. Selenium toxic endpoints in increasing order of
sensitivity are: adult mortality, juvenile mortality, teratogenesis, mass wasting in adults,
embryo mortality, reduced juvenile growth, and immunosuppression
Studies show that predators are more at risk from Se contamination than their prey,
making it difficult to use traditional methods to predict risk from environmental
concentrations alone. Biological levels of Se that transfer through food webs ultimately
determine the ecological effects of Se. For example, aquatic organisms that are the food
of wildlife strongly bioaccumulate Se, perhaps to thousands of times the waterborne
concentration, but are unaffected by tissue residues. However, those levels of tissue
residue are high enough to cause reproductive failure when consumed by fish and aquatic
birds. Thus bioaccumulation in aquatic food chains and dietary transfer to eggs causes
otherwise harmless concentrations of waterborne Se to become toxic.
-------
Traditional toxicity tests are problematic because they determine toxicity only via direct
water-borne exposures. In the environment direct transfer of Se from solution to animals
such as fish and bivalves is a small proportion of exposures. Bioaccumulation and uptake
via food is the most important route of Se transfer to upper trophic level species. A
predator's choice of food, which varies widely among species, results in some trophic
pathways being more efficient accumulators of Se than others. Thus, bioaccumulation
models must link food sources to predator animals to predict biotic effects. And food
webs may be as an important variable as input loads.
Pathway bioaccumulation models consider:
• biotransformation to different speciation regimes
• bioaccumulation via the lower trophic food web
• uptake of food by predator species (trophic transfer
Analysis of one of the above sets of processes, in isolation, is inadequate to characterize
Se effects. If correlations made among factors or processes skip links, then serious
uncertainties will result.
• Alternative approaches for developing selenium (Se) criteria are needed.
• Traditional methodologies based on water-only exposure of Se for development
of Se criteria do not apply to elements that bioaccumulate.
• Failure to consider the full sequence of interacting processes of food webs that
result in Se toxicity is a major cause of controversy and confusion about Se
effects on the environment.
• Linked multi-media and watershed mass-balance approaches would include all
considerations that cause systems to respond differently to Se contamination.
•
Environmental effects of selenium contamination can include:
• Fish mortality and deformities in wildlife
• Posting of human health advisories for consumption of contaminated fish and
wild birds
• Termination of grazing
Therefore, accurate forecasting of the environmental fate of selenium is needed. Past
studies show that predators are more at risk from Se contamination than their prey,
making it difficult to use traditional methods to predict risk from environmental
concentrations alone.
Joseph Skorupa, of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Environmental
Quality, presented a technical review of EPA's draft tissue-based selenium criteria. Joe
presented some background information on the need for revised Se criteria. The
background was followed by a "preamble" statement expressing points of consensus
among EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the
Services).
Skorupa noted that, despite points of consensus, there are some disagreements between
EPA and the Services. These disagreements trace back to differences in conceptual
foundations based in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA)
-------
and the acceptability of a 20 percent effect concentration (EC20). The Services'
perspective is based in the ESA, which considers every individual of a species important,
both legally and biologically, in order to maximize recovery, and seeks to determine zero
toxicity thresholds at the level of individuals. In other words, an EC20 represents an
unacceptable loss of biological capital, especially for vulnerable species. EPA's
perspective draws upon CWA, with a population level focus allowing for "tolerable"
levels of toxic effects upon populations where an EC20is an acceptable risk. These
conceptual differences have lead to complications for CWA criteria and disagreement on
toxicity threshold points.
These conceptual differences between the Services and EPA are exacerbated by
technical, scientific flaws in the draft tissue-based Se criteria. These flaws include but
are not limited to:
• Lemly's 7.9 [ig/L Se/g, the controlling basis for the draft tissue-based criterion , is
at best an LC50 and at worst a tissue concentration that exceeds the LC50 by 36%
• The crucial regression equation relating whole-body Se to ovary Se is erroneously
reported
• Assessments of risk to wildlife were based on Opreska et al., (1995) instead of the
much revised and updated Sample et al. (1996) which makes a big difference
• Grossly incorrect wet-weight-to-dry-weight conversions invalidate the wildlife
analysis based on Opreska etal. (1995)
• Available data for wildlife taxa more sensitive than fish-eating birds to Se were
totally ignored, both from Opreska et al. (1995) and other sources
• Data from the USGS NAWQA National Database were misused, i.e., invertebrate
and fish liver data were reported and plotted as fish whole-body data
Joe followed a discussion of the specific flaws with three key points. First, Skorupa and
his co-authors (Theresa Presser, USGS-WRD National Research Program, Menlo Park
CA; Steve Hamilton, USGS-BRD, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Yankton,
SD; and Dennis Lemly, U. S. Forest Service's Coldwater Fisheries Research Unit,
Blacksburg, VA) believe that there are multiple substantive technical errors in the "7.9"
tissue-based draft proposal. Second, EPA and FWS already agree that the "7.9" proposal
will not protect aquatic-dependent wildlife. And third, the Fish and Wildlife Service
believes that an aquatic life criterion of <5.8 |j,g Se/L is warranted; EPA is undecided and
would like to review and evaluate the matter further. Joe closed with a concluding
message: "It is premature to use the "7.9" draft proposal for regulatory or other decision-
making purposes. The final criterion may, or may not, differ from the current draft
proposal; and in any case, won't apply to wildlife."
Dr. Paul Ziemkiewicz of the West Virginia Water Resources Research Institute described
selenium research being conducted at the National Mine Land Reclamation Center at
West Virginia University. There are four current areas of Se research underway: evaluate
available overburden cores and other geologic material samples to identify sources and
forms of Se in the strata, analyze overburden cores from mining areas within Se Impacted
watersheds of southern WV, analyze for total Se, and identify Se-rich rock units.
Evaluation of the geo chemical mechanisms of Se mobilization will be accomplished
-------
through the sequential extraction of Se-rich rock units to discriminate sources of Se, i.e.
sulfides, oxides, organic matter, or carbonates. Additionally weathering tests will be
evaluated to assess Se mobility. Programs to identify and develop treatment methods to
reduce Se mobility and remediate Se contaminated waters in the laboratory will
investigate Se speciation within mine spoils and at mine discharges, evaluate selective
handling options, and examine in situ and ex situ treatment. Additional work items are to
Future programs Identify and evaluate passive treatment options for existing sources and
streams and initiate laboratory bench column and humidity cell experiments for
weathering and in situ treatment options
Dr. Dorothy Vesper, Professor of Geology at West Virginia University, presented
findings of her Se research, the focus of which has been developing analytical methods
for speciating Se and applying these methods to the field. The analytical method used by
Dr. Vesper is Hydride-Generation Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (HG-AAS).
Although this method measures only Selenite (+IV), concentrations of Selenate (+VI) can
be determined through analysis of a sample that has been digested, thereby reducing
selenate to selenite, the difference between the digested and undigested samples being
selenate. The applicability of this method to environmental samples was tested by
analyzing samples collected below valley fills in the upper Mud River Basin. This basin
was selected because Se had previously been found in this basin. Preliminary
conclusions indicate that:
• Nearly all (>90%) of the Se in Mud River samples is Se(VI)
• The sample from the spoil pond is less oxidized (-70% is SeVI)
Samples with concentrations near the MDL are very difficult to speciate
There are several outstanding research questions for streams and watersheds, chief among
these are:
• Developing a better understanding of speciation on watershed scale
• Determining the partitioning between organic-bound or elemental species
• Importance of particulate/sediment in Se transport
• Accumulation in sediments
• Temporal variability -in spoils, water
There are additional unresolved questions pertaining to relations among solid and
aqueous phases of Se, including determining the relationship between total and teachable
Se, and how Se is in bound in geologic materials.
Doug Chambers, Biologist and District Water-Quality Specialist with the USGS-WRD's
West Virginia District office, concluded the workshop with a presentation of a proposal
to study Se fate and transport in watersheds containing valley fills. The objectives of this
study will be to:
• Determine the fate and transport of selenium as it moves from valley fill to
sediment pond to stream.
• Examine processes and factors thought to be in important controlling selenium
transport and biological uptake.
• Identify important pools of selenium and how it is partitioned among these pools.
• Examine probable pathways of bioaccumulation.
-------
The USGS proposes to characterize changes in forms and concentrations of selenium in
stream water, sediments, and biological matrices as it moves from fills through sediment
control structures to streams in the coalfields of southern West Virginia. By tracking
transformations of selenium and changes in Se fractionation among sampled media while
monitoring attendant environmental conditions, the USGS will be able to identify key
steps and controls in the transport and cycling of Se in streams in the region.
-------
Workshop Attendees
Name
Alan R. Snyder
Anthony Velasco
Bill Brannon
Bob Fala
Brad Pendley
Brent Johnson
Brian Evans
C. Elaine Cecil
Charles Riling
Cindy Tibbott
Clairene Bailey
Craig Walker
Curtis Hardman
Dan Ramsey
Dan Sweeney
David Hantos
David Piper
David Rider
David Vande Linde
Davis Montali
Devinder K. Bhumbla
Dorothy Vesper
Elaine Suriano
Eric Perry
Forrest S. Jones
Gale Huffinger
Gary Bryant
George Jenkins
George Joey O'Quinn
Hugh Bevans
J. Brady Gutta
Jeff Coker
Joe Altizer
Joe Skorupa
John J. Renton
John Wirts
Katherine Paybins
Katherine Trott
Kathy Lucas
Ken Politan
Kevin G. Quick
Laura A. Conley-Rinehart
Lewis Halstead
Libby Chatfield
Margaret Miller
Mark A. Taylor
Mark Nelson
Mary Channell
Michael E. Hatton
Mike Armstrong
Mike Mertz
Affiliation
WVDEP DMR
USFWS
WVDEP
WVDEP
Dept of Fish & Wildlife
USFWS
USFWS
USGS-GD
WVDOH
USFWS
WVDEP OMR
OSM
WVDEP
USFWS
USEPA
OSM
USGS-GD
USEPA
WVDEP DMR
WVDEP
WVU/Soil Sciences
WVU-Geo.
USEPA
OSM
WVDEP-DMR
USFWS
WVU-NMLRC
WVDEP-OMR
VaDMME
USGS-WRD
WVU-NMLRC
OSM
WV House of Delegates
FWS
WVU.Geol/Geog
WVDEP
USGS-WRD
USAGE
WVDEP
WVDEP
WVDEP
WVDOT
WVDEP
WV Env. Quality
WVDEP
USAGE
USEPA
WVDEP-DMR
USAGE
USFWS
WVDEP
email
herdmail@yahoo.com
anthony velasco@fws.gov
bbrannon@wvdep.org
bfala@wvdep.org
brad.pendley@ky.gov
johnson.brent@epa.gov
brian evans@fws.gov
bcecil@usgs.gov
criling@dot.state.wv.us
cindy tibbott@fws.gov
cba i I e y@wvd ep.org
cwalker@osmre.gov
chardman@wvdep.org
daniel ramsev@fws.gov
sweeney.dan@epa.gov
dhantos@osme.gov
dzpiper@usgs.gov
rider.david@epa.gov
dvandelinde@wvdep.org
dmontali@wvdep.org
dbhumbla@wvu.edu
dvesper@geo.wvu.edu
suriano.elaine@epa.gov
eperrv@osmre.gov
fojones@wvdep.org
GaleHuffinger@fws.gov
brvantgaryamd@aol.com
gjenkins@wvdep.org
ioey.oguinn@dmmc.virginia.gov
hbevans@usgs.gov
jbgutta@mail.wvu.edu
icoker@osmre.gov
altizer@mail.wvnet.edu
Joseph skorupa@fws.gov
jrenton@wvu.edu
iwirts@wvdep.org
kpaybins@usgs.gov
katherine.l.trott@usace.armv.mil
kl u cas@wvd ep.org
kpo I ita n @wvd ep.org
kguick@wvdep.org
lconlev-rinehart@dot.state.wv.us
lhalstead@wvdep.org
lchatfield@wvagbegb.org
mmiller@wvdep.org
mark.a.tavlor@lrhol.usace.armv.mil
nelson.mark@epa.gov
mchannell@wvdep.org
michael.e.hatten@lrh01.usace.army.mil
Mike Armstrong@fws.gov
m me rtz@wvd ep.org
Page 1
-------
Workshop Attendees
Mimi Roy
Nick Fedorko
Nick Schaer
Pam Carew
Patrick Campbell
Paul Ziemkiewicz
Petra Wood
Randolph Ramsey
Richard Wahrer
Rita Pauley
Roger Calhoun
Ronald Smart
Russ Hunter
Stephen Parsons
Suzanne Chubb
Terry Anderson
Theresa Presser
Thomas A. Galya
Thomas Cox
William Borth
Doug Chambers
Scott Simonton
Terry Messinger
WVU-Geo.
WVGeo
WVDEP
Div. Of Field Services
WVDEP
WVU-NMLRC
USGS
WVDEP
Div. Of Permits
WV Senate
OSM
WVU-Chemistry
WVDEP
OSM
USAGE
KY.Div.of Water
USGS-WRD
OSM
WVDEP
WVDEP
USGS-WRD
Marshall University
USGS-WRD
mroy@geo.wvu.edu
fedorko@wvgs.wvnet.edu
nschaer@wvdep.org
pamela.carew@ky.gov
pcampbell@wvdep.org
pziemkie@wvu.edu
pbwood@wvu.edu
rramsey@wvdep.org
richard.wahrer@ky.gov
pauleyr@mail.wvnet.org
rcalhoun@osmre.gov
rsmart@wvu.edu
sparsons@osmre.gov
Suzanne.L.Chubb@lrdor.usace.armv.mil
terryp.anderson@ky.gov
tpresser@usgs.gov
tgalya@osmre.gov
tcox@wvdep.org
bborth@wvdep.org
dbchambe@usgs.gov
simonton@marshall.edu
tmessing@usgs.gov
Page 2
-------
USGS 2001
Flooding Study
-------
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Comparison of Peak Discharges among
Sites with and without Valley Fills for the
July 8-9,2001, Flood in the Headwaters of
Clear Fork, Coal River Basin, Mountaintop
Coal-Mining Region, Southern West Virginia
By JEFFREY B. WILEY and FREDDIE D. BROGAN
Open-File Report 03-133
In cooperation with the
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Charleston, West Virginia
2003
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Charles G. Groat, Director
Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does
not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from:
District Chief U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services
11 Dunbar Street Box 25286
Charleston, WV 25301 Denver, CO 80225-0286
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract 1
Introduction 1
Description of Study Area 2
Flood of July 8-9, 2001 6
Indirect Measurement of Peak Discharges 6
Comparison of Peak Discharges among Sites in Basins with and without Valley Fills 10
Summary 11
References Cited 11
FIGURES
1,2. Maps showing:
1. Study-area location of the (A) Coal River Basin, including (6) Ewing Fork and Reeds
Branch (the northern basins), and (Q Unnamed Tributary to Lick Run, Unnamed
Tributary to Clear Fork, Unnamed Tributary to Buffalo Fork, and Buffalo Fork
(the southern basins), Coal River Basin, mountaintop coal-mining region, southern
West Virginia 3
2. Total rainfall from the morning of July 8 through the morning of July 9, 2001, in the
headwaters of Clear Fork, Coal River Basin, mountaintop coal-mining region,
southern West Virginia 7
3. Graph showing comparison among indirectly measured discharges and selected recurrence-
interval flood discharges at the six study sites in the headwaters of Clear Fork, Coal River
Basin, mountaintop coal-mining region, southern West Virginia 9
TABLES
1. Indirectly measured peak discharges and estimated recurrence intervals for the flood of
July 8-9, 2001, at the six study sites, in the headwaters of Clear Fork, Coal River Basin,
mountaintop coal-mining region, southern West Virginia 8
2. Sensitivity of indirectly measured peak discharges to Manning's roughness coefficients for
the flood of July 8-9, 2001, at the six study sites in the headwaters of Clear Fork, Coal River
Basin, mountaintop coal-mining region, southern West Virginia 8
Contents
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS AND VERTICAL DATUM
CONVERSION FACTORS
Multiply
acre
cubic foot per second (ft3/s)
foot (ft)
inch (in.)
square mile (mi2)
By
4,047
0.02832
0.3048
25.4
2.590
To Obtain
square meter
cubic meter per second
meter
millimeter
square kilometer
VERTICAL DATUM
Vertical Datum: In this report, "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
(NDVD of 1929)—a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment for the first-order level nets of
both the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.
IV Contents
-------
Comparison of Peak Discharges among
Sites with and without Valley Fills for the
July 8-9,2001, Flood in the Headwaters of
Clear Fork, Coal River Basin, Mountaintop
Coal-Mining Region, Southern West Virginia
ZtyJeffrey B. Wiley and Freddie D. Brogan
ABSTRACT
The effects of mountaintop-removal mining
practices on the peak discharges of streams were
investigated in six small drainage basins within a
7-square-mile area in southern West Virginia. Two
of the small basins had reclaimed valley fills, one
basin had reclaimed and unreclaimed valley fills,
and three basins did not have valley fills.
Indirect measurements of peak discharge
for the flood of July 8-9, 2001, were made at six
sites on streams draining the small basins. The
sites without valley fills had peak discharges with
10- to 25-year recurrence intervals, indicating that
rainfall intensities and totals varied among the
study basins. The flood-recurrence intervals for
the three basins with valley fills were determined
as though the peak discharges were those from
rural streams without the influence of valley fills,
and ranged from less than 2 years to more than
100 years.
INTRODUCTION
Increased mechanization of coal mining in
West Virginia in recent decades has led to extensive
use of mountaintop-removal mining to reach coal
seams. Excess overburden from mountaintop removal
is placed in adjacent headwater valleys, creating what
are known as "valley fills." Mountaintop mining and
valley filling in the coal-mining region of southern
West Virginia have changed forested landscapes
with layered sedimentary rocks into grass-covered
landscapes underlain by poorly sorted rock fragments.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation
with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, investigated the effects of valley fills on
the peak discharges for the flood of July 8-9, 2001, in
the headwaters of Clear Fork in the Coal River Basin.
The study area included six sites on streams draining
small basins (drainage areas ranging from 0.189
to 1.17 mi2) within an area of about 7 mi2 in the
headwaters of Clear Fork of the Coal River in the
Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province in the
Introduction 1
-------
southern coalfields of West Virginia. Peak discharges
after the flood were determined indirectly at the six
sites by surveying high-water marks and cross sections,
and applying open-channel-flow equations. Peak
discharges were compared among basins with and
without valley fills.
This study resulted from investigations
used to prepare the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS
assesses the policies, guidance, and decision-making
processes of regulatory agencies in order to minimize
any adverse environmental effects from this mining
practice. Preparation of the EIS was a voluntary
effort among the Office of Surface Mining, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). Some
of the data-collection sites for this study are at or near
data-collection sites used in preparation of the EIS.
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
Six sites on streams draining the small basins in
the headwaters of Clear Fork of the Coal River in
southern West Virginia were selected for investigation
after the flood of July 8-9, 2001 (figs. 1A-Q. The
six site identifications are: USGS1, Unnamed Tributary
to Lick Run; USGS2, Unnamed Tributary to Clear
Fork; MT65C, Unnamed Tributary to Buffalo Fork;
MT66, Buffalo Fork; USGS3 (near MT69), Ewing
Fork; and MT76, Reeds Branch. The "USGS" prefix
indicates that the site was selected by the USGS for this
study, and the "MT" prefix indicates that the site had
already been used for preparation of the Mountaintop
Mining/Valley Fill EIS.
Three sites are on streams that drain basins
without a valley fill and without active surface mining
(USGS1, USGS2, and USGS3) and three sites are
on streams that drain basins with valley fills (MT65C,
MT66, and MT76). MT65C is in a basin that has
one reclaimed and one unreclaimed valley fill, and
there is active surface mining in the basin. A reclaimed
valley fill has a configuration and vegetation cover
that meets the plan that has been permitted. An
unreclaimed valley fill has a configuration that is
still under construction or lacks the vegetation cover
necessary to meet the requirements of the permit.
MT66 has two reclaimed valley fills, and there is
active surface mining on the southern ridge of the
basin. MT76 has one reclaimed valley fill and there is
no active surface mining in the basin. The three sites
associated with valley fills are downstream from
sediment ponds at the toes of the fills. The surface
areas of the individual valley fills, except for the
area of the valley fill near MT76, were available from
the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (2002). The surface area of the valley fill
near MT76 was estimated as 0.3 mi (180 acres) from
an orthophotograph (the largest valley fill in the study
basins). The valley fills range between about 0.02
and 0.3 mi (12 and 180 acres), which is equal to or
greater than the average valley-fill surface area of about
0.02 mi2 (12 acres) in West Virginia (West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection, 2002).
The study area is underlain by consolidated,
mostly noncarbonate sedimentary rocks that dip gently
to the northwest. The erosion of rocks by streams has
formed steep hills with deeply incised valleys that
follow a dendritic pattern, and plateaus capped by
resistant layers of sandstone and shale (Fenneman,
1938; Fenneman and Johnson, 1946; and U.S.
Geological Survey, 1970). Ground water flows
primarily in bedding-plane separations beneath valley
floors and in slump fractures along the valley walls
(Wyrick and Borchers, 1981). Generally, ground-water
flow is greater laterally than vertically and decreases
with increasing depth with little flow below 100 ft,
except in coal seams, where ground water can flow at
depths greater than 200 ft (Harlow and LeCain, 1993).
The climate is primarily continental, with mild
summers and cold winters (U.S. Geological Survey,
1991). Mean annual precipitation is about 44 in. (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1960), and precipitation
with a 24-hour intensity of 2.75 in. falls on the average
of once every 2 years (U.S. Department of Commerce,
1961).
2 Comparison of Peak Discharges among Sites with and without Valley Fills for the July 8-9,2001, Flood in the Headwaters of Clear Fork, Southern WV
-------
A.
80 MILES
37° 55'
37 52' 30"
EXPLANATION
BASIN BOUNDARY
USGS3
STUDY AREA
.____ PHYSIOGRAPHIC
PROVINCE BOUNDARY
INDIRECT MEASUREMENT
SITE AND SITE IDENTIFIER
SITE USED TO PREPARE THE
MOUNTAINTOP MINING / VALLEY
FILL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
.5
MT65C
Unrfamed Tributary
to Buffalo Fork
sin
\ Reeds Branch
Basin
Buffalo Fork
. Basin
0.5
Unnamed
to Clear
Basin
USGS2
1 MILES
Unnamed Tributary
to Lick Run
Basin
1 KILOMETER
Figure 1. Study-area location of the (A) Coal River Basin, including (6) Ewing Fork and Reeds Branch (the northern basins), and (Q Unnamed Tributary to Lick
Run, Unnamed Tributary to Clear Fork, Unnamed Tributary to Buffalo Fork, and Buffalo Fork (the southern basins), Coal River Basin, mountaintop coal-mining
region, southern West Virginia.
Description of Study Area 3
-------
37 55' —
37°54' 30"
^^
% ;'*b T&I " '-1
,..T"«r' ., '
.25
.5
.75
1 MILE
J
.5
I
1 KILOMETER
SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, Pax SWand SE
Digital Orthophoto quarter quadrangle
I
EXPLANATION
BASIN BOUNDARY
INDIRECT MEASUREMENT SITE AND IDENTIFIER
SITE USED TO PREPARE THE MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY
FILL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Figure 1. Study-area location of the (A) Coal River Basin, including (B)Ewing Fork and Reeds Branch (the northern basins), and(C] Unnamed Tributary to Lick
Run, Unnamed Tributary to Clear Fork, Unnamed Tributary to Buffalo Fork, and Buffalo Fork (the southern basins), Coal River Basin, mountaintop coal-mining
region, southern West Virginia—Continued.
4 Comparison of Peak Discharges among Sites with and without Valley Fills for the July 8-9,2001, Flood in the Headwaters of Clear Fork, Southern WV
-------
37 53' 30"—
37° 52' 30"
T
.25
.5 .75 1 MILE SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, Pax SWand SE, Eccles
1 1 1 SWand SE Digital Orthophoto quarter quadrangles.
.5
\
1 KILOMETER
EXPLANATION
BASIN BOUNDARY
INDIRECT MEASUREMENT SITE AND IDENTIFIER
Figure 1. Study-area location of the (A) Coal River Basin, including (6) Ewing Fork and Reeds Branch (the northern basins), and (Q Unnamed Tributary to Lick
Run, Unnamed Tributary to Clear Fork, Unnamed Tributary to Buffalo Fork, and Buffalo Fork (the southern basins), Coal River Basin, mountaintop coal-mining
region, southern West Virginia—Continued.
Description of Study Area 5
-------
FLOOD OF JULY 8-9,2001
In the early morning of July 8, 2001, a
thunderstorm complex formed in central West
Virginia from outflow winds of an earlier group of
thunderstorms that moved across northern West
Virginia. The thunderstorm complex then moved into
southeastern West Virginia by late morning on July 8,
and by early afternoon, 3 to 6 in. of rainfall had fallen
in 5 to 6 hours. The hydrologic service area of the
National Weather Service office in Charleston, West
Virginia, used radar images and field-observer reports
to prepare a map showing the total rainfall from the
morning of July 8 through the morning of July 9.
Figure 2 is a sub-area of the map prepared by the
National Weather Service with the addition of streams,
basin boundaries, one town, and one gaging station.
Figure 2 shows that the total rainfall in the study area
was between 4 and 5 in. (John Sikora, National
Weather Service, written commun., 2001).
Flooding from the thunderstorm complex was
caused primarily by intense rainfall on dry ground.
Rainfall totals for the storm were nearly equal to the
monthly average of about 5 in. (John Sikora, written
commun., 2001). The most severe flooding occurred in
the headwaters of the Coal, Guyandotte, and Tug Fork
Rivers, where recurrence intervals of peak discharges
(the average time between floods that equal or exceed
a particular peak discharge) at some locations were at
or greater than 100 years. The gaging station Clear
Fork at Whitesville (USGS station number 03198350,
drainage area 62.8 mi2) is downstream from the
study area (fig. 2), and the indirectly-measured peak
discharge (calculated by means of the same techniques
as the peak discharges given in this study) at this
station during this storm was determined to have a
recurrence interval of more than 100 years.
INDIRECT MEASUREMENT OF
PEAK DISCHARGES
Indirect measurements of peak discharges for the
July 8-9, 2001, flood at the six study sites were based
on the techniques described by Benson and Dalrymple
(1967), and were calculated by the computer program
developed by Fulford (1994). Generally, high-water
marks are identified along the stream banks, a land
survey of high-water marks and stream cross sections is
conducted, estimates of channel roughness are made
with Manning's roughness coefficients, and a computer
program is used to apply open-channel-flow equations
to determine discharge. This indirect method of
measuring peak discharges is commonly referred to
as the "slope-area method." Data on rainfall totals
and intensities are not necessary to compute peak
discharges. Indirectly measured peak discharges at the
six study sites ranged from 45 to 228 ft3/s (table 1).
Benson and Dalrymple (1967) discuss the errors
associated with the slope-area method of computing
peak discharges by comparing the computed discharges
to known discharges. Slope-area measurements of
peak discharges during the May-June 1948 floods in
the Columbia River Basin were made at 22 locations
where the discharges were known. There was a
25-percent difference at one location. There was a
maximum difference of 15.6 percent and an average
of 6.7 percent at the remaining 21 locations. Errors
associated with the slope-area measurements made
for this study probably have similar magnitudes.
The site MT65C is at the outflow of a sediment
pond downstream from two valley fills. The drainage
area above MT65C, 0.189 mi2 (121 acres) is a revised
value from the 0.102 mi2 (65 acres) previously
published by Wiley and others (2001). The omission
of one of the two valley fills resulted in the incorrect
previously published drainage area.
Manning's roughness coefficients are the only
values used in the discharge calculation that are not
directly measured, except for the interpretation of high-
water marks. Manning's roughness coefficients were
estimated by comparison of field observations and
photographs of the stream channels at the sites to
photographs taken at locations with measured
roughness coefficients (Barnes, 1967).
The sensitivity of calculated discharge values to
10-percent increases and decreases in the roughness
coefficients was evaluated (table 2). The magnitude
of 10 percent was selected because most experienced
surface-water hydrologists could probably estimate
Manning's roughness coefficient within 10 percent of
the actual value. The largest change in discharge was
that calculated at site MT66, Buffalo Fork, where a
10-percent decrease in roughness increased discharge
by about 12 percent (peak discharge was calculated
to increase from 224 to 251 ft3/s). No sensitivity
tests were performed based on the interpretation of
high-water marks.
6 Comparison of Peak Discharges among Sites with and without Valley Fills for the July 8-9,2001, Flood in the Headwaters of Clear Fork, Southern WV
-------
40°-A
8i°r-\
0 40 80 MILES
i 1 i 1
' 1 ' 1
0 40 80 KILOMETERS
r
82
39
EXPLANATION
TOTAL PRECIPITATION, in inches
Precipitation modified from
National Weather Service,
3-4 written commun., 2001.
03198350
A GAGING STATION LOCATION
MAJOR RIVERS
BASIN BOUNDARY
Study
Area
0 5 10 KILOMETERS
Figure 2. Total rainfall from the morning of July 8 through the morning of July 9, 2001, in the headwaters of Clear Fork, Coal
River Basin, mountaintop coal-mining region, southern West Virginia.
Indirect Measurement of Peak Discharges 7
-------
Table 1. Indirectly measured peak discharges and estimated recurrence intervals for the flood of July 8-9, 2001, at the six study sites in the headwaters of
Clear Fork, Coal River Basin, mountaintop coal-mining region, southern West Virginia
[USGS(n) identifies a site selected by the U.S. Geological Survey for this study; MT(n) indicates that the site being used in this study was part of the
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact Statement study, where (n) is a unique numeric or alphanumeric identifier. Flood-recurrence interval
was determined by using Wiley and others (2000) and the sensitivity of calculated discharges to Manning's roughness coefficients]
Basin name
Site
identifier
Latitude
. ... ... Indirectly measured Estimated flood
Longitude Drainage area, , ,' , • •
... peak discharge, recurrence interval,
0 in square miles .... .
in cubic feet per second in years
Basins without valley fills
Unnamed Tributary to Lick Run
Unnamed Tributary to Clear Fork
Ewing Fork"
USGS1
USGS2
USGS3
37 52 36
37 52 42
37 54 45
81 1831
81 19 50
81 19 34
0.461
.360
1.17
140
90
228
25
10
10
Basins with valley fills
Unnamed Tributary to Buffalo Fork
Buffalo Fork
Reeds Branch
MT65C
MT66
MT76
37 53 48
37 53 47
37 54 28
81 19 38
81 19 09
81 18 46
b.189
.583
.462
113
224
45
c>100
C50-100
c<2
aSite is near MT69, which was used to prepare the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact Statement (Wiley and others, 2001).
b Drainage area was revised from the 65 acres (0.102 square miles) used to prepare the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact
Statement and is the value published by Wiley and others (2001).
cFlood-recurrence interval of indirectly measured peak discharge was computed as though the peak discharge was that from a rural stream without the
influence of valley fills.
Table 2. Sensitivity of indirectly measured peak discharges to Manning's roughness coefficients for the flood of July 8-9, 2001, at the six study sites in the
headwaters of Clear Fork, Coal River Basin, mountaintop coal-mining region, southern West Virginia
[USGS(n) identifies a site selected by the U.S. Geological Survey for this study; MT(n) indicates that the site being used in this study was selected by group of
agencies for preparation of the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact Statement, where (n) is a unique alphanumeric identifier]
Basin name
Indirectly measured
Site peak discharge,
identifier in cubic feet per
second
Range of Discharge calculated with Discharge calculated with
Manning's a 10 percent decrease in a 10 percent increase in
roughness Manning's roughness. Manning's roughness,
coefficient in cubic feet per second in cubic feet per second
Unnamed Tributary to Lick Run USGS 1
Unnamed Tributary to Clear Fork USGS2
Ewing Fork" USGS3
Unnamed Tributary to Buffalo Fork MT65C
Buffalo Fork MT66
Reeds Branch MT76
Basins without valley fills
140 0.065-0.068
90 0.050-0.060
228 0.055-0.060
Basins with valley fills
113 0.070-0.080
224 0.055-0.080
45 0.060-0.062
154
100
253
124
251
49
127
81
207
103
201
41
aSite is near MT69, which was used to prepare the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact Statement (Wiley and others, 2001).
8 Comparison of Peak Discharges among Sites with and without Valley Fills for the July 8-9,2001, Flood in the Headwaters of Clear Fork, Southern WV
-------
Estimates of flood-recurrence intervals (table 1)
at the sites in basins without a valley fill (USGS1,
USGS2, and USGS3) were made by comparing the
indirectly measured peak discharges to estimated peak
discharges determined from published flood-frequency
estimating equations (Wiley and others, 2000) (fig. 3).
Consideration was given to the sensitivity of calculated
discharges to Manning's roughness coefficients
(table 2). Flood-recurrence intervals were calculated
for the sites in the basins with valley fills (MT65C,
MT66, and MT76) as though the peak discharges
were those from rural streams without the influence of
valley fills (table 1 and fig. 3). Estimates of recurrence
intervals of peak discharges for the six study sites were
between less than 2 years and more than 100 years.
1,000
O
O
LU
CO
DC
LU
Q_
LLJ
LLJ
LL
Q 100
CD
Z>
o
LLJ
C3
DC
<
I
o
CO
Q
10
i
~l I T
Buffalo Fork (MT66)
Unnamed Tributary to
Lick Run (USGS1)
Unnamed Tributary to
Clear Fork (USGS2)
Unnamed Tributary to
Buffalo Fork (MT65C)
Ewing Fork (USGS3)
100-year flood discharge
50-year flood discharge
25-year flood discharge
10-year flood discharge
5-year flood discharge
2-year flood discharge
TOP OF ERROR BAR INDICATES
DISCHARGE CALCULATED BY DECREASING
MANNING'S ROUGHNESS BY 10 PERCENT
INDIRECTLY MEASURED DISCHARGE
BOTTOM OF ERROR BAR INDICATES
DISCHARGE CALCULATED BY INCREASING
MANNING'S ROUGHNESS BY 10 PERCENT
0.1
1
DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES
10
Figure 3. Comparison among indirectly measured discharges and selected recurrence-interval flood discharges at the six study sites
in the headwaters of Clear Fork, Coal River Basin, mountaintop coal-mining region, southern West Virginia. Recurrence-interval flood
discharges are those for rural streams without the influence of valley fills (Wiley and others, 2000).
Indirect Measurement of Peak Discharges 9
-------
COMPARISON OF PEAK DISCHARGES
AMONG SITES IN BASINS WITH AND
WITHOUT VALLEY FILLS
Flood peaks in small headwater basins with
valley fills constructed from mountaintop-removal
mining are affected by changes in surface slopes and
permeability, deforestation, and the construction of
sediment ponds downstream from the toe of the fill.
The lower surface slope of the valley fill compared to
that of the original mountainside tends to increase the
travel time of overland runoff and facilitate infiltration.
Reclaimed surfaces (and previous grades of the valley
fill and surrounding spoil areas, particularly previous
grades resulting from lift-construction techniques used
to build the valley fill) commonly are formed of small
particles compacted by equipment traffic and the
sorting of materials due to gravity, and the resulting
lower permeability tends to decrease the travel time of
overland runoff (Wunsch and others, 1996). The valley
fill and adjacent spoil areas are recharged where
boulders exposed to the surface facilitate infiltration,
where streams and springs run directly into the fill, at
the contact point between the edge of the fill and
highwalls or near-surface tectonically induced
fractures, at active mining areas, and where specially
designed ponds collect overland runoff and direct the
flow deep into the fill (Kipp and Dinger, 1991; Wunsch
and others, 1992; and Wunsch and others, 1996).
Deforestation from logging generally results in
increases in peak discharges during the growing season
and fall recharge period, and has minimal impact on
peak discharges during the dormant season if
management practices are implemented to decrease
runoff from roads and skid trails. Snow, antecedent soil
moisture, and probably other factors also affect the
peak discharge from deforested areas (Reinhart and
others, 1963). Generally, the greatest peak discharges
from small drainage areas result from intense, local
thunderstorms during the growing season, rather than
from frontal systems and tropical cyclones normally
associated with the greatest peak discharges for large
drainage areas (Doll and others, 1963). Ponds
constructed at the bases of valley fills can collect and
retain runoff, and thus cause a decrease in peak
discharges (Curtis, 1979). The magnitude of the
decrease in peak discharge depends on the flood-
storage volume and the design for the outfall of the
pond.
The study plan was based on the assumption
that the six study basins were within an area (7 mi2)
small enough that rainfall intensities and totals would
be approximately equal, but this assumption was
determined invalid. The flood-recurrence intervals
for the three basins without valley fills should be
approximately equal if the assumption was correct.
Table 1 shows that the flood-recurrence intervals for
the three basins without valley fills (USGS1, USGS2,
and USGS3) are not equal. The flood frequencies
were between 10 and 25 years with the greatest flood
frequency at the southernmost basin, USGS1.
The flood-recurrence intervals for the three
basins with valley fills (peak discharges were
treated in the computation like those from rural streams
without the regulation of valley fills) were between
less than 2 years and more than 100 years (table 1).
The smallest recurrence interval was at MT76, the
site in the northernmost basin with no active surface
mining and a reclaimed valley fill, which was the
largest valley fill in this study. The greatest recurrence
interval was at MT65C, the site in a basin with active
surface mining and one reclaimed and one unreclaimed
valley fill, which was the only unreclaimed valley
fill in this study.
Changes in hydrologic conditions and
responses resulting from changes in surface slopes
and permeability, deforestation, the construction of
sediment ponds, other reclamation practices, and basin
and climate conditions (such as basin orientation, size
and composition of the valley fill, local geology,
antecedent soil moisture, and precipitation intensities
and totals) in basins with valley fills are not adequately
understood.
10 Comparison of Peak Discharges among Sites with and without Valley Fills for the July 8-9,2001, Flood in the Headwaters of Clear Fork, Southern WV
-------
SUMMARY
REFERENCES CITED
The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation
with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, investigated the effects of mountaintop-
removal mining with valley fills on the peak discharges
for the flood of July 8-9, 2001. The study area included
six small basins (drainage areas ranging from 0.189
to 1.17 mi2) within an area of about 7 mi2 in the
headwaters of Clear Fork of the Coal River in the
Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province of
southern West Virginia.
In the early morning of July 8, 2001, a
thunderstorm complex formed in central West
Virginia from outflow winds of an earlier group of
thunderstorms that had moved across northern West
Virginia. Flooding from the thunderstorm complex was
primarily caused by intense rainfall on dry ground, and
rainfall totals were nearly equal to the monthly average
of about 5 in.
Indirect peak-discharge measurements were
made at three sites in basins with valley fills and three
sites in basins without valley fills. Flood-recurrence
intervals were estimated by comparing the indirectly
measured peak discharges to peak discharges
determined from equations for estimating magnitudes
of floods for different recurrence intervals in rural,
unregulated streams of West Virginia. The sites without
valley fills had peak discharges with about 10- to 25-
year recurrence intervals; this result indicates that
rainfall intensities and totals varied among the study
basins. The flood-recurrence intervals for the three
basins with valley fills were determined as though the
peak discharges were those from rural streams without
the influence of valley fills, and were between less than
2 years and greater than 100 years.
Barnes, H.H., Jr., 1967, Roughness characteristics of natural
channels: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
1849, 231 p.
Benson, M.A., and Dalrymple, Tate, 1967, General field and
office procedures for indirect discharge measurements:
U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources
Investigations, book 3,chap. Al, 30 p.
Curtis, W.R., 1979, Surface mining and the hydrologic
balance: American Mining Congress Journal, July
1979, p. 35-40.
Doll, W.C., Meyer, Gerald, and Archer, R.J., 1963, Water
resources of West Virginia: Charleston, West Virginia
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water
Resources, 134 p.
Fenneman, N.M., 1938, Physiography of the eastern United
States: New York, McGraw-Hill, 714 p.
Fenneman, N.H., and Johnson, D.W., 1946, Physical
division of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey,
Physiography Committee Special Map, scale
1:7,000,000.
Fulford, J.M., 1994, Users guide to SAC, a computer
program for computing discharge by the slope-area
method: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-
360, 31 p.
Harlow, G.E., andLeCain, G.D., 1993, Hydrologic
characteristics of, and ground water flow in coal-
bearing rocks of southwestern Virginia: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2388, 36 p.
Kipp, J.A., andDinger, J.S., 1991, Stress-relief fracture
control of ground-water movement in the Appalachian
Plateaus: Kentucky Geological Survey, ser. 11, Reprint
30, lip.
Reinhart, K.G., Eschner, A.R, and Trimble, G.R., Jr., 1963,
Effect on streamflow of four forest practices in the
mountains of West Virginia: U.S. Forest Service
Research Paper NE-1, 79 p.
References Cited 11
-------
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1960, Climates of the States,
West Virginia: Weather Bureau, Climatography of the
United States, no. 60-46, 15 p.
1961, Rainfall frequency atlas of the United States:
Weather Bureau Technical Paper no. 40, 115 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000,
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to Minimize the
Environmental Impact of Mountaintop Removal/Valley
Fill Mining Operations in the Appalachia Coalfields,
accessed March 14, 2001, at URL http://www.epa.gov/
region3/mtntop/pdf/workasst.pdf.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1970, The national atlas of the
United States of America: U.S. Geological Survey,
417 p.
1991, National water summary 1988-89—Hydrologic
events and floods and droughts: U.S. Geological
Survey Water Supply Paper 2375, 591 p.
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
2002, digital GIS data of valley fills from permit maps,
accessed May 2002, at http://129.71.240.42/data/
omr.html
Wiley, J.B., Atkins, J.T., Jr., and Tasker, G.D., 2000,
Estimating magnitude and frequency of peak discharges
for rural, unregulated, streams in West Virginia: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 00-4080, 93 p., 1 pi.
Wiley, J.B., Evaldi, R.D., Eychaner, J.H., and Chambers,
D.B., 2001, Reconnaissance of stream geomorphology,
low streamflow, and stream temperature in the
mountaintop coal-mining region, southern West
Virginia, 1999-2000: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 01-4092, 34 p.
Wunsch, D.R., Dinger, J.S., Taylor, P.B., 1992, Design,
construction, and monitoring of the ground-water
resources of a large spoil area: Star Fire tract, eastern
Kentucky: Kentucky Geological Survey, ser. 11, Report
of Investigations 6, 16 p.
Wunsch, D.R., Dinger, J.S., Taylor, P.B., Carey, D.I., and
Graham C.D.R, 1996, Hydrology, hydrogeochemistry,
and spoil settlement at a large mine-spoil area in eastern
Kentucky—Star Fire tract: Kentucky Geological
Survey, ser. 11, Report of Investigations 10, 49 p.
Wyrick, G.G., and Borchers, J.W., 1981, Hydrologic effects
of stress-relief fracturing in an Appalachian Valley:
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2177,
51 p.
12 Comparison of Peak Discharges among Sites with and without Valley Fills for the July 8-9,2001, Flood in the Headwaters of Clear Fork, Southern WV
------- |