United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
EPA 9-03-R-00013B
June 2003
Draft Programmatic
Environmental Imoact Statement
-------
APPENDIX D
Aquatic Technical Studies
-------
APPENDIX D
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill EIS JJ-1 Draft - December 2002
-------
Aquatic Study Category, Appendix D
Study Topic
West Virginia Macroinvertebrate Study
West Virginia Stream Chemistry Study
Kentucky Macroinvertebrate Study
Survey of Eight Aquatic Insect Orders Associated with
Small Headwater Streams Subject to Valley Fills from
Mountaintop Mining
Fisheries Study
Aquatic Impacts Statistical Report
Workshop on the Value of Headwater Streams
Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics
for Headwater Streams in the Mountaintop Coal-Mining
Region of Southern West Virginia, 2000-01
Reconnaissance of Stream Geomorphology, Low
Streamflow, and Stream Temperature in the Mountaintop
Coal -Mining Region, Southern West Virginia, 1999-2000
Wetlands Study
Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement
File Date
1 1/2000
4/8/2002
10/2001
1 1/02/2002
10/12/2002
4/15/2003
4/2000
3/2003
2001
11/8/2001
1/12/2000
Macroinvertebrate and water quality studies were performed in several watersheds located in both
West Virginia and Kentucky to assess the impact of MTM/VF on aquatic resources. Hydrologic and
biological studies were also conducted in several West Virginia streams in an effort to demarcate
ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial stream zones.
West Virginia Macroinvertebrate Study by EPA Region III, Wheeling Field Office
The study had the following objectives:
Characterize and compare conditions in three categories of streams: 1) streams that are not
mined; 2) streams in mined areas with valley fills; and 3) streams in mined areas without
valley fills. Characterize conditions and describe any cumulative impacts that can be
detected in streams downstream of multiple fills. Characterize conditions in sediment
control structures (ditches) on MTR/VF operations.
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies. 1
-------
The data indicated that streams with both valley fills and residences in their watersheds appeared
to be more impaired than streams with only valley fills (no residences) in their watersheds.
Biological conditions at the unmined sites were compared to a broad state-wide wadeable streams
reference condition developed by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP). This reference condition was based on a data set of 1268 benthic samples collected from
1996 to 1998. This reference condition defines condition categories of very good, good, fair, poor
and very poor based on Stream Condition Index (SCI) scores. Scores in the fair, poor and very poor
range are impaired relative to the reference condition. Biological conditions in the filled sites
generally represented a gradient of conditions from poor to very good. Biological conditions in
streams with filled/residential sites (filled sites that also have residences in their watersheds)
represented a gradient of conditions from poor to fair.
Biological conditions in the filled and filled/residential classes were recognizably different from
conditions in the unmined class and were impaired relative to conditions in the unmined class, based
on the WV SCI scores. The filled/residential class was the most impaired class. The causes of
impairment in this class could include several stressors (e.g. the valley fills, the residences, roads).
It is impossible to apportion the impairment in this class to specific causes with the available data.
Cumulative impacts downstream of multiple fills were not successfully determined although
biological conditions were impaired at the downstream sites compared to the upstream sites. The
observed impairment could be caused by several stressors, including mining and residential land use
which could not be separated.
Only one sediment control structure was selected as candidate monitoring site since most sites were
not reconstructed as streams. Therefore, the objective to characterize these structures was not met.
Questions remain concerning the extent to which downstream impacts identified in this study may
be influenced by the size, number, and age of fills and the impact that these changes in the
macroinvertebrate community may have on the downstream terrestrial and aquatic communities.
A limiting factor that should be considered is that most sites evaluated as mined were not necessarily
reflective of current mining methods and programmatic controls. These questions will require
additional investigation.
Kentucky Macroinvertebrate Study by EPA Region IV
This study was designed with the following objective:
Determine if streams in mined water sheds were being impacted by mountaintop mining and
valley fill (MTM/VF).
Measures of in situ water quality, habitat quality and macroinvertebrate community structure were
found to be related to mining activities. In particular, conductivity was considerably higher at all
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies. 2
-------
mined sites than it was at reference sites. Conductivity produced the strongest correlation to
indicators of macroinvertebrate community health suggesting this as either a route by which
impairment occurred in mined areas, or that conductivity is a surrogate for other factors that were
not measured. Severe impact to the mayfly (Ephemeroptera) fauna was exhibited at all mined sites.
Habitat scores, generally lower at sampling locations downstream of mined areas than at reference
sites, were correlated to several measures of diversity and dominance of key groups of
macroinvertebrates. Impacts of MTM/VF activities in eastern Kentucky were evident based on
stream biological and habitat indicators. Mine sites generally had higher conductivity, greater
sediment deposition, smaller substrate particle sizes, and a decrease in pollution sensitive
macroinvertebrates with an associated decrease in taxa diversity compared to reference sites.
However, just as in the West Virginia Study, no attempt was made to correlate changes in water
quality or quantity and subsequent changes in the macroinvertebrate community to the numbers of
valley fills present, the age of the fills, size of the fills or the influences that downstream distance
may have on the sampling results. Also, sampling periods for the Kentucky study were limited. As
such, additional studies are needed to more fully evaluate the impacts of valley fills on the aquatic
and indirectly on the terrestrial community.
Survey of Eight Aquatic Insect Orders Associated with Small Headwater Streams Subject to
Valley Fills from Mountaintop Mining by Stout, Wallace, et. al.
The objective of this study was:
Assess the potential limits of viable aquatic communities based on biological criteria.
Six headwater sites in West Virginia and two sites in Kentucky were selected for study. Six of the
eight sites had three or more headwater streams planned for valley fills. A total of 34 streams and
spring seeps were surveyed in West Virginia and Kentucky, which included 175 sampling locations
or stations. Each headwater stream or spring seep was located in the field, where the contiguous
surface flow began. Other sampling locations were located 50,150,350, and 550 meters downstream
of the point of contiguous flow. Aquatic stages were taken with a D-frame net and/or hand picked
with forceps from rocks, twigs and branches, leaf-packs and other substrate. Organisms
(macroinvertebrates) were counted and identified to the family or genus level and the data recorded
on field sheets.
Most sites would not be considered streams based on existing USGS 1:24000 topographic maps.
However, a number of taxa that are found in these extreme headwaters have multi-year life cycles
suggesting that sufficient water is present for long-lived taxa to complete their juvenile development
prior to reaching the aerial adult stage. The predominance of shredder taxa in the headwaters
suggests that the community structure in the extreme headwaters resemble those hypothesized by
the river continuum concept for first order streams (Vannote et al. 1980). These streams all drained
forested regions and leaf material from the surrounding forest was by far the most evident energy
source.
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies. 3
-------
Invertebrates inhabiting temporary streams can have high diversity and faunal similarity with
permanent streams, therefore they should be considered in conservation plans designed to protect
species and their habitats.
New questions remaining: Much more work is needed on organic matter dynamics, e.g., input and
output budgets, etc. in small headwater streams of the central Appalachians. The trend of increasing
fine organic particle collectors downstream and higher shredder populations upstream suggests a
system that is dependent on linkages upstream resources and surrounding forest.
West Virginia Stream Chemistry Study by EPA Region III, Wheeling Field Office
The objectives of this study were the following:
Characterize and compare conditions in three categories of streams: 1) streams that are not
mined;2) streams in mined areas with valley Jills; and 3) streams in mined areas without
valley fills. Characterize conditions and describe any cumulative impacts that can be
detected in streams downstream of multiple fills.
Thirty seven (37) sites were divided into three watershed categories: unmined, mined, and filled.
The initial evaluation seeks to identify parameters likely to be impacted by MTM/VF mining.
The average water quality at all Filled sites is compared to the water quality at all Unmined sites
sampled during this study. A second approach in this evaluation is to identify the samples and sites
which exceeded West Virginia's stream water quality criteria. Sites which have multiple violations
are described and characterized.
The data indicate that MTM/VF mining activities increase concentrations of the several parameters
in streams. Sites in the Filled category had increased concentrations of the following parameters:
sulfate, total calcium, total magnesium, hardness, total dissolved solids, total manganese, dissolved
manganese, specific conductance, total selenium, alkalinity, total potassium, acidity, and
nitrate/nitrite. There were increased levels of sodium at sites in the category Filled/Residences
which may be caused by road salt and/or sodium hydroxide treatment of mine discharges.
The data were inconclusive for several other parameters which were detected in only a few samples
or at very low concentrations. Those parameters: total phosphorous, total copper, total lead, total
nickel, total barium, total zinc, total organic carbon, dissolved organic carbon, and total suspended
solids. Other parameters were detected but there was no clear indication of stream impacts resulting
from MTM/VF mining operations. Those parameters are: chloride, total aluminum, dissolved
aluminum, total iron, dissolved iron, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. Data indicated that
only three samples for total aluminum exceeded the stream criterion and all were collected August
9, 2000 at sites with fills upstream. Dissolved aluminum was detected in only five samples and all
were near the detection limit of 100 ug/L. There were no samples for total iron exceeding the stream
criterion but several samples in the category Filled approached the limit in the fall of 2000.
Dissolved iron was detected at a few sites in the category Filled at levels slightly higher than other
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies. 4
-------
sites. MTM/VF mining operations can increase iron concentrations in streams but there is no clear
evidence that this occurred during the study. Temperature, pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen
were measured in the field. The only field parameter clearly impacted by MTM/VF mining was
conductivity which was noticeably increased at sites in the Filled category.
The initial sampling was discarded for quality control reasons. Only the data from the second half
of the study was used to evaluate compliance with stream limits due to problems with contamination
in blanks and excessive holding times which occurred during the first part of this study. All
sampling data used was fully compliant with QA/QC procedures. The latter data indicate that
MTM/VF mining is associated with violations of the current stream water quality criteria for total
selenium. Selenium violations were detected in each of the five study watersheds and all were at
sites in the Filled category, downstream of MTM/VF operations. No other site categories had
violations of the selenium limit. The data do not support a conclusion regarding stream water
quality violations for aluminum, dissolved oxygen, iron or pH which can be impacted by MTM/VF
mining activities.
A number of questions or issues remain to be resolved. Several stream quality parameters exhibited
anomalous concentrations. The potential effects of existing mineral ogical or geological controls on
water quality composition is uncertain. The extent to which downstream impacts may be influenced
by-the size, number and age of fills and the extent to which downstream distance may influence
study findings was not determined. Loss of the initial sampling data made analysis of seasonal
variation of water quality difficult to evaluate. Identification of the specific sources of pollutants
were not incorporated into the study design. A limiting factor that should also be considered is that
most sites evaluated as mined were not necessarily reflective of current mining methods and
programmatic controls. As such, further data analysis concerning these issues is being considered.
Fisheries Study by Dr. Jay Stauffer, Pennsylvania State University
This study was designed to answer the following questions:
Characterize the fish communities that exist in the primary region of mountain top
removal/valley fill coal mining in West Virginia and Kentucky. Determine if any unique fish
populations exist in this area. Evaluate the effects of these mining operations on fish
populations residing in downstream areas.
Fish assemblages were sampled in 58 sites in West Virginia located on 1st through 5th order streams,
and in 15 sites in Kentucky located on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order streams. Sites were selected in
consultation with U. S. EPA personnel to characterize the fish communities in the primary region of
mountaintop removal/valley fill coal mining.
Due to the confounding effects of drought, small stream size (low stream order), and human impact
on reference sites in West Virginia, a comparison of reference (unmined) sites to filled sites could
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies. 5
-------
not be made directly during the 1999/2000 sampling season. Comparisons of unmined sites and
filled sites in Kentucky and in 2nd order streams in the New River Drainage indicate that
mountaintop mining/valley fill coal mining has impacted the streams. In general, the number of total
species and benthic species were substantially lower in filled sites that in mined sites in both
Kentucky and 2nd order streams in the New River Drainage.
The uniqueness of this area is emphasized by the collection of species ofCottus with features that
are rare in the population. The continued disruption of streams may eliminate the genetic diversity
that may lead to speciation. Further observations and studies are suggested.
Aquatic Impacts Statistical Report by EPA Cincinnati Laboratory
The questions this report was designed to answer are as follows:
Is the biological condition of streams degraded by mining compared to unminedareas? Are
there additive (cumulative) impacts downstream of mining compared to unmined areas?
Databases were assembled from mining companies MTM EIS technical studies for chemistry, fish,
and macroinvertebrates. Statistical analyses were applied to the data using accepted indices and
comparisons to determine correlation of parameters in unmined, filled, filled/residential and mined
sites. The analysis indicates that biological integrity is impaired by mining. Unmined sites have a
higher biotic integrity. Unmined sites have more taxa and more sensitive taxa. The strongest
association with water chemistry suggested that zinc, sodium, and sulfate concentrations were
negatively correlated with fish and macroinvertebrate impairments. Selenium and zinc were
negatively correlated with the West Virginia Stream Condition Index (WVSCI). The potential
drivers of the impaired condition are mining practices and material handling practices and the
geological factors associated with specific coal seams and overburden.
The limitations of the study include lack of data on the age of fills, size of fills, characterization of
materials handling practices, the influence of specific geological factors such as coal seams and
overburden, and the extent to which distance between fills and sample sites affects study findings.
There was little QA/QC data provided for the mining company data. Questions still remain on the
downstream impacts relative to the size, number and age of fills and the influence of stream flow
variations. Further data analysis concerning these issues is being considered. The report for this
study was completed in April 2003 and did not undergo EIS Steering Committee review. 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.
Workshop on the Value of Headwater Streams by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies. O
-------
The FWS Pennsylvania Office hosted this workshop April 13,1999, to review research findings and
provide an opportunity for discussion among research scientists and technical staff in the agencies
responsible for the EIS. The workshop was proposed to gather information to answer the following
questions:
At what point in the upper reaches of a stream do regulators stop regulating? How far
upstream should we regulate to ensure that downstream functions and quality are
maintained? Are stream classifications such as perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral
ecologically useful or even relevant in this context? In evaluating the cumulative impacts
of more than one valley fill, what size water shed do we evaluate? How many streams can
be eliminated by valley filling in a given watershed before the downstream aquatic
ecosystem is unacceptably impaired? If we assume that the amount of overburden material
that needs to be disposed of is a constant, is one valley fill or a few very large valley fills
better for the environment that more numerous small valley fills at the upper reaches of
more valleys?
The proceedings provide information on the current knowledge about headwater streams, which are
little understood outside of scientific circles. Meeting participants discussed the fact that historically,
small streams may have been under-protected by regulatory agencies because of uncertainty about
their values. An industry representative discussed potential opportunities to create wetlands and
stream channels as part of reclamation. The stream experts raised concern that many headwater
streams were being eliminated by valley filling with no requirement for pre-impact biological
inventories, and that many species may be unknowingly lost from the study area's unique ecosystem.
They also stressed the importance of small, forested headwater streams and their associated
biological communities in providing organic production that feeds downstream aquatic ecosystems.
Opinions were expressed that although the current knowledge is far enough advanced to be able to
say that headwater streams are too important to be eliminated, the current information is not
sufficient to be able to decide what portions of watersheds can be filled before aquatic ecosystems
are unacceptably impacted.
As this was an educational symposium and not a specific investigation, there are no study limitations
to discuss.
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies. I
-------
Reconnaissance of Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature in the
Mountaintop Coal-Mining Regions, Southern West Virginia, 1999-2000 by U.S. Geologic
Survey
The objective of this study was to provide the following information:
Present comparisons of streambed materials, stream-channel characteristics, low
streamflow, and stream temperature among sites with and without valley fills.
The effects of MTM/VF created in southern West Virginia were investigated by comparing data
collected at valley-fill, mined, and unmined sites. Bed material downstream of valley-fill sites had
a greater number of particles less than 2 millimeters and a smaller median particle size than the
mined sites. Bankfull cross-sections areas at a riffle section were approximately equal at valley-fill
and unmined sites, but not enough time had passed and insufficient streamflows since the land was
disturbed may have prevented the stream channel at valley-fill sites from reaching equilibrium.
Daily streamflows from valley-fill sites generally were greater thatn daily streamflows from
unmined sites during periods of low streamflow. Valley-fill sites have a greater percentage of base-
flow and a lower percentage of flow from storm runoff than unmined sites. Water temperatures from
a valley-fill site exhibited lower daily fluctuations and seasonal variations than water temperatures
from an unmined site.
Continued investigation at Unmined and Filled sites would improve the understanding of how
MTM/VF activities are associated with seasonal variation in stream geomorphology, stream
temperature and base-flow hydrology.
Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics for Headwater Streams in the
Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region of Southern West Virginia, 2000-01 by U. S. Geologic Survey
The objective of this study was to provide the following information:
Determine the median drainage area upstream of ephemeral/ intermittent/perennial flow
boundaries in the Mountaintop Coal Mining Region of Southern West Virginia.
State and Federal rules define stream reaches based on a variety of physical or biological
characteristics such as navigability, ordinary high water marks, flow conditions, biological activity,
or some combination of these attributes.
A field investigation using a hydrologic protocol developed by the United States Geological Survey
(USGS), West Virginia Water Resources Division District Office, was undertaken to illustrate the
size of watersheds attributable to each type of stream segment within the study area using this type
of approach. To establish the ephemeral/intermittent demarcation (E-point), the field investigation
was undertaken during the Spring of 2000, when the ground water table was considered to be at its
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies. o
-------
maximum. To establish the intermittent/perennial demarcation (P-point), the field investigation was
undertaken during the Fall of 2000, when the ground water table was considered to be at its
minimum. The locations were documented with GPS and mapping. The results are as follows. The
drainage areas for the ephemeral/intermittent boundary (E-point) varied from 6 to 45acres, with a
median of 14 acres. The drainage areas for the intermittent/perennial boundary (P-point) ranged
from 10 acres up to 150 acres, with a median of 41 acres.
Wetlands Study by EPA Region III
The study was designed to answer the following questions:
To what degree are the drainage control measures being established on fills able to replace
aquatic habitats that existed prior to construction of the fill, andean designs be modified to
further enhance or accomplish this?
Regarding the effectiveness of existing forms of mitigation associated with valley fills in
replacing or providing substitute resources, can existing forms of mitigation be modified to
further enhance or accomplish this?
It has been reported that wetland communities are being established at reclaimed mine sites, often
within sediment retaining structures, or in other ponded areas on the mined sites. The extent of these
areas, or the functions they are providing, however, was uncertain. To gather information in this
regard, a field team performed functional assessments (water quality, wildlife, and sediment
trapping) often wetland sites suggested by coal companies. The Evaluation of Planned Wetlands
(EPW) technique developed by Environmental Concern, Inc. was utilized to perform these field
assessments. EPW is rapid-assessment procedure designed for use during the planned wetland
process.
The functions being provided by the wetland systems studied were varied. Many of the wetland
systems were providing excellent sediment stabilization functions, and a few were providing good
water quality (defined as the capacity to retain and process dissolved or particulate materials to the
benefit of downstream surface water quality) and wildlife functions. Sediment stabilization is not
a difficult function to establish in a wetland system. Water quality functions such as nutrient
retention are also possible to establish with modest planning. In many of these cases where this
function was not being provided, we suspect that the wetland systems were largely unplanned, and
that the low percent vegetative cover was a significant influence in the low score. Finally, wildlife
functions are highly dependent on the vegetative communities present, the degree of interspersion,
and other physical and biological features of the system. It is not surprising, therefore, to see that
this function did not score highly in many of the linear systems studied. Those areas that scored
highly for wildlife function tended to be older systems with more complex structures.
Advanced planning could improve the modest wetland functions evident at existing surface mining
facilities.
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies. 9
-------
Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement by U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology
Laboratory
The Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Steering Committee
sponsored a symposium on January 12, 2000 as a forum to present current information regarding
aquatic ecosystem enhancement opportunities at mountaintop mining sites. Ecological and stream
restoration experts were assembled from a number of disciplines to focus on the subject of stream
(or other aquatic area) re-creation on mined sites. The proceedings from this symposium can be
viewed at the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory web site
http ://www.netl. doe, gov.
As this was an educational symposium and not a specific investigation, there are no study limitations
to discuss.
The opinions and views in the studies in this Appendix do not necessarily reflect the position or view of the agencies preparing
this EIS. These appendix cover sheets are provided as an aid to the reader to summarize the studies and also do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and views of the EIS agencies. 10
-------
soyet
Question
Distance( WSHED_
ana Site ID m) ACRE
c1
c1
c1
c1
c3
c3
c3
c3
c3
c3
c3
c3
c4
c4
c4
c4
c4
c5
c5
c5
c5
??? c6
c7
c7
c7
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
3
c7.4
0
50
150
650
0
50
150
350
550
750
950
1150
0
50
150
350
750
0
50
150
350
668
0
50
150
350
145.464
164.763
170.828
202.192
29.560
31.042
49.884
75.428
103.721
161.883
181.268
37.492
44.806
57.748
93.980
137.557
81.334
90.848
103.889
119.388
66.959
6.341
9.828
38.239
53.467
ELEV_FT
1516.414
1509.139
1494.390
1467.595
1757.348
1748.775
1731.036
1631.108
1485.600
1365.895
1300.483
1505.730
1476.232
1428.591
1342.113
1231.937
1310.071
1274.258
1195.787
1111.031
1076.366
1755.906
1700.936
1611.476
1481.904
ASPECT
SW
W
N
N
SW
S
SE
SW
SW
SW
SW
S
S
SW
S
S
W
W
W
SW
W
W
W
NW
NW
total#colle
cted EPT taxa Richness
0
4
4
37
47
26
35
44
54
45
62
31
8
32
35
66
66
34
69
77
123
66
11
15
13
8
0
2
2
4
8
8
8
10
15
12
17
4
4
9
9
13
12
5
12
10
16
7
3
4
7
5
0
2
2
7
10
11
10
13
18
14
19
10
5
10
12
15
15
5
15
12
21
10
4
5
9
5
#multi-ye %shredde %collecto %pn
ar rs %grazers rs rs
0000
0 0.25 0 0.75
0 0.25 0 0.75
0.081081 0.864864 0.0
0109
0.446808 0.085106 0.382978 0.0
0547
0.384615 0.576923 0.0
0401
0.742857 0.028571 0.142857 0.0
0141
0.181818 0.159090 0.522727 0.1
2293
0.277777 0.314814 0.314814 0.0
4888
0.466666 0.155555 0.266666 0.1
2767
0.258064 0.322580 0.241935 0.1
4565
0.387096 0.032258 0.419354 0.1
3818
0 0.5 0.25 0.25
1 0.09375 0.1875 0.4375 0.
0.171428 0.171428 0.457142
1669
0.181818 0.212121 0.484848 0.1
3225
0.212121 0.121212 0.590909 0.0
2211
0.794117 0.058823 0.117647 0.0
0651
0.434782 0.347826 0.1
0 6 0.115942 1
0.363636 0.142857 0.376623 0.1
0414
0.089430 0.162601 0.626016 0.1
0963
0.424242 0.0
0 0.530303 0 4
0.727272 0.090909 0.1
0701
0.866666 0.066666 0.0
0707
0.230769 0.230769 0.384615 0.1
2224
0 0.125 0.25 0.625
-------
c7.5
c7.6
c7.7
c8.1
c8.2
c8.3
c8.4
c8.5
c8.6
c8.7
c8.8
c8.9
C8.10
c8.11
c9.1
c9.2
c9.3
c9.4
c9.5
c9.6
f1.1
f1.2
f1.3
f1.4
f1.5
f1.6
f1.7
f1.8
550
950
1048
0
50
150
0
50
150
350
550
950
1350
1750
0
50
150
350
550
950
0
50
150
350
550
750
950
1150
76.145
111.326
147.292
19.268
20.874
29.448
31.073
46.412
50.403
137.568
154.173
233.592
282.401
318.935
24.717
28.022
35.651
61.893
121.081
157.819
1361.727
1184.483
1157.979
1745.546
1730.537
1693.492
1728.551
1715.021
1677.019
1631.119
1563.250
1417.065
1316.063
1157.906
1667.727
1634.302
1556.788
1419.149
1317.567
1194.627
1711.025
1691.888
1653.893
1591.402
1505.051
1418.671
1347.024
1291.390
N
SW
N
NE
N
NE
W
SW
S
N
NW
N
W
N
NW
NW
N
N
NW
N
NW
NW
NW
NW
W
W
NW
SW
19
19
42
12
17
5
23
26
35
65
25
46
79
101
23
36
48
78
64
145
3
2
1
12
15
16
6
51
6
8
9
2
6
3
4
5
7
16
8
12
17
15
8
9
12
13
14
13
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
7
6
9
11
4
8
4
6
8
11
19
11
14
19
18
11
13
13
19
16
14
3
2
1
5
4
5
5
8
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
3
1
4
4
5
1
1
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.157894
7
0.210526
3
0.333333
3
0.75
0.705882
4
0.75
0.565217
4
0.384615
4
0.771428
6
0.184615
4
0.4
0.130434
8
0.075949
4
0.059405
9
0.478260
9
0.222222
2
0.0625
0.089743
6
0.125
0.055172
4
0.333333
3
0.5
0
0.416666
7
0.866666
7
0.4375
0.666666
7
0.411764
7
0
0.210526
3
0.047619
0
0.117647
1
0
0.043478
3
0.153846
2
0.085714
3
0.276923
1
0.04
0.217391
3
0.253164
6
0.108910
9
0
0.055555
6
0.4375
0.307692
3
0.0625
0.062069
0
0
1
0.5
0.133333
3
0.125
0
0.372549
0.789473 0.0
7
0.473684 0.1
2
0.619047
6
0.083333 0.1
3
0.058823 0.1
5
0.25
0.391304
3
0.423076 0.0
9
0.057142 0.0
9
0.353846 0.1
2
0.28
0.413043 0.2
5
0.518987 0.1
3
0.742574 0.0
3
0.391304 0.1
3
0.611111 0.1
1
0.354166 0.1
7
0.448717 0.1
9
0.703125 0.1
0.765517 0.1
2
0.333333 0.3
3
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.4375
0.333333
3
0.215686
3
-------
fl.9
f1.10
f1.11
f1.12
f2.1
f2.2
f2.3
f2.4
f2.5
f2.6
12.7
f2.8
f2.9
needs
own
stream # f2a.1
f3.1
f3.2
f3.3
f3.4
f4.1
f4.2
f4.3
f4.4
f4.5
f4.6
f4.7
k1.1
k1.2
k1.3
1550
1950
2350
2750
0
50
150
350
750
1150
1550
1950
2350
0
0
50
150
350
0
50
150
350
550
950
1350
0
50
150
91 9.997 SW
919.997 NE
91 9.997 N
1756.969 N
1712.244 N
1589.350 N
1 493.433 W
1383.395 NW
1293.51 7 NE
1205.420 E
11 46.633 NW
1094.61 2 NW
1389.257 NW
1 360.1 23 W
1316.180 W
1 233.1 88 W
1 474.757 SW
1 458.629 SW
1424.231 W
1345.518 NW
36
48
53
6
12
19
29
40
62
126
111
114
131
0
1
12
32
38
27
32
18
37
39
14
0
0
5
21
6
6
8
3
6
7
10
11
6
9
13
12
10
0
1
3
9
15
4
7
7
9
12
3
0
0
3
4
9
8
11
4
8
10
14
17
9
13
15
15
11
0
1
6
11
18
7
10
7
13
13
6
0
0
5
8
0.555555 0.277777 0.166666
2687
0.020833 0.916666
1 3 0 7 C
0.226415 0.056603 0.603773 0.1
0186
0.333333 0.166666
0 3 0.5 7
0.583333 0.083333 0.166666 0.1
3337
0.526315 0.052631 0.4
3860
0.344827 0.068965 0.344827 0.2
4656
4 0.375 0.075 0.25
0.451612 0.161290 0.306451 0.0
4936
0.039682 0.071428 0.809523 0.0
1568
0.063063 0.144144 0.747747
3 1 1 7 0.0
0.026315 0.342105 0.596491 0.0
3832
0.007633 0.671755 0.0
0 6 0.221374 7
0000
0100
0.636363 0.272727 0.0
0630
1 0.125 0.5625 0.28125 0.
0.184210 0.236842 0.289473 0.2
1517
0.629629 0.111111 0.2
3 6 1 0.037037
1 0.40625 0.03125 0.53125 0.
0.388888 0.111111
1 9 1 0.5
0.108108 0.216216 0.567567 0.1
2126
0.410256 0.153846 0.358974 0.0
0424
0001
0000
0000
1 0.4 0 0.4
0.523809 0.333333 0.1
1503
-------
k1.4
k1.5
kl.6
k2.1
k2.2
k2.3
k2.4
k3.1
k3.2
k3.3
k3.4
k3.5
k3.6
k4.1
k4.2
350
550
750
0
50
150
350
0
50
150
350
550
750
0
50
k4.3
k5.1
k5.2
k5.3
k6.1
k6.2
k6.3
k6.4
ky1.1
ky1.2
ky1.3
ky1.4
ky1.5
ky2.1
ky2.2
ky2.3
ky2.4
150
0
50
150
0
0
100
150
0
50
150
350
550
0
50
150
350
62
20
67
2
2
10
51
1
0
32
20
59
19
0
3
22
2
1
0
1
6
40
28
1
40
62
54
83
34
7
54
70
9
4
9
0
0
5
10
1
0
9
8
10
5
0
2
6
1
0
0
1
1
9
8
1
6
10
12
12
3
4
5
13
13
7
13
1
2
7
13
1
0
10
11
15
9
0
3
8
2
1
0
1
4
14
9
1
6
12
12
15
4
4
6
14
1
1
2
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
1
0.532258
1
0.25
0.104477
6
1
0.5
0.5
0.176470
6
1
0
0.53125
0.5
0.203389
8
0.315789
5
0
0.666666
7
0.545454
5
0
1
0
0
0.5
0.447368
4
0.535714
3
1
0.15
0.306451
6
0.407407
4
0.433734
9
0.970588
2
0.857142
9
0.925925
9
0.657142
9
0.209677
4
0
0.477611
9
0
0
0
0.137254
9
0
0
0
0
0.152542
4
0
0
0
0.045454
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0
0.325
0.193548
4
0
0.012048
2
0
0
0
0
0.225806
5
0.7
0.328358
2
0
0
0.4
0.647058
8
0
0
0.28125
0.2
0.491525
4
0.315789
5
0
0.333333
3
0.272727
3
1
0
0
1
0.333333
3
0.394736
8
0.107142
9
0
0.425
0.322580
6
0.370370
4
0.313253
0
0
0
0.242857
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
C
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
-------
ky3.1
ky3.2
ky3.3
ky3.4
ky3.5
p1.1
p1.2
p1.3
p1.4
p1.5
p1.6
p1.7
p2.1
p2.2
p2.3
p2.4
p3.1
p3.2
p3.3
p3.4
p3.5
p3.6
r1.1
r1.2
r1.3
r1.4
r1.5
r1.6
r2.1
r2.2
0
50
150
350
550
0
50
150
350
0
50
150
0
50
150
350
0
50
150
350
550
750
0 96.704 2283.91 2 SW
50 102.344 2255.362 SW
150 110.183 2205.249 SW
350 145.198 21 43.726 SW
550 172.274 2093.1 83 SE
950 204.947 201 7.659 S
0 163.911 2071. 656 SW
50 170.558 2058.091 NW
0
23
61
57
106
1
8
20
24
5
23
29
2
1
31
36
4
2
27
23
34
50
52
96
65
86
63
51
43
55
0
8
14
16
14
1
1
4
7
2
8
9
1
0
8
8
2
0
14
7
9
16
7
13
9
12
15
9
8
12
0
10
17
18
16
1
1
5
12
3
11
11
2
1
12
14
3
2
18
8
12
18
10
17
16
19
18
15
13
18
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
3
0
1
2
1
0
1
2
2
1
4
3
5
1
2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
391304
3
245901
6
263157
9
245283
0
1
0.4
291666
7
0.8
304347
8
448275
9
1
0
612903
2
555555
6
0
0.5
407407
4
652173
9
333333
3
0.28
673076
9
604166
7
412698
4
223529
4
238095
2
196078
4
720930
2
436363
6
0
0.043478
3
0
0.035087
7
0.056603
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.565217
4
.573770
5
.456140
4
.481132
1
1
0
0.55
.333333
3
0
0.347826
0
0.034482
8
0
0
0
0.027777
8
0
0
0.037037
0
0.121212
1
0.12
0
0.020833
3
0.031746
0.047058
8
0.047619
0
0
0.072727
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
.344827
6
0
0
.258064
5
.166666
7
0
0
.333333
3
.130434
8
.484848
5
0.44
.153846
2
0.28125
.444444
4
.294117
6
.444444
4
.529411
8
.162790
7
.254545
5
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
-------
r2.3
r2.4
r2.5
r2.6
r2.7
r2.8
r3.1
r3.2
r3.3
r3.4
no
benthic
sample r3.5
r4.1
r4.2
r4.3
r4.4
r4.5
r4.6
r5.1
r5.2
r5.3
r5.4
X1.1
x1.2
x1.3
x1.4
x1.5
150
350
550
950
1350
1750
0
50
150
350
504
0
50
150
350
550
950
0
50
150
350
0
50
150
350
550
175.006
292.121
315.559
405.462
523.652
564.863
9.594
10.836
27.083
73.823
79.704
40.513
45.955
56.735
77.628
53.917
55.962
85.491
95.486
9.174
11.355
38.623
63.642
102.790
2033.561
2004.828
1986.011
1945.781
1909.670
1860.997
2311.721
2272.649
2222.436
2137.232
2075.071
2230.946
2199.105
2145.420
2054.154
2179.944
2131.019
2073.055
1990.316
998.629
971.880
945.059
896.621
852.261
W
SE
W
SW
SE
S
NW
NW
NW
NW
NW
SW
S
S
SW
S
SW
E
SE
E
NE
NE
SE
SE
53
61
70
128
106
109
30
36
69
37
24
21
34
39
30
68
15
29
45
54
1
19
12
34
70
9
10
15
16
18
22
6
8
13
9
5
6
9
9
6
11
7
7
10
12
0
6
3
10
14
15
14
21
22
22
27
9
11
17
16
8
9
12
16
11
17
9
10
15
19
1
8
6
10
17
3
2
3
3
3
4
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
4
0
3
2
1
1
0.392156
9
0.228070
2
0.157142
9
0.484375
0.150943
4
0.119266
1
0.7
0.428571
4
0.194029
9
0.314285
7
0.333333
3
0.7
0.647058
8
0.552631
6
0.344827
6
0.455882
4
0.8
0.586206
9
0.4
0.296296
3
0
0.368421
1
0.666666
7
0.470588
2
0.314285
7
0.156862
7
0.105263
2
0.028571
4
0.015625
0.028301
9
0.064220
2
0
0
0.044776
1
0.085714
3
0
0.05
0
0.078947
4
0
0.029411
8
0
0
0
0
0
0.263157
9
0
0
0
0.274509 0.1
8
0.473684 0.1
2
0.685714 0.1
3
0.34375 0.
0.566037
7 0.2
0.614678 0.2
9
0.133333 0.1
3
0.257142 0.3
9
0.402985
1 0.3
0.342857 0.2
1
0.416666
7
0.15
0.205882 0.1
4
0.184210 0.1
5
0.551724 0.1
1
0.323529 0.1
4
0
0.344827 0.0
6
0.288888 0.3
9
0.481481 0.2
5
0
0.157894 0.2
7
0.0
0.25
0.441176 0.0
5
0.614285 0.0
7
-------
x1.6
x1.7
y1.1
y1.2
y1.3
y1.4
y1.5
y1.6
y1.7
y2.1
y2.2
y2.3
y2.4
y2.5
950 176.520 784.673 S
1350 232.285 725.454 E
0
50
150
350
550
950
1350
0
50
150
350
550
63
31
13
6
75
62
49
73
88
0
4
53
113
79
11
8
2
2
8
9
10
10
10
0
1
10
12
9
12
12
3
3
11
11
13
11
12
0
3
11
16
13
0
1
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0.111111
1
0.366666
7
0.923076
9
0.166666
7
0.173333
3
0.145161
3
0.020408
2
0.054794
5
0.056818
2
0
0.5
0.245283
0.061946
9
0.253164
6
0
0.033333
3
0
0.5
0.093333
3
0.048387
1
0.081632
7
0
0.056818
2
0
0
0
0
0.012658
2
0.730158
7
0.4
0
0.333333
3
0.6
0.741935
5
0.571428
6
0.684931
5
0.636363
6
0
0.5
0.433962
3
0.752212
4
0.518987
3
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
-------
science for a changing world
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic
Characteristics for Headwater Streams in the
Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region of Southern
West Virginia, 2000-01
Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4300
In cooperation with the
U.S. Office of Surface Mining and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic
Characteristics for Headwater Streams in
the Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region of
Southern West Virginia, 2000-01
By KATHERINE S. PAYBINS
Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4300
In cooperation with the
U.S. Office of Surface Mining and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Charleston, West Virginia
2003
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract 1
Introduction 2
Purpose and Scope 2
Description of Study Area 2
Definitions of Perennial, Intermittent, and Ephemeral Streams 6
Acknowledgments 7
Study Design and Data Collection 7
Characteristics of Headwater Streams 12
Drainage Areas with Intermittent Flow 12
Drainage Areas with Perennial Flow 15
Temporal Variability in Intermittent and Perennial Drainage Areas 15
Summary and Conclusions 18
References Cited 19
FIGURES
1. Map showing the locations of the study-area groups of sampling sites in the headwater streams
of the mountaintop coal-mining region of southern West Virginia, 2000-01 3
2. Graph showing observed median monthly water levels for 1999-2001 and monthly water-level
statistics for 1976-2001 at U.S. Geological Survey monitoring well WYO-0148 in Twin Falls
State Park, Wyoming County, West Virginia 5
3. Sketch showing ephemeral-, intermittent-, and perennial-flow patterns typical for the mountaintop
coal-mining region of southern West Virginia 6
4. Graphs showing streamflow and precipitation for the streamflow-gaging station (03204210) on a
small stream near Mud, in the mountaintop coal-mining region of southern West Virginia
during (A) a spring 2000 precipitation event, and (B) an autumn 2000 precipitation event 11
5. Boxplots showing distribution of (A) elevation, (B) drainage area, and (C) median basin slope for
intermittent and perennial points in headwater streams of the mountaintop coal-mining region
of southern West Virginia, 2000-01 14
TABLES
1. Precipitation data for long term National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration monitoring
sites within and adjacent to headwater streams in the mountaintop coal-mining region of
southern West Virginia, 2000-01 4
2. Location and drainage area of intermittent and perennial points in headwater streams in the
mountaintop coal-mining region, 2000-01 9
3. Selected drainage-area and hydrologic characteristics of intermittent points used in data analysis for
headwater streams in the mountaintop coal-mining region, 2000-01 13
4. Selected drainage area and hydrologic characteristics of perennial points used in data analysis of
headwater streams in the mountaintop coal-mining region, 2000-01 16
5. Differences in drainage area between intermittent and perennial points in 2000 and 2001 for headwater
streams in the mountaintop coal-mining region 17
Contents III
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS, DATUMS, WATER-QUALITY ABBREVIATIONS,
AND ACRONYMS
CONVERSION FACTORS
Multiply
By
To obtain
acre
cubic feet per second
(ft3/s)
foot (ft)
foot per mile (ft/mi)
inch (in.)
0.00404686
0.02832
0.3048
0.1894
25.4
square kilometer
cubic meter per second
meter
meter per kilometer
millimeter
Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) can be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and conversely,
by the following equations:
°F = (1.8)°C + 32 °C = (°F-32)/1.8
Water year is calculated from October of calendar year one through September of calendar year two.
DATUMS
In this report, vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of
1988 (NAVD 88), and horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum
of 1983 (NAD 83). Historical data collected and stored as National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
have been converted to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) for this publication.
WATER-QUALITY ABBREVIATIONS
Specific conductance of water is expressed in microsiemens per centimeter at 25°C (|iS/cm). This
unit is equivalent to micromhos per centimeter at 25°C (|imho/cm), formerly used by the U. S.
Geological Survey.
ACRONYMS
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MTRM EIS Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining Environmental Impact Statement
OSM U. S. Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation
SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WVDEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
IV Contents
-------
U.S. Department of the Interior
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary
U.S. Geological Survey
Charles G. Groat, Director
The use of trade or product names in this report is for identification
purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the
U.S. Government.
For additional information write to:
Chief, West Virginia District
U.S. Geological Survey
11 Dunbar Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Copies of this report can be purchased from:
U.S. Geological Survey
Branch of Information Services
Box 25286
Denver, CO 80225-0286
-------
Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic
Characteristics for Headwater Streams in the
Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region of Southern
West Virginia, 2000-01
By Katharine S. Paybins
Abstract
Characteristics of perennial and intermittent
headwater streams were documented in the moun-
taintop removal coal-mining region of southern
West Virginia in 2000-01. The perennial-flow
origin points were identified in autumn during low
base-flow conditions. The intermittent-flow origin
points were identified in late winter and early
spring during high base-flow conditions.
Results of this investigation indicate that the
median drainage area upstream of the origin of
intermittent flow was 14.5 acres, and varied by an
absolute median of 3.4 acres between the late
winter measurements of 2000 and early spring
measurements of 2001. Median drainage area in
the northeastern part of the study unit was gener-
ally larger (20.4 acres), with a lower median basin
slope (322 feet per mile) than the southwestern
part of the study unit (12.9 acres and 465 feet per
mile, respectively). Both of the seasons preceding
the annual intermittent flow visits were much drier
than normal. The West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection reports that the median
size of permitted valley fills in southern West Vir-
ginia is 12.0 acres, which is comparable to the
median drainage area upstream of the ephemeral-
intermittent flow point (14.5 acres). The maximum
size of permitted fills (480 acres), however, is
more than 10 times the observed maximum drain-
age area upstream of the ephemeral-intermittent
flow point (45.3 acres), although a single valley
fill may cover more than one drainage area.
The median drainage area upstream of the
origin of perennial flow was 40.8 acres, and varied
by an absolute median of 18.0 acres between two
annual autumn measurements. Only basins under-
lain with mostly sandstone bedrock produced
perennial flow. Perennial points in the northeast
part of the study unit had a larger median drainage
area (70.0 acres) and a smaller median basin slope
(416 feet per mile) than perennial points in the
southwest part of the study unit (35.5 acres and
567 feet per mile, respectively). Some streams
were totally dry for one or both of the annual
October visits. Both of the seasons preceding the
October visits had near normal to higher than
normal precipitation. These dry streams were adja-
cent to perennial streams draining similarly sized
areas, suggesting that local conditions at a first-
order-stream scale determine whether or not there
will be perennial flow.
Headwater-flow rates varied little from year
to year, but there was some variation between late
winter and early spring and autumn. Flow rates at
intermittent points of flow origin ranged from
0.001 to 0.032 cubic feet per second, with a
median of 0.017 cubic feet per second. Flow rates
at perennial points of flow origin ranged from
0.001 to 0.14 cubic feet per second, with a median
of 0.003 cubic feet per second.
Abstract 1
-------
INTRODUCTION
The surface mining of coal by means of moun-
taintop removal results in excess rock material (spoil),
some of which is placed in headwater valleys adjacent
to the mined area. The Code of Federal Regulations,
crafted by the U.S. Office of Surface Mining and
Reclamation (OSM), describes conditions for the
placement of excess spoil in headwater valleys (valley
fills) (Legal Information Institute, 2002a, 2002b). The
1999 and 2002 U.S. District court rulings interpret Sur-
face Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)
and Clean Water Act regulations to allow the place-
ment of valley fill material only in ephemeral streams
and not within 100 feet of intermittent and perennial
streams, unless the post-mining land use is designated
as development (U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, 1999). Coal-mining interests
and some government leaders are concerned that if this
rule is enforced, mountaintop-removal mining will
cease to be feasible in West Virginia.
Five Federal and State agencies began
cooperation on a Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining
Environmental Impact Statement (MTRM EIS) in 1999
as a voluntary response to the court challenge dealing
with SMCRA and the Clean Water Act mountaintop-
removal enforcement issues.
Part of the MTRM EIS will assess the environ-
mental effects on waters of the United States and on
biota (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999).
In support of this objective, the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), in cooperation with OSM and the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA), reported the point
of flow origins for perennial and intermittent headwater
streams in the coal-mining region of southern West Vir-
ginia, and studied their hydrologic and drainage-area
characteristics.
Purpose and Scope
This report describes the hydrologic and drain-
age area characteristics of intermittent and perennial
headwater streams in southern West Virginia that were
not affected by mining. The streams were examined in
late winter or early spring (February through April),
when the water table is at its highest elevation, and in
autumn (October), when the water table is at its lowest
elevation. The origin of continuous base flow was iden-
tified in 36 unmined headwater streams in southern
West Virginia in February-April and October of both
2000 and 2001. Methods were developed to identify the
origin of continuous base flow in hydrologic terms, and
drainage-area characteristics were determined, includ-
ing variations in drainage-area sizes upstream of flow-
origin points over time. A better understanding of the
relations between ephemeral, intermittent, and peren-
nial headwater streams and their drainage-area charac-
teristics will help regulators make sound decisions on
valley-fill permits in West Virginia and adjacent states
with similar issues.
Description of Study Area
Fifteen percent of the Nation's coal produced in
2000 was mined in West Virginia, and West Virginia
leads the United States in coal exports (West Virginia
Office of Miners' Health, Safety and Training, 2000).
Coal is mined by means of both underground and
surface methods. In recent years, it has become both
economically and technologically possible to remove
entirely multiple, thin layers of coal near the tops of the
mountains. This type of mining is called mountaintop-
removal mining. Large-scale mountaintop-removal
mines generate excess fragmented rock material in the
mining process that cannot be replaced at the top of the
mountain once the coal is removed. This excess spoil is
placed in valleys adjacent to the surface mines. West
Virginia has approximately 1,700 valley fills ranging in
size from less than 1 acre to 480 acres and with a
median size of 12.0 acres (West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, 2002). The streams in the
study described here are within the region of mountain-
top-removal mining, but had not yet been filled at the
start of this work.
The 36 first-order stream sites are grouped
within five study areas in the Appalachian Plateaus
Physiographic Province in southern West Virginia
(fig. 1), which is characterized by mountainous terrain
(Fenneman, 1938; Fenneman and Johnson, 1946).
The streams of the Appalachian Plateaus have eroded
sedimentary rocks into steeply sloping hills and narrow
valleys. A thin layer of regolith commonly overlies
interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone,
shale, coal, limestone, and dolomite rocks, all of which
2 Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics for Headwater Streams, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region, Southern WV, 2000-01
-------
82°
38° 30'
38°
Study Area in West Virginia
82° 78°
20 MILES
40°
38°
20 KILOMETERS
RN(B-H)
WYO-0148
EXPLANATION
SELECTED MAJOR STREAMS
COUNTY BOUNDARIES
• GROUPS OF SAMPLING SITES (Site names)
O GROUND-WATER SAMPLING SITE
^ PRECIPITATION STATIONS
Figure 1. Locations of the study-area groups of sampling sites in the headwater streams of the mountaintop coal-
mining region of southern West Virginia, 2000-01.
Introduction 3
-------
dip gently to the northwest across the region. Resistant
bedrock exposed at the highest elevations (headwater
regions) is most commonly sandstone or shale, but
the thickness of this cap-rock layer is variable
(Fenneman, 1938; Fenneman and Johnson, 1946; and
U.S. Geological Survey, 1970). Most ground water
flows along the valley walls through a series of frac-
tures composed of joints, faults, and bedding planes,
and in slump fractures (Wyrick and Borchers, 1981).
The climate of West Virginia is continental, with
four distinct seasons and a large temperature variation
between summer and winter (U.S. Department of Com-
merce, 1960; Messinger and Hughes, 2000). Mean
monthly summer temperatures are about 65-75°F,
while mean monthly winter temperatures are about
25-40 °F; these temperatures depend on elevation.
Prevailing winds move generally from west to east.
Due to local orographic uplift, the heaviest precipita-
tion falls on the windward (southwest and western)
sides of mountains, which have rain shadows on their
leeward (northeast and eastern) sides. Throughout the
warmer months, the region is affected by northeast-
moving, moisture-laden maritime tropical air that
produces spatially discrete showers and thunderstorm
cells (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1960). In the
colder part of the year, large low-pressure storms
deliver precipitation over broader regions, but less total
precipitation than warm-weather storms.
In general, the 2000 water year was drier than
average, and the 2001 water year was an average year
for precipitation and ground-water levels (Ward and
others, 2001, 2002) (fig. 2). The October-March peri-
ods in both 2000 and 2001 were much drier than the
30-year average at all examined precipitation stations
in southwestern West Virginia (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 2000, 2001, and 2002a) (table 1). Precipi-
tation at various stations in the period (April-Septem-
ber) preceding the October 2000 field work range from
about 4 to 11 in. above normal. In the period preceding
the October 2001 field work, precipitation was below
normal at Dunlow and Madison (3.9 in. and 2.11 in.,
respectively), and 0.2-5.8 in. above normal at the other
stations. In the northeast part of the study area, average
annual precipitation is 1.8 in. greater than in the south-
west part of the study area.
Table 1. Precipitation data for long-term National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration monitoring sites within and adjacent
to headwater streams in the mountaintop coal-mining region of southern West Virginia, 2000-01
[Group of sites closest to precipitation station: See figure 1 for site locations and names. Normal monthly precipitation: Totals calculated from U.S.
Department of Commerce data from 1971-2000; precipitation data are in inches]
Precipitation
station
Dunlow 1 SW
Hanilin
London Locks
Madison 3 NNW
Oak Hill
Summersville Lake....
Group of sites
closest to
precipitation
station
LB.WF
HC, LB, WF
FF
HC
FF
RN
October
1999
through
March 2000
10.06
19.56
15.85
12.55
11.95
12.94
April 2000
through
September
2000
29.69
27.95
36.30
31.76
33.86
36.93
October
2000
through
March
2001
J4.83
is.ge
12.38
ilO.lS
11.25
12.10
April 2001
through
September
2001
20.96
24.47
29.19
125.00
30.69
32.61
Normal monthly
precipitation
October-
March
20.86
20.14
19.76
20.73
20.62
20.65
April-
September
24.85
24.26
25.50
27.11
25.59
26.83
Normal
annual
precipitation
45.71
44.40
45.26
47.84
46.21
47.48
'One to nine days of precipitation data are missing for at least one month during the given time interval.
4 Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics for Headwater Streams, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region, Southern WV, 2000-01
-------
UJ
-J
QL
uj
O
Q
LU
UJ
UJ
a
co
_J
g
UJ
CO
Q_
UJ
Q
FMAMJJASOND
JFMAMJJASOND
1999
2000
j £_\J\J\J \
MONTH AND YEAR
EXPLANATION
Percent of the time the
water level is closer
to land surface than the
value shown
....... , 50%
FMAMJJASOND
2001
observed
Figure 2. Observed median monthly water levels for 1999-2001 and monthly water-level statistics for 1976-2001
at U.S. Geological Survey monitoring well WYO-0148 in Twin Falls State Park, Wyoming County, West Virginia.
Introduction 5
-------
Definitions of Perennial, Intermittent, and
Ephemeral Streams
Water in the environment is available in the air,
in precipitation, in the ground, and on the land surface.
The interface where the ground-water table intersects
the land surface and becomes streamflow in a headwa-
ter channel is the point of flow origin. Streamflow
derived from ground water alone is called base flow.
Overland and near-surface flow contributing to stream-
flow are called surface and subsurface storm runoff
(Black, 1991). When a stream receives base flow year-
round, it is considered to be a perennial stream (fig. 3).
Intermittent flow indicates a seasonal lowering of the
water table during the summer and early autumn, as
base-flow contributions to the channel cease. If a chan-
nel does not intersect the water table at any time of
year, it is considered to be an ephemeral channel.
Given the natural hydrologic cycle, three basic
types of definitions for perennial, intermittent, and
ephemeral streamflow exist. Descriptive definitions are
often obtained from cartographers, whose maps are
used frequently in a legal and regulatory environment.
Hydrologic definitions are based on observations and
measurements of hydrologic phenomena, such as the
relations between stormwater flow and ground water,
and have recently been relied on more often in regula-
tions. Biologic definitions combine the existence or
absence of indicator species of benthic invertebrates
with hydrologic phenomena.
Much research has focused on the stream-type,
blue-line symbol on USGS maps at the 1:24,000 scale,
in spite of the fact that the line symbol on these maps is
not based on hydrologic criteria (Leopold, 1994). Even
so, many state and local laws specifically state that this
map series should be used when making any regulatory
decisions. Specific topographic instructions to past
USGS cartographers (U.S. Geological Survey, 1980)
state that:
1. ".. .all perennial streams are published regardless of
length."
2. "All intermittent streams are published that are
longer than 2,000 feet" and
3. "In general, headwater drainage shown on the
published map should terminate no higher than
about 1,000 feet from the divide, or at the upper
confluence of streams, whichever appears most
appropriate."
*
•
\
\
EXPLANATION
- EPHEMERAL-FLOW REACH
• INTERMITTENT-FLOW REACH
- PERENNIAL-FLOW REACH
•• DRAINAGE-BASIN BOUNDARY
Figure 3. Ephemeral-, intermittent-, and perennial-flow
patterns typical for the mountaintop coal-mining region
of southern West Virginia.
These instructions indicate that headwater limits
of blue lines on maps do not reflect actual field condi-
tions. Generally, a far larger number of actual channels
can be identified on the ground than are visible on a
published map (Leopold, 1994). For instance, the topo-
graphic maps used in this study showed that only 12 of
the headwater drainage areas had intermittent streams;
but in this study, 36 headwater drainage areas were
identified that had intermittent or perennial streams.
Twelve of those 36 streams had intermittent flow, but
no perennial flow in 2000 or 2001.
Hydrologic definitions of perennial, intermittent,
or ephemeral streamflow in the eastern U.S. are based
on the relations between stormwater and ground water,
the timing and duration of continuous base flow, drain-
age area, channel characteristics, and presence or
6 Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics for Headwater Streams, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region, Southern WV, 2000-01
-------
absence of substrate bedforms indicative of flowing
waters (Hewlett, 1982; Stefania Shamet, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region 3, written commun.,
1999). A basic hydrologic definition, and the one used
in this study, is modified from Langbein and Iseri
(1960). A perennial stream is one that flows continu-
ously, and thus has flow from both ground-water dis-
charge and surface runoff. An intermittent stream flows
only at certain times in the year, when it receives both
ground-water discharge and storm runoff. Ephemeral
streams flow only in direct response to surface runoff
of precipitation or melting snow, and their channels are
at all times above the water table. The West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP),
Water Quality Standard CSR 46-1-1-2.9, defines inter-
mittent streams as "streams which have no flow during
sustained periods of no precipitation, and which do not
support aquatic life whose life history requires resi-
dence in flowing water for a continuous period of at
least 6 months". OSM regulations define an intermit-
tent stream as a "stream or part of a stream that flows
continuously for at least 1 month of the calendar year
as a result of ground-water discharge or surface runoff;
the term does not include a stream that flows for less
than one month of a calendar year, and then only in
direct response to precipitation in the immediate drain-
age area and whose channel bottom is always above the
local water table." (Legal Information Institute, 2002a).
Pennsylvania regulation 25 Pa. Code (j)87.1 includes a
reference to channel substrate indicative of flowing
water, or lack thereof, to further differentiate ephemeral
from intermittent streams (Stefania Shamet, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Region 3, written com-
mun., 1999).
Biologic interpretations of perennial, intermit-
tent, and ephemeral streams are changing with
increasing knowledge of benthic invertebrates and
water-obligate fauna in headwater environments. Some
taxa that are now known to be present in intermittent
streams are currently used as indicators of continuous
(perennial) flow (M.E. Passmore, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3, written commun., 2002).
A growing body of literature indicates that intermittent
flows can support a diverse and abundant invertebrate
and salamander assemblage (Feminella, 1996; Will-
iams, 1996; Dietrich and Anderson, 2000; M.E.
Passmore, written commun., 2002).
Acknowledgments
The author thanks USGS and OSM colleagues
for their contributions to the field work and reviews.
The USGS appreciates the time given and knowledge
of the study area shared by Randall Maggard (Pen Coal
Inc.), John McDaniel (Arch Coal, Inc.), Francis Mead-
ows (Alex Energy, Inc.), Frank Rose (Pittston/Appala-
chian Co.), and Roger Wolfe (formerly of Mid-Vol
Leasing, Inc.). The USGS is also grateful to David
Vandelinde of the WVDEP for his assistance in secur-
ing contacts at the research sites.
STUDY DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION
A multi-agency group, including the WVDEP,
USGS, and OSM, selected 43 headwater streams for
investigation from mountaintop-removal-mine permit
maps. At each of these first-order streams, permits
for filling with excess mining spoil were either pending
or approved. Although 12 of the 43 drainage areas were
shown on USGS l:24,000-scale topographic maps
as including intermittent streams, field inspections
during this study showed that 36 of these drainage
areas included intermittent or perennial streams. The
36 of 43 headwater streams evaluated for this study
are in unmined drainage areas in Boone, Fayette,
Lincoln, and Nicholas Counties, in the heart of the
surface coal-mining region of southern West Virginia
(fig. 1). Surface-mining activities precluded further
visits to some basins. Some sites were not visited
due to clearing of most vegetation in preparation for
filling. Clearcutting significantly alters the hydrologic
regime of a watershed by decreasing evapotranspiration
and increasing surface and subsurface runoff (Helvey
and Patric, 1965; Black, 1991; Fitzpatrick and others,
1998).
Each of the headwater streams was visited in
February 2000, October 2000, March-April 2001, and
October 2001 in order to identify the point of origin of
continuous surface flow. Multi-agency teams made the
February 2000 visit, while a USGS team made the next
three visits. The point where base flow begins in the
late winter or early spring corresponds to the highest
water-table elevation, and is the point of intermittent-
flow origin, or the boundary between ephemeral and
intermittent flow (called the intermittent point). The
point where base flow begins in the late summer and
early autumn corresponds to the lowest water-table
Study Design and Data Collection 7
-------
elevation, and is the point of perennial flow origin, or
the boundary between intermittent and perennial flow
(called the perennial point).
The field work done in February-April was
timed to coincide with the wettest part of the year, with
little evapotranspiration before leaf-out begins, and a
ground-water table normally at its highest annual ele-
vation in the region (fig. 2). The February-April field
work thus documented the point of origin of continu-
ous intermittent base flow (intermittent point) under
conditions of no rainfall and subsequent storm runoff.
Many streams throughout West Virginia have minimum
base flows in late summer through early autumn, and
maximum base flows in late winter or early spring
(Ward and others, 2002). Different teams with different
equipment visited each group of sites (FF, HC, LB, RN,
WF) in February 2000. The accuracy of some of the
global-positioning-systems (GPS receivers) varied
between each group, and a few intermittent-point des-
ignations were mapped approximately for some sites,
which may have introduced an immeasurable error for
a few intermittent points. Project-planning complica-
tions delayed the 2001 site visits, and some understory
plants were already leafed out during the April visits.
The evapotranspiration from these plants probably had
some effect on the measured variables.
October field work was timed before leaf-off to
coincide with the dry conditions and the lowest water-
table elevations generally observed in early autumn in
the region (fig. 2). October field work thus documented
the point of origin of continuous perennial base flow
(perennial point), under conditions of no rainfall and
subsequent storm runoff. There was no base flow in 20
headwater streams in October of either 2000 or 2001,
and 12 streams contained no perennial flow in either
2000 or 2001 (table 2).
For each site, the field crew walked the full
length of the stream channel to determine the location
of the upstream limit of continuous surface flow. The
geographic coordinates of the point or zone where
streamflow was observed to be continuous in the chan-
nel and no flow was upstream were identified with a
Precision Lightweight GPS Receiver (PLGR). The
error in horizontal location for the PLGR system is 13
ft. If the GPS could not acquire a location for the
upstream flow limit, a Bushnell rangefmder, with an
error of 3 ft, was used to estimate the distance from a
point where a GPS reading was acquired.
All visits included measurements of streamflow,
water temperature, and specific conductance, except
for the February 2000 visits (they were not included in
the original study design). Streamflow was measured
within 15 ft downstream of the flow origin point with
one of three methods. A pygmy meter was used to mea-
sure flow velocity across a defined channel width when
the channel was wide and deep enough for the meter.
Floatable material was timed over a set distance to
measure velocity when the channel was not deep
enough to use the pygmy meter. The flow at a few sites
was measured by timing the filling of a bucket of
known volume. Water temperature was measured to
help determine whether or not surface water contrib-
uted in a major way to the flow. (Surface-water temper-
ature is generally higher than ground-water
temperature in summer and lower in winter.) For
autumn visits, when warmer water temperatures indi-
cated possible upstream flow through channel sand or
gravel deposits, the point of flow origin was reevalu-
ated by hiking upstream to verify that no surface flow
existed. Specific conductance was measured as a possi-
ble indicator of mine-water discharge, which generally
has higher specific conductance than natural ground
water. Conductance values measured in the field dif-
fered widely, however, despite the absence of coal
mining upstream of the study sites.
To avoid the effects of stormwater runoff,
streams were evaluated only if precipitation exceeding
0.1 in. was not recorded for at least 1 day prior to the
visit (table 2). A continuous streamflow-gaging station
(03204210) was operated during this study on a small,
unmined headwater-stream site on Spring Branch near
Mud, WV. The record from that station indicates that in
both the spring and autumn of 2000, stormwater flow
in a headwater basin (0.53 mi2) generally passed the
stream-gaging station within 24 hours of a precipitation
event of less than 0.6 in. (fig. 4).
The drainage areas for the headwater-stream
sites were assumed to be forested and previously undis-
turbed by deep or surface coal-mining activity. Because
it was later discovered that surface mining likely had
affected 7 of the original 43 headwater streams, they
are not included in the following analysis of 36 sites
(table 2). Six of the streams in McDowell County were
accessible from a bench of a 1970s contour mine.
The origin of flow for all six streams for all visits was
at or near the base of the rubble pile downgradient from
the mine bench. One Nicholas County headwater
stream was dry during all visits, and there was no
8 Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics for Headwater Streams, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region, Southern WV, 2000-01
-------
CO
>
.3
o
o
^o
0)
CO
"to
o
CL
o
=J
o
to
0)
0)
1
-a
to
0)
'o
CL
0)
CL
0)
E
0)
to
0)
to
0)
co
to
c
'to
•a
T3
^o
ro
o
o
_i
csi o
-Q O
(0 O
I— CM
i!
M .S
'S |
's z
-^ o
§ S
0 S
_ QJ
bo £*
|-§
S 'S
"rt ^
3 '€
O OJ
rt -^
o -g
o "o
<4-H Q.,
o 2
'•£ c
2 c
PH QJ
£ P-l
OH -
o *
3 *
T3
QJ «
JS -^
'£ ^
§ S
rt ^
a |
QJ OJ
£P S
c S
2 S
Q n>
*~ o
*- .S
S B
OJ
M) -§
.S 3
2 -a
"° £§
c !g
CG 3
"c 3
la
E§ 'S
V5 OJ
0 & —
i ?l
o § ^
7 "1 "^
.. ^ >
*. C c3
QJ ^ 'S
g * y,
g * OJ
T3 . .(Q
rt o
S.
o
N
C
'I
"co
'E
c
0)
4)
o
CNJ
C
'o
Q.
d)
S
I
c
0
°
^
_c
O1^
Q.
•g
C
1
C
O
o
c **~ c
g fe <« 2
C rt " m
I E5 JZ
53 .-
f C ^
'If
° ^
.^. 0)
2 =
Dl.E («
C CO' S
CO 2 CO
Q "
1 S £.1
C C ^
C ~°
_l **
~ 4)
3 =
— ' ^— '
41 _
Dl.E tfi
C co" £
2 g«
c .c
™ ij fi '|Z
.| E -S 4>
1 1 o.E
^ i/i
'5l 4)
c •§
° "
~ 4)
Jj 3
41 =
f g- |
O ^
0)
c
— flj
Q.S
E '
i
1
*
UO
1
!
^5.
UO
CM
OO
UO
O-
CD
CO
00
"^
1
CM
00
CD
§
00
CO
S
1 '
£
! ^^
2
CM
' OO
o
c-~
j 00
CO
CO
* CM
UO UO
o
03
"^
CM
' 00
CM
UO
00
j OO
CO
p
* UO
UO °
CM CM
OO OO
CD CO
OO CO
c-~ oo
CO CO
CO O
OO O5
UO
3
CM
' 00
O5
CM
! oo
CO
* 0
*
£ £
UO
00
CM
OO
CD
OO
00
CO
^
03
UO
1
!
^5.
*
CM
CM
OO
1
CO
UO
CM
UO
g
CM
00
oo
O5
00
00
CO
"
"^
i
CMCMCMCMCM CM | JCMCMCM CMCMCMCMCM
UO CD T— i UO OO CD CMCO CM
oqoqoqoqoqoq oqoq CM
oooooooooo oo' ' 'oooo ' ' ' 'oo
CO CD CM O3 T— i i— i UOCD CD
T— i O3 i— i CO CO OO OOOO ^
ododododod od| ' 'oooo ' ' ' !^
COCOCOCOCOCO COCO CO
uqco^T^oqp^^ (-p oq
CMCOT-HCMCMCM** CMT-H CO
* *
CMCMCMCMCM JCMCMCMJ | OOOOO
CDUOCDCOCO C-~ CMO
UOUOCOOOOO O5 CMO-
OOOOOOOOOO OO CMCM
oooooooooo 'oo' ' ' ' ' 'oo'oo
gCM CD O5 CD ^ CO O5
O O CO CO OO CM -rf
"TrTrTrTrTT TT trtr
cococococo 'co' ' ' ' ' 'co'co
pt---co*rroq ^ pp
Tf O C — CO O * O * * * * * * CM * Tf
*
O.) i— i i— i UO COUO Ol>- -rfOCMUOCD
CM*rTCMOO O^CX) COCO CMC-~COOOOO
O O i-H i-H T— IT— 1 T— IT— 1 O-CDCDUOUO
oqoqoqoq oqoq oqoq CMCMCMCMCM
oooooooo ' 'oooo 'oooo oooooooooo
uOTfOOO CDOO i— i OO CD-TTOO'— iO
T— i O3 CM CO O01>- OOOO CDCO-rfCMCD
cocococo ' 'coco 'coco cococococo
OOOCMCM O-O- O-O3 OO C-— O- T— IT— i
*
^^^!^ ,^^^^^ j j jcoj
CMCOCM O- O^C^CDCOCO OO
oqoqoq oq oqoqoqoqoq CM
oooooo'oo 'oooooooooo ' ' 'oo'
UOOOO O CDOOCMCDf- CM
T— i O5 i— i CM O01>-CO1>-OO CM
ododod'od lododododod ' ' ]c^|
O-^UO OO •rrCMCD'TrO O5
T— i CM CM * T— ' * l~~l'~~l^^|: %
rt J3
Cd rO Cd rO ^Tf ^ Cd rO
i— i i— i CM CO CO -rrt^Jt^JuOCDCD T— iCMCO-rfuO
^^^ ^EE^^^ SSSSS
CM CM OO
CO T—I ,—I
O5 CO CO
CM CO CO
CO CO CO
CO CM CM
r^ T-? SP Q
^ OO CO O5 CD
O O5 O5 CM CM
CO CM CM CO CO
CO CO CO CO CO
OO OO OO OO
CO CO CO CO
OO
CO
i—i O OO O O5
pq O Q w
2 2 2 2
pi pi pi pi
Study Design and Data Collection 9
-------
co"
^c
.™
1o
CD
E
CD
13
O
CO
'o
c
o
'o>
CD
CD
'E
E
"co
o
o
CL
o
c
's
=3
o
CD
•"
—
E
co
CD
to
0>
ro
g
-a
co
CD
_c
•^
c
'o
CL
'E
CD
CD
CL
-a
co
CD
fc!
E
c
o
co
CD
co
CD
en
co
'co
T3
11
C C
O i:
03 o
_i
CM o
1 S
(0 O
1— CNJ
•g
'5
a.
15
'E
£
O
o
^
I
—
.2
c
c
L.
&
°
CM
c
'o
a.
%
I
S
|
o
°
c
'o
a.
a>
S
o
S
1 £ 1
E ^ >> o
ll'l
2 c
•&<"
33
.^. 0)
31
§>.£(«
g - <8
™ £ So
D "
|s ^|
E 3 2 °
•S C O .E
A (/}
'5> <"
c "°
o ^
_l
^ "0
-i 3
o).E i«
2 - a>
C (Q ^
228
Q w
E i- w •£
3 3: >^ 2
E C -Q <1)
'c 3 ^ *J
S 'y}
f|
o 3
.^ 0)
31
a> _
0).E i«
c co £
I ™ ™
£ ^
3 .g >>'2
ll!«
g c o .E
i±
c "5
.3 3
~ <"
3 1
a> _
g).E y,
c
Q. ^
E '3>
(/)
^H ,— 1
gT— 1
o- ?2
o o
OO OO
CM O)
CO *rf
CO CO
CO CO
00 00
CO CO
UO ^
c^ 06
CM CM
O
0)
O-
o
8
CO
CO
06 j
CO
CD
O- *
CM *
*
OO OO
O O3
O) C-~
O- O-
OO OO
-H 03
CO CO
CO CO
00 00
CO CO
UO O
CM CM
CM CM
CO C-~
C-~ OO
c— c—
O) O)
8 8
O) UO
CM *rf
CO CO
CO CO
00 00
CO CO
Tf Tf
0 ^
CM CO
i— i CM
O O
rv r?
MH MH
,__,
CM
OO
o
OO
CD
CO
CO
CO
00
CO
CD
00
CM
CD
05
O
O)
CM
CO
CO
06
CO
CM
CM
CM
OO
1
s
0)
CO
CO
00
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
OO
O)
8
O)
CM
CO
CO
00
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
o
rv
MH
^H T— i CM
OO
Tf
CO
'— iCD
CO Tf
COCO
O) CM
'^'-H
i— i CM
S3 S3 S3 S3
T— IT— i CM
O5
CO
'— ' '— i CM
10 Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics for Headwater Streams, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region, Southern WV, 2000-01
-------
A. SPRING 2000
1,4
Q
O
O
uj 1 2
(f)
CY
UJ
D_
j™
LU in
UJ ' '"
u_
O
CD
" 0.8
z
5»
g
i| 0.6
UJ
1—
(/)
0.4
1 1 1 9 9 i
-
-
STREAMFLOW
— HOURLY PRECIPITATION
„
-
-
"
r\.
xj
j-"L
i
1
\
v^
^
I I 1 I I 1
U.D
0.5 ft
X
o
z
0.4 "
~~f
O
1—
^3,
03
Q.
O
LU
Q.
0,2 >.
CY
O
0,1 ^
UJ
0
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
B. AUTUMN 2000
Q
z:
O
o
UJ
CO
a:
LU
o,
h-
LU
LU
LL.
O
CO
Z)
O
o
LU
QL
I/)
1.2
O.E
0.4
STREAMFLOW
HOURLY PRECIPITATION
j
9/21
0.6
0,5
0.2
9/23
9/25
9/27
9/29
DATE
LU
I
O
0,4 -
O
h-
0,3 t
Q.
O
LU
CY
Q.
CY
^>
O
0-1 S
o
LY
UJ
Figure 4. Streamflow and precipitation for the streamflow-gaging station (03204210) on a small stream near
Mud, in the mountaintop coal-mining region of southern West Virginia during (A) a spring 2000 precipitation
event, and (6) an autumn 2000 precipitation event.
Study Design and Data Collection 11
-------
apparent channel to the receiving stream at the mouth
of the drainage area at an elevation of approximately
900 ft above sea level. A deep mine that dewaters some
streams between approximately 900 and 1,200 ft above
sea level, however, is suspected to be the cause of a
lack of flow in that stream for most visits.
All collected data were put into spreadsheets,
and all the intermittent- and perennial-point GPS
locations were mapped digitally with ArcGIS 8.1
software. The coordinates of points were verified by
comparison to digital orthophoto quarter-quadrangle
maps and digital raster graphics (DRGs). Most GPS
locations obtained in the field were accurate with
respect to these datasets. Drainage areas of intermittent
and perennial points were digitized at the 1:24,000
scale by use of the National Elevation Dataset (NED),
which has a 30-meter horizontal accuracy (U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, 1999). Characteristics such as drainage
area, elevation of origin point, mean drainage-area
slope, aspect directions, and areal percentage of the
dominant rock type were calculated for the drainage-
area coverages on the basis of NED data, DRGs, and
the digital geologic map of West Virginia (West Vir-
ginia Department of Environmental Protection, 1998).
Mean drainage-area slope was calculated on the basis
of the contour-band method of calculation (Horton,
1932; Eash, 1994); drainage-area slope can affect infil-
tration, surface runoff, soil moisture, and, possibly
ground-water discharge to streams (Eash, 1994). A cor-
relation analysis was used to assess the influence of the
measured characteristics on intermittent- or perennial-
point drainage area.
CHARACTERISTICS OF HEADWATER
STREAMS
In the coal-mining region of southern West Vir-
ginia, intermittent points were identified for streams in
35 of 36 drainage areas, and perennial points were
identified for streams in 20 of 36 drainage areas (fig. 1,
table 2). There was no flow in 20 of the drainage areas
included in this study in at least one spring or autumn
site visit. Additionally, 23 intermittent points and
11 perennial points were visited 2 years in a row in
order to give an indication of temporal variability of the
origin of flow in response to climatic conditions.
Drainage Areas with Intermittent Flow
The highest elevation of the water table and the
beginning of intermittent base flow (intermittent point)
was identified for 35 headwater streams in February
2000 and March-April 2001 (table 2). For 27 sites vis-
ited in February 2000, the median drainage area was
15.9 acres; and for 31 sites visited in March or April
2001, the median drainage area was 17.9 acres. The
smallest drainage area in either year upstream of an
intermittent point was 6.3 acres, and the largest drain-
age area was 52.5 acres.
If a site was visited more than once, the intermit-
tent point with the smaller drainage area was used in
the balance of this analysis, because the current
SMCRA and Clean Water Act issue under scrutiny is
whether or not fill material can be placed in intermit-
tent and perennial streams. The median drainage area
of this subset of intermittent points (table 3) is 14.5
acres. The median basin slope of these drainage areas is
388 ft/mi. All following analyses are based on this
subset of the data because not all of the sites were vis-
ited two times.
The median area for the 1,782 permitted valley
fills in southern West Virginia is 12.0 acres (West Vir-
ginia Department of Environmental Protection, 2002),
which is slightly smaller than the median intermittent-
point drainage area (14.5 acres). The maximum size of
a permitted fill (480 acres) is more than 10 times the
observed maximum intermittent-point drainage area of
45.3 acres (table 3). Currently, some large fills cover
more than one headwater drainage area.
In the northeastern part of the study area, mostly
sandstone is exposed at the surface, intermittent-point
elevations are higher (fig. 5A), and the average annual
precipitation (approximately 47 in.) is generally
greater. Intermittent points in the northeast had a
median drainage area of 20.4 acres, and median basin
slope of 322 ft/mi (table 3, figs. 5B, 5Q, In the south-
western part of the study area, shale and sandstone are
exposed at the surface, intermittent-point elevations are
generally lower (fig. 5), and average annual precipita-
tion (approximately 44 in.) is less. Intermittent points
in the southwest had a median drainage area of 12.9
acres, and median basin slope of 465 ft/mi (table 3,
figs. 5B, 5Q.
12 Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics for Headwater Streams, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region, Southern WV, 2000-01
-------
Table 3. Selected drainage-area and hydrologic characteristics of intermittent points used in data analysis for headwater
streams in the mountaintop coal-mining region of southern West Virginia, 2000-01
[Sampling site: See figure 1 for site locations and names. *, Data not collected in field season. **, Streamflow not measureable. ft, feet; ft/mi, feet per mile;
ft /s, cubic feet per second; uS/cm; microsiemens per centimeter]
Sampling
site
FF1
FFla
FF3
FF4
RNB
RNC
RND
RNE
RNF
RNG1
RNG2
RNG3
RNH
HCla
HClb
HC2
HC3a
HC3b
HC4a
HC4b
HC5
HC6a
HC6b
LB1
LB2
LB3
LB4
LB5
WFla
WFlb
WF2a
WF2bl
WF2b2
WF3a
WF3b
Region
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
Year
2001
2001
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2001
2001
2001
2000
2000
2001
2001
2000
2001
2001
2000
2000
2001
2001
2001
2001
2000
2001
2000
2000
2001
2000
2001
2001
2000
Drain-
age area,
in acres
8.1
18.3
10.8
45.3
11.3
40.6
8.9
30.6
19.4
20.4
28.0
22.2
40.7
12.0
24.4
22.2
24.2
13.8
7.7
7.7
9.6
16.4
17.9
10.8
12.7
17.7
7.9
13.1
14.5
6.3
10.7
14.9
21.2
7.9
10.9
Intermit-
tent point
elevation,
in ft
1,847
1,493
1,709
1,575
1,808
1,595
1,765
1,627
1,732
1,811
1,791
1,749
1,601
1,076
1,014
1,011
978
978
1,086
984
971
981
892
1,053
1,056
1,034
1,027
1,024
1,096
1,040
899
955
922
1,011
1,001
Basin
slope,
in ft/mi
186
338
223
333
264
416
233
348
275
350
322
275
433
393
583
596
552
587
310
485
488
554
617
380
315
408
323
388
343
505
513
392
490
365
444
Drainage
area
aspect
NW
SW
NW
W-NW
S
SW
W-SW
W
N-NW
W-NW
W-SW
N-NW
NW
SW
NW
SW
S-SW
N-NW
W-SW
W-NW
W-NW
N
NE
W
S-SW
S-SE
S-SE
SE
S-SE
E-NE
N-NE
S-SE
E
N-NW
NE
Dominant
rock type
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
shale
shale
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
shale
shale
shale
sandstone
shale
shale
shale
Percent-
age domi-
nant rock
type
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
75
98
100
100
100
100
91
100
99
71
80
100
73
67
100
51
78
92
99
100
Tempera-
ture, in °C
7
11.5
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7.5
7.5
8.5
*
*
10
8
*
6.5
7
*
*
7.5
9
10.5
10
*
10
*
*
9.5
*
7
5
*
Stream-
flow, in
ft3/s
0.008
.016
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
.021
.001
*
*
.018
.032
*
.022
.002
*
*
.008
**
**
**
*
**
*
*
.022
*
.003
.023
*
Conduc-
tance, in
uS/cm
110
214
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
27
36
40
*
*
283
534
616
349
*
*
55
22
36
39
*
38
*
*
47
*
51
55
*
Characteristics of Headwater Streams 13
-------
A. ELEVATION
2,000
O 1,800
O GJ
Z -J 1,600
— LJJ
a oo
LU > 1,400
I O
h- m
u, <
2 tl 1,200
800
Z
<
o:
a
CL
g
oo
z
oo
B. DRAINAGE AREA
200
150
100
50
EXPLANATION
Data value less than
or equal to 1.5 times the interquartile
range outside the quartile
75th percentile
— Median
—- 25th percentile
C. MEDIAN BASIN SLOPE
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
NE SW NE SW
Intermittent points Perennial points
SITE TYPE AND REGION
Figure 5. Distribution of (A) elevation, (6) drainage area, and (C) median basin slope for intermittent and
perennial points in headwater streams of the mountaintop coal-mining region of southern West Virginia, 2000-01.
14 Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics for Headwater Streams, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region, Southern WV, 2000-01
-------
Intermittent-point drainage-area aspect, the gen-
eral direction that water flows in a drainage area, varies
from N to N-NW overall (table 3), and has a significant
correlation with intermittent-point drainage area
(R = 0.23, p < 0.05). Flow volume at intermittent points
was small, with a median of 0.017 ft3/s, and a range of
0.001 to 0.032 ft3/s (table 3). Specific conductance
ranged from 22 to 616 |oS/cm, with a median of 51
|iS/cm. Water temperature ranged from 5-11.5°C, with
a median of 8.0°C.
Drainage Areas with Perennial Flow
The lowest elevation of the water table, and
beginning of continuous perennial base flow (perennial
point), was identified for 20 headwater streams in
October of 2000 or October 2001 (table 2). For all
October 2000 sites, the median drainage area was 41.4
acres, and for all October 2001 sites, the median drain-
age area was 28.5 acres. The 6-month period preceding
the October 2000 visits to the perennial points was
wetter than the period preceding the October 2001
visits (table 1).
If a site was visited in both years, the larger
perennial-point drainage area between the two years
was used in the statistical analysis (table 4); the stream
above the lower perennial point is assumed to be inter-
mittent. Also included are four sites that produced
perennial flow in 2001, but not in 2000. The median
drainage area upstream of this subset of perennial
points was 40.8 acres. The minimum perennial-point
drainage area was 10.4 acres, while the maximum
drainage area was 150.1 acres. Drainage areas of peren-
nial points had a greater range in size across the study
area than did intermittent-point drainage areas; this
result suggests that low base flow in the autumn may be
more sensitive to local differences in climatic and
drainage-basin conditions than high base flow in late
winter and early spring. All of the following analyses
are based on this subset of the data (table 4) because
not all of the sites were visited two times.
Headwater streams had perennial base flow only
where more than 80 percent of the bedrock exposed at
the surface is sandstone, regardless of location within
the study unit (table 4). Median elevation of perennial
points (1,503 ft) was higher in the northeastern part of
the study area (fig. 5/1); the median drainage area was
66.1 acres and the median basin slope was 443 ft/mi
(table 4, figs. 5B, 5C). Perennial points in the south-
western part of the study unit had a median elevation of
919 ft, a median drainage area of 34.8 acres, and a
median basin slope of 563 ft/mi (table 4, fig. 5).
Drainage-area aspect for perennial points ranges
from N to N-NW, with most basins facing SW, W-NW,
and NW (table 4); drainage-area aspect was not signifi-
cantly correlated to the drainage area of perennial
points (R = 0.36, p > 0.05). Flow volume at perennial
points varied little from site to site, with a range of
0.001 to 0.014 ft3/s, and a median of 0.007 ft3/s. Spe-
cific conductance varied from 32 to 721 |oS/cm, with a
median of 73 |oS/cm. Water temperature ranged from
9.0 to 16.0°C, with a median of 12.8°C.
Of the 36 drainage areas evaluated during this
study (table 2), six streams had no flow for only one
visit and twelve streams were dry for both October vis-
its. Half of these drainage areas contained at least 20
percent shale bedrock. Over half of the drainage areas
were adjacent to at least one other drainage area with
intermittent flow. Drainage-area aspect was evenly dis-
tributed in all directions. These observations suggest
that local climatic and drainage basin conditions deter-
mine whether or not there will be perennial flow in a
first-order headwater stream.
Temporal Variability in Intermittent and
Perennial Drainage Areas
The point of flow origin for intermittent and
perennial flow fluctuated over time, probably because
of differences in environmental variables, including
evapotranspiration, antecedent climatic conditions, and
drainage basin conditions. This study quantified eleva-
tion, rock type, aspect, and basin slope for intermittent-
and perennial-point drainage areas for two years at 23
and 11 sites, respectively.
The intermittent points were identified for 23
sites in both February 2000 and March-April 2001
(table 5). The intermittent-point drainage area varied by
a median of 3.4 acres between these two periods over-
all. The regional pattern was evident in this analysis as
well: northeastern intermittent-point drainage areas
varied by a median of 7.0 acres, while southwestern
drainage areas had a median variation of 1.9 acres. The
drainage areas for intermittent points for February
2000 and March-April 2001 were significantly corre-
lated by linear regression (R = 0.87, p < 0.05).
Characteristics of Headwater Streams 15
-------
Table 4. Selected drainage-area and hydrologic characteristics of perennial points used in data analysis for headwater streams
in the mountaintop coal-mining region of southern West Virginia, 2000-01
[Sampling site: See figure 1 for site locations and names. *, Data not collected in the October 2000 field season, ft, feet; ft/mi, feet per mile; ft3/s, cubic feet
per second; uS/cm; microsiemens per centimeter]
Sampling
FF3
FF4
RNC
RNE
RNF
RNG1
RNG2
RNG3
RNH
HCla
HClb
HC2
HC3a
HC3b
HC4
HC4a
HC6a
HC6b
LB3
LB5
1 Region
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
Drainage
Year area, in
acres
2001
2001
2001
2001
2000
2000
2001
2001
2001
2000
2000
2000
2001
2000
2001
2000
2001
2001
2000
2001
122.3
98.2
66.5
66.1
41.9
27.6
28.4
28.6
150.1
54.0
40.7
47.3
24.1
40.8
23.0
10.4
20.7
18.0
52.0
34.8
Perennial
point ele-
vation, in
ft
1,244
1,457
1,503
1,227
1,618
1,759
1,791
1,706
1,270
915
945
919
978
902
879
1,020
873
892
958
968
Basin
slope,
in ft/mi
539
443
491
480
315
347
230
301
600
541
596
664
554
615
589
398
563
620
470
453
Drainage
area
aspect
NW
W-NW
SW
W
N
W-NW
W-SW
N-NW
NW
SW
NW
SW
SW
NW
W
W
N
NE
S-SE
SE
_. . . Percentage
Dominant . .
rock type dom'nant
rock type
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
82
98
100
100
100
93
100
88
89
Temperature, Stream-
in °C flow, in ft3/s
14
14
11
12
13
12.5
9
11.5
11
12.5
12
13
16
13
14
13
16
14
11.8
12.5
<0.003
<.003
<.003
<.002
.011
.014
<.002
<.002
<.003
<.005
<.010
.001
<.003
.003
.002
.012
<.005
<.003
<.003
<.003
Conduc-
tance, in
uS/cm
90
121
32
44
43
*
155
47
90
73
61
234
360
195
600
721
67
73
62
38
Regional late winter to early spring precipitation
patterns can create small, local differences in the drain-
age areas of intermittent points, but there was no clear
direction to the differences, regardless of location in the
study area. The period (October-March) preceding the
2000 field work was slightly wetter than the period pre-
ceding the 2001 field work (Ward and others, 2001,
2002) (table 1), but only 57 percent (13 of 23) of
intermittent-point drainage areas were larger in 2001
than in 2000. Overall, October through March of both
2000 and 2001 were significantly drier than normal,
which may have had a cumulative affect on the drain-
age areas of the intermittent points. There is a signifi-
cant relation between drainage areas for intermittent
points in March-April 2001 and perennial points in
October 2000 (R = 0.97, p < 0.05).
The perennial points were identified for 11 sites
in both October 2000 and October 2001. The drainage
areas upstream of these perennial points varied by a
median of 18.0 acres between 2000 and 2001 (table 5).
The variation in drainage areas over time was much
larger for perennial points (18.0 acres) than for inter-
mittent points (3.4 acres), overall. Precipitation in the
summer and early autumn in this region is delivered
primarily by local convection thunderstorms, which
can cause wide variability in water-table elevations
across the region. Drainage areas of perennial points in
October of 2001 were significantly correlated to drain-
age areas of perennial points in October 2000
(R = 0.86, p< 0.05).
There was a difference in the medians of the tem-
poral variation in drainage areas for perennial points in
the northern and southwestern regions. The median of
the variation for the northeastern basins was 22.2 acres,
and 11.7 acres for the southwestern basins. Perennial
point drainage areas where the rock type is sandstone,
which are distributed across the study area, varied by a
median of 20.1 acres. Drainage areas with as much as
16 Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics for Headwater Streams, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region, Southern WV, 2000-01
-------
Table 5. Differences in drainage area between intermittent and perennial points in 2000 and 2001 for headwater streams in the
mountaintop coal-mining region of southern West Virginia
[Sampling site: See figure 1 for site locations and names. Dominant rock type: The rock type listed represents greater than 50 percent of the surface geol-
ogy. Difference: 2000 value minus 2001 value. *, Intermittent or perennial point not visited in both years.]
Sampling
site
FF1
FF3
FF4
RNC
RND
RNE
RNF
RNG1
RNG2
RNG3
RNH
HCla
HClb
HC2
HC3a
HC3b
HC4a
HC4b
HC6a
HC6b
LB4
LB5
WFla
WFlb
WF2a
WF2bl
WF2b2
WF3b
Region
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
Dominant rock
type
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
sandstone
shale
shale
shale
sandstone
shale
shale
Intermittent-point drainage
2000
19.4
10.8
45.3
*
8.9
30.6
19.4
20.4
31.4
22.2
*
12.0
24.4
26.5
*
*
8.4
9.2
16.4
18.0
7.9
*
14.5
6.3
10.7
15.9
22.2
10.9
2001
8.1
19.0
52.5
*
13.3
43.2
23.2
27.5
28.0
22.2
*
15.0
31.8
22.2
*
*
7.7
7.7
19.7
17.9
10.1
*
24.7
10.1
10.7
14.9
21.2
12.1
areas, in acres
Difference
11.3
-8.2
-7.2
*
-4.4
-12.6
-3.8
-7.0
3.4
.0
*
-3.0
-7.5
4.3
*
*
.6
1.5
-3.3
.1
-2.2
*
-10.2
-3.8
.0
1.0
1.1
-1.2
Perennial-point drainage area, in acres
2000
*
65.0
*
44.2
*
*
*
27.6
*
22.2
125.9
54.0
40.7
47.3
23.4
40.8
*
*
*
*
*
34.0
*
*
*
*
*
*
2001
*
122.3
*
66.5
*
*
*
27.5
*
28.6
150.1
28.5
35.3
19.7
24.1
22.8
*
*
*
*
*
34.8
*
*
*
*
*
*
Difference
*
-57.3
*
-22.2
*
*
*
0.2
*
-6.4
-24.2
25.5
5.4
27.6
-.7
18.0
*
*
*
*
*
-.8
*
*
*
*
*
*
18 percent shale are in only the southwestern part of
the study area, and had a median variation between
years of only 0.8 acre.
Although the period (April-September) preced-
ing October 2000 field work was wetter than the period
preceding October 2001 field work, 36 percent (4 of
11) of perennial points had larger drainage areas in
2001, 36 percent (4 of 11) were larger in 2000, and 27
percent (3 of 11) varied less than one acre. Six peren-
nial points not included in the statistical comparison of
11 sites did contain flow in 2001, but not in 2000
(table 2). As noted earlier, only drainage areas com-
posed of mostly sandstone produced perennial flow.
The uncertainty in these results associated with
GPS and mapping methods employed in this study is
unknown, but the magnitude and significance of regres-
sion relations identified above suggest that the patterns
identified here are robust for this small dataset. Varia-
tions in drainage-area size upstream of intermittent and
perennial points over time probably are affected by
antecedent climatic conditions and drainage basin
Characteristics of Headwater Streams 17
-------
conditions. However, the local conditions for small
headwater basins are extremely variable, and relations
of these conditions to intermittent and perennial points
could not be defined with this limited study.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Characteristics of first-order perennial, intermit-
tent, and ephemeral headwater streams in the moun-
taintop coal-mining region of southern West Virginia
were measured and quantified in the late winter or early
spring and autumn of 2000 and 2001. The origins of
flow in headwater streams previously had not been
examined in West Virginia, but are important to know
because of the 1999 and 2002 U.S. District court rul-
ings allowing the placement of valley-fill material only
in ephemeral streams and not within 100 feet of inter-
mittent and perennial streams.
The point of continuous base flow in a stream,
after no recent precipitation, can be identified and
mapped as the surface expression of the water table.
The time of year of field work is an important factor in
this approach. Many streams throughout West Virginia
have their lowest base flows in late summer or early
autumn, and their highest base flows in late winter or
early spring. The point where base flow begins in the
late winter or early spring corresponds to the highest
water-table elevation, and is the point of intermittent-
flow origin (intermittent point). The point where base
flow begins in the late summer or early autumn corre-
sponds to the lowest water-table elevation, and is the
point of perennial-flow origin (perennial point).
The study area included 43 sites around the
southern coal fields of West Virginia. Because previous
coal mining affected 7 sites, only 36 sites were used in
this study. For both intermittent and perennial streams
in both years, flow at the point of origin was generally
less than 0.01 ft3/s. Specific conductance varied from
22-616 |iS/cm for all sites and for all field seasons, and
was not a good indicator of past mining history. Water
temperature ranged from 5.0 to 11.5°C in the late
winter or early spring, and from 9.0 to 16°C in the
autumn.
The median drainage area upstream of 34 inter-
mittent points was 14.5 acres, and ranged from 6.3 to
45.3 acres. The median size of permitted valley fills in
southern West Virginia is 12.0 acres, which is compara-
ble to the median area upstream of the intermittent
point (14.5 acres). The maximum size of permitted fills
(480 acres) is more than 10 times the observed maxi-
mum intermittent-point drainage area (45.3 acres). The
intermittent points in the northeastern part of the study
unit were underlain by sandstone bedrock, were higher
in elevation, had higher antecedent precipitation totals,
and had larger median drainage areas (20.4 acres) and
less steep median basin slopes (322 ft/mi) than the
southwestern intermittent points (12.9 acres; 465 ft/mi,
respectively).
The median drainage area for 20 perennial points
was 40.8 acres, and ranged from 10.4 to 150.1 acres.
Perennial-point basins in the northeastern part of the
study unit had a median elevation of 1,503 ft, a median
drainage area of 66.1 acres and a median basin slope of
443 ft/mi. Perennial points in the southwestern part of
the study unit had a median elevation of 919 ft, a
median drainage area of 34.8 acres, and a median basin
slope of 563 ft/mi. Only drainage areas underlain by
sandstone bedrock produced perennial flow, regardless
of geographic location.
Intermittent-point drainage areas varied over
time by a median of 3.4 acres between two annual late-
winter or early spring measurements for 23 sites. There
was a regional pattern in this dataset: northeastern
drainage areas for intermittent points varied by a
median of 7.0 acres, while southwestern drainage areas
for intermittent points varied by a median of 1.9 acres.
The results indicate that local antecedent climatic con-
ditions and drainage basin conditions control the loca-
tion of the intermittent point.
Perennial-point drainage areas varied over time
by a median of 18.0 acres between two annual autumn
measurements for 11 sites. Perennial points in north-
eastern drainages varied over time by a median of 22.2
acres, whereas those in the southwestern drainages
varied over time by a median of 11.7 acres. This could
be partially explained by rock types, as shale was
present only in the southwestern drainage areas; only
drainage areas composed of mostly sandstone pro-
duced perennial flow. The October 2001 perennial-
point drainage area was significantly correlated to the
perennial-point drainage area of October 2000
(R = 0.86, p < 0.05). Twenty streams had no flow for
one or two annual October visits. These drainage areas
were adjacent to similarly sized drainage areas that did
produce perennial flow. These factors suggest that
perennial flow in a stream is controlled by very local
climatic and drainage basin conditions at a first-order
stream scale.
18 Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics for Headwater Streams, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region, Southern WV, 2000-01
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Black, P.E., 1991, Watershed hydrology: Prentice Hall
Advanced Reference Series, Physical and Life
Sciences, 408 p.
Dieterich, M., and Anderson, N.H., 2000, The
invertebrate fauna of summer-dry streams in
western Oregon: Archiv fur Hydrobiologie, v.147,
p. 273-295.
Eash, D.A., 1994, A geographic information system
procedure to quantify drainage-basin
characteristics: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 30,
no. 1, p. 1-8.
Feminella, J.W., 1996, Comparison of benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages in small streams
along a gradient of permanence: Journal of the
North American Benthologic Society, v. 15, no.4,
p. 651-669.
Fenneman, N.M., 1938, Physiography of Eastern
United States: New York, McGraw-Hill, 714 p.
Fenneman, N.M., and Johnson, D.W., 1946, Physical
divisions of the United States: U.S. Geological
Survey Physiography Committee Special Map,
scale 1:7,000,000.
Fitzpatrick, F.A., Waite, I.R., D'Arconte, P.J., Meador,
M.R., Maupin, M.A., and Gurtz, M.E., 1998,
Revised methods for characterizing stream habitat
in the National Water-Quality Assessment
Program: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 98-4052, 67 p.
Helvey, J.D., and Patric, J.H., 1965, Canopy and litter
interception of rainfall by hardwoods of eastern
United States: Water Resources Research, v. 1. no.
2, p. 193-206.
Hewlett, J.D., 1982, Principles of forest hydrology:
The University of Georgia Press, 183 p.
Horton, R.E., 1932, Drainage-basin characteristics:
American Geophysical Union Transactions, p.
350-361.
Langbein, W.B., and Iseri, K.T., 1960, General
introduction and hydrologic definitions, Manual of
Hydrology: Part 1. General Surface-water
Techniques: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1541-A, p. 18.
Legal Information Institute, 2002a, Code of Federal
Regulations, chapter 30, accessed August 2002
at http://lula.law.cornell.edu/cfr/
cfr.php?title=30&type=chapter&value=7
, 2002b, Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, accessed April 2002 at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
30/ch25.html
Leopold, L.B., 1994, A View of the River: Harvard
University Press, 298 p.
Messinger, T. and Hughes, C.A., 2000, Environmental
setting and its relations to water quality in the
Kanawha River Basin: U.S. Geological Survey
Water- Resources Investigations Report 00-4020,
57 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1960, Climate of West
Virginia: Weather Bureau, Climatography of the
United States, no. 60-46, 15 p.
, 2000, Climatological data summary, West
Virginia 1999: National Climatic Data Center, v.
107, n. 13, 22 p.
, 2001, Climatological data summary, West
Virginia 2000: National Climatic Data Center,
v.108, n.13, 23 p.
, 2002a, Climatological data summary, West
Virginia 2001: National Climatic Data Center v.
109, n.13, 26 p.
, 2002b, Climatography of the United States,
Monthly normals of temperature, precipitation,
and heating and cooling degree days 1971-2000:
Weather Bureau, No. 81 (46), 23 p.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, 1999, Bragg v. Robertson 2:98-0636:
accessed March 2002, at
http://www.fedcourtwvsd.com/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999,
Mountaintop Mining: accessed February 2002, at
http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop
U.S. Geological Survey, 1970, The national atlas of the
United States of America: U.S. Geological Survey,
417 p.
, 1980, Technical instructions of the National
Mapping Division, map editing, provisional
chapter 5C1: U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey, p. 16.
, 1999, National Elevation Dataset, West Virginia
subset: U.S. Geological Survey, EROS data-center.
Accessed August 2002, at
ftp://centauri.geo.wvu.edu/pub/
Clearinghouse/DEM/NED/
References Cited 19
-------
Ward, S.M., Taylor, B.C., and Crosby G.R., 2001,
Water resources data-West Virginia, water year
2000: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report
WV-00-1, 262 p.
, 2002, Water resources data-West Virginia,
water year 2001: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Data Report WV-01-1, 255 p.
West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, 1998, Surface rock type-rock units:
digital coverage of rock type of West Virginia,
1968, accessed August 2002, at
ftp://ftp.wvgis.wvu.edu/pub/Clearinghouse/rock
type/wvgeol.zip
West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, 2002, digital CIS data of valley fills
from permit maps, accessed May 2002, at
http://129.71.240.42/data/omr.html
West Virginia Office of Miners' Health, Safety and
Training, 2000, West Virginia coal facts: accessed
February 2002, at
http://www.state.wv.us/mhst/wvcoalfacts.htm.
Williams, D.D., 1996, Environmental constraints in
temporary fresh waters and their consequences for
the insect fauna: Journal of the North American
Benthologic Society, vol. 15, no. 4,
p. 634-650.
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.
20 Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics for Headwater Streams, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region, Southern WV, 2000-01
-------
A Survey of Eight Major Aquatic Insect Orders Associated with Small
Headwater Streams Subject to Valley Fills from Mountaintop Mining
INTRODUCTION
In the study area many small ephemeral, intermittent, and permanent streams are
subject to burial as a result of mountaintop removal/valley fill (MTR/VF) activities.
There has been little or no assessment as to what biota and habitats are being affected.
Studies in other regions suggest that many intermittent and temporary streams may
contain a diverse assemblage of species and aquatic biota. For example, in western
Oregon taxa richness of invertebrates (> 125 species) in temporary streams exceeded that
of 100 species found in a permanent headwater (Dietedch and Anderson 2000). In
several northern Alabama streams, Feminella (1996) could find little difference between
the number of invertebrate taxa found in permanent streams versus those found in
intermittent stream reaches. In contrast, some studies have found taxonomic diversity to
be depressed in intermittent headwater streams compared to permanent downstream
reaches (Brussock and Brown 1991).
Dietedch and Anderson (2000) found 13 previously undescribed taxa of invertebrates
associated with the temporary headwater stream. Morse et al. (1993, 1997) have pointed
out that many small spring brooks and spring seeps in the Appalachian region harbor a
diverse and unique array of invertebrates. Furthermore, a number of the unique species
are known from only one or two isolated locations in the Appalachians (Morse et al.
1993, 1997). However, other than the knowledge that small spring brooks and spring
seeps may contain unique species in the Appalachians, we know little about benthic
community structure and distribution in intermittent streams within the coalfield area. In
order to assess community structure in these small headwater streams potentially subject
to burial, a survey was undertaken during the late winter and early spring of 2000 to
assess biotic inventories in several intermittent and permanent headwater stream systems.
The purpose of the survey was to assess the potential limits of viable aquatic
communities based on biological criteria, which may be useful in delineating stream
buffer zones as they relate to valley fills created by MTR/VF practices. Specifically,
several questions were addressed by the exercise: What are the upper limits of
distribution of aquatic insects belonging to the orders Ephemeroptera, Odonata,
Plecoptera, Megaloptera, Trichoptera, Coleoptera, and Diptera within the intermittent and
permanent headwater reaches? What is the distribution of various functional groups of
aquatic insects, i.e., shredders, collectors, gatherers, and predators in these headwater
streams? How does invertebrate community structure and taxa diversity vary with
distance from the headwaters and watershed area? What is the relative distribution of
taxa with regard to length of aquatic life required to complete development, i.e., are only
those taxa with shorter (<9 months) life cycles found in the intermittent headwater
reaches? To assess these questions streams were studied in southern West Virginia and
eastern Kentucky, where all or parts of the streams are scheduled for burial by MTR/VF
mining. It should be emphasized that most of the streams included in this inventory do
-------
not appear on USGS 1:24000 maps and, in fact, many do not even appear as a dashed
blue line indicating the existence of an intermittent stream on existing USGS maps.
-------
METHODS
Field methods
Five proposed surface mining sites in West Virginia and one site in Kentucky were
selected for study. Each site had three or more headwater streams planned for valley fills.
A total of 36 streams and spring seeps were sampled in West Virginia and Kentucky.
Three of the 36 are reference streams. All streams and spring seeps were sampled
between February 15 and April 15, 2000.
Two field teams, four to five members, were organized to conduct the stream surveys.
Each team had a professional biologist with experience in aquatic macroinvertebrate
taxonomy, and one person with experience using global positioning systems (GPS).
The first sampling point for each headwater stream was located in the field, where the
contiguous surface flow began. Other sampling locations were located 50, 150, 350, and
550 meters downstream of the point of contiguous flow using a 100-meter tape. If
needed, additional points were sampled at 400-meter intervals downstream until the
mouth of the stream was reached, or a perennial stream as designated by a solid blue line
on a USGS topographic map was encountered. Each sampling point was located on a
USGS 7.5' topographic map and the GPS location recorded. Location information was
recorded into a geographic information system and used to calculate watershed area,
elevation and aspect at each sampling point. Again, many of these headwater streams
are not shown as either intermittent or perennial streams on USGS 1:24000 maps.
At each sampling location, only aquatic insects in the orders Plecoptera,
Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Megaloptera, Lepidoptera, Trichoptera, Coleoptera and Diptera
were collected. Aquatic stages were taken with a D-frame net and hand picked with
forceps from rocks and leaf-packs by three or four team members for ten minutes. The
specimens were counted and identified to the family or genus level, and then preserved in
ethyl alcohol for laboratory verification of counts and field identifications.
Data collected
The following information was gathered for each sampling point: site ID and station
number; downstream distance from point of contiguous flow; area of watershed,
elevation, stream aspect (compass orientation), number of individuals collected for each
taxa, total number of taxa collected (richness), number of multi-year taxa (taxa which
require >1 year for development in the aquatic juvenile stage), number of EPT
(Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) taxa, proportion of collectors, shredders,
scrapers, and predators in the population. Multi-year life cycle data were obtained from
Brigham et al. (1982) and Wallace and Anderson (1996). Functional group classification
followed that presented in Merritt and Cummins (1996). For the proportion of functional
groups at a given station, any station with <2 individuals was eliminated prior to analysis
because they did not constitute a community.
-------
RESULTS
Total individuals, orders, families, and genera
All 8 of the target orders of insects were found within the intermittent headwater
reaches and within these orders there were 41 families and 73+ genera, the actual number
of genera would far surpass 73 as chironomids were not identified to genus (Table 1). A
total of 6,923 individuals were collected and identified from the study streams.
Functionally, predators (24 taxa) dominated the total number of taxa collected followed
by collectors (19 taxa), shredders (18 taxa), scrapers (5 taxa), and several facultative
collector-scraper taxa based on the classification scheme of Merritt and Cummins (1996).
Many of the genera listed in Table 1 are represented by more than one species in the
study area. For example, a list of Plecoptera (stonefly) genera found in small headwater
streams and spring seeps in eastern North America (Table 2) shows that over half of
those genera listed are represented by multiple species. Additionally, the study area has
not been adequately inventoried and a few species are known from only a few isolated
localities.
Taxa richness and EPT richness
Taxa richness (number of taxa at a given site) increased (P<0.01, regression analyses)
with increasing watershed area (Figure 1). The number of taxa increased rapidly up to a
drainage area of about 150 to 200 acres and then tapered off with increasing watershed
area. Many watersheds of less than 50 acres had 10 or more taxa.
The total number of EPT taxa (number of taxa belonging to the insect orders
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera and generally considered obligate aquatic
insects indicative of good water quality) followed similar trends as taxa richness (Figure
2). In fact, the number of EPT taxa increased rapidly up to a watershed area of about 100
acres after which the rate of increase tapered off with increasing watershed area (Figure
2, F<0.01, regression analyses). As noted for taxa richness some extremely small spring
seeps at the point of contiguous flow had multiple EPT taxa (Figure 2).
Functional differences in fauna along headwater gradients
The proportion of shredder taxa declined with increasing watershed area (F<0.01,
regression analyses, Figure 3). In many of the smaller headwater drainages of less than
50 acres over half of the fauna collected were shredders. Collector taxa showed an
opposite trend than that of shredder taxa. The proportion of collector taxa increased with
increasing watershed area (F<0.01, regression analyses), with the rate of increase slowing
once a watershed area of about 100 acres is reached (Figure 4). The proportion of
samples composed of scraper taxa followed a similar, although weaker but significant
(P<0.05), trend as that of collectors with increasing proportions as watershed area
increased (Figure 5). In contrast to the other functional groups, the percent predators
showed no trend with increasing watershed area or distance downstream (r2 = 0.0085,
Figure 6).
-------
Table 1. Insect order, number of families and genera within each
order found during survey of streams potentially subject to valley fills
Order
Ephemeroptera (mayflies)
Odonata (dragonflies & damselflies)
Plecoptera (stoneflies)
Megaloptera (alderflies, dobsonflies)
Coleoptera (beetles)
Trichoptera (caddisflies)
Lepidoptera (moths)
Diptera (true flies)
Total =
Number of
families
4
3
9
2
5
8
1
9
41
Number of
Genera
8
4
21
3
5
12
1
19a
73+
1 = does not include Chironomidae genera
Table 2. Plecoptera (stoneflies) from eastern North America found only
in first and second order streams, including seeps and springs (list
compiled by R. F. Kirchner [U.S. Army Corps of Engr.] and B. C.
Kondratieff [Colorado State University]). Note - ca. 50% of these
^
Family
Genus
CAPNIIDAE
LEUCTRIDAE
NEMOURIDAE
TAENIOPTERYGIDAE
CHLOROPERLIDAE
PELTOPERLIDAE
PERLIDAE
PERLODIDAE
Allocapnia
Paracapnia
Leuctra
Paraleuctra
Megaleuctra
Nemoura
Ostrocerca
Paranemoura
Prostoia
Soyedina
Zapada
Taeniopteryx
Alloperla
Rasvena
Sweltsa
Peltoperla
Tallaperla
Viehoperla
Beloneuria
Hansonoperla
Isoperla
Malirekus
Oconoperla
Yugus
Number of
known species
5
1
6
1
2
1
4
2
1
5
2
1
2
1
4
2
5
1
2
2
4
2
1
3
-------
Total number of individuals collected and life history
The total number of individuals collected at various sites increased with watershed
areas (P<0.01, regression analyses, Figure 7). Overall the number of taxa collected
increased rapidly from watershed areas of <10 to 100 acres and the rate of increase began
to slow after watershed drainage areas approached 100 acres. The number of taxa with
multi-year life cycles, i.e., requiring more than one year in the aquatic stage to complete
their development, tended to increase in a downstream direction (Figure 8). Insects with
multi-year life cycles were encountered in watersheds as small as 10 acres. However,
even 100-acre watersheds had as many as 4 taxa with multi-year life cycles. Some of the
multi-year taxa include the following: Plecoptera (stoneflies): Peltoperla, Tallaperla,
Eccoptura, and Acroneuria; Odonata (dragonflies): Lanthus, Cordulegaster, and
Stylogomphus; Megaloptera (fishflies): Nigronia. Coleoptera (beetles): Anchytarsus.
CONCLUSIONS
Most of these sites would not be considered streams based on existing USGS
1:24000 topographic maps. Furthermore, a number of taxa that are found in these
extreme headwaters have multi-year life cycles suggesting that sufficient water is present
for long-lived taxa to complete their juvenile development prior to reaching the aerial
adult stage. The predominance of shredder taxa in the headwaters (Figure 3) suggests that
the community structure in the extreme headwaters resemble those hypothesized by the
river continuum concept for first order streams (Vannote et al. 1980). These streams all
drained forested regions and leaf material from the surrounding forest was by far the most
evident energy source (e.g. Wallace et al., 1997) as many streams were "choked" with
leaves during the February to April sampling period. Much more work is needed on
organic matter dynamics, e.g., input and output budgets, etc. in these small headwater
streams of the central Appalachians. Furthermore, trend of increasing fine organic
particle collectors downstream (Figure 4) suggests a system that is dependent on linkages
upstream resources and surrounding forest. It is assumed that export to downstream areas
is linked to both hydrologic events and animal activity (e.g. shredders processing leaf
material to FPOM, which is more easily exported to downstream reaches).
Although only contiguous flow areas were considered in this study, the sampling was
conducted following groundwater recharge from a major drought the preceding year.
Presumably, these extreme headwaters are subject to annual surface drying. Benthic
invertebrates exploiting temporary stream habitats have been separated into three groups
of taxa: 1) those found primarily in permanent waters and displaying no specialized
adaptations to life in intermittent waters; 2) generalist taxa that are facultative
stream/pond generalist; and, 3) specialist species with specialized life cycles or
adaptations for withstanding adverse periods of drying (Williams and Hynes 1977). For
example, some invertebrates survive drought periods by migrating into the subsurface
sediments known as the hyporheic zone (e.g., Clinton et al. 1996), whereas others may
survive drought periods in intermittent pools, etc. (e.g. Smith and Pearson 1987), or have
drought resistant stages or adaptations (Williams and Hynes 1977). However, to our
knowledge none of the taxa identified above as having multi-year life cycles have any
obvious specialized adaptations for surviving droughts, which suggests migration into
-------
hyporheic zones or intermittent pools during severe droughts. A number of workers have
found remarkable similarity between fauna in temporary stream habitats with that found
in nearby permanent streams (Feminella 1996, Delucchi 1989, Boulton and Lake 1992),
whereas other have noted rather distinct differences among permanent and temporary
forest streams (Dieterich and Anderson 2000).
Biodiversity
There are many species of aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates that are unique to
headwater streams and spring seeps (Morse et al. 1993, 1997). For example, several
species of aquatic insects that have been described (new to science) from first and second
order streams in recent years from Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia, include:
Hansonoperla hokolesqua, Allocapnia frumi, A. harperi, Alloperla aracoma, Peltoperla
tarteri, Sweltsa pocahontas, Ameletus tarteriand Madeophylax A list of Plecoptera
(stoneflies) and number of species restricted to first and second order streams of eastern
North America is presented in Table 2. It is important to emphasize that about 50% of
the number of stonefly species listed in Table 2 have been described only within the last
25 to 30 years and new species are still being described from the region. Some of the
taxa collected during this study restricted to small headwater streams, for instance:
Ostrocerca, Soyedina, and Peltoperla (Plecoptera), Diplectrona metaquiRoss (a new
WV state record), and Homoplectra (Trichoptera). For example, the larvae of
Homoplectra now known occur in intermittent spring seeps in the headwaters of
mountain stream (Huryn 1989). Thus, the view that there are so many small streams and
springbrooks in the Appalachians that destroying a small portion represents a minor
threat to biodiversity appears to be incorrect.
Very few taxonomic studies to the species level of identification (generally requiring
the short-lived aerial adult stage) have been made in the small intermittent and permanent
streams of the central Appalachians (see also Morse et al. 1993, 1997). This includes
streams of the Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia coalfields. Thus,
without adequate assessment by trained taxonomists, we do know how many species are
present, their distribution, their current population status, or whether they are endangered
or threatened with extinction. Hence, we are burying some potentially valuable and
unique habitats without knowing the consequences of our actions. Investigations into the
taxonomy, ecology, and distribution of species associated with headwater streams and
spring seeps in MTR/VF areas should proceed with haste in order to document biotic
inventories of the coalfield areas before many species are potentially lost forever without
realizing their presence.
As others have pointed out, invertebrates inhabiting temporary streams can have high
diversity and faunal similarity with permanent streams, therefore they should be
considered in conservation plans designed to protect species and their habitats (Williams
1996, Feminella 1996).
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The field teams for this investigation included Ross Bishop (DSMRE), Natalie Carter
(OSM), Bob Fala (WVDEP), Gary Hall (OSM), Fred Kirchner (USCE), Thomas Koppe
(OSM), Max Luehrs (OSM), Jason Miller (USFWS), Kevin Quick (WVDEP), Dave
Rider (USEPA), Ted Sentz (OSM), W. M. Rowe (DSMRE), Dr. Ben Stout (WJU),
Richard Wahrer (DSMRE), Vann Weaver (OSM), and Susan Wind (DSMRE). The draft
report was assembled in haste by Fred Kirchner, Ben Stout, and Bruce Wallace.
LITERATURE CITED
Boulton, A. J., and P. S. Lake. 1992. The ecology of two intermittent streams in Victoria,
Australia II. Comparisons of faunal composition between habitats, rivers and years.
Freshwater Biology 27:99-121.
Brigham, A.R., W. U. Brigham, A. Gnilka (eds.). 1982. The aquatic insects and
oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises. Mahomet,
111. 837p.
Brussock, P. P., and A. V. Brown. 1991. Riffle-pool geomorphology disrupts longitudinal
patterns of stream benthos. Hydrobiologia 220:109-117.
Delucchi, C. M. 1989. Movement patterns of invertebrates in temporary and permanent
streams. Oecologia 78:199-207.
Clinton, S. M., N. B. Grimm, and S. G. Fisher. 1996. Response of a hyporheic
invertebrate assemblage to drying disturbance in a desert stream. J. N. Amer. Benthol.
Soc. 15:700-12
Dieterich, M., and N. H. Anderson. 2000. The invertebrate fauna of summer-dry streams
in western Oregon. Arch. Hydrobiologie. 147:273-295.
Feminella, J. W. 1996. Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in small
streams along a gradient of permanence. J. N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 15:651-669.
Huryn, A. D. 1989. The identity of the hydropsychid larva known as "Oropsyche?': the
immature stages of Homoplectra flintiWeaver. J. N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 8:112-116.
Merritt, R. W., and K. W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of
North America, Third Edition, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa,
USA. 862p.
Morse, J. C., B. P. Stark, and W. P. McCafferty. 1993. Southern Appalachian streams at
risk: implications for mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, and other aquatic biota. Aquat.
Conserv. Mar. Freshwater Ecosystems. 3:293-303.
-------
Morse, J. C., B. P. Stark, W. P. McCafferty, and K. J. Tennessen. 1997. Southern
Appalachian and other southeastern streams at risk: implications for mayflies,
dragonflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies. Pp. 17-42, in: G.W. Benz and D. E. Collins
(eds.). Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special Publication 1,
Southeastern Aquatic Research Institute. Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur,
GA. 554 p.
Smith, R. E. W., R. G. Pearson. 1987. The macro-invertebrate communities of temporary
pools in an intermittent stream in tropical Queensland. Hydrobiologia 150: 45-61.
Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. Cushing. 1980.
The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
37:130-137.
Wallace, J. B., and N. H. Anderson. 1996. Habitat, life history, and behavioral
adaptations of aquatic insects. Chp. 5, pgs. 41-73, In: R.W. Merritt and K. W.
Cummins (eds). An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, Third
Edition, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa, USA.
Wallace, J. B., S. L. Eggert, J. L. Meyer, and J. R. Webster. 1997. Multiple trophic levels
of a forest stream linked to terrestrial litter inputs. Science 277: 102-104.
Williams, D. D. 1996. Environmental constraints in temporary waters and their
consequences for insect fauna. J. N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 15:634-650.
Williams, D. D., and H. B. N. Hynes. 1977. The ecology of temporary streams II.
General remarks on temporary streams. Internal Rev. Hydrobiologie. 62:53-61.
-------
0
200 400 600
Watershed area (acres)
800
Figure 1. Number of different benthic macroinvertebrate taxa (richness) collected in each sample versus
watershed drainage area at each sample location. Trendline fitted using the least squares method and a
logarithmic function. The relationship is significantly different than zero (p<0.01).
0
200 400 600
Watershed area (acres)
800
Figure 2. Number of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) taxa collected in each sample versus
watershed drainage area at each sample location. Trendline fitted using the least squares method and a
logarithmic function. The relationship is significantly different than zero (p<0.01).
10
-------
1.00
0.00
0
200 400 600
Watershed area (acres)
800
Figure 3. Proportion of benthic macroinvertebrate populations that function as leaf shredders collected in
each sample, versus watershed drainage area at each sample location. Trendline fitted using the least
squares method and a logarithmic function. The relationship is significantly different than zero (p<0.01).
1.00
0.00
0
200 400 600
Watershed area (acres)
800
Figure 4. Proportion of benthic macroinvertebrate populations that function as fine particle collectors in
each sample, versus watershed drainage area at each sample location. Trendline fitted using the least
squares method and a logarithmic function. The relationship is significantly different than zero (p<0.01).
11
-------
1.00
0.00
0
200 400 600
Watershed area (acres)
800
Figure 5. Proportion of benthic macroinvertebrate populations that function as biofilm (algae, bacteria,
fungus) scrapers in each sample, versus watershed drainage area at each sample location. Trendline fitted
using the least squares method and a logarithmic function.
Proportion predators
1 nn -*•
n Rn
u.ou
n fin
n dn
0.20
0.00
C
R2 = 0.01
• *
&£**** :
Tfiea^* * . •
fHB>~*» ••: «*
) 200 400 600 800
Watershed area (acres)
Figure 6. Proportion of benthic macroinvertebrate populations that function as predators in each sample,
versus watershed drainage area at each sample location. Trendline fitted using the least squares method
and a logarithmic function. The relationship is not significantly different than zero (p>0.01).
12
-------
0
200 400 600
Watershed area (acres)
800
Figure 7. Total number of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in each sample versus watershed drainage
area at each sample location. Trendline fitted using the least squares method and a logarithmic function.
The relationship is significantly different than zero (p<0.01).
(0
X
(0
(0
"5
E
M-
o
a)
^
3
z
c
D
C
o
3
2
1 -
0
c
• A
) 200 400 600 800
Watershed area (acres)
Figure 8. Number of taxa collected in each sample that live greater than one year in the aquatic life stages,
versus watershed drainage area at each sample location.
13
-------
Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement
at Mountaintop Mining Sites
About the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact Statement
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), U.S. Office of Surface Mining (OSM), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), in cooperation with the State of West Virginia, are preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal 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 from mountain top mining operations, and to environmental
resources that could be affected by the size and location of fill material in valley fill sites.
The draft EIS will be released for public comment during the summer of 2000. The final
EIS is slated for completion by January 2001.
Early in 1998, the four Federal agencies now involved in the EIS formed a work group
and agreed on a series of priority areas where more information and analysis would assist
them in regulating the effects of valley fills associated with mining operations. Study
plans were adopted and funded for undertaking valley fill inventories in West Virginia,
Kentucky, and Virginia; for assessing the stability of valley fills; and for assessing the
potential for downstream flooding from these mining operations. The agencies also
placed priority on studying the impacts of valley fills on aquatic habitat; on surveying and
evaluating mitigation practices being employed in West Virginia and neighboring
Appalachian Coalfield States; and on evaluating how to better coordinate the Federal
regulatory programs. These studies were underway or in the planning stages when the
Bragg v. Roberston settlement agreement was reached.
With the decision to prepare an EIS, the agencies brought the coordination of these
technical studies under the scope of the EIS, and broadened state participation. The
expanded network of agencies has now examined the studies initiated in 1998 and has
modified those study plans to make them more useful for the EIS. Additional work plans
responding specifically to the EIS mandate have also been drafted.
Team leaders have been selected among the participating agencies for each of the
technical study areas, which are listed below. The team leaders worked with a team
representative of the expertise of each agency to develop a work plan. The work plans
reflect what the agencies believe should be studied, and are subject to revision as work
progresses and new insights are gained.
EIS Technical Study Areas:
• Future Mining
• Fill Stability
• Mining and Reclamation Technology
• Flooding Potential
• Fill Hydrology
-------
• Streams
• Fisheries
• Wetlands
• Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement
• Terrestrial Ecology
• Soil Quality and Forest Productivity
• Socioeconomic Issues
• Mine Dust and Blasting Fumes
• Landscape Ecology/Cumulative Effects
Prelude to the Symposium
The Team Leader for Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement submitted a work plan for this
technical study area to the EIS Steering Committee in July 1999. The work plan, which
is available from the EPA Region III internet site containing information related to the
EIS (http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm), identified the goals of the EIS
related to Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement:
• Assess mining and reclamation practices to show how mining operations might be
carried out in a way that minimizes adverse impacts to streams and other
environmental resources and to local communities. Clarify economic and technical
constraints and benefits.
• Help citizens clarify choices by showing whether there are affordable ways to
enhance existing mining, reclamation, mitigation processes and or procedures.
• Identify data needed to improve environmental evaluation and design of mining
projects to protect the environment.
The Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement work plan was designed to augment the activities
of the Streams and Fisheries Survey work plans and build upon the symposium held
under the Mining and Reclamation Technology work plan in June 1999. The work plan
included components to evaluate current stream practices and to evaluate opportunities
for aquatic ecosystem enhancement using existing information, field monitoring, surveys,
and expert reviews. The work plan proposed a workshop (subsequently changed to a
symposium) of experts in ecology and stream restoration to review the current practices
at specific sites selected by the mining companies and to outline the factors that would
contribute to successful stream restoration and aquatic ecosystem enhancement.
An Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement planning meeting was held September 15, 1999 to
outline plans for the symposium on stream restoration and reclamation practices being
used at valley fills and mountaintop mines. A panel of experts was selected to tour
several mine sites to evaluate the restoration and reclamation practices being used at
those sites. The National Mine Land Reclamation Center in cooperation with the West
Virginia Mining and Reclamation Association and the West Virginia Coal Association
recommended four sites to be visited by the panel of experts and serve as representative
samples of current practices. The site visits occurred during the period December 7-8,
-------
1999 at Elk Run Mine of Massey Coal; Samples Mine of Catenary Coal; Rollem Fork
Mine of Pen Coal; and Hobet 21 Mine of Hobet Mining a subsidiary of Arch Coal.
The symposium followed on January 12, 2000 to offer a forum for presentation of the
views and recommendations of the panel of experts for aquatic ecosystem enhancement
at mountaintop mining sites. The symposium also offered an opportunity for public
input, primarily from the mining and reclamation industry, on the barriers (regulatory,
financial, or technical) to enhanced reclamation. The symposium was held open to the
public, with no registration fee, at the Holiday Inn, Charleston House, in Charleston,
West Virginia.
Symposium Attendees
A total of 162 persons registered their names and affiliations to attend the symposium. A
complete listing of the registered attendees is included in this proceedings.
The largest group registered included 98 representatives of the coal mining industry along
with their suppliers and consultants. The next largest group included 43 members of the
government and regulatory community representing the following federal and state
agencies; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Geological Survey, West
Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, West Virginia Division of Natural
Resources, Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Kentucky Division of
Water, and the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources.
There was a notably low turnout from the environmental advocacy community and the
general public. However, considering the scientific and technical nature of the program,
this was not considered to be detrimental to achieving the symposium objectives. The
discussion that transpired between the panel of experts on aquatic ecosystems, the mining
industry, and the regulatory community yielded numerous potential enhancements to
aquatic resources at mining sites and the barriers to their implementation that will require
further evaluation as part of the EIS process.
Panelist and Key Person Biographies
Paul F. Ziemkiewicz
Paul Ziemkiewicz is a native of Pittsburgh, PA. He received BS and MS degrees from
Utah State University in biology and range ecology, respectively. He then received a
Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia in Forest Ecology.
After graduating from UBC in 1978, he joined the Alberta Government's Department of
Energy. There he directed its reclamation research program in coal and oil sand mining.
He also served on Alberta's regulatory review committee and served as the research
manager of the Province's coal research program. In 1988, he came to West Virginia
University to serve as the Director of the National Mine Land Reclamation Center and
the West Virginia Water Resources Research Institute.
-------
He presently serves on a number of federal, state and industry advisory panels on
environmental remediation. Dr. Ziemkiewicz has over 70 publications on the topics of
mine land reclamation, acid mine drainage, and coal ash application in mines.
J. Bruce Wallace
J. Bruce Wallace received his BS from Clemson University, and MS and Ph.D. from
Virginia Tech. He is currently Professor of Entomology and Ecology, University of
Georgia in Athens, Georgia, where he teaches courses in stream ecology, aquatic
entomology, and immature insects. He has served as major professor of some 38
graduate students at the University of Georgia. Dr. Wallace is author, or co-author, of
some 150 scientific papers, including book chapters, concerned with various aspects of
stream ecology or aquatic entomology.
Much of his research during the past 25 years has been conducted on southern
Appalachian streams at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory (U.S. Forest Service) in
western North Carolina and supported primarily by the National Science Foundation.
His primary research areas include: linkages between streams and terrestrial ecosystems;
role of aquatic invertebrates in stream processes; effects of disturbance and recovery of
streams from disturbance; secondary production and aquatic food webs and energy flow;
and, organic matter dynamics in headwater streams.
Dr. Wallace is a past president (1991-1992) of the North American Benthological
Society. He was the recipient of the 1999 Award of Excellence in Benthic Science from
the North American Benthological Society.
D. Courtney Black
D. Courtney Black is the Program Manager for the National Mine Land Reclamation
Center at West Virginia University. Mr. Black is a scientist with 6 years of research and
project management experience. His primary focus has been in the fields of coal
combustion product utilization and field scale acid mine drainage treatment. Mr. Black
also serves as the Director of West Virginia University's National Environmental
Education and Training Center. NEETC's primary focus is to ensure that health and
safety concerns are incorporated into new environmental remediation technologies.
Peter Lawson
A native of County Durham, England, Peter Lawson received his undergraduate degree in
Mining Engineering in 1978 from New Mexico Tech. In 1986, while maintaining full
time employment in the mining industry, he received his MBA from Ashland University,
Ohio. Mr. Lawson has more than 20 years of industry experience, the majority of which
has been in surface coal mining in Appalachia. During his career he has worked on
projects in western Canada, Russia and Mongolia, as well as having performed work in
virtually every major coal-producing basin in the United States. Arch Coal, Inc. has
-------
employed Mr. Lawson for 5 years where he is currently President and General Manager
of Catenary Coal Company. Catenary Coal Company has received numerous awards for
the Samples Mine in Kanawha County where the company's achievements and approach
to reclamation have been recognized at both state and national levels. Catenary Coal
Company is twice winner of the David C. Callaghan Award, winner of the EVICC
National Reclamation Award, and winner of the West Virginia Ducks Unlimited
Wetlands Award.
John S.L. Morgan
John S.L. Morgan is an environmental mining consultant with extensive experience in both
surface and underground mining for the extraction of metalliferous ores, coal and industrial
minerals. He has a specific emphasis on the environmental effects of mining and mine
reclamation. He also provides detailed technical expertise in the analysis of mine
subsidence prediction and mitigation, acid mine drainage and mine planning.
Mr. Morgan founded Morgan Worldwide Mining Consultants, Inc. in 1995. Previously, he
had established Morgan Mining & Environmental Consultants, Ltd. in 1990 with a staff of
18 people and built it into a $2 million per annum operation with 27 employees. The
International Mining Consultants Group acquired the company in 1992. Mr. Morgan then
served as the Executive Vice President of Weir International Mining Consultants until 1995
when he left to form Morgan Worldwide Mining Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Morgan has been the project manager for a number of mine technical reviews, for a
significant number of subsidence investigations, and for environmental compliance and
liability analysis reviews for both operating and abandoned mining operations. He is
actively involved in projects in all regions of the United States, and has worked in Russia,
Indonesia, Ukraine, Poland, Bulgaria, Peru, Argentina and Trinidad. During his career, Mr.
Morgan has also worked in rock mechanics in South Africa, and as a planning engineer for
open cast coal mining in Britain.
Horst J.Schor
Mr. Schor's educational background includes degrees in Civil Engineering and
Geography and Graduate Course work in Environmental Studies.
His professional career spans more than 25 years during which he managed the
development of large scale hillside planned communities in Southern California and other
projects. Since 1991 he has been an independent consultant serving the private and
public sectors on issues of land development, landform restoration and mining
reclamation with particular emphasis on geomorphological restoration.
In recent years he has been a consultant to Syncrude Oil of Alberta, Canada re-designing
large scale tailing deposits from tar sands excavations to give them natural landform
characteristics. Mr. Schor has also been engaged by the State of Kentucky Environmental
Protection Agency Water Quality Division, the State of Virginia Department of Minerals,
-------
Mines and Energy and the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency to study coal
mining reclamation practices in their respective states and make recommendations for
improvements.
He is a regular guest lecturer at The University of Wisconsin College of Engineering and
most recently was invited to speak at the University of Dresden, Germany.
Rocky Powell
Rocky Powell is the founder and principal of Clear Creeks Consulting, an environmental
firm specializing in stream and watershed assessment, management, and restoration. Mr.
Powell has over 25 years in the environmental field with experiences that include wildlife
and fisheries research, water quality monitoring, natural resources protection, watershed
management, stream assessment and restoration, and teaching. Providing environmental
consulting services in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
New York, Vermont and Texas, Mr. Powell has: 1) conducted hundreds of geomorphic
watershed and stream assessments; 2) developed watershed management plans; and 3)
designed, permitted, provided construction supervision and post-construction monitoring
for numerous wetland mitigation and stream restoration projects.
An instructor in the Johns Hopkins University School of Continuing Studies from 1992-
1999, he taught graduate and undergraduate courses on stream ecology and stream related
issues. He has presented numerous workshops and short courses on stream dynamics,
stream protection, assessment, management, and restoration throughout the United States
and Canada.
Randy Maggard
Randy Maggard is an Environmental Specialist and Surface Mine Engineer with Pen
Coal Corporation. He has degrees in Chemistry and Civil Engineering and has been
employed with Pen Coal for the last 14 years. He has been active in environmental affairs
related to coal mining and is a member of the West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task
Force. Pen Coal has received numerous reclamation awards for their operations in West
Virginia and Kentucky. Pen Coal has been conducting extensive biological monitoring
for the last five years on their Kiah Creek operation located in Wayne, Lincoln, and
Mingo counties in southern West Virginia.
Steven N. Handel
Steven N. Handel is a restoration ecologist interested in the establishment of native
communities on degraded lands. He serves as professor of ecology and evolution at
Rutgers University in New Jersey, where he teaches and does research in the fields of
plant ecology, plant-animal interactions, and restoration. Dr. Handel is Director of the
new Center for Restoration Ecology at Rutgers. He also has been a biology professor and
Director of the Botanical Garden at Yale University. He serves as an editor for the journal
Restoration Ecology, and was elected chair of the Plant Ecology Section of the
-------
Ecological Society of America. Trained at Cornell University, he and his students have
done fieldwork throughout the east coast. As a consultant, he has advised on restoration
design on degraded sites such as urban landfills, urban parks, sand mines, and national
parks affected by invasive species.
Ben B. Faulkner
Ben B. Faulkner served as a surface mine reclamation inspector for the West Virginia
Division of Natural Resources, dealing with inspection, enforcement, and permit review
in many southern counties. He has served as an industry biologist and has coordinated
reclamation and environmental affairs. He has been a research associate at West Virginia
University in the fields of mine reclamation and mine drainage. As a private consultant,
he has conducted training seminars for inspectors and operators in AMD prevention, and
chemical and passive treatment.
As sole proprietor of Bratton Farm, he has provided professional consulting services to
several international corporations and agencies. He has prepared surface mine, deep
mine, and other permits and provided environmental management services including
designing, installing, and monitoring numerous wetlands, anoxic limestone drains and
other passive treatment systems for WVDEP, WVU, and industry. He has performed
numerous benthic studies for industry and WVDEP. He serves as a special consultant to
WVDEP for acid mine drainage issues.
-------
Welcome and Introduction
Dr. Paul Ziemkiewicz
Dr. Ziemkiewicz, Director of the National Mine Land Reclamation Center and West
Virginia Water Research Institute at West Virginia University, welcomed the attendees
and explained the format of the symposium. He emphasized that the gathering was a
technical symposium on improvements to current mining and reclamation techniques that
will enhance the aquatic ecosystem. Furthermore, he made it clear this was not a forum
to debate the practice of mountaintop mining.
He went on to describe two colossal coal refuse failures from mining history (Aberfan,
Wales and Buffalo Creek, West Virginia) that resulted in many deaths and that led to
most of the current regulations regarding the technical design of valley fills. These
current regulations emphasize drainage through the fill materials and discourage standing
water, such as ponds and streams, which affect the margin of safety for fills. Thus, he
expressed the opinion that environmental considerations were not a major driver for the
current regulations- safety was the paramount concern.
However, state-of-the-art in geotechnical engineering has advanced to the point that
valley fills that include some streams and ponds in the final design could be safely
considered, according to Dr. Ziemkiewicz. He introduced the symposium attendees to a
group of distinguished experts who will suggest practices that may enhance the resulting
aquatic ecosystem downstream from valley fills. He also noted that during the breakout
sessions everyone would have an opportunity to identify barriers to implementing these
enhanced practices.
Overview of First Order Watersheds
Dr. Bruce Wallace
Dr. Wallace provided a scientific view of the role of first order watersheds in the
ecosystem and the impact of mountaintop mining with valley fills. Dr. Wallace
highlighted data from ongoing experimental and descriptive studies of southern
Appalachian watersheds and stream processes at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in
western North Carolina where he has been working for 25 years. According to Dr.
Wallace, the eighty kilometers of small headwater streams on this area owned by the U.S.
Forest Service are much like the streams found in the central Appalachian region around
mountaintop mining areas. He pointed out that organic material in these streams is the
most important source of energy for downstream areas. He commented that nearly eighty
percent of this energy comes from the detritus (decomposed organic material) from the
surrounding forests.
-------
Dr. Wallace noted that small streams in the ecosystem:
• Have maximum interface with the terrestrial environment with large inputs of
organic matter from the surrounding landscape
• Serve as storage and retention sites for nutrients, organic matter and sediments
• Are sites for transformation of nutrients and organic matter to fine particulate and
dissolved organic matter
• Are the main conduit for export of water, nutrients, and organic matter to
downstream areas
He continued his presentation by noting that benthic organisms that shred course organic
material and woody debris increase the rate of fine particulate and dissolved material that
is exported downstream. He explained that leaves that enter the stream are first colonized
by bacteria and fungi and then the invertebrates eat the microbially conditioned leaf
material. Next he noted that these biota assimilate less than ten percent of the organic
material they consume allowing the remainder to pass back into the stream. Thus,
according to Dr. Wallace, the resulting fine and dissolved organic material is much more
amenable to downstream transport with less than two percent of organic material
continuing downstream as course particulate.
Diversity of detritus is essential to the production of organic material for release
downstream, according to Dr. Wallace. He noted that different types of leaves
decompose at different rates and tend to be in harmony with the different biota lifecycles
in the nearby streams. One experiment that he participated in at Coweeta constructed a
canopy over a segment of stream to preclude certain types of leaf material from the
stream. He summarized the experimental conclusion that after six years with this cover
in place, the Coweeta stream had the lowest secondary productivity of any stream
recorded in the world, including many located in the Arctic tundra. Thus, according to
Dr. Wallace, diverse detritus material is very important to the production of organic
energy in the stream and this is one reason we should be considering a diverse array of
detritus resources at a reclamation site and not just a single species of rapidly
decomposing material.
Dr. Wallace further described experiments at Coweeta covering more than eleven years
that have compared the rate of decomposition in treated streams [treated with
insecticide], where there is less than a full complement of benthic invertebrates, to
decomposition in untreated or natural streams. Based on the large quantity of data
accumulated, he and others concluded that it took more than twice as long in the treated
streams to decompose the same amount of organic material compared to the untreated
streams. This led Dr. Wallace to the conclusion that reducing the number of invertebrates
reduces the amount of decomposition and, as a result, the amount of fine particulate and
dissolved organic material that is transported downstream. Furthermore, he noted that
when the treatment was ended, there was rapid recolonization of invertebrates, which
restored the downstream transport of organic material.
-------
According to Dr. Wallace, measurements made at the Coweeta Laboratory over a period
of fifteen years determined that the first and second order streams from this area provide
more than fifty metric tons of fine paniculate and dissolved organic material to the
downstream reaches. Dr. Wallace noted that this amorphous detritus, as it is referred to
in the downstream waters, is a major food source, especially for filter feeders, which
eventually affects the entire food chain. He concluded his remarks on this experiment by
stating that this organic material, which originated in the first and second order
watersheds, represents more than eighty percent of the food supply for some downstream
species.
Dr. Wallace explained that the measure of retention of organic material in watersheds is
described by a term called "spiraling length, " which is the distance traveled by organic
matter before its uptake by some organism and later reintroduction into the stream. He
noted that this distance tends to be very short in headwaters, on the order of a meter, and
very long downstream, usually several kilometers. Thus, Dr. Wallace concluded that
organic material is retained for long periods of time in the first and second order
watersheds where it is produced.
Temperature ranges for headwater streams throughout the seasons tends to be very
important, stated Dr. Wallace. He explained that the growth of organisms is dependent
on the cyclic temperature of the water, cueing many lifecycle events- pupation and
mating, for example. Dr. Wallace highlighted the fact that the water coming from the toe
of a valley fill tends to be at a mean annual temperature rather than at a seasonally
appropriate temperature, which adversely affects the growth cycle of many stream
organisms. Dr. Wallace expressed the opinion that leaving the ponds intact below the fill
may help replicate the annual thermal variation further downstream. This idea will be
explored further during the breakout sessions.
Dr. Wallace provided the following summary of the major roles of headwater streams in
two categories, physical and biological:
Physical
• Headwater streams tend to moderate the hydrograph, or flow rate, downstream
• They serve as a major area of nutrient transformation and retention
• They provide a moderate thermal regime compared to downstream waters- cooler
in summer and warmer in winter
• They provide for physical retention of organic material as observed by the short
"spiraling length"
Biological
• Biota in headwater streams influence the storage, transportation, and export of
organic matter
• Biota convert organic matter to fine paniculate and dissolved organic matter
• They enhance downstream transport of organic matter
• They promote less accumulation of large and woody organic matter in headwater
streams
• They enhance sediment transport downstream by breaking down the leaf material
10
-------
• They also enhance nutrient uptake and transformation
Dr. Wallace made the additional point that small headwater streams in the Appalachians
often harbor unique biota. According to Dr. Wallace, Morse et al. (1997) consider 19
species of mayflies, 7 species of dragonflies, 17 species of stoneflies, and 38 species of
caddisflies to be vulnerable to extirpation at present in the southern Appalachians. He
noted that many of the rare species are know from only one or two locations in springs,
brooks or seepage areas. Furthermore, he stated, many small streams, seeps, springs, and
brooks have not been fully explored. Dr. Wallace provided the following reference
citations on this aspect of first order watersheds.
Morse, J. C., B. P. Stark, W. P. McCafferty, andK. J. Tennessen 1997. Southern
Appalachian and other southeastern streams at risk: implications for mayflies,
dragonflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies. pp. 17-42, in: G. W. Benz, and D. E. Collins
(eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special Publication 1,
Southeastern Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur,
GA 554 p.
Morse, J. C., B. P. Stark, and W. P. McCafferty. 1993. Southern Appalachian streams at
risk: Implications for mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, and other aquatic biota.
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 3:293-303.
Mine Site Visit Report
Courtney Black
Mr. Black summarized the tour taken by the experts to four mine sites on December 7-8,
1999. By way of introduction, Dr. Ziemkievicz made note that while we have many
distinguished experts on these issues in West Virginia, introducing some outside experts
may help us to generate some new ideas for consideration. Mr. Black organized the visits
as a means of introducing the panel of experts to actual mountaintop mining and
reclamation practices and the environmental conditions that result.
Mr. Black made note that the sites visited were:
• Elk Run Mine, operated by Massey Coal
• Samples Mine, operated by Catenary Coal Company
• Rollem Fork Mine, operated by Pen Coal
• Hobet Mining 21, operated by Hobet Mining, a subsidiary of Arch Coal
Mr. Black presented a number of photographs taken during the visit. His presentation is
included with this proceedings. The images he presented from Elk Run depict several
valley fills, sediment ponds at the toe of the fills, and downstream reaches. He noted
there was evidence of water retention in the sediment ditches that could support aquatic
resources. He commented that the experts had observed an experimental area where the
backfill material was not heavily compacted to promote the growth of vegetation.
11
-------
According to Mr. Black, Massey Coal also produced rolling landforms in the some of the
fill areas that differed from the typical engineered fill site in slope gradient and benching.
Mr. Black commented that at the Samples Mine, the experts viewed an in-stream pond
constructed by Catenary Coal Company. Several species of insects had been introduced
into this pond to rebuild the ecosystem, according to Mr. Black. Mr. Lawson described
this site in more detail during the next presentation.
Mr. Black stated that at the Rollem Fork Mine, being developed by Pen Coal, a large
amount of toxic materials handling and encapsulation work was necessary based on the
pre-mining conditions. He further noted that Pen Coal created a number of combination
ditches for storm water and sediment control and that these are required to be removed
within a specified time period after the site is closed to comply with existing regulations.
During the site visit, the experts inquired if the ditches that contain developed wetland
activity can be left intact after site closure. According to Mr. Black, the experts also
observed several nontraditional landscape profiles. Mr. Black commented that at the
Frank Branch portion of the mine site, several species of trees were observed including
pines and Russian olives with evidence of natural succession underway.
Mr. Black described the Hobet 21 Mine site, a twenty-year old mining operation that
offered views of more established reclamation sites. According to Mr. Black, one
observation made by the experts was that there were too few species present. He noted
that excavation by the large dragline coincidentally added some rolling landform profiles.
As at the other sites, he commented that there was evidence of developing aquatic
ecosystems that would have to be removed before release of the closure bond.
Catenary Coal's Success in Restoring Aquatic Habitat
Peter Lawson
Mr. Lawson began his presentation by noting the broad significance of the EIS and the
potential impact on coal mining in West Virginia and throughout the country. Mr.
Lawson spoke about four topics related to the Samples Mine operation; the scope and
background of the Samples Mine, structures that are constructed as a condition of permits
and two enhancement projects, the G-Ponds and the Abandoned Mine Land Mitigation
Project.
Mr. Lawson began with the history of the site. He noted that the Samples Mine land was
acquired by the company in 1989 and developed to the point of full production in 1995.
In the year 2000, he expects to extract approximately 6.5 million tons of coal from the
site and move about 95 million yards of overburden. According to Mr. Lawson, the site
employs about 500 full-time employees and contractors.
He stated that all runoff from a mining site has to be diverted to runoff ponds that meet
NPDES discharge permit conditions further downstream. He noted there are required
structures that include both in-stream ponds and on-bench structures, including ditches
12
-------
and shallow ponds. According to Mr. Lawson, current law requires that these be
designed to handle major storm events ranging from 10-year, 24-hour storms up to 100-
year, 24-hours storms. At Samples Mine, he noted that Catenary Coal Company has
completed construction of 23 in-stream ponds with 275 acre-feet of storage capacity at a
cost of about $2.5 million dollars. He also commented that upstream ponds tend to
accumulate any sediment from the mining operation and many of the downstream ponds
are completely free of sediment and provide excellent aquatic habitat. They have also
completed 4,300 linear feet of on-bench structures at the site. Mr. Lawson highlighted
one in-stream pond that was built at the toe of a fill in a previously ephemeral or
intermittent portion of the landscape that now provides perennial water flow. He noted
that many of the on-bench structures also contain water year around and provide
excellent habitat for vegetation, aquatic organisms, and water fowl.
The G-Ponds enhancement project, continued Mr. Lawson, is a combination of structures
constructed in between two consecutive ridges to enhance the post-mining land use. He
described the southern most ponds as shallow to attract wading birds and to give them
refuge from the coyote, bobcat, and bear that have moved back into the area. The
northern ponds, he explained, have deep pools to promote fish spawning and have
floating nests for geese. These ponds are fed by both above ground and underground
water sources according to Mr. Lawson. He noted that Catenary Coal used what they
have termed "starter kits" of aquatic organisms including bass, bluegill, yellow perch,
native minnows, crayfish, bull frog tadpoles, snails, clams, and water fleas. According to
Mr. Lawson, they also added duck potatoes, water lilies, soft stem bull rush and cat tails
along with red and silver maples, pin oak, and white pine. Mr. Lawson presented
photographs showing the site being used last summer for an employee picnic when the
ponds were stocked with sport fish.
Prior to acquisition of the land by Catenary Coal, continued Mr. Lawson, surface and
underground mining had occurred on the site up until the mid 1970s and there were three
large, abandoned refuse piles, covering about 155 acres and containing ten million yards
of refuse, that needed to be reclaimed. Reclamation of these sites was beyond the scope
of the original permits, according to Mr. Lawson, but offered an opportunity for
mitigation of stream loss as a result of the Samples Mine valley fills. He also noted that
reclamation provided immediate and long-term benefits to the community by improving
the quality of water flowing into the Cabin Creek watershed. He explained that during
heavy rains there was uncontrolled heavy flow and resulting black water in the adjacent
stream and there were also large areas around the site producing acid-mine drainage. He
stated that the site was graded and a large amount of cover material and topsoil was
brought into the area taking care to protect the natural or volunteer vegetation that had
developed over the years. He discussed the drainage channels that were installed to
control the runoff and the wetland that was constructed to treat the acid-mine drainage
with a series of four limestone cells, along with a relocated stream channel. He noted that
vegetation was added to the wetland for biologic treatment and polishing cells were
added to improve the quality of the water exiting the system.
13
-------
As an introduction to the next portion of the symposium, Mr. Lawson highlighted a
misperception that mountaintop mining operations using draglines leave large flat areas
with monolithic structures uncharacteristic of the Appalachian region. At the Samples
Mine, he pointed out, the dragline was used to move overburden from one area to another
and lift the elevation of the material to an average of about 225 vertical feet of relief
above the lowest coal seam being mined. This could not be economically accomplished
by a truck and shovel operation at this site according to Mr. Lawson. Photographs
presented by Mr. Lawson showed how this is being accomplished at the Samples Mine.
Mr. Lawson expressed the opinion, which he supported by several photographs, that the
mining industry has become very good at the reclamation of sites in accordance with the
approved post-mining land use, including fish and wildlife habitat.
Panelist Recommendations
The seven experts that toured the mining sites were each provided an opportunity to
introduce their individual and collective perspectives on the subject of Aquatic
Ecosystem Enhancement. These remarks are grouped into three areas (Landforms,
Aquatic Resources, and Vegetation) with corresponding breakout sessions later in the
symposium. Each topical area was followed by a brief question and answer session with
remaining questions deferred to the breakout sessions.
Landform
Horst Schor and John Morgan
Comments by Mr. Schor
Mr. Schor described his interest as the changes in landform that take place when man
makes use of the land for some purpose. Much of his work evolved as a response to
urbanization on the west coast but his work has become of interest around the world as
people deal with issues similar to mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia. The
photographs he presented depict the radical alteration of the landscape with the resulting
man-made landforms that coincidentally alter the hydrology into a sheet flow pattern. He
noted that the progressive erosion of these man-made sites typically changes the site back
toward a natural system of radial patterned swales. He suggested that reclamation of the
site to natural landform analogs with vegetation concentrated in the swales is more
visually appealing and more stable in the long-term. The concentration of moisture in the
swales and focusing the development of vegetation in these areas promotes a more
sustainable ecosystem, according to Mr. Schor.
Mr. Schor noted the distinction in the post-mining land forms at surface mines and at
mountaintop mining operations. Surface mines, he observed, tended to retain much of
their natural relief (elevation and contour) while there was a dramatic change to the relief
at mountaintop mining sites. He noted that the reformed land shapes tend to promote
sheet runoff across large areas channeled into streams without much transition from top
to bottom. He also noted that Catenary Coal had succeeded in recreating a ridgeline in a
14
-------
man-made landform. The next step toward his concept of natural landform regrading, he
explained, would be to also depress the valley fills recreating a natural runoff path.
According to Mr. Schor, an example of this concept was designed into the Pine Creek
Branch valley fill in Kentucky, which was permitted with a depressed valley fill design,
but the fill has not yet been constructed.
Mr. Schor described a project he had recently completed for the Department of Power
and Water, City of Los Angeles, which involved a half million-yard valley fill. In the
photograph he presented, the main drainage path was a curvilinear pattern with radial
drainage paths leading to it throughout the length of the run. The benefit of the project,
according to Mr. Schor, was that the Corps and the FWS granted credit for wetland and
riparian woodland habitat mitigation where the project had concentrated runoff in the
swaled areas, thus avoiding the cost of going off-site to achieve mitigation. He noted that
depressing the valley fill and raising the ridgelines would affect the areal size of the fill.
However, he also noted that, based on the information he gathered during the tour, these
valley fills only account for about thirty percent of the total backfill material handled at
the sites. He expressed the opinion that it should not affect the cost of the operation
substantially. Based on his experience with the Los Angeles project, Mr. Schor explained
that depressing the valley and raising the ridgeline caused only a ten percent reduction in
the holding capacity of the design fill.
Comments by Mr. Morgan
Mr. Morgan pointed out that what the industry has been asked to do [reclamation] it has
learned to do very well. According to Mr. Morgan, the objective of the symposium was
to explore where we might alter the objectives of the industry during reclamation to
satisfy environmental concerns regarding the resulting aquatic ecosystem. With the
current valley fill design, commented Mr. Morgan, we are removing streams and
replacing them with upland habitats that have far less aquatic resources. Mr. Morgan
explained that there is currently no water on the backfill for a number of reasons
including:
• Greater permeability in the mine spoil leading to greater infiltration
• Nothing to retard the flow during storm events
• No defined horizons within the backfill like in the pre-mining configuration
• No aquicludes until you reach the outcrop of the lowest coal seam.
Mr. Morgan presented a diagram of a model surface mining operation and explained that
the water in the fill area infiltrates into the backfill material until it reaches the pavement
under the lowest coal seam. The outcrop of this flow is typically at the toe of the valley
fill, explained Mr. Morgan. He continued on to note that some surface water is captured
in the surface drainage ditches but it also tends to quickly infiltrate. According to Mr.
Morgan, in fill areas there are very few surface flows except during storm events and
there are very few ponds allowed to remain on the backfill area. He expressed the
opinion that this is driven by the objectives of the Approximate Original Contour (AOC)
Model, which minimizes the areal extent of a valley fill based on geo-technical
considerations.
15
-------
Mr. Morgan proposes an alternate geometry for the placement of spoil in the valley fill
area that allows the subsurface flow over the pavement horizon to emerge onto a low
point of the valley fill. Identifying where this will occur and intercepting this subsurface
flow will provide perennial flow further up the mountain, according to Mr. Morgan. He
noted that the experts saw an example at the Pen Coal operation in Wayne County of the
increased perennial flow from ditches down dip of the valley fill. Mr. Morgan proposed
constructing more of a side-fill in the valley fill area tilting the face to one side, rather
than a horizontal surface, to intercept the subsurface flow at a reasonably low gradient
creating a stable surface aquatic resource. The disadvantage of this configuration,
according to Mr. Morgan, is that you will have a concentration of water flow on one side
of the fill and there will be regulatory concerns as you try to meet the 2:1 slope and 50-
foot separation of benches on a side fill. There will likely be additional costs to place the
side fill material further up on the hill, he explained. Mr. Morgan proposed a change to
the AOC Model to allow the operator the flexibility to vary from the strict geometric
approach and introduce landforming as a means of improving the aquatic habit in
reclamation areas. He introduced a comparative study of the current AOC model and the
alternative side fill configuration, which uses a volumetric definition for AOC, for a site
in eastern Kentucky that had not been mined. According to his model, the side hill fill
model actually covered less area because the backfill material was placed further up on
the mountain. He further depicted a third phase to the AOC process to optimize the
extent of the fill somewhere between these two solutions to allow the operator the
flexibility to introduce additional landforming.
Questions and Answers
Mr. Schor and Mr. Morgan then entertained questions from the audience:
Q: [to Mr. Schor] Are you aware that the design surface water flows for this region
[Appalachia] are much greater than in southern California? Also, our fills have a much
greater volume than the example you showed. How do you know that your concept will
work in this region and the fill will not all erode away?
A: Mr. Schor explained that the half million cubic yard project [for the City of Los
Angeles] was only one example but is comparable in size to some of the valley fills in
this area. Also, he explained, the last project he worked on was over 22 million yards of
soil. With respect to the water flow, Mr. Schor continued, the criteria is how the drainage
is concentrated into the tributaries; the larger water flow of this area would necessitate
smaller concentration areas like smaller valleys. The person asking the question followed
up that based on his extensive experience he has noted many fills constructed to the
current design standard that could not withstand the extreme water flows of this area and
failed.
A: Rocky Powell added that in his presentation later he would draw a comparison
between pre-mining morphology and post-mining conditions. Mr. Powell noted that in
post-mining conditions the ecosystem is changed from forested watersheds to grasslands.
Additionally, he explained, we have reduced the time of concentration by departing from
natural landforms, which has the effect of increasing erosion. He noted that restoring the
16
-------
natural landform and restoring the vegetation will increase the storage in the channel and
convey the water in a more controlled manner.
Q: [to Mr. Schor] What requirements that the mining industry is currently under would
have to be changed for your concept to be implemented at large-scale surface mines?
A: Mr. Schor replied that the operator would have to have relief from current design
requirements for surface slope and bench requirements. According to Mr. Schor,
examples of this were observed at the Samples Mine where they had not only restored the
ridgeline but also did not have any benches. Furthermore, he commented, the equipment
operator at this site explained his technique for preventing erosion was to grade the
surface in a way that prevents the concentration of too much surface water- exactly as his
theory suggests. Mr. Schor noted that the equipment operator had coincidentally
developed this technique from field observation.
Q: [to Mr. Schor] What proportion of fill material would require rehandling or special
handling to accomplish your concept?
A: Mr. Schor explained that this would be up to the operator but could actually be less.
In a project he worked on in Virginia, explained Mr. Schor, the operator left two or three
planned fill areas open. He thought the alternative concept might require an average of
about thirty percent change in the amount of material handled.
Q: [to Mr. Morgan] What changes would you make to the AOC Model to accomplish
your modified valley fill proposal?
A: Mr. Morgan explained that AOC calculates excess spoil that would require placement
in a valley fill. He commented that the amount of material that is placed back on bench
should be maximized. The volume of material placed in the valley fill should be
minimized, according to Mr. Morgan, and not be greater than that calculated by the AOC
Model. Mr. Morgan expressed the opinion that the operator should have the flexibility to
put material where it best supports his operation.
Q: [to Mr. Morgan] Assume the mine is designed to AOC. Then you depress the valley
fills and raise the ridgelines to construct natural landforms. This appears to increase the
length of the stream affected. Please comment.
A: Mr. Morgan responded that this would be true in many cases. However, he noted, the
issue of covering up a stream is a value judgement that should consider the quality of the
original stream length. He concluded that the potential benefit from increasing the length
of stream affected compared to the benefit of the proposed reclamation project is an issue
that should be considered during the EIS process.
Q: [to Mr. Morgan] The AOC optimization approach conveyed in the slides does not
reflect many of the necessary working conditions of a mining operation.
A: Mr. Morgan responded that the initial and additional material must be placed on the
mined area.
Q: [to Mr. Schor] Are there other landforms possible for valley fills? For example, how
about a finger ridge?
17
-------
A: Mr. Schor replied that there are a myriad of alternatives for natural landforms.
Aquatic Resources
Rocky Powell, Dr. Bruce Wallace, and Randy Maggard
Comments by Mr. Powell
Mr. Powell prepared a written report, which is included as an appendix to this
proceedings, containing his observations and recommendations from the tour of the four
mine sites and he highlighted the report for the audience. Then he focused his remarks
on the subject of stream channel morphology as he had mentioned during the morning
session of the symposium.
Mr. Powell used a series of eight criteria to compare pre-mining and post-mining
conditions of the aquatic ecosystems at each mine site:
• Are the valley and watershed characteristics consistent with pre-mining
conditions?
• Is the vegetative cover consistent with pre-mining conditions?
• Have the soil characteristics been modified?
• Has the hydrologic regime been modified?
• Has the sediment regime been modified?
• Is channel morphology consistent with a natural, stable channel form?
• Have the physiochemical properties of the streams been altered?
• Have the biotic communities, trophic structure, and energy sources of the
stream ecosystems changed?
He acknowledged that he had to rely on his experience with other watersheds in the
region to complete the assessment due to the lack of pre-mining conditions for the mine
sites that were visited. His report provides a detailed presentation of the regional
watershed characteristics that were used as a pre-mining baseline for the assessment.
Based on his analysis, Mr. Powell concluded that the streams and ponds he observed did
not serve to mitigate (replace the structure and function of) the original first and second
order watersheds. Mr. Powell noted that the focus of his comments will be on
enhancement, or improvement to the existing practices of mining and reclamation, with
respect to aquatic resources. He pointed out that, in his opinion, the mining operators are
doing a very good job of complying with current regulations and in many cases go
beyond the regulations.
Mr. Powell commented that in the pre-mining condition, storm flows are moderate,
runoff is minimal, and base flow is fairly reliable. The exception, he noted, is in shale
and sandstone areas where flow may discontinue, especially during the summer. First
and second order streams have base flow cross-sections where this base flow is channeled
according to Mr. Powell. He explained these streams also have a flood surface where
storm flows are channeled after they exceed the base flow section. In the post-mining
18
-------
condition, he noted, the reconstructed streams have little or no base flow and are designed
to carry only storm flow and with a lack of base flow, there is no area for aquatics to live.
He pointed out that there was evidence in the field that, with time, many of these
constructed ditches and channels are evolving into a series of steps and pools. He also
noted that the shape of the constructed channels is trapezoidal and designed to carry all
the flow in one channel which differs from a natural channel. Mr. Powell showed
pictures of several constructed channels and the erosion problems they endure including
head cuts that travel up channel and scour erosion that travels downstream.
From an aquatic standpoint, Mr. Powell reiterated that without base flow there is little
hope of establishing aquatic life forms. The mining industry, according to Mr. Powell,
has constructed many storm flow channels that are very effective at handling storm flows
and reducing the sediment loading on downstream water resources but do not contain
base flow to support aquatic life forms. Mr. Powell expressed confidence, based on what
he observed during the site visits and other recent study, that the mining industry could be
successful in constructing natural channels with base flow capable of supporting aquatic
organisms. Mr. Powell presented a number of examples of natural stream systems with
various overall gradients, both steep and shallow, and explained how each had its own
aquatic ecosystem. He also emphasized reclamation to natural channel flow with visual
examples from several of his reclamation projects.
Comments by Dr. Wallace
Dr. Wallace followed Mr. Powell and provided his observations from the mine site visits.
He started off by noting that he only observed flowing water in two places at the four
sites that were visited. He commented that, perhaps, it is unrealistic to try to recreate
lotic habitats in these areas. While he supports protecting every stream that exists, he
noted that we may need to look to other values in these mined areas. He expressed the
opinion that the trade off is between wetlands and headwater streams- they both have
value. Headwater streams are a major feature in Appalachia, according to Dr. Wallace,
while ponds and wetlands are relatively rare in this region. Furthermore, according to Dr.
Wallace, streams normally have maximum interface with the terrestrial environment
acquiring energy resources from the adjacent watershed whereas in ponds and wetlands
the primary forms of energy are algae or plant material that enter the detritus food web.
Streams have important linkages to downstream areas whereas wetlands vary, according
to Dr. Wallace. Wetlands observed during the mine site visits, he continued, were not
linked to the downstream watersheds- again, not that they do not have value but they do
not replace the pre-mining streams. However, he noted, the wetlands do tend to limit the
effect of disturbances on the downstream watersheds. Also, Dr. Wallace continued, the
biologic communities found in streams tend to be indicative of disturbance whereas in
wetlands this is much less so. Therefore, he concluded, trying to replace the aquatic
resource of original streams may not be possible and there is certainly a trade-off between
a reconstructed stream and a wetland.
One way to look at this tradeoff, stated Dr. Wallace, is in terms of minimizing the effect
of valley fills on downstream reaches. He noted that the problem with the temperature
coming from the base of a fill is that it is somewhat like a spring- nearly constant annual
19
-------
temperature. With a pond, Dr. Wallace noted, you will have exceptionally warm water in
the summer and cold water in the winter. He expressed the opinion that we could
redesign our ponds with larger shallow areas and increased throughput for the overall
pond. Increasing the shallow zone, according to Dr. Wallace, will increase the amount of
aquatic macrophytes and the benefits derived from them and the increased amount of
wetland may also address the water chemistry problem that he hypothesizes to exist
downstream from the toe of the valley fill. Dr. Wallace also noted that a number the sites
have long straight stretches of drainage ditch that could be improved by creating a more
natural, meandering run as proposed by Mr. Powell.
Changing the design of these wetlands, commented Dr. Wallace, simply by increasing the
diversity of vegetation could improve the contribution to the ecosystem, particularly
groundwater recharge. Also, he noted, creating an anaerobic condition as exists in many
wetlands is an important contribution to denitrification and to transformation of sulfates
in mine drainage to an immobile form- two important contributions to the quality of
groundwater.
Dr. Wallace provided the following tabulation of some relevant comparisons of small
streams and ponds or wetlands.
Headwater Streams
Major features of the Appalachian
landscape
Maximum interface with terrestrial
environment
Energy resources from adjacent watersheds
as leaves, detritus, etc.
Important energy links to downstream
areas. Creeks and rivers strongly
connected into a system
Disturbance in headwaters can influence
downstream areas
Important retention and transformation of
nutrients and organic matter
Biological communities (at least animals)
often indicative of disturbance
Ponds and Wetlands
Present, but rare in Appalachian landscape
Less interface with terrestrial environment
Primarily autochthonous primary
production from algae and aquatic plants
Rather closed energy system with less
linkage, if any, to other areas, or
downstream
Little effects of disturbance on other
ecosystems
Can be important sites of nutrient storage
and uptake provided sufficient littoral zone
with plants
Biological communities not as indicative of
disturbance
Comments by Mr. Maggard
Randy Maggard summarized his views as consistent with the views of Dr. Wallace; do
we want to try to replace intermittent and perennial streams or should we proceed with
the development of wetlands and ponds? Mr. Maggard noted that someone had made the
comment to him that there are no aquatic resources on reclaimed mine sites- only mud
20
-------
holes. He commented in reply that, while they may start off as mud holes, they do not
remain mud holes. Mr. Maggard presented several photographs of sediment pond
projects developed by Pen Coal. He indicated that his company has performed a number
of studies that substantiated the aquatic resources that are present in these habitats and
that they are improving over time.
Mr. Maggard provided three of these studies to the other experts of the panel for there use
during the mine site visits. The document citations are presented below and the
documents are included as an appendix to this proceedings.
Maggard, Randall and Ed Kirk. "Downstream Impacts of Surface Mining and Valley Fill
Construction." Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the West Virginia
Acid Mine Drainage Task Force. Morgantown, WV. April 13-14, 1999
"An Evaluation of the Aquatic Habitats Provided by Sediment Control Ponds and Other
Aquatic Enhancement Structures 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. Prepared by R.E.I. Consultants, Incorporated;
Ed J. Kirk Aquatic Biologist; 225 Industrial Park Road; Beaver, West Virginia 25813.
November 23, 1999.
"Benthic Macroinvertebrate Study of Honey Branch, Its Sediment Control Ponds, and Its
Influence on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek Conducted 10/08/99" Conducted for
Pen Coal Corporation; Kiah Creek Mine Office; P.O. Box 191; Dunlow, West
Virginia 25511. Prepared by R.E.I. Consultants, Incorporated; Ed J. Kirk Aquatic
Biologist; 225 Industrial Park Road; Beaver, West Virginia 25813. November 24,
1999.
Questions and Answers
The conclusion of Mr. Maggard's presentation was followed by a period of questions and
answers on the subject of Aquatic Resources. Only one question was asked during this
session.
Q: [to John Morgan] Do you see any situation where you can add streams or wetlands
higher up on the hills in these fill areas? Is basal flow rare or can it occur at any site? Do
you think from the number of West Virginia mining sites you have seen that this [basal
flow] is possible at most sites?
A: As mentioned earlier, responded Mr. Morgan, it will be difficult to create basal flow at
an elevation any higher than the outcrop of the lowest seam being mined. He continued
by noting that the features that Randy Maggard showed are on the down dip side of the
mined area where basal flow will typically occur. On most mine sites you will have
some area where basal flow can be captured according to Mr. Morgan.
21
-------
Vegetation
Ben Faulkner and Dr. Steven Handel
Comments by Mr. Faulkner
Mr. Faulkner began his remarks by noting that the only water that is consistently
available around these sites is from the sediment channels down gradient from the
surface-mined area and from the ponds and sediment structures below the valley fill. He
commented that the valley fill provides a desirable source of water with near constant
temperature and with plenty of dissolved oxygen that is of interest to the aqua culture
industry. Furthermore, he continued, it is important to recognize that during the drought
last summer the only source of consistent water flow in first and second order streams
was from these valley fills. Although fills may change the appearance of the stream, it
creates a different, not necessarily a worse, aquatic habitat according to Mr. Faulkner. He
expressed the opinion that we should encourage leaving ponds on and below fills and
encourage diversification of vegetation in and around the water courses to provide the
shade and detritus that Dr. Wallace has identified as important to the ecosystem.
Mr. Faulkner described several practical and regulatory considerations for revegetation in
and around drainage structures and watercourses.
1. Engineering considerations for hydrologic appurtenances.
• safety considerations
• erosion considerations
• terrestrial and aquatic habitat enhancement
• final reclamation considerations
2. Tree and shrub species for forestry and wildlife planting plans.
• water availability and management
3. Natural succession on surface mines.
• alien species vs. natives
4. Logistics and economics of revegetation and reforestation.
He noted that safety is of paramount consideration in surface mine development and
reclamation. Mr. Faulkner commented that engineering watercourses for direction and
retention of seepage and surface runoff must safely pass design storms. Furthermore, he
continued, any efforts toward enhancement of the aquatic habitat provided by these
structures must not compromise the safely or sediment control objectives of the structure.
Encouraging wildlife and aquatic life in watercourses and structures is generally of no
negative influence on mining operations, according to Mr. Faulkner, with the exception
of muskrats or beavers which may compromise the principal spillway elevation or
interfere with bank stability. Seldom, he noted, can unreinforced grass covers be used in
diversion ditches on steep slopes. Mr. Faulkner stated that where velocities exceed the
maximum allowable for vegetative cover (3 fps), rock rip rap is used. He further stated
that there is no comparison of cost, and slopes are kept as flat as possible to permit the
lower velocities and cheaper grass banks whenever possible to control erosion. He
identified two concerns in planting additional stems of shrubs or trees around sediment or
drainage structures. First, the root system of woody vegetation, if planted in proximity to
22
-------
pipe conduits, will grow along those conduits compromising the integrity of the pipe and
the compacted fill around it. Second, any plantings where water is impounded against
compacted fill must be planned with this in mind.
Another concern in aquatic habitat enhancement, according to Mr. Faulkner, is that
although the "long range" view is sought when selecting vegetation, one must realize that
the long range (serai succession climax) of standing water in the Appalachian geology
and geography associated with West Virginia is a grassy meadow and then a climax
hardwood forest. Furthermore, he noted, there is no naturally occurring lentic
community in the state with the exception of a one acre pond in the eastern panhandle.
According to Mr. Faulkner, the future of all pools of standing water in the state (from
man-induced activities, beaver dams, or inadvertent activity such as railroad or highway
fills) is to be filled with sediment and become a meadow and then grow into a forest. He
commented that established lentic aquatic habitat is present only for a limited time.
Furthermore, he continued, there will always be a lotic community, but it will also
change as the site ages. Additionally, he noted, increasing the number of woody stems
around a lentic water body will accelerate the desiccation of the pool during periods of
drought as the trees mature and their need for water increases. According to Mr.
Faulkner, this will accelerate the natural succession of the water body to a meadow and
eventual hardwood forest, actually reducing the number of years of lentic habitat and
strongly influencing the remaining lotic habitat.
Mr. Faulkner commented that the lotic aquatic habitat on mountain-top mining sites is
quite limited and that spoil swell necessitates steep slopes and watercourses or gentle
watercourses over valley fill crests or backfill. This material, he commented, is so porous
that it usually holds water only in response to significant precipitation events. The only
location water can be found with some continuity is in down-dip sediment structures
along the outcrop (sediment channels) or at the toe of the valley fills according to Mr.
Faulkner. Generally, he noted, the only dependable lotic water is from the toe of the fill
to the sediment pond, and this is generally a short distance. However, he continued, both
these locations provide some dependable aquatic habitat which may be enhanced through
land use and focused vegetation efforts.
During the drought in West Virginia this summer, the only first order watersheds with
flow contained proven springs or valley fills according to Mr. Faulkner. The fills through
their porous nature, he commented capture all seepage and runoff within the watershed
and slowly release the water over a several month period, flattening out the wide runoff
flows seen in an undisturbed or disturbed watershed. Generally, Mr. Faulkner
commented, valley fill flows (at the toe) are oxygenated with reduced amounts of
sediment and a constant temperature. He expressed the opinion that this constant,
moderate temperature (generally about 55° F) is ideal for fish aqua culture. Substantial
interest, according to Mr. Faulkner, has been raised about this resource in the state in the
last few years including an extensive study and investment by the West Virginia
Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Mr. Faulkner expressed
the opinion that water quality at mines in West Virginia is generally of good quality, with
only five percent of all NPDES sites requiring even occasional water quality attention.
23
-------
The lentic habitat in shallow sediment ponds and channels can be made to be more
beneficial for aquatic life with the planting of shrubs and trees to add detritus according
to Mr. Faulkner. This coarse particulate organic matter, he noted, will be available to the
shredder macroinvertebrates that will export fine particulate organic material downstream
to the valley fill sediment ponds and receiving streams.
Mr. Faulkner stated that economics is of particular concern at drainage structures. Only a
handful of hydrophilic woody stems are available from the state nursery according to Mr.
Faulkner. He continued that the state nursery makes these plants available a full order of
magnitude cheaper than commercial nurseries. He commented that state nurseries should
be encouraged to provide additional viable species at a reasonable price. He also noted
that substantial work was done on tree species, soil building and vegetation through the
U.S. Department of Agriculture in the 1960's and 1970's and this material is available to
the mine operator.
The sediment channels and valley fill ponds represent the best available aquatic habitat
on surface mines, according to Mr. Faulkner, but they are often removed within a few
years at the landowners request because of liability concerns. He stated that this
complicated question will require a collective agreement between operator, regulator, and
landowner.
In summary, Mr. Faulkner noted that fills on surface mines offer some significant
benefits:
• a constant, moderate temperature and oxygenation which is optimum for aquatic
life.
• Fills "meter out" water during drought.
• Fills provide "different" aquatic habitat (lentic) which is rare in mountains of
West Virginia compared to plenteous lotic habitat.
He concluded that during reclamation we should encourage:
• Leaving ponds on and below fills.
• Planting diverse vegetation in/around watercourses to provide shade and detritus.
24
-------
Comments by Dr. Handel
Dr. Steven Handel, a professor of ecology and evolution at Rutgers University, focused
his presentation on the issue of landscape links and the potential of using natural
landscape processes and links to restore and enhance wetland environments. Using the
example of an oak woodland in West Virginia, Dr. Handel discussed the links between
the first order streams and the surrounding terrestrial habitat. What can we do, he asked,
in areas where there is sufficient base flow to support a first order stream to make them
function in a manner similar to some of these natural streams? He added the question ,
how can we build on the natural ecological processes to rebuild self-sustaining natural
landscapes at a minimum cost?
The difference between restoration ecology and landscaping is one of process and change
according to Dr. Handel. He noted that for an ecologist the design has a wildlife value
with a minimum amount of subsequent human involvement while a landscaper creates a
human-dominated landscape with plants available from the commercial nursery. What
the restoration ecologist plants to begin the process may all be gone in a few years
according to Dr. Handel. He added that success is achieved when the original plants are
replaced in natural succession by other self-sustaining native plants.
Dr. Handel highlighted that the value of small first order streams is enormous as has been
pointed out today by others. He emphasized that his interest in these streams is based on
their benefit to the surrounding wildlife. He noted that small ponds and flowing water
attract wildlife to the area. While displaying photographs of a mine reclamation project
and the rip rap lined drainage channels, he emphasized the opportunity to improve the
surrounding ecosystem by encouraging the growth of vegetation. He rhetorically posed
the question, how can we do this on very large sites that are engineered with large areas
of grass and small clusters of trees? He responded that a concept that should be of
interest to this audience is the idea of designing the site restoration to attract birds-
natural landscapers. That design, he noted, includes perching, foraging, and nesting
areas, and areas where they can find protection from their enemies.
He explained that his recent studies have considered the idea of encouraging natural
succession by creating "islands" that attract natural seed dispersers (birds). Out west, he
noted, people have experimented with the idea of transplanting an area of natural
vegetation in a chunk on reclaimed mine sites. The experiment, he explained, included
establishing twenty of these "islands" with traps under the trees to find out what types of
seeds were being introduced into the area and are they appropriate natural succession
plants. He continued to explain that samples taken during the first four months of the
study collected approximately 14,000 seeds in a 65 square meter area including 26 native
plant species that were not planted on the reclaimed site. This, he concluded, showed that
this link in nature could be quickly established by providing a target for the birds to perch
on and some remnant of the native vegetation in the surrounding area to provide the
seeds. Of importance to this audience, he noted, is to know that the small pockets of
native vegetation that are left intact at a site become a critical source of seeds to stimulate
the subsequent natural succession during the reclamation process.
25
-------
Seeds are only one part of reestablishing plant demography according to Dr. Handel. The
quality of soil and the ground cover placed at the site are also important, he added, to the
development of seedlings and eventual self-sustaining growth. He noted that there is
general agreement that it is important to limit the amount of compaction of the top layers
of soil at the site. He expressed the opinion that we must also modify the amount and
type of ground cover that we place to control erosion, which is as important for proper
development of the ecosystem as it is for the safety of the site. Deep rooted ground
covers bind the soils and make space for the small seedlings of woody plants, he
explained. He noted that this was discussed at the industry meeting last spring (1999) in
Kentucky with the conclusion that operators must be trained to tread lightly on the land
and to modify the types of ground cover used.
Dr. Handel also noted that diversity of vegetation is essential. He commented that the
panel of experts observed many examples of wetlands on mine sites that are heavily
populated with cattails. However, commented Dr. Handel, there was not sufficient
diversity of vegetation. He continued to explain that what is missing are the blueberry,
elderberry, willows and other shrubs and herbs that are typical of watercourses in the
southeast where there is sun and adequate water. To get those back, he noted, we will
have to jumpstart the process ourselves. He concluded with the comment that having
only one species of plant is insufficient to promote natural succession because it will not
attract a variety of birds.
Dr. Handel identified the presence of wild bees, which are essential to setting seeds and
cultivating plants, as another consideration to enhance the natural succession process.
There are over 8,000 species of wild bees in North America according to Dr. Handel. He
explained that bees nest in soft ground or hollow trees and eat nectar and that simple
modifications to encourage the habitat development of bees are necessary including the
addition of flowering groundcover since grasses are all wind pollinated. Dr. Handel also
noted that microbial processes in the soil are essential to the development of plant roots.
He continued to explain that there are businesses that sell small packets of innoculum but
we do not necessarily have to buy them. Sometimes, he noted, the necessary microbes
will move back in by themselves if we have remnant forest areas near the mine site. Dr.
Handel commented that studies have shown that in newly disturbed areas the amount of
fungi on plant roots dissipated rapidly with the distance into the distressed area from the
edge of site. He explained that this can cause the stressed nature of the woody plants and
the inability of these plants to sustain growth. Dr. Handel noted that if we can hold,
stockpile, and respread the original topsoil, we can retain these microbial populations and
accelerate their reestablishment across the site.
Dr. Handel described an experiment that measured the ability of native plant species to
grow on sites reclaimed with typical mixtures of rough grasses (fescue and Timothy). He
explained that of more than 8,000 native plant species seeds only 130 seedlings were able
to establish themselves in the soil and native grass mixture of a reclaimed site. The only
species that were successful, he noted, were chokeberries, hackberries, dogwoods,
spicebush, white oak, and sumac. He concluded that the typical mixture of rough grasses
26
-------
challenged the development of native species. Additionally, he noted that this further
emphasized the interrelation of all the aspects of reclamation (seeds, groundcover, bees,
"islands", water) and how they affect the resulting ecosystem.
Dr. Handel described the reclamation project at the Powell River site where the
compaction had been carefully controlled and the topsoil stockpiled and remixed. He
commented that this provided a good example of the more advanced reclamation
techniques that lead to greater value for the landowner. He noted that increasing the
value to the landowner for subsequent land use creates an important economic incentive
that could translate into lower lease rates to the coal operator. He also pointed out a
typical rip rap drainage channel and expressed concern that it is so commonly used
throughout the region. According to Dr. Handel, there are situations where more suitable
techniques may be used with little or no increased cost that would enhance the value of
the water structure. He presented photographs of several alternative bioengineering
projects that would replace rip rap. One example project, he noted, used organic fabric
that will remain in place for several years until the plant growth is sufficiently established
to protect the drainage channel from erosion. This particular example, according to Dr.
Handel, had sustained two fifty-year floods in sequential years with no observable
damage to the channel. Dr. Handel also commented that nursery stock may not have
adequate biodiversity to develop a self-sustaining community. Accordingly, he
concluded that we need a mixture of genotypes and these need to be reflected in our
regulations.
He concluded his presentation by listing several environmental enhancement
considerations to the hydraulic engineering that goes into a reclamation project:
• Create situations where restoration leads to reproduction
• Assembly of new communities
• Enhance invasibility by inviting natural dispersers
• Establish successional processes
• Meta-populations; linkages to the remnant forests that surround the site such as
islands
• Buffer natural populations by having more plants in riparian zones
• Ecological processes
• Habitat links
• Cost effective management and monitoring
Dr. Handel commented that drainage channels and sediment ponds solve the engineering
problems but they only create plumbing devices. He expressed the opinion that we
would like to add to the hydraulic engineering concerns by introducing living restoration
ecology solutions. Then together, he concluded, we can create a habitat that can begin to
restore the ecological services we all depend on.
27
-------
Questions and Answers
Dr. Ziemkiewicz expressed his observation that some of the recommendations appeared
to be contradictory. For example, he continued, topsoil recovery preserves nutrients and,
to some extent, the microbial population. He noted that many topsoils contain significant
clay and spreading them on the surface can lead to significant compaction. He opened
the question and answer session by raising the first question.
Q: [To the panel] Which is more important, the microbial population or the need for loose
compaction? How many cases where topsoil is stockpiled do we see native plant
populations subsequently emerge?
A: Mr. Faulkner explained that there is very little topsoil to begin with in so many areas
and it is difficult to collect because of the roots and rocks. Furthermore, he noted that the
desirable qualities of topsoil do not store well. He expressed the opinion that when
topsoils are removed and subsequently remixed with spoil material very little of the
microbial population will remain to support the desirable species.
C: Mr. Faulkner commented regarding Dr. Handel's point about bee populations. Mr.
Faulkner explained that while there are many grasses on these reclaimed sites, we also
have many plants that encourage pollinators such as trefoil and crown vetch. While
many people dislike these ground covers, exclaimed Mr. Faulkner, they do have flowers
for much of the growing season.
C: Dr. Handel responded to Mr. Faulkner with agreement that these flowering species
are an enhancement. Dr. Handel also followed up on Mr. Faulkner's comments regarding
topsoil by noting that topsoil is only a thin veneer above sandstone in mountain forests.
Yet, he noted, these areas support huge forests suggesting that you do not need much
topsoil. The issue is soil quality and not quantity according to Dr. Handel. Microbes are
essential, he exclaimed, and studies have shown that you can create very healthy soils
with only a small amount of topsoil mixed with crushed, weathered brown sandstone.
Limiting the focus to the riparian zone, he continued, topsoil material would have to be
introduced and minimizing the amount of compaction is critical. At one site, he
observed, tilling the soil only six inches caused a dramatic increase in plant growth. On
the point of stockpiling topsoil, Dr. Handel agreed that this can lead to anoxic conditions
that damage the microbes. He concluded on this point by noting that some special
handling is required to maximize the ecological value of the subsequent use of these
topsoils.
C: Mr. Powell commented on the cost of restoration. He noted that there are many
opportunities for stream restoration or creation of new streams. Creation of new streams
at mountaintop mining sites, he stated, should not cause additional expense, it is a matter
of changing the way the fill material is laid down. He also pointed out the difference of
the higher gradient systems and that they require somewhat different techniques to
control the energy of the stream compared to the bioengineering projects presented by Dr.
Handel. In both cases, Mr. Powell concluded, the establishment of vegetation is essential
to the long-term stability of the system.
28
-------
Q: Mr. Morgan asked Mr. Powell for his opinion regarding sediment ponds and the value
of multiple spillways, primary and emergency.
A: Mr. Powell explained that there may be benefit from changing some of the larger
sediment ponds to shallow marshes with multiple channels to restore some lengths of
channel.
C: Dr. Handel commented that it would be beneficial if we could find some way to
increase the complexity or diversity of the streams. He added that this might include
adding boulders, logs, snags, and channeling diversity that would have significant benefit
to the development of the ecosystem and cost very little.
Q: [To the panel] What is the value of organic debris that is now lost during the process
of creating a valley fill? According to the person asking the question, some in the
Division of Natural Resources have felt the real loss is not so much the stream or the
landform but the loss of the topsoil and the organic debris that has built up over time in
the coves and valleys. He continued by noting that the DNR is looking at the possibility
of collecting the material from one valley area and using that in the restoration of
adjacent areas.
A: Dr. Handel commented that this debris should be mixed into the topsoil of adjacent
areas and not burned. He explained that by placing the organic material back into the
ground, it will rot and support the development of insects and other essential species. He
expressed the opinion that it loses all its value when it is burned. Using this debris to
restore a site, he continued, would be an enhancement that could be offset by a cleverly
applied tax break and make improvements to having only hundreds of acres of
grasslands. He stated that he has observed many sites reclaimed to grasslands when that
is not typical of this region. Dr. Handel expressed the opinion that sites need to be set up
to eventually return to a more natural ecosystem with much greater long-term economic
value.
C: Mr. Maggard responded to Dr. Handel's closing remark with his observation that
some landowners prefer the grassland because it offers more opportunity for near term
economic potential.
Breakout Sessions
The symposium participants each selected to attend one of three concurrent breakout
sessions to follow up on the conclusions and recommendations of the experts. These
sessions were facilitated by representatives of the Department of Energy who are
otherwise uninvolved with the development of the EIS. The focus of each session was to
review the key conclusions and recommendations of each expert and to identify the
associated benefits and potential barriers (regulatory, technical, liability, or cost) to
implementing them. The experts were present in their respective breakout sessions and
the Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement Team Leader placed knowledgeable representatives
of the regulatory community, particularly WVDEP and OSM, in each session. The
summary presented by each facilitator to the reconvened symposium is presented below.
29
-------
Aquatic Resources
Dr. Jan Wachter (National Energy Technology Laboratory), the Aquatic Resources
Breakout Facilitator, presented the consensus recommendations from his breakout group
to the reassembled Symposium. He noted that almost uniformly, the barriers were
regulatory in nature and there were few concerns about technical, cost, or liability issues
with these recommendations. Two of the recommendations developed in this breakout
session were included with other breakout reports for consistency of subject matter.
1. Make extensive use of existing sedimentation ponds and sedimentation ditches to
create fisheries and wetlands thereby enhancing aquatic ecosystems on reclaimed
mining sites.
Benefits: The feasibility has been demonstrated. No major additional costs are
incurred issues.
Barriers: Current regulations provide little or no consideration for aquatic
ecosystem enhancement in ponds and wetlands. They are viewed primarily as a means of
sediment control. Regulatory connotations inhibit long-term use. Landowners will retain
long-term liability for the ponds and wetlands. Design standards for ponds and wetlands
are not habitat related but are driven by storm water transport criteria. Need to have
flexibility in regulations to encourage designs that consider base flow and bank full
loading. In summary, there are very few incentives to develop standing water on the site,
primarily due to geotechnical safely issues in SMCRA.
2. Take advantage in the design of the valley fill for the generation and maintenance of
base flow to create perennial aquatic habitat
Benefits: Development of base flow is critical to the development and
enhancement of the aquatic ecosystem. It is difficult not to have base flow (e.g., chimney
drain effect) directed to the center of the hollow.
Barriers: Engineering driven regulations oppose and are frequently
counterproductive to aquatic ecosystem enhancement (e.g., engineering stability goals
versus aquatic enhancement goals). No incentives are given to the operator for designing
stream channels and other aquatic habitat into the valley fill structure to establish base
flow.
3. Create incentives (or remove disincentives) for companies to voluntarily manage
wetlands at reclamation sites.
Benefits: Provides incentives to the operator and landowner to develop and
maintain aquatic habitat.
30
-------
Barriers: Regulation reform is needed with "hold harmless" consideration with
respect to wetlands and other aquatic habitat, especially related to the landowner's
liability if he should need to remove or fill in the wetlands.
4. Modify overburden disposal and valley fill practices to minimize the impact on
primary and secondary streams.
Benefit: Minimizes the impact on natural streams.
Barrier: Deferred discussion of barriers to Landform breakout due to time
constraints.
5. Restore existing stream channels and flood plains where opportunities exist.
Benefit: Minimizes the impact on natural streams.
Barrier: Also deferred discussion of barriers to Landform breakout due to time
constraints.
Vegetation
Dr. Heino Beckert (National Energy Technology Laboratory), the Vegetation Breakout
Facilitator, presented the following summary to the reassembled symposium. His
breakout group reached consensus on six key recommendations with the associated
benefits and barriers. The seventh recommendation below was developed in the Aquatic
Resources Breakout Session and moved to this list for consistency of subject matter.
1. Stockpile native topsoilfor use in lining banks of streams, ponds, and wetlands; also
provide pre-treatment oftopsoils to increase soil aeration:
Benefits: Increase of moisture retention capability of soil, facilitate infiltration of
water and plant seeds; increase likelihood of successful revegetation.
Barriers: Difficulties in obtaining enough suitable topsoil; storage of topsoil may
decrease its fertility by leaching and loss of microbial content.
2. Avoid use of exotic invasive plants in revegetation efforts.
Benefits: Development and maintenance of native flora, which is best suited for
providing appropriate habitat for native wildlife and for erosion control.
31
-------
Barriers: None; but nurseries must be encouraged to make available appropriate
native plant species; this may present difficulties and increase of overall revegetation
costs.
3. Plant a mix of different genotypes.
Benefits: Provides for the appropriate genetic diversity, resulting in better
resistance to pathogens and will ensure healthy habitat suitable for a variety of native
fauna.
Barriers: Nurseries will market what they can sell; it may be difficult to obtain a
healthy genetic mix of the appropriate species instead of clones of species selected for
revegetating mine sites.
4. Plant a buffer zone around streams and ponds.
Benefits: Enhancement of aquatic communities; results in ecological advantages
by providing appropriate habitat for littoral flora and fauna.
Barriers: Restriction of access for cleaning ponds of sediments; possible safety
concerns with pipes being damaged by tree roots.
5. Use of bio-engineering materials for use in stream channels and banks.
Benefits: Prevents erosion, stabilizes banks, enhances seed development and
speeds up the overall revegetation process.
Barriers: Suitable only in moderately flat terrain; must last at least five years
while vegetation becomes properly established; may require engineering approval for
installation.
6. Plant ground cover to attract and keep pollinating insects.
Benefits: Promotes reproduction of planted vegetation.
Barriers: Wildflower seeds are expensive; care must also be taken that these
plants do not crowd out those species planted for the actual revegetation project.
7. (From Aquatic Resources Group) Modify soil characteristics in order to restore
native species. Restore the innoculum to the topsoil and allocate topsoilfor riparian and
ridge zones- not necessarily the entire landscape.
32
-------
Benefits: Encourages the restoration of native species and diversity to the
reclaimed site and provides riparian and ridge buffer zones.
Barriers: This recommendation conflicts with current topsoil regulations such as
the one that provides a requirement for pH maintenance. May be counter to the
decreased use by regulators of the "fish and wildlife land-use option" for non-AOC sites.
Cost and education of regulators and operators are also barriers.
Landform
Mr. Randy Moore (EG&G), the Landform Breakout Facilitator, presented the consensus
of his breakout group to the reconvened symposium. This breakout group identified two
summary recommendations. A third recommendation below was developed in the
Aquatic Resources Breakout Session and moved to this list for consistency of subject
matter:
1. Promote natural landforms on backfill areas to create more natural drainage
patterns.
NOTE: For more discussion on natural landform regrading on reclaimed areas, see the
earlier discussion by Mr. Horst Schor and the relevant supporting information in the
appendix. "Natural landforms "for this region ofAppalachia are NOT flat top fills with
a terraced face. Fills and regraded mined lands would have rounded tops with fairly
smooth hill side slopes and valleys with stream channels - similar to unmined areas
nearby.
Benefits: Natural landforms promote establishment of more stable and productive
aquatic ecosystems in the drainage system. In some cases, the reclaimed site aquatic
resources may be of greater economic value than the existing resources that were
impacted by earlier land use.
Barriers: The principal barrier is the current 100-foot buffer zone imposed by
Judge Haden's ruling based on the Clean Water Act, which prohibits valley fills on
existing natural streams even temporarily. Additionally, landform contouring on the
valley fill can extend the footprint required for disposing of the excess spoil. Longer
lengths of streams can be impacted than currently allowed by the AOC model.
2. Capture flow from down dip side of the mine site and within the valley fill to create
base flow within the valley fill.
NOTE: Water percolates down through the rocks and soils which have been placed back
on the floor of the mined area. The floor of the mine is usually an aquatardwhich
redirects the groundwater to the down dip side where it emerges as a "spring. " If these
"springs" are covered by valley fills in the reclamation process, they can be directed to
33
-------
the toe of the fill through special channels built to carry the flow directly to the discharge
point and minimize contact with fill material.
Benefit: Capturing base flow from subsurface flow on the down dip side of the
mine site provides an attractive opportunity to enhance the aquatic resources within the
valley fill area.
Barrier: Capturing base flow at the outcrop of subsurface flow requires the
movement of substantial spoil higher up on the backfill. Mr. Lawson demonstrated how
this is possible with a dragline but could be costly at a truck and shovel operation. Any
landforming to create natural relief or develop base flow, other than surface contouring,
must occur during the initial movement of material while the large earthmoving
equipment is still available or it may not be economically feasible. Additionally, the haul
roads necessary to create the side fill will create additional compaction that is
counterproductive to some post-mining land uses, such as commercial forestry.
3. (From Aquatic Resources Group) Modify drainage systems to create stream
and wetland areas on steeper regions.
Benefit: Natural streams and wetlands in steeper regions is more characteristic of
the Appalachia region. Note that there are not many wetlands in the Appalachian region
that were not created by humans.
Barrier: The requirement to limit the total area of valley fills restricts the ability to
construct more natural configurations. Aquatic ecosystem enhancement with natural
channels may require the development of larger valley fills than allowed by the AOC
model.
Symposium Conclusion
Dr. Ziemkiewicz expressed his appreciation to the group for their effort to develop the
recommendations along with the benefits and barriers for further consideration during the
EIS process. For his closing remarks, he provided his perspective on each of the three
symposium focus areas, Vegetation, Aquatic Resources, and Landforms. He included a
list of issues that must be developed further during the course of the EIS to be able to
translate these recommendations into practice and such that the public will be able to
understand their full benefit and costs.
On the topic of Vegetation he discussed the issues of soil reconstruction and plant
community development. He noted that soil reconstruction is actually a very
complicated issue; how to manage it, how to create soil, what criteria describes sufficient
soil quality compared to overburden? How should reconstructed soil be handled? How
long can they be stockpiled and still retain their beneficial qualities? Dr. Ziemkiewicz
also discussed the issue of soil decompaction and the implications for compaction from
using a dragline compared to a truck and shovel operation. He also noted the issues; is
34
-------
decompaction permanent? While it is necessary to reestablish vegetation, how effective is
it over time? Dr. Ziemkiewicz commented that all of these questions and more will have
to be addressed to communicate consistent criteria in advance to operators for the
reclamation of a mine site.
Dr. Ziemkiewicz also discussed the complexity of plant community development. He
asked the question, what kind of plant communities are needed at a reclamation site?
Obviously, continued Dr. Ziemkiewicz, we need several different types including aquatic,
riparian, and upland forests. He continued to question what species of plants should each
type include? The regulation, according to Dr. Ziemkiewicz, must identify critical plant
communities and essential native plant species. Another key issue he noted is that there
is a need coordinate natural plant succession on mine sites while maintaining adequate
erosion control because the operator cannot immediately plant oak trees or pine trees on a
spoil area and hope to be successful. He concluded that we must have realistic
expectations that consider natural succession to be able to coincidentally achieve erosion
control while restoring natural ecosystems.
On the topic of Aquatic Resources, Dr. Ziemkiewicz asked the question, can streams be
reestablished on mine spoil? From his experience, he commented, many operators have
expended a lot of resources to try and place streams across spoil material without success.
He continued that these reaches are difficult to maintain due to the high permeability of
the mine spoil. According to Dr. Ziemkiewicz, operators and regulators have to consider
the value of constructed wetlands compared to the value of the original ephemeral
streams that may be covered in the process of valley fill. Furthermore, he questioned
what is the comparative productivity of wetlands, ponds, and streams on mine sites? He
commented that we may not be very close to getting the answers for this and other
questions necessary to consider a regulatory basis for developing aquatic resources.
On the topic of Landforms he summarized the issue as the optimization of placement of
fill material in a valley fill or by back hauling. Dr. Ziemkiewicz noted that we must be
able to prescribe how to configure the landscape to meet all the competing criteria
including aquatic ecosystem enhancement.
At the end of the EIS process, he concluded, we must be able to proclaim what we are
trying to accomplish and the public must be able to understand the benefit to the aquatic
ecosystem in comparison to other concerns.
35
-------
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
AT MOUNTAINTOP MINING SITES
January 12, 2000
Holiday Inn Charleston House
Symposium Agenda
9:00
9:15
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:45
12:45
1:45
2:45
3:00
4:00
4:45
5:00
Welcome and Introductions- Paul Ziemkiewicz
Overview of First Order Watersheds - Bruce Wallace
Mine Sites Visited by the Panel Members - Courtney Black
Catenary Coal's Success Restoring Aquatic Habitat -
Peter Lawson
BREAK
Panel Introduction - Paul Ziemkiewicz
Land Form - John Morgan & Horst Schor
LUNCH
(on your own)
Aquatic Resources - Rocky Powell, Randy Maggard,
& Bruce Wallace
Vegetation - Steven Handel & Ben Faulkner
BREAK
Breakout sessions by theme (Grand Ballroom) to identify benefits
& barriers to panelist suggestions. Regulatory experts from
WVDEP & OSM will be assigned to each group.
Reconvene (Lobby Ballroom) to share major points for each
theme - Theme Facilitators
Symposium Summary - Paul Ziemkiewicz
Adjourn
-------
Participants List
Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement at Mountaintop Mining Sites
Symposium
January 12, 2000
Craig Aaron
Evergreen Mining
P.O. Box 972
Cowen,WV 26206
Phone: 304/226-2111
Fax: 304/226-5474
E-mail: caaron@aeiresources.com
Larry Abbot
Summit Engineering, Inc.
400 Allen Drive, Suite 100
Charleston, WV 25302
Phone: 304/342-1342
Fax: 304/342-1379
E-mail: labbot@summit-engr.com
Gary Acord
Cline Resources & Development
430 Harper Park Drive
Beckley,WV 25801
Phone: 304/ 255-7458
Fax: 304/255-4908
E-mail:
Larry Alt
WVDEP
lOMcJunkinRoad
Nitro,WV25177
Phone: 304/759-0510
Fax: 304/759-0528
E-mail: Lalt@mail.dep.state.wv.us
Jim Ashby
Mettiki Coal, LLC
293 Table Rock Road
Oakland, MD 21550
Phone: 301/334-5336
Fax: 301/334-1602
E-mail: jashby@gcnet.net
U.K. Bachhawat
Pittston Coal Management Company
P.O. Box 11718
Charleston, WV 25339
Phone: 304/347-8200
Fax: 304/347-8980
E-mail: ubachhaw@pistonminerals. com
Terry Ball
Massey Coal Services
P.O. Box 484
Omar, WV 25638
Phone: 304/946-2421
Fax: 304/946-2404
E-mail: terry.ball@masseycoal.com
Maria B arbour
Kentucky Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resources
Arnold L. Mitchell Building
#1 Game Farm Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: 502/564-7109, x367
Fax: 502/564-4519
E-mail: marla.barbour@mail.state.ky.us
Heino Beckert
US DOE NEIL
P.O. Box 880 Collins Ferry Road
Morgantown, WV 26507-0880
Phone: 304/285-4132
Fax: 304/285-4403
E-mail: heino.beckert@netl.doe.gov
Robert Bays
Arch Coal
5311 Ashbrook Road
Cross Lanes, WV 25313
Phone: 304/369-6222x139
Fax: 304/369-0542
E-msil: bbays@archcoal.com
-------
Les Bincent
Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals,
and Energy
P.O. Drawer 900
Big Stone Gap, VA 24219
Phone: 540/523-8159
Fax: 540/523-8163
E-mail: lsb@mme.state.va.us
Courtney Black
WVU National Mine Land Reclamation Center
202ENRCCE
P.O. Box 6064
Morgantown, WV 26506
Phone: 304/293-2867x5447
E-mail: dblack@wvu.edu
Brian Boiling
Charleston Daily Mail
1001 Virginia Street East
Charleston, WV 25301
Frank Borsuk
Potesta & Associates, Inc.
2400 MacCorkle Avenue, SE
Charleston, WV 25304
Phone: 304/342-1400
Fax: 304/343-9031
E-mail: faborsuk@potesta.com
faborsuk@teays.net
Darin Brown
Kimberly Industries, Inc.
One Wellford Way
Charleston, WV 25311
Phone: 304/346-3775
Fax: 304/346-3798
Earl H. Brown, Jr.
GAI Consultants, Inc.
315 70th Street, SE
Charleston, WV 25304
Phone: 304/926-8100
E-mail: gaiwv@citynet.net
Gary Bryant
U.S. EPA
1060 Chaplme St.
Wheeling, WV 26003
Phone: 304/234-0230
Fax: 304/234-0257
E-mail: bryant.gary@epamail.epa.gov
R. Scott Bumsworth
GAI Consultants, Inc.
315 70th Street, SE
Charleston, WV 25304
Phone: 304/926-8100
E-mail: gaiwv@citynet.net
Carey Butler
WPI
3606 Collins Ferry Road Suite 202
Morgantown, WV 26505
Phone: 304/598-9383x15
Fax: 304/598-9392
E-mail: carey_butler@mt.wpi.org
Jim Canterbury
Mountain State Company
P.O. Drawer O
Cedar Grove, WV 25039
Phone: 304/949-4762
Fax: 304/949-4764
E-mail:
Steven Case
Coal Mac, Inc.
P.O. Box 3428
Pikeville,KY 41502
Phone: 606/432-0171
Fax: 606/437-4213
E-mail: SLCase@EastKy.net
Doug Chambers
USGS - WRD
11 Dunbar St.
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304/347-5130
Fax: 304/347-5133
E-mail: dbchambe@usgs.gov
Mary Channel
WV Division of Environmental Protection
116 Industrial Drive
Oak Hill, WV 25901
Phone: 304/465-1911
Fax: 304/465-0031
E-mail: mchannel@mail.dep.state.wv.us
George Chappel
Summit Engineering, Inc.
400 Allen Drive, Suite 100
Charleston, WV 25302
Phone: 304/342-1342
Fax: 304/342-1379
E-mail: gchappel@summit-engr.com
-------
Casey Clapsaddle
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Suite 322
315 S Allen Street
State College, PA 16801
Phone: 814/234-4090
Fax: 814/234-0748
E-mail: casey_clapsaddle@fws.gov
Debbie Collinsworth
Eco Source, Inc
112 Dennis Drive
Lexington, KY 40503
Phone: 606/277-8686
Fax: 606/277-8686
E-mail: ecosourtce@hotmail.com
James W. Copley, Jr.
Coastal Coal-West Virginia, LLC
Brooks Run Operation
61 Missouri Run Road
Cowen,WV 26206
Phone: 304/226-5391
Danny Cox
Massey Coal Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 1951
Charleston, WV 25327
Phone: 304/345-3556
Fax: 304/345-3623
E-mail: danny.cox@masseycoal.com
Richard Darnell
WVDEP -AML&P
10 McJunkin Road
Nitro,WV 25071
Phone: 304/759-0521
Fax: 304/759-0527
Ron Damron
Piston Coal Management Company
P.O. Box 11718
Charleston, WV 25339
Phone: 304/347-8200
Fax: 304/347-8980
E-mail: rdamron@pistonminerals.com
David Densmore
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Suite 322
315 S Allen Street
State College, PA 16801
Phone: 814/234-4090
Fax: 814/234-0748
E-mail: david_densmore@fws.gov
Kent DesRocher
Arch of WV
P.O. Box 1HC 614, Box 156
Yolyn,WV 25654
Phone: 304/369-6222, ext. 134
304/792-8200
Fax: 304/369-0542
304/792-8260
E-mail: kdesrocher@archcoal.com
Lori W. Dials
Kentucky Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resources
Arnold L. Mitchell Building
#1 Game Farm Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: 502/564-7109, x375
Fax: 502/564-4519
E-mail: lori.dials@mail.state.ky.us
Barry Doss
AEI Resources
P.O. Box 489
Cabin Creek, WV 25035
Phone: 304/595-3330
Fax: 304/595-3301
E-mail: bdoss@aeiresources.com
Joe Dotson
Massey Coal Services
P.O. Box 484
Omar, WV 25638
Phone: 304/946-2421
Fax: 304/946-2404
JohnL. Dovak
Kentucky Division of Water
14ReillyRoad
Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: 502/564-3410
Fax: 502/564-0111
E-mail: sampson@nrdep.nr.state.ky.us
Roger Dunlap
Kimberly Industries, Inc.
One Wellford Way
Charleston, WV 25311
Phone: 304/346-3775
Fax: 304/346-3798
-------
J. D. Elkins
Summit Engineering, Inc.
203 Main Avenue
Logan, WV 25601
Phone: 304/752-5038
Fax: 304/752-5039
E-mail: jelkins@summit-engr.com
Larry Emerson
Arch Coal, Inc.
P.O. Box 6300
Huntington, WV 25771
Phone: 304/526-3581
Fax: 304/526-3680
E-mail: lemerson@archcoal.com
Erkan Esmer
Esmer Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 426
Boomer, WV 25031
Phone: 304/779-2131
Fax: 304/779-2859
E-mail: esmer@intelos.net
Ben Faulkner
BrattonFarm
171 Willowbrook Road
Princeton, WV 24740
Phone: 304/487-2886
Fax: 304/425-3727
E-mail: bratfarm@pol.net
James Felby
Catenary Coal Company
251 Frame Road
Elkview,WV 25071
Phone: 304/595-7233
Fax: 304/595-4063
Kermit Fincham, Jr.
Progress Coal
HC78
P.O. Box 1796
Madison, WV 25130
Phone: 304/369-9101
Fax: 304/369-9105
E-mail: kermit.fincham@masseycoal.com
Michael A. Fioravante
GAI Consultants, Inc.
315 70th Street, SE
Charleston, WV 25304
Phone: 304/926-8100
E-mail: gaiwv@citynet.net
David Fisher
Sturm Environmental Services
P.O. Box 650
Bridgeport, WV 26330
Phone: 304/623-6549
Fax: 304/623-6552
E-mail: ses@iolinc.net
Blair Gardner
Arch Coal, Inc.
City Place One
St. Louis, MO 63141
Phone: 314/994-2725
Fax: 314/994-2734
E-mail: bgardner@archcoal.com
Anthony Gatens
Arch of WV
HC 61, Box 156
Yolyn,WV 25654
Phone: 304/792-8253
Fax: 304/792-8260
E-mail: agatens@archcoal.com
Bryce D. Good
GAI Consultants, Inc.
315 70th Street, SE
Charleston, WV 25304
Phone: 304/926-8100
E-mail: gaiwv@citynet.net
T.J. Gregorsky
Fola Coal Company
P.O. Box 180
Bickmore,WV 25019
Phone: 304/587-4100
Fax: 304/587-2469
E-mail: wvsailor@fola.wv.net
David Gruber
Biological Monitoring, Inc.
1800 Kraft Dnve Suite 101
Blacksburg, VA 24060
Phone: 540/953-2821
Fax: 540/951-1481
E-mail: bmi@biomDn.com
Jack Hagewood
Pittston Coal
P.O. Boc 11718
Charleston, WV 25339
Phone: 304/587-4777x33
E-mail: JHagewood@pittstonminerals.com
-------
Steven Handel
Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural
Resources
Rutgers University
1 College Farm Road
New Brunswick, NJ 08901 -1582
Phone: 732/932-4516
E-mail: handel@aesop.rutgers.edu
Rebecca Hanmer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
4505 F Street
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202/260-4470
Fax: 202/401-5341
E-mail: hanmer.rebecca@epa.gov
Jimmy Harless
Hampden Co al
P.O. Box 1389
Gilbert, WV 25601
Phone: 304/664-2960
Fax: 304/664-2962
Leith Hartman
Pritchard Mining
184 1/2 Summers St.
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304/346-2268
E-mail: rlh3@citynet.net
David Hartos
OSM
3 Parkway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Phone: 412/937-2909
Fax: 412/937-3102
E-mail: dhartos@osmre.gov
Gary Hatfield
Rawl Sales
Box 722
Matewan,WV 25678
Phone: 304/235-4290
Fax: 304/235-3034
E-mail: gary.hatfield@masseycoal.com
David Hibbs
Cummins Cumberland, Inc.
5304 Ashbrook Road
Cross Lanes, WV 25313
Phone: 304/776-5376
E-mail: drhibbs@ibm.net
Nancy Hieb
WV Division of Environmental Protection
116 Industrial Drive
Oak Hill, WV 25901
Phone: 304/465-1911
Fax: 304/465-0031
E-mail: nhieb@mail.dep.state.wv.us
Cliff Higgerson
Hobet Mining
P.O. Box 305
Madison, WV 25130
Phone: 304/369-8126
E-mail: chiggerson@archcoal.com
J.D. Higginbotham
Bluestone Coal Corporation
P.O. Box 1085
Beckley,WV 25801
Phone: 304/252-8528
Fax: 304/255-6106
E-mail: j dhj r@bluestoneindustries. com
Tiff Hilton
WOPEC
RR2Box294B
Lewisburg,WV 24901
Phone: 304/645-7633
Fax: 304/645-4985
E-mail: WOPEC@newwave.net
Ken Hodak
Arch of WV
P.O. Box 1HC 614, Box 156
Yolyn,WV 25654
Phone: 304/792-8200
Fax: 304/792-8260
E-mail: khodak@archcoal.com
Michael Hoeft
WV Division of Natural Resources
Route 1, Box 484
Point Pleasant, WV 25550
Phone: 304/675-0871
Fax: 304/675-0872
E-mail: hoeftm@mail.wvnet.edu
William Hoffman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone: 215/814-2787
E-mail: hoffman.william@epamail.epa.gov
-------
Teresa Hughes
US. Army Corps of Engineers
502 8th Street
Huntington, WV 25701
Phone: 304/529-5710
Fax: 304/529-5085
E-mail:
Teresa.D.Hughes@Lrh01.usace.army.mil
Mike Isabell
Fola Coal Company
P.O. Box 180
Bickmore,WV 25019
Phone: 304/587-4100
Fax: 304/587-2469
E-mail: wvsailor@fola.wv.net
Scotty Ison
P&A Engineers
P.O. Box 470
Alum Creek, WV 25003
Phone: 304/756-4066
Fax: 304/756-4068
E-mail: pandawv@newwave.com
Ken Job
Marrowbone Development Co.
P.O. Box 119
Naugatuck, WV 25685
Phone: 304/393-3736
Jamie Johnson
Arch Coal, Inc.
P.O. Box 305
Madison, WV 25130
Phone: 304/369-6222
Fax: 304/369-6829
E-mail: jajohnson@archcoal.com
Randy Kelley
WV Division of Natural Resources
525 Tiller Street
Logan, WV 25601
Phone: 304/792-7075
Fax: 304/792-7078
E-mail: kellyr@mail.wvnet.edu
Robert Kenny
Triangle Survey
One Valley Square Suite 970
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304/342-4989
Robert Kiser
Appalachian Technical Services
P.O. Box 98
Whitesburg,KY41858
Phone: 606/633-0613
Fax: 606/633-0616
Eugene Kitts
Summit Engineering, Inc.
400 Allen Dnve, Suite 100
Charleston, WV 25302
Phone: 304/342-1342
Fax: 304/342-1379
E-mail: gkitts@summit-engr.com
Allen Klein
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Surface Mining
3 Parkway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Phone: 412/937-2828
Fax: 412/937-2903
E-mail: aklein@osmre.gov
Keith Krantz
WVDNR
Rtl,Box484
Pt. Pleasant, WV 25504
Phone: 304/675-0871
Peter Lawson
Catenary Coal
5914 Cabin Creek Road
Eskdale,WV 25075
Phone: 304/595-4036
Fax: 304/595-4063
E-mail: plawson@archcoal.com
Penny Loeb
11234 Richard Grove Drive
Great Falls, VA 22066
Phone: 703/430-3451
Fax:
E-mail: cfdodge@msa.com
Mike Mace
WV Division of Environmental Protection
No. IQMcJunkinRoad
Nitro,WV25143
Phone: 304/759-0595
Fax: 304/759-0587
E-mail: mmace@mail.dep.state.wv.us
-------
Paul Maggard
Appalachian Technicla Services
P.O. Box 98
Whitesburg,KY41858
Phone: 606/633-0613
Fax: 606/633-0616
E-mail: atsincky@kih.net
Randy Maggard
PenCoal
P.O. Box 191
Dunlow,WV25511
Phone: 304/385-4951
E-mail: randy_maggard@pencoal. com
Robert Marsh
Pen Coal Corp
P.O. Box 191
Dunbar,WV25511
Phone: 304/385-4950
Fax: 304/385-4594
E-mail: Robert_Marsh@pencoal.com
Bob Martin
P&A Engineers
P.O. Box 279
Louisa, KY 41230
Phone: 606/673-4413
Fax: 606/673-4415
E-mail: pandaky@foothills.net
David L. Martin
Coastal Coal-West Virginia, LLC
Brooks Run Operation
61 Missouri Run Road
Cowen,WV 26206
Phone: 304/226-5391
Larry Mauk
Hampden Coal
P.O. Box 1389
Gilbert, WV 25601
Phone: 304/664-2960
Fax: 304/664-2962
Bernard Maynard
Office of Surface Mining
Building No. 3
Parkway Center Complex
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Phone: 412/937-2873
Fax: 412/937-3012
E-mail: bmaynard@osm.gov
Cindy Maynard
WVDEP
No. 10, McJunkin Road
Nitro,WV25143
Phone: 304/759-0570
Fax: 304/759-0527
E-mail: cmaynard@mail.dep.state.wv.us
Raymond Maynard
White Flame Energy
Box 379
Red Jacket, WV 25692
Phone: 304/426-6090
Ron McAhron
Cannelton Coal
P.O. Box 150
Cannelton, WV 25036
Phone: 304/442-5106
Fax: 304/442-9451
E-mail: rmcahron@aeiresources.com
John McDaniel
Arch Coal, Inc.
P.O. Box 305
Madison, WV 25130
Phone: 304/369-6222
Fax: 304/369-6829
E-mail: jmcdaniel@archcoal.com
John McNew
White Flame Energy
P.O. Box 343
Red Jacket, WV 25692
Phone: 304/426-6090
Fax: 304/426-4231
E-mail: iam4wv@cwv.net
Scott McPhilliamy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1060 Chapline Street
Wheeling, WV 26003-2995
Phone: 304/234-0233
Fax: 304/234-0257
E-mail: mcphilliamy.scott@epamail.epa.gov
Chuck Meadows
P&A Engineers
P.O. Box 279
Louisa, KY 41230
Phone: 606/673-4413
Fax: 606/673-4415
E-mail: pandaky@foothills.net
-------
Terry Messinger
U. S. Geological Survey
11 Dunbar St.
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304/347-5130x270
Fax: 304/347-5133
E-mail: tmessing@usgs.gov
Ron Miller
P&A Engineers
P.O. Box 279
Louisa, KY 41230
Phone: 606/673-4413
Fax: 606/673-4415
E-mail: pandaky@foothills.net
Earl Moles
Arch Coal, Inc.
5914 Cabin Creek Road
Eskdale,WV 25075
Phone: 304/595-7259
Fax: 304/595-4063
E-mail: emoles@archcoal.com
Dawn Moore
U. S. Geological Survey
11 Dunbar St.
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304/347-5130x285
Fax: 304/347-5133
E-mail: damoore@usgs.gov
Randy Moore
EG&GM/S003
P.O. Box 880 Collins Ferry Road
Morgantown, WV 26507-0880
Phone: 304/285-4606
Fax: 304/285-4200
E-mail: randy.moore@netl.doe.gov
John Morgan
Morgan Worldwide Mining Consultants
P.O. Box 888
Lexington, KY 40588
Phone: 606/259-0959
E-mail: mwmc@aol.com
Rick Morgan
Hobet Mining
P.O. Box 305
Madison, WV 25130
Phone: 304/369-8126
E-mail: rmorgan@archcoal.com
Ginger Mullins
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
502 8th St.
Huntmgton, WV 25701
Phone: 304/529-5710
Fax: 304/529-5085
E-mail: gingerm@lrh.usace.army.mil
Mike Murphy
Hampden Coal
P.O. Box 1389
Gilbert, WV 25601
Phone: 304/664-2960
Fax: 304/664-2962
Pat Murphy
Summit Engineering, Inc.
203 Main Avenue
Logan, WV 25601
Phone: 304/752-5038
Fax: 304/752-5039
E-mail: pmurphy@summit-engr.com
Joseph B. Myers
Coastal Coal-West Virginia, LLC
Brooks Run Operation
61 Missouri Run Road
Cowen,WV 26206
Phone: 304/226-5391
Randall Myers
Randall Myers Land Surveyors
255 Caney Valley Road
Markleysburg, PA 15459
Phone: 724/329-4994
Fax: 724/329-4994
Pam Nixon
WV Department of Environmental
Protection
No. 10, McJunkinRoad
Nitro,WV25143
Phone: 304/759-0570
Fax: 304/759-0527
E-mail: pnixon@mail.dep.state.wv.us
Brian Osbom
Mepco, Inc.
P.O. Box 1209
Morgantown, WV 26507
Phone: 304/328-5757
Fax: 304/328-5743
E-mail: mepcoeng@access.mountain.net
-------
Rocky Parsons
WVDEP
105 S. Railroad St.
Philippi,WV 26416
Phone: 304/457-3219
Fax: 304/457-5613
Katharine Paybins
USGS-WRD
11 Dunbar St.
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304/347-5130
Fax: 304/347-5133
E-mail: kpaybins@usgs.gov
Bob Penn
OSM
Box 116 1941 Neely Road
Big Stone Gap, VA 24219
Phone: 540/523-0001
Fax: 540/523-4303
E-mail: RPenn@osmre.gov
Gary Persinger
Penn Virginia Coal Co.
Suite 100, One Cabin Center
Chesapeake, WV 25315
Phone: 304/949-5630
Fax: 304/949-6090
Dennis Phipps
Summit Engineering, Inc.
203 Main Avenue
Logan, WV 25601
Phone: 304/752-5038
Fax: 304/752-5039
E-mail: dphipps@summit-engr.com
Dale Pike
CONSOL Inc.
1800 Washington Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15241
Phone: 412/831-4524
Fax: 412/831-4513
Rocky Powell
Clear Creek Consulting
1317KnoppRoad
Jarrettsville, MD 21084
Phone: 410/692-2164
E-mail: rockypowell@msn.com
Ken Politan
WVDEP
10 McJunkin Road
Nitro,WV25177
Phone: 304/759-0510
Fax: 304/759-0528
E-mail: kpolitan@mail.dep.sate.wv.us
Terry Potter
Coal Mac, Inc.
P.O. Box 3428
Pikeville,KY 41502
Phone: 606/432-0171
Fax: 606/437-4213
E-mail: tpotter@archcoal.com
David Rasnick
Summit Engineering, Inc.
101 Summit Drive
Pikeville,KY 41501
Phone: 606/432-1447
Fax: 606/432-1440
E-mail: drasnick@summit-engr.com
JimRatcliff
Summit Engineering, Inc.
400 Allen Drive, Suite 100
Charleston, WV 25302
Phone: 304/342-1342
Fax: 304/342-1379
E-mail: jratcliff@summit-engr.com
Chad Reed
Summit Engineering, Inc.
400 Allen Drive, Suite 100
Charleston, WV 25302
Phone: 304/342-1342
Fax: 304/342-1379
E-mail: creed@summit-engr.com
David Rider
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone: 215/814-2787
E-mail: rider.david@epamail.epa. gov
Jeff Robinson
Summit Engineering, Inc.
101 Summit Drive
Pikeville,KY 41501
Phone: 606/432-1447
Fax: 606/432-1440
E-mail: jrobinson@summit-engr.com
-------
Mike Robinson
OSM
3 Parkway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Phone: 412/937-2882
Fax: 412/937-3012
E-mail: mrobinso@osmre.gov
Ron Robinson
Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals,
and Energy
P.O. Drawer 900
Big Stone Gap, VA 24219
Phone: 540/523-8159
Fax: 540/523-8163
E-mail: rdr@mme.state.va.us
Frank Rose
Piston Coal Management Company
P.O. Box 11718
Charleston, WV 25339
Phone: 304/347-8200
Fax: 304/347-8980
E-mail: frose@pistonminerals.com
Bill Sampson
Kentucky Division of Water
14ReillyRoad
Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: 502/564-3410
Fax 502/564-0111
E-mail: sampson@nrdep.nr.state.ky.us
Horst Schor
H.J. Schor Consulting
626 N. Pioneer Dr.
Anahiem, CA 92805
Phone: 714/778-3767
Fax: 714/778-1656
E-mail: hjschor@jps.net
Tom Serenko
Summit Engineering, Inc.
101 Summit Drive
Pikeville,KY 41501
Phone: 606/432-1447
Fax: 606/432-1440
E-mail: tserenko@summit-engr.com
Jim Serfis
EPA
515 N.Jackson St.
Arlington, VA 22201
Phone: 202/564-7161
E-mail: serfis.jim@epa.gov
Gary Sharp
WV Division of Natural Resources
Wildlife Section
Route 1, Box 484
Point Pleasant, WV 25550
Phone: 304/675-0871
Fax: 304/675-0872
Guy Shelledy
Fola Coal Company
P.O. Box 180
Bickmore,WV 25019
Phone: 304/587-4100
Fax: 304/587-2469
E-mail: wvsailor@fola.wv.net
Jeff Skousen
West Virgina University
1106 Agricultural Sciences
Morgantown, WV 26506-6108
Phone: 304/293-6256
Fax: 304/293-2960
E-mail: jskousen@wvu.edu
Eric Somerville
U.S. EPA, Region 4
Wetlands Section
6 IForsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404/562-9414
Fax: 404/562-9343
E-mail: somerville.eric@epa.gov
Keith Spears
Summit Engineering, Inc.
101 Summit Drive
Pikeville,KY 41501
Phone: 606/432-1447
Fax: 606/432-1440
E-mail: kspears@summit-engr.com
Vivian Stockman
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
249 Millstone Run
Spencer, WV 25276
Phone: 304/927-3265
Fax: 304/927-3265
E-mail: vivian@wvadventures.net
Jennifer Stump
Gannett Fleming Inc.
207 Senate Ave,
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Phone: 717/763-7211 x 2885
Fax: 717/763-7323
E-mail: jstump@gfnet.com
-------
Dan Sweeney
EPA
1650 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19013
Phone: 215/814-5731
Fax: 215/814-2301
E-mail: sweeney.dan@epa.gov
Aaron Taylor
Kimberly Industries, Inc.
One Wellford Way
Charleston, WV 25311
Phone: 304/346-3775
Fax: 304/346-3798
Pat Taylor
Summit Engineering, Inc.
400 Allen Dnve, Suite 100
Charleston, WV 25302
Phone: 304/342-1342
Fax: 304/342-1379
E-mail: ptaylor@summit-engr.com
Cindy Tibbott
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Suite 322
315 S Allen Street
State College, PA 16801
Phone: 814/234-4090
Fax: 814/234-0748
E-mail: cindy_tibbott@fws.gov
Gary D. Tinnel
Coastal Coal-West Virginia, LLC
Brooks Run Operation
61 Missouri Run Road
Cowen,WV 26206
Phone: 304/226-5391
Zac Totten
Summit Engineering, Inc.
400 Allen Dnve, Suite 100
Charleston, WV 25302
Phone: 304/342-1342
Fax: 304/342-1379
E-mail: ztotten@summit-engr.com
Rena Turner
Piston Coal Management Company
P.O. Box 11718
Charleston, WV 25339
Phone: 304/347-8200
Fax: 304/347-8980
E-mail: rturner@pistonminerals.com
Dave Vande Linde
WVDEP
10 McJunkin Road
NitroWV25143
Phone: 304/759-0510
Fax: 304/759-0528
E-mail: dvandelinde@mail.dep.state.wv.us
Marvin Vernatter
Kimberly Industries, Inc.
One Wellford Way
Charleston, WV 25311
Phone: 304/346-3775
Fax: 304/346-3798
Sandy Vilar
WPI
3606 Collins Ferry Road Suite 202
Morgantown, WV 26505
Phone: 304/598-9383 xlO
Fax: 304/598-9392
E-mail: sandy_vilar@mt.wpi.org
Mike Vines
White Flame Energy
P.O. Box 343
Red Jacket, WV 25692
Phone: 304/426-5405
Fax: 304/426-5406
E-mail: wvcoalboss@yahoo.com
Jan Wachter
USDOENETL
P.O. Box 880 Collins Ferry Road
Morgantown, WV 26507-0880
Phone: 304/285-4607
Fax: 304/285-4403
E-mail: jan.wachter@netl.doe.gov
Kevin Wall
Western Pocahontas Properties
P.O. Box 2827
Huntmgton, WV 25727
Phone: 304/522-5757
Fax: 304/522-5401
E-mail: kwall@wpplp.com
Bruce Wallace
Department of Entomology
University of Georgia
413 Biological Sciences Building
Athens, GA 30602-2603
Phone: 706/542-7886
Fax: 706/542-2279
E-mail: wallace@sparc. ecology.uga.edu
-------
Kevin Whipkey
Cline Resource & Development Co.
430 Harper Park Dr.
Beckley,WV 25801
Phone: 304/255-7458
Fax: 304/255-4908
E-mail: rkwhipkey@teays.net
Mark White
Arch of WV
P.O. Box 1H 614, Box 156
Yolyn,WV 25654
Phone: 304/369-6222, ext. 138
304/792-8200
Fax: 304/369-0542
304/792-8260
E-mail: mwhite@archcoal.com
Darcy White
WV Division of Environmental Protection
No. 10 McJunkin Road
Nitro,WV25143
Phone: 304/759-0595
Fax: 304/759-0587
E-mail: dwhite@mail.dep.state.wv.us
Darren Whitlock
Summit Engineering, Inc.
400 Allen Drive, Suite 100
Charleston, WV 25302
Phone: 304/342-1342
Fax: 304/342-1379
E-mail: dwhitlock@summit-engr.com
Ronald A. Wigal
Canaan Valley Institute
P.O. Box 673
Dams, WV 26260
Phone: 304/866-4739
Fax: 304/866-4759
E-mail: rwigal@mail.canaanvi.org
Andy Willis
Mining Consulting Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 207
Kimper,KY 41539
Phone: 606/835-3009
Fax: 606/835-3011
E-mail: awillis@miningusa.com
Allen Wood
WVDEP/AML
116 Industrial Drive
Oak Hill, WV 25801
Phone: 304/465-1911
Eddie Workman
Southern Land Company
300 Capitol Street
Suite 1401
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304/346-3661
Fax: 304/346-3630
Mark S. Workman
Coastal Coal-West Virginia, LLC
Brooks Run Operation
61 Missouri Run Road
Cowen,WV 26206
Phone: 304/226-5391
Matt Workman
P&A Engineers
P.O. Box 279
Louisa, KY 41230
Phone: 606/673-4413
Fax: 606/673-4415
E-mail: pandaky@foothills.net
Dale Wright
Bluestone Coal Corporation
P.O. Box 1085
Beckley,WV 25801
Phone: 304/252-8528
Fax: 304/255-6106
E-mail: dwright@bluestoneindustries.com
Steve Young
145 Strieker Road
Charleston, WV 25314
Phone: 304/343-9369
Fax: 304/343-9369
Paul Ziemkiewicz
WVU National Mine Land Reclamation Center
P.O. Box 6064
Morgantown, WV 26505
Phone: 304/293-2867
E-mail: pziemkie@wvu.edu
-------
Aquatic Resources on Minin
Sites Tour
D. Courtney Black
National Mine Land Reclamation
West Virginia University
Photographic credit: Heino Beckert, Ph.D.
U.S. DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory
Morgantown, WV
-------
Four Mine Sites
Elk Run Mine operated by Massey Coal
Services
Samples Mine operated by Catenary Coal
Wayne County operations of Pen Coal
Company
Hobet Mining #21 — subsidiary of Arch
Coal. Inc.
-------
Active pit at Elk Run
-------
of valley fill
-------
View of pond
below valley fill
'
i
-------
Valley Fill # 3
in construction
*
• • ^
- .-
I 1
^
>
.
*.
1 ^ *fe.v *.
-------
Ponds at toe of VF #3
-^ ' _/
•
-------
Elk Run Mine
slope has not been compacted, trees have been planted
-------
Samples Mine
-------
-------
In-stream ponds below 32 acre
fill area; good fish populations
-------
"L«JMIff
-------
Pen Coal
Encapsulation cell for toxic material
-------
Combination Ditch
constructed on 8 month old reclamation
for sediment and storm water control
Sfe.
-------
-------
-------
Rollem Fork Valley Fill
-------
-------
Tree planting on 8 year old
reclamation - Frank Branch
h
•|^^i£^^l^^
-------
Hobet Mining #21
20 year old valley fill
-------
10 year old reclamation
-------
Rolling landscape created by
dragline; valley fill in center
-------
in center, valley fill on left
\
,
-------
Close up of combination ditch
-------
Reclaimed landscape at Hobet #21
-------
Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancements
M. */
At A Mountaintop Mining Site
Presented January 12, 2000
Charleston, West Virginia
-------
Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement
At A Mountaintop Mining Site
Background / Scope of Samples Mine Project
Structures constructed as conditions of permits
- In-stream ponds
- On bench structures
Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement Projects
- G-Ponds
- Abandoned Mine Land Projects
Landform Restoration
-------
Aquatic Ecosystems Constructed as
Conditions of Permits
In-stream Ponds
'•** *
On Bench Structures
-------
Examples of in-stream ponds...
-------
-------
Examples of on bench structures.
M:
I
-------
-------
-------
-------
Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement,
-------
-------
4-»f
11 * t STll CT
-------
'
-------
-------
fi £
-------
-------
Abandoned Mine Lands Projects.
-------
-------
-------
Areas of Pre- Law Mining
:"...i
- ' >>
"^•' ^^;:-^;; ,-„; ^ • '
» v*; ,,,^' ••
;"fv^ •-*'••-. ;
!i;;>..
-------
Engineering Design of Wetlands...
PLAN VIEW
a. ait
CELL "A"
CELL "B"
WETLANDS DETAILS
CELL"C"
CROSS SECTION A A
CROSS SECTION B-H
STREAM CHANNEL SECTIONS
-------
Construction of Wetlands
-------
-------
Land Forms Restoration.
Active Unreclaimed Dragline Acreage
Bucyrus Erie 2570 Draglin
Original Ground
Reclaimed topography
Reclaimed Dragline Backstack
Dragline Interval
Stockton Zone
Diversion Ditc
ConlDurg ZOHD
Disturbed — Reclaimed Dragline Area
Underground Mined Area
Winlfrede Zone
-------
During Mining
-------
Reclaimed Area
-------
Reclaimed Area
-------
Reclaimed Area
-------
-------
An Evaluation of Aquatic
Randy Maggard
Pen Coal Corporation
-------
Rollem Foric #3 On-bench Pond'- 1999
-• *•
- • _"
•
H:V.:•,/'£ ivf
-------
Rollem Fork Qn-Bench Pond #5 - 1997
-------
-------
Macroinvertebrates
Vance Branch-99 Rollem Fork-97 Left Fork-91
Taxa
Richness
-------
-------
-------
Left Fork Sediment Ditch - 1994
U ^H "
-*:
I
-------
Comparisons
Headwater Streams vs. Wetlands and Ponds
-------
Excess Spoil Disposal
Configuration
Presented by:
John Morgan
-------
Why no water on backfill?
High permeability of backfill
Broken and mixed overburden from blasting and
excavation
Backfill has no defined horizons
Change to pre-mining stratigraphy
No aquicludes until pavement
Infiltration from ditches
-------
Where is water?
Storm flow in ditches
Subsurface flow on coal pavement
Subsurface flow discharge at down dip outcrop
Some outcrop discharges covered by valley fill
Discharge at toe of valley fill
Very few surface flows
Some ponds on solid benches
-------
Subsurface Flow
-------
Subsurface Flow (with fill)
-------
Alternative Backfill
Configuration?
Objectives
• Intercept groundwater discharge
• Decrease ditch gradients
Alternative Configuration
• Construct combination conventional / side-hill fill
• Tilt top surface of valley fills to one side
• Create incised groin ditch with flatter slope
-------
Typical Valley Fill Regrade
-------
Modified Valley Fill Regrade
-------
Evaluation of skewed fill
Advantages
• Intercepts flow at outcrop
• Collects some surface flow
• Increases probability of perennial flow
Disadvantages
• Increased flow rate in single ditch
• Concerns with regulatory stipulations for side hill
fill
• Some increase in fill haulage height
-------
AOC Model
• Provides an objective and reproducible means to
define AOC
• Allows a subjective approach to be replaced with a
volumetric definition
• Optimizes the placement of spoil
• Volumetric approach gives operator flexibility
over final design
• Allows landforming, stream restoration and
aquatic habitat projects
-------
Forest Restoration on a Closed
Landfill: Rapid Addition of New
Species by Bird Dispersal
GliuRGE R ROBINSON
SIl-VEN N. HANDl-.L
\J OHJ'rtS. I
I .
< t /urn/ ft
' i i 1 H f n ' )* ! ! V M Mi HI 1 ! U llp *{ !| 1 f I1 t f f
J i», i i l • i »U p ^ -fc
"l/;';,r,
1 rf**Ur »a fM
^fs / o.Hi Jfl if
J.i/jr, /.„*,%.! JNJ ,, , , tt rii ,,a , ^
, . u-.^ ?^rn,/ ,.,..., » .. , i, ,„
w* -^t /jn *-. t-sif .t £ M -S t.^int *rf). J (
M i.j i fi,,». f Mt ,, i 4,f, ,', /r, f,,
' ' "' "• •* ~l ' ' ' f« /" nt It t->i\ ttuitt i ^,ru ,i , ,r ,i
t ,:mi " nirfiti' ,;>. ii/ir.»i i 'nr,.v, \,;»>/ w^j1- / .» »,^r •
i,, i ,,, ,1,1,1 ,. ,( Jl /.,», H ' NiiJ'l m » J'rt, KI V/ Hi
if.-/ PJ«; i«i rj I.- , r/ A i r r; ,i, i.»v '.'JI?<-T n i, / , • 1 1, ^>, ,
tm l u'H i "FHrtn<>. r> ii ,/<• Ji M u t,Njpff>
r' /)> nut , /,-.Mn, , am, ,, 4. i „, ,r,, ,„
M"( H t F II fimj.ii (J| I.UI, 'u i F
-------
\££l»r%i .
Inlrwlyttion
mnirntinilio l-.ven wlicn tuhiuis iirc well prepared aihl
s|X'*' ics cbOK"i™s t'afcliilt1) ftl^dc. 'SaKXostyi frM«>ral*0?i
ori br dcUyctl *sf ps°rvnii«°>d In ttx:al cmiruni-ncFi&Al
Uiani>e. such as altered hydrolugic paitrm* f /.cold lv>"{). Andcr-voii
I w^ ! Wbo'i Li'i.s^gir t* I KrtlOrjlH'in pUnncrs can draw troni
tit lcnn»'1«rdjtr of* il«: r col* IJOCA) pfix c<*e> tli:«l
»:cc«M>r>il clungc-, in partii~ut.u (he r«tt: i.»l
l rcprtxtuftiim and dispersal during svuMularv >IM
ltysId \l)~"t: 111! an asid rtinl
«"S VI r !'i.avr r^JU'Tlinrd a !n.ainlTcr erf ali^nd'! mcd
in the Nrw ^'ork inctiojwIiMO area Aral IMVC
hccn impressed hv the failure trf vrgctaimtt tu Jc^-clup
cither iSivcrsity 'M tmrrnil sw.ccMsLon ff.«n upfti Held to w< a lew wtrnl-dupcncxl *pecic%
(Suiter 1. A Ukch' cxp4diuii»n lot the 4h»cm:c of
itatural sucvcvoon I* SJui appropriate «*d% never wrivc
Mivrt.«ntc tlmilatKMVk UtipuM many "filters" cm ;i drvcl
ujMifi furesr t.'ontmutiHv >util as irtlrrspeoftc cwni'prti-
tton. stetl predjtloa. ainJ -sccilltog hrrHivan- { Vrrner 4k
lUrbetk 1*>H2, Mvwcr & Mcfjnhy 1'iH'j, lie S(Cvrn
19«*la (.ill * M,irfc* 191*! '). hut inutjj lUflt-tern, rs in
">ccJ Oifprrsal may tic ovcm*helni { DC Strvrrt
1'Wlfe) Vic fix'us «m ifu» earliest pj,r< of secondJir>' suc-
tcssion, ihc UsspC'f*.U Mage, itti! it* Mgruficancc IH ihc
rcstootiixi proccw,
ftinng wcoodaiy Micceuiun. antnuh fftniinuoiutly
traritpurt need* of woody ipccit'* trust open ifcan
l.krtwistfm S (*ttum ISIS6. Smith l')""S, (iucvara F« al
]l>«>; Hoppt I9W: Sautfi * Swaint 1988). Thus ts par-
ticuLarlv true in ihc formatioti »l irmjxrraic dcvtduous
forests in North America, where nsost nild-siw-'ccsskifial
if»:t!c* ire hlril^lUpcrscii (Howe & SmaHw<.io»l 1982.
Hapjruaii 19W>, Vllboa le>86. Mile* 1989) In upci)
ItcUlj., binl itwpcrscri MC attracted to IKC\ in«J shrubs.
whuh »l a mifH.miiTU proviitc perching sites < DebiBsclw
ei aJ IVM>; irhl f« al 1VHJ. Md>.»ncll & Miles
Mt DtM "(Tit' prwcv. is exponential, wiih rxrtt'i>r
I'cedhicli Iwrrwcen iniTruninxviKHlv plant denvitie* and
UH rr^Miig dtsptTMrr VBH* '(Tii€ tan itiit highly disturbed
UrHK tail (11 iit:i4j.cfgu natural succession nwy rur (iciJ to
!tit' lac-k ol'j first pulse of \vfnxJy rt'cruiirtK-nl--jn en-
|*H:i^ti'!Hi! mvavHul erurvc i'4rVi ^rt sorted
In ari cffon !<» rehahiliuir purtiotw D( the !:rcst> >,ilH
lindfill (an jtiXVha complex), itu* <'.iry «f New \ortt
DeTMrtnicnt i if San.itt!H>r> fkis tKyitn a >CTKT» ol ocpc'ri
nifnul pboiiii-g,'*, mvlutllng atienipt-s lu fcsi'cric»(c na
live I4ifrsi lommiinitio %1't: examined one OS these- re
n>resutiim rxpcrlmrni* 10 ilficrmmc whether (1 «*•>
tiif^nonin^ M J M-'cd MiMfCc .u'u'E ^.^ jn ailraci^rit icif
dispcrsers <.»tjr liyrniUn-sts I'tif ihts .stud'.- were-
( t ) Nauvc %^xx.kl|t spt'cirs cun survive afitl gr'tjvt1 im
fc^^r»ft-d UndfiiJiv iintl Mintl^f recii^'^fing sites., ant! their
afvM.-rRr frllrcis ;* liitk «*! natural d.i^>er»al Altcrnati^ch1
the site is urujvurihlr hil an approximately
1-lia MIC *m ihe t-fcsh Kj.ils UmitTilt (. Maicn Islirnd, New-
York: Ji^ I t was de>i)uiated tot rcs-ttiration iout planted
with IK Kprcic* <*l trees and stjrwb* The specie*, ill ol
which in: rmnvr to northeastern North Amcrtc-j, wefe
cltosen as rcprrsciiWHvc of a coiLstaJ scruh furcst ciru'c
!), and ojaAtal New
|rrs<-)- • Kobicluud & RueII I9~.^.l. ITtor in planting, Ihc
•we w« lOvcreU *ilh a -lO-trn cap of hi^ily io«ip»i.trd
cljy-s|-tilr sub«*nl (to prn-cnt gis and water exchangr
hetwccn die Luuifill umirnu and tlic atmosphere., to
accurdanct1 with Icic-il rcgiiUiiyns ). ami U»en covered
u'ith j> planting sufetotc uf f*iJ cm «>f wrnlv niiticntJ -M^tl
into which approximately IS tm of ctwrfMfttcJ leaf
mulch i a» i-i,-»nsr'isrTt-Ml niirsj!*'n- pri'jdMct) was inc^fpo-
raied AJ] stjUs ;irnl Jjfictlilmcnis were iransponetl ii> the
siie rrorn st(Kks «t>rrtS it citlicr tf>calti>ns The planting
su|-»stf3lc was graded ffi'xn J<1 m Mt CHI deep on the Mtt
in rrcstc *n untlulaimg topograptn, charavlcrtstit of
nAluiil ituMal sites Ucvaiitui a( the sue rifi^cd from
sea level in I" m
-------
Ftgun / Mafn nfta/ Maivn tzlaiut \nt \itrk. tb> the ^resiv kifla i.anijill (umfilex, ami (c) the (.fHistai ui
Sanei reslnralian arfii nineil in tl)i.t sttuii- The /our numtufml Mfttltins Iff (hi (tn- the tanetfUt ntdumk.
af u&irb batv been capped ti-ttb imftrrmmbiv lin«ns ami rrifgflat&t .Wswfel urvta in tc) refm*svtti tin- apjrruxl-
'Three K-piraU' vcgrmtun mi,xt."> were m/wailcd in
three different, portion* of Ihc site: (in prcdcimiiunllv
o*li'<>hnih mix nl 14 species, pJ.antt- rn inland from Main
i pftHlui&ssfsiinih1 pniC'>ho^l' mi% ^if 14 *pC"Ci
on j shallow, n«nrt.h-facing upland svk"a,ic Wl n» CH> in
inland from the oak-*hfwh gri'Miji, (3 I an cncitccnu*
shruh mix o( MX sfurci**, piamctl upslopc from the two
oilier areas im j predominantly casi-facing %lc>pc < Fig..
M In the aiuivtes thai follow, ilic.sc ;irc referred lo a^
lhe oik. pine, and encacnms »ilc*. Appruxinutelv MXXl
slinibs were planted in small clusters {<»- M p4ants- at
one spti'ic* per cluster ) .TJTKWI^ the ilucc stio. ami VXi
Ifcc* were d'htrihutoJ over the oak and pine m>n lo woody -spctio, rich site wa* planri; cfclihcratirh1 pUntctl *s pan of the renloratlon. ( 2 i i
ttrrdliriK dtnvni from one cctl-
Ung ttut matched a planicd spc«;ir» ttul lud reproduced
in a M«c); f 3) a scctlllng derived t'roiti i ncarriy wmrce
uuteidc the rc4it,*riKKfn Mlc. < •> * a seedling or i-prom tlut
arrived in a root ball of a planted Individual i preitunatjiv
iTctfn s pt>pylasi^rti ^i the M^LIEXT fiiirM:^ I
Following the ccmuy we ^urv-o'ciJ the
area to idemifv potcniul njliinil wed viurco i
lixmi ncartrv wc*«lland remtiants were nltnutrd 1or all
5»i plots u> drtcrmlne apprrmiinalc muiunum travel din-
iiftto lor each new speilo in even- plot. l:ormal inn-
110! filfm (devoid of tree* and si\rub%> cnuld n».M he
oul>li4ncd IMTCJUSC tfic arej ^urrxninding the rt'stora-
1.H..K1 «ilic t*-a» niom-ed As a xubsutuic. we compared rr
null's ittformally with censinc^ taken on another neartn
Luidfill HI infer urnifi tlf^urc »rtj has iinre rcceivevl f»>
maintenance. [I » slroilir to the iTrth Kills Landffll HI
M,H) types and surntundinc vrgeiatimi We censured *JJ
vvin.xjy plants in Eliree 0.5-ha pk)t», corrofwindirig to the
UiiaJ area of the Fresh KiU> Uutdfill rc-Moralkm
Results
of timuni Kf tniiirr.rin
The ntajontv of irtdivkiuats and t~ til (he 18 specie*
planted wen- survtving ( Table 1 ) trrowih mimatci in
dicale that MtiH lice* t««J muderjte sncK'*** in girih ( (>
us SO1'*, t over the rtrsi waMjn, whereas RK>M ihrulvt
grew sirtwwiitsaily in height, a.tx.»ut ftw't, tnl avrragc. A
l«rw pn«ponio« (19**' i uf plint-
ptanl st'wx:ll ftil* n rcflmeti in the very sliglw rccnm-
rncni 4i.fecil) aflrthuuble tci the pUnutl ioti 10,4%', Ta-
ble 2}
After IBK >cat, IUIUH] rccniimieni bad buuNtcd the
-------
Talitf I. CcrtsHia diila for
*thfflh* plant t4 uei ibr fresh fells LanitlSlit
1 ouls
~B1
"H
4*
4
V)
in
1-1
i
100
9
Vj-fj
«vur>(t> species coum (rom 18 U> ^»t, wuh tlsc- itklition rt"
1 < utc. Id *hn«I), 4il*i H vine species ( Table 2 > Nine oi
the .^J r«ntiti.nK »j>cc»o were prolMbly cjrrk-iJ in by
wind, M fty bird* or mammsiK. "l"hrcc «kfllionai species
aid j trjial ol 46 rrcnuls pKAwbly arrived vu soils in il'ie
nur»cr>' rtxrt lulls In grnrral. l«r every three ip*all«l
ispmal atWc4 t r iJlr
dkifstig tin* first ycjr h»s a iota.) o# over 1OUO
, Ptart Bensln, and PJa«« Ste*
lly rccruhtng >(«-cic»t Hrtallctl ^4 in the oak mix.
22 in the pine mix, arwj l~ in Ihc cficaccfHtt mix Plans-
ing dentil io vant-tl iimcmji the three fsfoups. but recruit
mrnt rate* |rait<.» ol recruit IM instaileJ |>Unls) when
3tl|usted f«r these differentia were: similar loak mix.
(i ^4: p»nc mix, 034; t-ncaceon* mix,<>.^2 ) The nuitiher
nl nsrw rccnttt> per pint WAS pj4'< I, which i ended to ijccur m MTU]] tlu.>tcrs in ihc1
vtcimty of trees
Results fit other rest mil (.MrDonncll 19H61: indicate
tliAt rfn»j local frutt -eating birth will n
-------
Tasbiif
for
natural is
, &urtof| ife? fina »eaK«$ f»ntki# ing;
Klib r
f 4l?*t/*S'tS a
l i
( J4 f M 5
H I { ^JI
alien
nalivc
I \ *> { 16':
I 2 H 46 :
HI M V
UK i S 5 >
J***1
11 if Ci i'(
I fM> (, 4 1 f
jtiiiraaJ
^rtiiiul
SHS-ltirlt
wirsd
ansmal
* VitJ'j'jf t» fe' fflfep ^ ' V (
Ml (w.Sf fri ,
* / yj,' j,?*ia:»w
plan (A its Mmic attractive fcjturc of the pkuiiutuxi t.sm-
mses of the Bniakticld l^mUill. where trt't-s and shrub*
wcfr WITT planted, intlscau: tJuj MM:IC wiHHt>' fi-iind
wete recnullng. Ninrlccn dpvcio were fournJ. only si*
u< wlncli we:rr wmti-dispcraed i therefore, jninul iti*-
pcrsj,! »•» iircurnng). Mow «tim»(ic% were rcbttvcl)
lew however. I't^t'tia, comparetl with d-Ki-hi M tiiv
Fre4i Ktlis sue. Judging hy theif MZC». ipproxunatcty
huUI «j4' the rctruttjng plants were recent sccil) («({*, and
th*» rouphh- tfuikslitto to iu'i ci^sl'l«W lower rate n! an-
nual rcxTuitment on the unplantcd sits
AHfstha corap*ri«jif» «-«* itrTonlctl by an expenmenul
planted in 19~6 on pact of the ju%rijor«i
Ea,n Brunswick, New Jcixry {t»tlman ei at
I9S*>> By I-'ha, <»r nearh three IIIITD Hut of the
l pUnted trees and
Kotimtitni pmgr*m». ire often triat-anO-cntn- eentai'
uf^», hut finisrf rcok^cal hascr% aft" l>cjngtt€vcl«jpcd. F'4^
cxitrnfMc. recent studies indicate that the pace- o( re*ti
with greater vc|5eial«.)n fompkntity ( GitiMin ct ^il !9H*t,
Parnventcr ci it 1«>H5, Schuster & Hutnick 198', McKrll
19Sl#j tilt1 natunl value irf reveyeiMcd lam-lfilK Mid
Mirular hifjhly distuttx-il sites could be grratly impruveil
!»•; I*mi*t">ipu!g with attention to thu. ntttl fur vcjffutivt
cumplexlty Tlje pnrtpcrt* (ur y
-------
«..*tfiie i>l IcrttMitogy ,*AM->*[TH-nt "['ask l:orce I VMS ) 11
lilt- vctietarxm were improved, these iirirja ( « hurli rcp-
rcwM ih'i'iiSAnd^ ol twi:£afes of tnm-vcd b.nd & i:uuld vorv
tribute Mtcmlii'CTilJY iu local biodiversity by adding mild
lllc habiui iliM wouUl help lulls remnant* r>[ natural
H*reMs ami wetlands iTtain gfi'cnbelt* couUI I'M" en-
hinted or butlered. and haNtat of at Icass mafyiruJ tj»al
i thai ^ t3i?.Kli;>!
pUwitlg of an jppruprule mix of native specie* cjui
ptvimrtc the doeloprticiu ».'( diverse nMtiral communi
nrs in pUccs Etus would otherwise. rcntam w&siclarvd*
% c Jre piirtsculafh mlt'TC''*^^ us fhr folc u{ ncart'tv
of
iht'^jt irur f
and shrubs r
n*lr?» The
' Miccfsiiton Bv pfCHiding
jfiii bv paying ;*U(mikm to
new 3jidH'Klit:i.H -sneS spc
inc«. might tic .KktrU n> tlcgratlctl lartch without ifitrciv
nip Ihe p-laninifi cfttn tn thU linJit, staiic lj:nd-<-;ipc sht'tii-Ul be replaced with cH'isdjnu MKA'c^sii>u;il
pnx'csMs- that intriHluce i coininuuu-1. stream ofi^*iS3 In LhCiH"^;"* <'*t "oy-
t Irauon" i V;irr,int«>n i4 Miirrt«ni |W^4. AuMin ft Btrlbm
IvSl I. tJv %pct'ie^ t"jsi i^fs^w in the htgjblv ^^i>ds-
fietl Mjib iincl fjf)*"n Mupes <.ii" old UntUlUv ( 2 i lllc re
cruitmcnt pii*M> irf int cession can be Mlntulaicd by
|>Unliiif| »«.nK'3v specie* lo promote the invasitm t>( tMii
erv :mcl ( -t » plant sw< may pla> a role in (kicrnrining the
•*!rcrig,th nl tluf !kttmulatinn
Although *un'ival was high, she rrstontUm pljiiis ui
ihis* 11114!^ (ch-t't^c-n *m dir ba^iK of 4%^il^bibfy, ae^lh-t^ic
jppcai. iUiii site cunipittlWlln') t"«nfrU«,Uiftl very Ir*
*t-cdlmgs. xtit% in fhc immcd).«e vicintn1 of piAitiet)
trci""* intl iJirulw were covcrcJ with 3 mulching Uyrf (from nJireildeO cot>Ucr». ami this may have
been a poor nicdtum ff« grrmiaiiimr, Altcrtudvetv rc-
tnj(» unclrr tFaiting pLvits may have been prcfrrenlijtllt,
f fiTK sve In *rn CMC. ih» gem-ral
rt-t mterrul retTiitimtitt
Ukjng place. It alvi I»j4hli(>hw the importance- of rcpr«>
dueuve eM'Ok»gy in reMoradcm planning fllrjdsham1
IVH.V Abet I¥«~, .Wihv IWi. A diHcrriit chtwcc i«f
species imgln have \telJct1 more seed firiKliii'tkiii *nU
>prcai1 ifi*5 ittentltii) to earlv reproducnvc eafwciti'
f.ni|ihr In tic included in rrst oration planning ( Hobiftwa
i^ we CJ*TI nf5H in:lcr rli^i jiUnun^
a HibMa£»!U,l (li0CT'€ncc in rccriiif-
^i' rtlauoristup between pl^iJ'ii^ng
u1 !ium3>t"f> o! rccryiis krt'fed.1! ^i^oigiti lo ftii*
NHi. pirtii'iiUrlv tn liglit of our email* fcsult«-
(rotii the two other UniSftli «,irei Compared to corn
numK reported veed shadow di»|jn<.-e!« (or bird-
<,litjK!'«"d »pccir> I Mfc Howe & Smalltvtxxl I98i H<*pj->c
I«-»H«. Milc^ 198V, l/Jiaki t-t .il IWI i. our CNTiinaics nt
recruitment OLsuJifrs a»e i(une liigh. Jintl it i* likely thai
rnw« frinail*- we ri-l^crvetl w-cf?^ iHitber* ^Nm^ di5in-
bution piitlvt- failure to pitk up such »uiUct> mav l»e a
nui
in fi-i-'ryiin'vrf1^ raH"^ ^f'id ds*»lafic'«r tlftx'is urictcfM. ore ihi'
need 10 C'ji^itlrf tile rolv ot dispcisi*! vrcton< in ^ucctrn
sion-KioeJ restoration projjnmi* (Jan/cn t'itHHa'i
>irnvc c>iugli "tali" ut itu\ mw fnighi mean j
*.int<- IifgeT trer* and
urc io^ likdv l«i survHr trarsspl^fsMtig. 4fc TTH.M"*"
Ii1»lc 10 the \tnrWiil cnvin>nmeni cif dpcli, vxposrd
iiies. ^nd c^rrt much lusher punhjAf .and in&ulUi».in
S<-\ r
tlH:
til
t.nnicera jafmnica > are hijjltly inv-awvc wcctL*.. with the
capaciiy to dnminatc ,i sue and exclude nawr ipccio
i Nil l^~ll SJcckrf & Krick i*>8^; Harnnpon & Unwell
IWO'l A muuficmcnt scheme for their control should
^xh p;aft ^.it Mfi^ rc^^oratlcifi j>f»>^H.r^t M^.1. MIICC Shry ap-
pi~d.nrti v^-te'lijt"! tin: firsi vcw. £_i>nirpt'oftc rt-Mftratton pmiiX'ob arc m he dcrtvcil ft a r\-
iinple. what tmtis erf specie* can !*e counted un fur
ruuinl rciTuitmrnt. and which species will need to t»e
jrtificially MMrtntitfcd* Arc larger plantt, t>e*<«n1 iu>me
thresltold •>(,»". raorr i-ffrelive than smaUcr one*' How
close, shoulil nafwral seetl MHirco IK- tn enMire uptliru!
d*Hp«Tv^P How s
and subsequent w
-------
Acknowledgments
Fhe hrc-4h Kills rcMOMlion planting WJA JrMgptd jnit
MjptTvtsol !w Bill 'KHjng ."ind John MtUiu^hlin »*( {he
City ul New Y«rk Department of XtmtjUMm, wuh 4*tv«'c
trotu Ku'lunl Lynch i NYC [Vp-JM merit. of Pirk.s jntJ fti-t
rc»F«>o I, under tlic Jircctum nf Orati C.jvallcro and Phil
f,U-a.wii (NYC tX>S> Assistance In firld censuses was
prtwidrtl In .OcbWc dajikin. JeH Stratford. jnd Mara
IjniMry nf Kuigcr*. Helpful comments an lite nianii
Mznpt were provided by Utan Cavallem Uui>n, '1"bts VhunwnjT Fttt^il fi>r New Ier**fy, u^'id
S!M- Bureau of BsokiRic*! Rt-scarth. Mmgcrs f.'nivcpiity
I Hi-ra!urr < ilcJ
•*her,j (> l'*B~ HcMiwed IWKTMJ anil the it*n«>IK4iB)ii itttttl
nil imwirsinspt'oci'MK; ImtrfclMJfWi i'aiscs iHil-J'Vi in ^ R
jonhn 111 M ii titlpm. and | f) A her. Minor? Rcsior-.rwn
Ny
At, j".k=i«!iv
n l^HZ
tJHjpbrll H M.I U-fijun »«.) ) «' HillHin >1>«^.S Vnall stair
pj-lt^ffun^ m ?!K ffXimu»cui irf forrsi *{Hxif7* du??-ri|j ;>uccc>
fiicjl dry ftacsi Mfia
M. PK . M.J I.Mitr-r jj?^I 1
pl:sn« ^tix't'^irsn li^ Med^rrrsinrso j»h"*fH3c«r*.I ^t
iaUt' 4S:*5'S 266
c( Ql ami.) W litick. edm»r» 1 9H" F.«t>Mt pli
tft<'s! tlrlriniirnoi in^-urt* on wtldlUc h*1»ui?t
>U!€ N^mrii KrvwrXc1"* Kcvart.li int! t-'xtrnMnf
ic? Drpjftmrni of Ni^luol Mr^jUTcri. t s-«frsclil V
, Nr« Y«icL
ik Strvirn H
i:Kfi»rtS!"mil!l!% ?
fn. 1) iWlfii. ExpcnmcnH iw n*rctofn%ti» ins! P 1. Vljrt!,* IWI Tree md «hmb o>ln
%" C I'M* torctt* Pugfn f*4*- II* In Vt R |.if Jjn. lit
M I: Oilpin jndj D Ahcr. ttiaim Ht^mraJmn o.\il»ipf <.'jni
twitlgc I'nivttMiv Prc«i *' Vhmkdi nlnor* Ve
4 Pr ^ |U!lk. Hie
(.*H-vir-j, i . S t. Itmia, iml E Van d« Maarcl !M*) The rnlr
i^' frinnan^ I.-M^I ifrc* in irupicai «*r*:omyry Mjc^i^Mt^n Vepi
nil lo I*:"1"* -HI.
Hamtigftwi ) anil f Hn*'tl! l»"Jii Pol p-Jiilts in ttMnMlUnil
icHi«raiM)Hi Cajpn 6 1 - in A. D. Bratl«hrw. l> A rtl.
* , A D
in tl P
, ,v {')., inJ M I rl-uJwirt 1*>MO ITic rcstnr^iioii '
l«scl rnivrrviv c
Mowr tl I'-.imlJ imilJwi^Ml 1*5S2 Ecokigy «( teed
.Vluuul Rrvuin- rrf tr«li>(0' jml S»tcmul« IJiJOI-ijM
Hu. S Y iyN AilxntlHH AtnokSiJ
t I , »" H
^ECi.! hv I
}uunial
' J: Mlrcil I9*»l SccU
t^ in KI cMECffi M
f . R. md S firisto ivftit. A
H*"1^^ 1^1 Stalrn UUml In^
3 isltml, Nr^*' '^'ofk-
Ihm ijc ^to'
T5-.HIV-
V;* I JUMi* t'v
-------
ItesoaOeui MI! lumnl Otai Ikpmji
tot*** A Had*
Mrerrn D. II I 'JKfUi duanat-aVir Naiinrwl p»rfc 1'ropo
UiKW.il and b«uculliir.il rrMivnUmi fjjtfi 1 i *- IMJ In J Ctlms.
• ilit.it Rc-lwl>i(IUIInft ilamiljirJ mnVaKiu* ml ,> < ff<
v Ik*.-.! Hjnm,
Intuuum. [i. W .. «ixl L P. tJdtmi l>»16 Hrc-nUmi t*nt popub
lions m rtlJlK in u> pum SUCCMWKMI on ihc Ptctlmunl «f
pu tcology
Kant It I1 1991
17-.2
UnilflIU to luhlui Xcw Jenev
UUren. J U I«"}Q JMraf Ing rcufagi(.-«l succe»»n (Jupman
iml Itjll Ifurtiliin
Off
n 19W raina suidir* JIK! Ijntl HI, lima) kin ledinol
* revir*' fit Ihr his.n«r\ ami nrrtt tin MH.-JI -.Mdies. Puff*
in J.I) MJIICT tditur AmmiL\ in primary wcccnton.
Pti-»i, tl*nihrn!j(r, I
Mctl«aluui. T.K
Unds.
J2-.301-
McChnalun. T. R.. and R W Wolfe I^>S? Dxpcml m
thijchorunv wtda In.'tn ftirrat «%r» m tcnlnil n«™i». Veyje-
Mi:DiMndl, M.J. |!iW6 Old
dttpcfsal pa[icrn
irf the Inrrci, UouiUf.il Oub
MtDnrawU, M J »od E \l btllc? IWJ Ttw MnitturjJ
plemty ill okl forkl vtjsc(jilk>n and Ehc rrcnilrnicni at hud-
pljnt ^Yir* DrniluKla M>;HI't— I ir.
McKcil, C .M
figir*
The rthk- of \Jiru1» in plant con>munir>
^fi int M MfKcll nliluf Tlir hiokip
(iWor
r, M E and it N Mat* IW*8 c_,jnirf.lling the spread ud
plznl I»V»M.III«: Ttir importance n( nfccenl foci jmirml «*
'
irf hrrhn-on-
< l.it;:.i,
Mvstcr. B W , antl IS. t. McCarthy t'WJ
»ml cornpctiUiiB C. C I'hl. and t A ^ JUT™* 1991
ij* j degraded Am»unL«n Umbcape hvoi icvti%rn .mJ jjj.
hcnbunl mtoraUckn AmMo lO-j'tK-j^*!
Office trf Tccltookifct' A»«»iiient T«* Forxc. I'WtK lcili;n .
u((jo to miimwin Wij)t>j{ical dhx-rsily Science lirforniMildn Kr
^jurn; c:
f*u:keit. S T A IVKJ
vein erf (jkUleMI
rwntrms ihiouph twenty
rt(*itchiu«l,IS. uvdM V. Surll IVJ
O K..S.N Il«n4cl nidV.R >*.i«ruUurfcT. 1992 S
v-ivaj rcrwdiicuoo. i«nd necrunnicnt K) wcjml> plant* after
i.rjis 'in a rtforrtipd Ijndfill Envlforrmcnul
II)
M
.41 Ckigol. Pipua New Guinci Iriartul
S. jjid R J. Mutnlclt (''»" Comniuniiv de*cli»p-
; on iN-\r*r-wM fiUiucti minofxnl lunlci m
Rtv.Um«lon and Rcvc^ciatMJti Ripwch
i A J l«/?-S InviMoi) and ctcsis at
wtiotly fiUrw* Bi t icrnpcnic lorrsi sei-c. l-i.«ki«>
-i. K I •'*>-* Die pluit < 'jnjtnunJIJ« on lour landflU
New Vofk un Nir»- Vwrfc Pnnccdinp of the Annuil Mrct
itiff. ill Ihc Ntmheanern Wenl SctnKT Society «^*-"1
•itipanJMi MA) S>86 Seed Uttt^cruU tw hir* and squirrel* In
ilir df tiiimw* forests ol the I nurd *Miir-. P-J%V* 2}t,-f^fi in A
ntl T II RcnTkng. fditc>rf. Frufyvurcs a
E)» W' Junk. OuriJrcchr. The Netherlands
Sulns, t. W. I4H>> inim. «nK jml dliptmal igenis
sr-1.22 in W G Almtumticm, ttUtnr Hant-aolnul
Htm* McUnw-Hfll. New Yurk, Xifw Y \a
l Artdtmy Pre*», « iOiinpon IXC
t'hl (, II <3»rk, K (lark, and P Maquinoo. I9H2 Sutcc-
i4cMi] pijncmi usiKR-iat«) with -J»b.jnd-b*«rn ajjrlculiufc In
the upper tUn Ncjiru rrRiun vrt (lie Amuop Uii:n. Diuuoptca
I1 A., and A L llaibipcli. 19fl2 The pjttcm at lift
esuhhshoteiu rtliuvt in i»^iurTi wnuc cover In
iJld (kUls Ainctlun MKUand \«ur»JiM 108:1
si r lL"Wi5. \vun fmgiyon
J? J-i7*J in K. F. J.itwwon. ediitsr Lurrtni ( Jraiilwliixv. vul 3
ttrmitn Prr-» N'r* "mrk. Sew York-
Varrwion, t, A, auij R t, Miimsort I0'4 Spuiil d>ruiniLi Mt
j, pruiurv *ucct-\M(«n NuulcslMm. lourra] t»f Ettdogy fci- 1 1 ~-
Zcdlcr, ) a I9«ft Salt m*nh rcwirjumi l^swmii tiwn Cali-
fornia Page* lJ.V-11'iJ 111 I ( jinn. Jr. cdlli>r RelubLliuting
! cettsituaim. vnl I f W: Pre«, Boca Raton. Florida.
i 0. l»ir
-------
Supporting information supplied by Steven N. Handel:
Forest Restoration on a Closed Landfill: Rapid Addition of New Species by Bird
Dispersal
Articles Related to Restoration Ecology
-------
ARTICLES RELATED TO RESTORATION ECOLOGY
Provided by
Dr. Steven Handel
1. Handel, S.N. 1983. Pollination ecology, plant population structure, and gene flow.
Pages 163-211 in Pollination Biology, L. Real, editor. Academic Press, NY.
2. Handel, S.N., and AJ. Beattie. 1990. Seed dispersal by ants. Scientific American:
263:76-83A.
3. Robinson, G.R., S.N. Handel, and V.R. Schmalhofer. 1992. Survival, reproduction,
and recruitment of woody plants after 14 years on a reforested landfill. Environ.
Management 16:265-271.
4. Robinson, G.R., and S.N. Handel. 1993. Forest restoration on a closed landfill: rapid
addition of new species by bird dispersal. Conservation Biology 7:271-278.
5. Handel, S.N., G.R. Robinson, and AJ. Beattie. 1994. Biodiversity resources for
restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 2:230-241.
6. Montalvo, A.M., S.L. Williams, K.J. Rice, S.L. Buchmann, C. Cory, S.N. Handel, G.P.
Nabhan, R. Primack, and R.H. Robichaux. 1997. Restoration biology: a population
biology perspective. Restoration Ecology 5:277-290.
7. Handel, S. N. 1997. The role of plant-animal mutualisms in the design and restoration
of natural communities. Pages 111-132 in: Restoration Ecology and Sustainable
Development. K. M. Urbanska, N. R. Webb, and P. J. Edwards, editors. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
8. Parsons, W.F.J., J.G. Ehrenfeld, and S. N. Handel. 1998. Vertical growth and
mycorrhizal infection of woody plant roots as potential limits to the restoration of
woodlands on landfills. Restoration Ecology 6:280-289.
9. Handel, S. 1999. Future of region's biodiversity lies in small local forests. Metro
Forest News 3(1):5, 10.
10. Robinson, G.R., and S. N. Handel. 2000. Directing spatial patterns of recruitment
during an experimental urban woodland reclamation. Ecological Applications 10: 174-
188.
-------
Downstream Impacts of Surface Mining
And Valley Fill Construction
by
Randall Maggard, Ed Kirk
Abstract Pen Coal Corporation has been conducting a detailed monitoring program on Trough Fork
watershed to determine the downstream impact of mining operations. This program involves the
monitoring of both water chemistry and benthic macroinvertebrates at upstream and downstream locations
during the spring and fall since 1995. The study was initiated prior to any mining activity, and will
continue through the completion of mining and reclamation activities. This report is a summary of the data
gathered as of the fall of 1998.
Key Words: Watershed, Perennial Stream, Intermittent Stream, Water Chemistry, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, Valley Fill, Wildlife Habitat.
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 SBlock
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.
Mining operations began at the Honey Branch
Surface Mine in September 1987. This operation
consisted of contour mining and valley fill
construction associated with the Coalburg seam.
During the summer of 1988 Pen Coal began
mining operations at the Frank Branch Surface
Mine that involved contour mining and point
removal with valley fill construction associated
with the 5-Block seam.
Note:
1) Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting
of the West Virginia Acid Mine Drainage
Task Force, Morgantown, WV, April 13 &
14,1999.
2) Randall Maggard, Environmental Specialist,
Pen Coal Corporation, Dunlow, WV. R.E.I.
Consultants, Inc., Beaver, WV, Ed Kirk,
Aquatic Biologist.
3) Publication in this proceedings does not
prevent authors from publishing their
manuscripts, whole or in part, in other
publication outlets.
The mining operations involving the SBlock
seam have continued to expand to involve the
drainage areas of Kiah Creek and Trough Fork,
which are also tributaries of the East Fork of
Twelvepole Creek.
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.
-------
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to share the data
that Pen Coal Corporation has gathered with the
coal mining industry and other interested parties.
The writers would like to specifically address the
following points of significance:
?? The most dramatic change which occurs
during surface mining with valley fill
construction is the disturbance and
associated change in land configuration
and vegetation.
?? The chemical composition (quality) and
volume of the water downstream from
these operations do change. These
changes will be discussed in more detail.
?? The benthic macroinvertebrate
communities that exist downstream of
these operations do change as a result of
the changes in the chemical and physical
characteristics of the receiving streams.
Surface Impacts
Trough Fork is a first order stream which has
a watershed of approximately 2,882 acres. Pen
Coal's currently permitted mining 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
value of these intermittent tributaries is an item
that is currently under hot debate. 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 amounts to about
44% of the intermittent tributaries of Trough
Fork. Only one of these individual tributaries,
Vance Branch, exceeded 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 regraded land. This land will then be
revegetated with various grasses, legumes,
shrubs and trees to enhance wildlife habitat.
This is what will replace the pre-mining site that
originally consisted of 580 acres of unmanaged
forestland and 19,800 linear feet of intermittent
streams.
Methods
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected
following a modified Rapid Bioassessment
Protocol III (EPA/440/4-89/001) at both an
upstream (BM-005) station and a downstream
(BM-006) station on Trough Fork in October and
Apnl since 1995 (Figure 1). An Ellis -Rutter™
Portable Invertebrate Box Sampler (PIBS) with a
sample area of O.lm was utilized in the both the
riffle habitats and in a slower run/pool habitat for
a total of three replicates per station. A standard
kick-net seine (sample area = 1.0 m) was also
utilized at each station, but in a run/pool habitat.
Invertebrate samples were preserved in 10%
formalin, picked under microscopes, and detrital
material was checked a second time to insure
that no individuals were missed. All
macroinvertebrates were indentified to lowest
practical taxonomic level, enumerated, and
several metrics were calculated using the data.
Water Chemistry
Water samples were collected in October and
April since 1995 at both the upstream (BM-005)
site and the downstream (BM-006) site (Figure
1), appropriately preserved, and transported to
R.E.I. Consultant's laboratory for analysis. The
Water Quality Parameters measured for each
sampling site are listed below:
Flow
pH
Conductivity
TDS
TSS
Hardness
Alkalinity
Acidity
Sulfates
Sodium
Aluminum
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Chlorides
Parameters analyzed in-the-field were pH,
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, water
temperature, and stream flows. These
parameters are good indicators of the water
quality of a particular station, and when used in
conjunction with the macroinvertebrate data, can
indicate any changes which occur as one
progresses downstream.
-------
Some of the individual parameters are
described in more detail as to their role in
evaluating water quality below:
Flow:
The flow is an indicator of the surface
and groundwater discharges in the
watershed.
pH:
The pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion
concentration and is preferred to be in the
6.5 to 8.5 range in natural waters.
Conductivity:
The conductivity is the ability of a solution
to conduct electrical current. The
conductivity is directly related to the
amount of materials dissolved in the water.
TDS:
The TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) is a
measure of the amount of dissolved
materials in the water is directly related to
the conductivity, and generally preferred to
be less than 1000 mg/1.
TSS:
The TSS (Total Suspended Solids) is a
measure of the undissolved solids which
are suspended in the water. Any land
disturbance can lead to increases in TSS.
Hardness:
The hardness is typically a measure of the
amount of calcium, magnesium and iron in
the water. The hardness typically increases
as the concentration of these elements
increase.
Alkalinity:
The capacity of water to accept hydrogen
ions is called alkalinity. This is important
in the chemistry and biology of natural
waters. Alkalinity serves as a pH buffer
and reservoir for inorganic carbon, thus
helping to determine the ability of water to
support algal growth and other aquatic life.
Alkalinity can be used as a measure of
water fertility. It is important to
distinguish between an elevated pH and
high alkalinity, the difference is pH is an
intensity factor while alkalinity is a
capacity factor.
Acidity:
The capacity of water to neutralize OH" is
referred to as acidity. The acidity in natural
waters generally results from the presence
of weak acids such as CC>2 and acidic metal
ions, particularly Fe +.
Sulfate:
The sulf ate content of natural waters in the
Appalachian region is typically low in
undisturbed watersheds (10 to 50 mg/1).
When surface disturbance occurs, such as
mining or highway construction, and
sulfide bearing rock is exposed to
weathering, sulfate concentrations typically
increase in the watersheds. Sulfate
concentrations in the 300 to 400 mg/1 range
can give water a bitter taste an
concentrations of 600 to 1000 mg/1 has
laxative effect.
Sodium:
The sodium concentration of natural waters
in the Appalachian region is typically very
low and increases area usually attributed to
human activities such as highway salting,
water treatment or oil and gas production.
Aluminum:
The aluminum concentrations in natural
waters is typically attributed to suspended
clay particles or to dissolved aluminum if
severe acid mine drainage is encountered.
Calcium:
The most common cation in most
freshwater systems is calcium and often has
the most influence on aquatic chemistry.
Calcium is a key element in many
geochemical processes and minerals
constitute the primary sources of the
calcium ion in water.
Iron:
The iron concentrations in natural waters in
the Appalachian region vary greatly. The
sources of iron can range from suspended
iron clay minerals to dissolved iron from
natural seeps or discharges from manmade
disturbances such as mining or construction
activities.
Magnesium:
Probably the second most common cation
in most freshwater, magnesium behaves
similar to calcium and is usually associated
-------
with calcium concentrations and
contributes to hardness.
Manganese:
The manganese concentrations in natural
waters in the Appalachian region vary. The
sources are typically the result of
weathering of sedimentary rocks. The
concentrations can increase dramatically
when large quantities of rock are exposed
to weathering such as surface mining or
highway construction.
Chlorides:
The chloride concentrations are typically
low in natural waters in the Appalachian
region but may increase as a result of
highway de-icing or oil and gas production.
Results
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
In general, the total number of benthic
macroinvertebrate individuals has increased
dramatically at the upstream (BM-005) site since
pre-mining conditions in October 1995 from 193
individuals in April 1996 to 1,009 individuals in
October 1998 (Tables 3 and 4). In addition, taxa
richness has increased slightly at the upstream
stations since October 1995. The number of
Ephemeroptera, Plecopetera, and Trichoptera
(EPT) groups has also slightly increased since
pre-mining conditions in October 1995. A trend
in the benthic community's tolerance is hard to
distinguish at the upstream site, but a slight
negative trend towards a more tolerant
community is somewhat evident from the
increasing Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) as well
as the relative percentages within the three
tolerance groups. The decreasing Diversity and
Evenness measures also indicate a slightly less
diverse and less equitable community at the
upstream site since October 1995 (Tables 3 and
4).
In general, the total number of benthic
macroinvertebrate individuals has most likely
increased at the downstream station (BM-006)
since pre-mining conditions in October 1995
from 496 individuals in October 1995 to 2,777
individuals in October 1998. Taxa richness may
have increased slightly at the downstream
station. Number of EPT taxa has probably
remained unchanged at the downstream station
(Tables 3 and 4). The macroinvertebrate
community, however, has depicted a negative
trend in the tolerance as indicated by the
increasing HBI, and by the changes of
percentages within the Ihree tolerance groups.
The decreasing Diversity and Evenness measures
also indicate a somewhat less diverse and less
equitable population of aquatic
macroinvertebrates at the downstream station
since October 1995.
Water Chemistry
In general, all parameters analyzed have
remained relatively unchanged at the upstream
(BM-005) site since pre-mining samples were
collected in October 1995 (Tables 1 and 2).
However, at the downstream site (BM-006),
several parameters have increased since pre-
mining conditions in October 1995. These
include conductivity, TDS, TSS, hardness,
alkalinity, sulfates, sodium, calcium, and
magnesium. Those parameters which have
exhibited dramatic increases at the downstream
site are conductivity (64 ?mhos in April 1996 to
1061 ?mhos in October 1998), TDS 64 mg/1 in
Apnl 1996 to 727 mg/1 in October 1998),
hardness (22.4 mg/1 in April 1996 to 303 mg/1
in April 1998), alkalinity (20.9 mg/1 in April
1996 to 137 mg/1 in October 1998), sulfates
(15.3 mg/1 in April 1996 to 354 mg/1 in October
1998), sodium (1.05 mg/1 in April 1996 to 141
mg/1 in October 1998), calcium (4.44 mg/1 in
Apnl 1996 to 80.2 mg/1 in Apnl 1998), and
magnesium (2.74 mg/1 in April 1996 to 30.3
mg/1 in October 1998).
Discussion
The most significant change in water quality
was the sulfate concentrations which were most
likely attributed to the oxidation of sulfide
bearing overburden exposed during the mining
operations. Some water treatment have occurred
during these operations to neutralize the acidity
produced by the oxidation of pyritic overburden.
The treatment chemicals utilized were calcium
oxide and sodium hydroxide which most likely
contributed to the dramatic increases which also
were observed in the calcium and sodium
concentrations at the downstream sampling site.
There was also an increase in magnesium which
was probably also attributed to the weathering of
magnesium bearing clays. The other increases
such as conductivity, TDS, hardness, and
alkalinity are directly related to the previously
-------
discussed increases in sulfate, calcium, sodium,
and magnesium.
A desirable increase that occurred, however,
was the increase in alkalinity which was
originally in the 20 mg/1 range. This increase in
alkalinity to the 60 to 100 mg/1 range should
provide a much more fertile aquatic habitat.
Another change which was observed has been
the increase in base flow at the downstream
sampling point when compared with the
upstream sampling point during low flow
conditions which are typical during the October
sampling. These have been confirmed on
numerous occasions by visual observations.
Even though these flows are small, they are very
critical to aquatic life. These increases in flows
can more easily guarantee year round flows
which then make a difference between a stream
containing rich populations of benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish, to streams
completely drying up in the dryer seasons, which
is obviously devastating to aquatic life.
As stated previously, many of the water
chemistry parameters have increased several fold
at the downstream site since pre-mining
conditions existed in October 1995. It is
interesting to note that although mining activities
commenced in February 1996, changes in water
chemistry were not observed until the October
1996 sampling event.
These increases in water chemistry
constituents, however, were not observable in the
aquatic macroinvertebrate data until possibly the
April 1997 sampling event, but definitely by the
October 1997 sampling event. The only
observable negative trend at the downstream
station has been the shift in community structure
from a more pollution sensitive, more diverse,
and more evenly distributed community to one
which is more pollution tolerant, less diverse,
and less evenly distributed. Nevertheless, total
abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates has
continued to increase, and taxa richness has
probably increased slightly at the downstream
station since mining activities commenced in
February 1996.
Conclusions
Even though many individual water chemistry
constituents of the water quality at Trough
Fork's downstream site have continued to
escalate, the catastrophic results once predicted
within the benthic macroinvertebrate
communities have not been observed. The
changes in water chemistry would probably have
occurred even if valley fills had not been
constructed due to hydrologic interactions with
the backfilled and regraded areas at the coal
seam elevation and higher. The increases in
dissolved solids occurred as a result of the
unavoidable increased weathering of exposed
rock during mining. Pen Coal will continue to
study the Trough Fork watershed through the
completion of mining and reclamation activities
to determine the long-term impacts that the
mining operation has on the watershed. Since
Pen Coal began mining in the East Fork of
Twelvepole Creek watershed in 1987, 70% of its
thirteen surface mine permits involved mining
and valley fill construction in watershed greater
than 250 acres. The changes proposed by the
various Regulatory Agencies regarding mining
and valley fills in watersheds greater than 250
acres could significantly impact future mining
operations for the entire coal industry. A careful
review of existing data should be undertaken and
thoroughly evaluated by proven scientific
methods.
References
Dal-Tex 1998, An evaluation of mountaintop
mining and valley construction efforts upon
the surface hydrologic benthic systems, 24
pp.
Hubbard, D., 1990, Mayflies of the World: A
Catelog of the Family and Genus Group
Taxa: (Insecta:Ephemeroptera).
Kentucky Division of Water, September 1997,
Guidelines for stream and wetland
protection in Kentucky, Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection Cabinet,
Frankfort, Kentucky, 52 pp.
Manahan, S. 1993, Fundamentals of
Environmental Chemistry, Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, 844 pp.
McCafferty, W. and A. Provousha, 1981,
Aquatic Entomology, Jones and Bartlett
Publishers, Sudbury, Massachusetts, 448
pp.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins, 1984, An
Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North
America, 2n edition. Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA, 722 pp.
Pfieder, E., G. Clark, H. Hartman, A. Soderburg
1972, Surface Mining, The American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
-------
Petroleum Engineers, Inc., New York, 1061
pp.
Sengupta, M. 1993, Environmental Impacts on
Mining, Monitoring, Restoration, and
Control, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
Florida, 494 pp.
Stewart, K., B. Stark, J. Stanger, 1993, Nymphs
of the North American Stonefly Genera
(Plecoptera), Thomas Say Foundation,
College Park, Maryland.
U.S. EPA, September 1998, Draft Final Report:
Analysis of Valley Fill Impacts Using
Benthic Macroinvertebrates, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 43 pp.
Van Der Leeden, F., F. Troise, D. Todd 1990,
The Water Encyclopedia, Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, Florida, 808 pp.
Wiggins, Glenn B., 1995, Larvae of the North
American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera),
University of Toronta Press, Toronto, 21
edition.
-------
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE STUDY
OF HONEY BRANCH,
ITS SEDIMENT CONTROL PONDS,
AND ITS INFLUENCE
ON THE EAST FORK OF TWELVEPOLE CREEK
CONDUCTED 10/08/99
Conducted For:
PEN COAL CORPORATION
KIAH CREEK MINE OFFICE
P.O. BOX 191
DUNLOW, WEST VIRGINIA 25511
By:
ED J. KIRK, AQUATIC BIOLOGIST
R.E.I. CONSULTANTS, INCORPORATED
225 INDUSTRIAL PARK ROAD
BEAVER, WEST VIRGINIA 25813
-------
11/24/99
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Location of Study Area
Methods of Investigation:
Physical & Chemical Water Quality, Habitat, Benthic Macroinvertebrates 4
Specific Station Locations / Physical Descriptions 6
Physical & Chemical Water Quality Analysis 10
Habitat Assessment Parameters 11
Habitat Results 14
Description of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metrics 16
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Results 18
Discussion 22
Conclusions 26
Appendix A
Figure 1. Station Location / Topographical Map
Appendix B
Table 1A. Physical and chemical water-quality variables of stations on Honey Branch and the
East Fork Of Twelvepole Creek.
Table IB. Physical and chemical water-quality variables for Honey Branch sediment control
ponds and drainage ditch.
Table 2A. Total abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected at stations on Honey
Branch and the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek.
Table 2B. Total abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in Honey Branch
sediment ponds and drainage ditch.
Table 3 A. Selected benthic macroinvertebrate metrics of stations on Honey Branch and the
East Fork of Twelvepole Creek.
Table 3B. Selected benthic macroinvertebrate metrics of stations on Honey Branch sediment
ponds and drainage ditch.
-------
Table 4A. Habitat scores for stations on Honey Branch and the East Fork of Twelvepole
Creek.
Table 4B. Habitat descriptions for Honey Branch sediment ponds and drainage ditch.
Table 5. Upstream Honey Branch (Toe of Valley Fill) macroinvertebrates.
Table 6. Middle Honey Branch macroinvertebrates
Table 7. Downstream Honey Branch (Mouth of Honey Branch) macroinvertebrates
Table 8. Upstream East Fork of Twelvepole Creek macroinvertebrates
Table 9. Downstream East Fork of Twelvepole Creek macroinvertebrates
Table 10. Middle Honey Branch Pond (Pond Number 2) macroinvertebrates
Table 11. Lower Honey Branch Pond (Pond Number 1) macroinvertebrates
Table 12. Honey Branch Sediment Ditch macroinvertebrates
Appendix C.
Photographs 1-2. Upstream Honey Branch (Toe of Valley Fill) Station.
Photographs 3-4. Middle Honey Branch Station.
Photograph 5. Middle Honey Branch Pond (Pond Number 2).
Photograph 6. Lower Honey Branch Pond (Pond Number 1).
Photographs 7-8. Honey Branch Sediment Ditch.
-------
BENTfflC MACROINVERTEBRATE STUDY
OF HONEY BRANCH,
ITS SEDIMENT CONTROL PONDS,
AND ITS INFLUENCE ON
THE EAST FORK OF TWELVEPOLE CREEK
CONDUCTED 10/08/99
INTRODUCTION
One of the first permitted valley fills in West Virginia was located on Honey Branch. Honey
Branch is a first-order tributary of the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek in Lincoln County, in
southwestern West Virginia. Contour surface mining activities began in 1987, and were completed in
1991. On going reclamation activities were performed during mining operations. The Honey Branch
mining site received its Phase n bond reclamation last year.
In June 1987 Heer, Inc. performed a benthic macroinvertebrate survey to provide a biological
assessment of Honey Branch prior to mining activities to satisfy requirements for permit application. In
July 1987 the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV-DEP) performed an
informal, qualitative biological survey to confirm the assessments of the stream prior to mining
operations. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) conducted another survey of
Honey Branch in June 1998 to assess the impacts of mining activities and valley fills on the Honey
Branch waterway. Several sites sampled during the Heer, Inc. survey were able to be utilized during
the SAIC study for direct comparisons to be accurately made. Other sites were not possible to be
sampled because they had been completely covered by the construction of valley fills. This study,
performed in October 1999 was conducted to verify the present conditions of Honey Branch since
mining activities has long since ceased in the area, and to determine if Honey Branch has had any effect
on its receiving stream, the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek. Another purpose for the current study
came about as a response to the environmental protests on the initial permit submittion. Many of the
identical stations which were sampled during previous studies were sampled for this study so that
comparisons could be made between the studies, and so that inferences as to macroinvertebrate
community trends could be evaluated.
Another purpose of this study was to provide an unbiased, professional examination of the
sediment control ponds and sediment ditches which currently exist on Honey Branch. These would be
studied as to their aquatic and wetland status, as well as their usefulness as quality habitats for fauna
inhabiting the area. Because Pen Coal has acquired the property, the ponds and sediment ditches on
Honey Branch are now considered to be permanent structures. Normally, according to the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection-Office of Mining and Reclamation, upon completion
-------
of mining activities, constructed sediment control ponds and/or drainage ditches must be removed prior
to being released from permitting regulations if they are considered as temporary structures. 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.
Policies within the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV-DEP) require
biological surveys of streams prior to, and after issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits to adequately determine stream biota and potential biological development.
Biological data, such as aquatic macroinvertebrate populations, in conjunction with physical and
chemical water quality, and habitat data, provide valuable information that are used in the permit review
process and are ultimately used to assist in establishing NPDES discharge limitations. These data also
act as a powerful monitoring tool in identifying possible pollutant sources and/or habitat alterations and
subsequent effects.
-------
LOCATION OF STUDY SITES
The study area is located in Lincoln County approximately 3/4 mile north of the Mngo/Lincoln
County line in southwest West Virginia. Honey Branch is a first-order tributary of the East Fork of
Twelvepole Creek. The Honey Branch waterway extends approximately 1,500 feet and has a
watershed area of approximately 609 acres. The forks of Honey Branch begin at an elevation of
approximately 1,100 feet above sea level the stream travels northward to enter the East Fork of
Twelvepole Creek at an elevation of approximately 750 feet above sea level.
Three stations were sampled on Honey Branch, at the toe of the primary valley fill, mid-way
between the toe and the mouth of Honey Branch, and at the mouth of Honey Branch. Two stations
were sampled on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek, upstream from the confluence with Honey
Branch, and downstream from the confluence with Honey Branch. The middle Honey Branch sediment
control pond (Pond Number 2), the lower Honey Branch sediment control pond (Pond Number 1),
and the sediment ditch on Honey Branch were also sampled.
-------
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
On October 08, 1999 measurements for flow, physical water quality, and chemical water
quality were taken at each of the stream, pond, and sediment ditch stations. Benthic macroinvertebrate
samples were also collected, and the habitat of the stations was evaluated. The individual
methodologies are described below.
Physical Water Quality
Physical water quality was analyzed on-site at each station. Water temperature, Dissolved
Oxygen (DO), pH, and conductivity was measured with a Hydrolab™ Minisonde multi-parameter
probe. Flow was measured in the streams with a Marsh-McBirney™ Model 2000 portable flow meter.
Stream widths, depths, and velocities were measured, and the resulting average discharge was reported
for each station.
Water Chemistry
Water chemistry samples were collected at each station and returned to R.E.I. Consultants,
Inc. for processing. Parameters analyzed included acidity, alkalinity, chloride, hardness, sulfate, Total
Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), fecal coliform, aluminum, antimony, arsenic,
barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury,
nickel, selenium, silver, sodium, thallium, and zinc.
Habitat
For the stream stations, habitat was assessed and rated on nine parameters in three categories
using EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers (EPA 440/4-89/001). For
the pond and sediment ditch sites, habitat was described as to its quality for fish, macroinvertebrates,
and wildlife by assessing the size, shape, sediment storage potential, substrate type, bank stability, and
vegetation types.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
A modified EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol m (EPA 440/4-89/001) was utilized in the
collection of the benthic macroinvertebrate specimens. At each stream station, collections were made
via an Ellis-Rutter™ Portable Invertebrate Box Sampler (PIBS) sampler fitted with a 350-^ m mesh size
net. The PIBS sampler has several advantages over the standard Surber™ sampler which makes it a
desirable choice for the collection of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Sampler area was 0.10 m2 per
replicate. Two samples were taken in a faster flowing riffle area and a third in a slower run area at each
station. A kick-net seine was also utilized at each station, but in a slower run/pool area. The kick-net
was fitted with a 500-* m mesh size net, and sampled approximately a 1-m2 area per replicate. For the
-------
pond and sediment ditch sites, collections were made via a Ponar grab sampler. The Ponar grab
sampler has several features which make it a desirable choice for the collection of aquatic
macroinvertebrates in lentic habitats such as ponds, lakes, as well as lotic deepwater habitats such as
rivers. Sampler area was 81 inch2 per replicate. Three samples were taken near the shoreline, and in
the best available spots (lowest siltation, highest percentage of gravel/pebble substrate, highest
vegetation) at each station.
Samples were placed in 1-1 plastic containers, preserved in 35% formalin, and returned to the
laboratory for processing. Samples were then picked under Unitron™ microscopes 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.
-------
SPECIFIC STATION LOCATIONS / PHYSICAL DESCRIPTIONS
Upstream Honey Branch Station (Toe of Valley FilH
This station was located on Honey Branch approximately 70 feet downstream from the toe of
the primary valley fill (Photographs 1 - 2). This station corresponded to the same location
which was sampled during the SAIC 1998 study. Where the benthic samples were collected
the substrate was comprised of approximately 50% bedrock, 25% cobble, 20% gravel, and
5% sand and silt. Average stream width was approximately 3 feet. Average depth was
approximately 3 inches where the physical water quality was measured. Average flow was
0.15 cubic feet/second. In-the-field water quality measurements (Table 1A) were as follows:
water temperature 13.36^C, Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 6.82 mg/1, pH 6.60, conductivity 400
T mhos. A very desirable amount of Coarse Particulate Organic Matter (CPOM) was present
in the form of shredded and whole leaves, sticks, and some large woody debris increasing both
the available substrate and the foodbase. The stream contained a fairly desirable ratio of pools,
runs, and riffles. The deciduous forest canopy was partly shaded due to the fairly dense forest
surrounding the stream. Surrounding vegetation consisted mostly of the trees. Streambanks
were very well vegetated, but were steep and appeared to be moderately unstable.
Middle Honey Branch Station
This station (Photographs 3-4) was located on Honey Branch below the middle Honey
Branch pond (Pond Number 2). This station corresponded to the same location which was
sampled during the SAIC 1998 study. Where the benthic samples were collected the substrate
was comprised of approximately 25% cobble, 50% gravel, and 25% sand and silt. Average
stream width was approximately 3 feet. Average depth was approximately 3 inches where the
physical water quality was measured. Average flow was 0.08 cubic feet/second. In-the-field
water quality measurements (Table 1A) were as follows: water temperature 14.41 ^C,
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 7.74 mg/1, pH 7.91, conductivity 367 * mhos. There was a moderate
amount of Coarse Particulate Organic Matter (CPOM) which was present in the form of
shredded and whole leaves increasing both the available substrate and the foodbase. The
stream contained a fairly desirable ratio of pools, runs, and riffles. The deciduous forest canopy
was open because the surrounding forest was farther from the stream at this location.
Surrounding vegetation consisted mostly of grasses and other herbaceous vegetation.
Streambanks were very well vegetated, and were not steep and appeared to be very stable.
Mouth of Honey Branch
This station was located at the mouth of Honey Branch before it entered the East Fork of
Twelvepole Creek. This station also corresponded to the same location which was sampled
during the SAIC 1998 study. Where the benthic samples were collected the substrate was
comprised of approximately 5% boulder, 55% cobble, 30% gravel, 5% sand, and 5% silt.
Average stream width was approximately 2.5 feet. Average depth was approximately 2 inches
where the physical water quality was measured. Average flow was 0.11 cubic feet/second.
-------
In-the-field water quality measurements (Table 1 A) were as follows: water temperature
16.29^C, Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 6.64 mg/1, pH 7.92, conductivity 348 * mhos. There was a
very desirable amount of Coarse Particulate Organic Matter (CPOM) which was present in the
form of shredded and whole leaves, sticks, and larger woody debris increasing both the
available substrate and the foodbase. The stream contained a fairly desirable ratio of pools,
runs, and riffles. The deciduous forest canopy was shaded due to the dense surrounding forest
at this location. Surrounding vegetation consisted mostly of trees, but shrubs, grasses and other
herbaceous vegetation was also present. Streambanks were moderately well vegetated, were
somewhat steep, and appeared to be moderately stable.
Upstream East Fork of Twelvepole Creek
This station was located on Twelvepole Creek approximately 100 feet upstream from the
confluence with Honey Branch. This station corresponded to the same location which was
sampled during the SAIC 1998 study. Where the benthic samples were collected the substrate
was comprised of approximately 40% cobble, 50% gravel, 5% sand, and 5% silt. Average
stream width was approximately 25 feet. Average depth was approximately 4 inches where
the physical water quality was measured. Average flow was 0.11 cubic feet/second. In-the-
field water quality measurements (Table 1A) were as follows: water temperature 13.88^C,
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 4.69 mg/1, pH 7.16, conductivity 159 * mhos. There was a desirable
amount of Coarse Particulate Organic Matter (CPOM) which was present mainly in the form of
shredded and whole leaves increasing both the available substrate and the foodbase. The
stream was comprised mostly of large pools and runs; riffle areas were scarce at this location.
The deciduous forest canopy was partly shaded at this location. Surrounding vegetation
consisted mostly of trees, but grasses and other herbaceous vegetation was also along the
streambanks. Streambanks were moderately well vegetated, were undercut at places, but
appeared to be moderately stable.
Downstream East Fork of Twelvepole Creek
This station was located on Twelvepole Creek approximately 100 feet downstream from the
confluence with Honey Branch. Where the benthic samples were collected the substrate was
comprised of approximately 5% boulder, 30% cobble, 50% gravel, 10% sand, and 5% silt.
Average stream width was approximately 20 feet. Average depth was approximately 4 inches
where the physical water quality was measured. Average flow was 0.21 cubic feet/second.
In-the-field water quality measurements (Table 1 A) were as follows: water temperature
14.77^C, Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 6.56 mg/1, pH 7.50, conductivity 212 * mhos. There was a
desirable amount of Coarse Particulate Organic Matter (CPOM) which was present mainly in
the form of shredded and whole leaves increasing both the available substrate and the
foodbase. The stream was comprised of a fairly good ratio of pools, runs, and riffle areas at
this location. The deciduous forest canopy was partly shaded at this location. Surrounding
vegetation consisted mostly of trees, but grasses and other herbaceous vegetation was also
along the streambanks. Streambanks were moderately well vegetated, were undercut at
-------
places, but appeared to be moderately stable.
Honey Branch's Middle Pond (Pond Number 2}
This station was located on Honey Branch, and was constructed in 1988 (Photograph 5). The
pond has an area of approximately 0.53 acres. The existing water depth was about 4 feet.
Due to the pond being over 10 years old, the banks were 100% vegetated, and this was with
various grasses, rushes, sweet flag, woolgrass, golden rod, greenbrier, and aiders. Aquatic
vegetation was comprised of milfoil (Myriofyllum sp.), pondweed (Potamogeton sp.), and
cattails. Fish were present, but not positively identified to species. The banks were not steep
along one side, but were stable due to their overall steepness, heavy vegetation, and established
soil properties. No signs of erosion were present. There was some pond cover present due to
the closer distance from the surrounding deciduous forest, and from the heavy vegetation
surrounding the shoreline areas. The substrate was comprised mostly of silt with large
abundances of detrital material (Table 4B).
Honey Branch's Lower Pond (Pond Number 1)
This station was located on Honey Branch, and was also constructed in 1988 (Photograph 6).
This large pond is approximately 500 feet in length, and is approximately 300 feet wide, and
has an area of approximately 1.01 acres. The elevation of the pond's bottom is approximately
780 feet above sea level. The existing water depth was about 6 feet. Due to the pond being
over 10 years old, the banks were 100% vegetated, and this was with various grasses, rushes,
sedges, sweet flag, woolgrass, golden rod, greenbrier, alders, and willows. Aquatic vegetation
was comprised of cattails. Fish and bullfrogs were present, but were not positively identified to
species. The banks were only steep along one side, but were stable due to their heavy
vegetation, and well established soils. No signs of erosion were present. There was some
pond cover present due to the close distance from the surrounding deciduous forest, and from
the heavy vegetation surrounding the shoreline areas. The substrate was comprised mostly of
silt with very large abundances of detrital material (Table 4B).
Honey Branch Sediment Ditch
This station was located on Honey Branch, and was constructed in 1988 (Photographs 7 - 8).
The sediment ditch is approximately 100 feet in length, is approximately 20 feet wide, and has
an area of approximately 0.05 acres. The existing water depth was only about a foot. Because
the sediment ditch was constructed over ten years ago, the banks were very well vegetated
with grasses, sedges, autumn olive, alder, scarlet maple, and box elder. Aquatic vegetation
consisted primarily of cattails. The banks were not too steep along the hillsides, and were
noticeably stable due to their low gradient and heavy vegetation. Soils were very well
established due to the older age of this structure. This sediment ditch had noticeably lower
dissolved oxygen levels (Table IB) probably due to the heavy organic loading at this site.
There was some canopy cover present due to the young trees growing and from the
surrounding cattails. The substrate was comprised almost entirely of heavily organic and
-------
detrital materials (Table 4B).
-------
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Physical and chemical water quality was analyzed at each of the three stations sampled on
Honey Branch, the two stations sampled on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek, two of the sediment
ponds on Honey Branch, and in Honey Branch's sediment ditch (Figure 1). The physical and chemical
water quality results are presented in Tables 1A and IB. Most values determined in Honey Branch
were fairly similar with desirable DO levels, adequate pH levels, desirable alkalinity, low acidity, and
low concentrations of metals. However, the dissolved solids, hardness, and sulfates were elevated, but
were not considered limiting. Of the stations on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek, most values were
similar and desirable with near neutral pH levels, lower conductivity, lower hardness and alkalinity, and
lower solids than for the stations on Honey Branch. The downstream East Fork station had higher
levels of most parameters compared to the upstream East Fork station, but this was entirely due to the
influence of Honey Branch. No values on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek were considered limiting
to the aquatic fauna as each station contained many individuals comprised of several taxa which are
sensitive to pollutants.
For the Honey Branch sediment ponds and sediment ditch, most of the chemical values such as
dissolved solids, hardness, sulfates, alkalinity, and most metals were very similar to those determined in
the main channel of Honey Branch. Although several of these values were considered elevated, none
were considered too limiting to the aquatic fauna, and it should be remembered that one of the primary
purposes of the ponds and sediment ditches is for reducing the high levels of solids and metals by
settling them out prior to reaching the downstream portions of the receiving streams.
Based on these data, Honey Branch can be classified as a moderate fertility, high buffering
capacity, hard-water stream within the areas sampled; the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek can be
classified as moderate fertility, moderate buffering capacity, hard-water stream within the areas
sampled.
10
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT
Stream Parameters
Several habitat measurements were calculated (Table 4A) for each of the stations sampled on
Honey Branch and the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek. The individual parameters are described
below.
Parameter 1. Bottom Substrate - The availability of habitat for support of aquatic organisms. A variety
of substrate materials and habitat types is desirable. The bottom substrate is evaluated and
rated by observation.
Parameter 2. Embeddedness - The degree to which boulders, rubble, or gravel are surrounded by fine
sediment indicates suitability of the stream substrate as habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates as
well as for fish spawning and egg incubation. Embeddedness is evaluated by visual observation
of the degree to which larger particles are surrounded by sediment.
Parameter 3. Stream Flow - Stream flow relates to the ability of a stream to provide and maintain a
stable aquatic environment.
Parameter 4. Channel Alteration - The character of sediment deposits from upstream is an indication of
the severity of watershed and bank erosion and stability of the stream system. Channelization
decreases stream sinuosity, thereby increasing stream velocity and the potential for scouring.
Parameter 5. Bottom Scouring and Deposition - These parameters relate to the destruction of instream
habitat resulting from channel alterations. Deposition and scouring is rated by estimating the
percentage of an evaluated reach that is scoured or silted.
Parameter 6. Pool/Riffle or Run/Bend Ratio - These parameters assume that a stream with riffles or
bends provides more diverse habitat than a straight or uniform depth stream. The ratio is
calculated by dividing the average distance between riffles or bends by the average stream
width.
Parameter 7. Bank Stability - Bank stability is rated by observing existing or potential detachment of
soil from the upper and lower stream bank and its potential movement into the stream. Streams
with poor banks will often have poor instream habitat.
Parameter 8. 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 and potential instream sedimentation.
11
-------
12
-------
Parameter 9. Streamside Cover - Streams!de cover vegetation is evaluated in terms of provision of
stream-shading and escape cover for fish. A rating is obtained by visually determining the
dominant vegetation type covering the exposed stream bottom, bank, and top of bank.
Riparian vegetation dominated by shrubs and trees provides the CPOM source in
allochthonous systems.
Sediment Pond and Sediment Ditch Measurements
Several habitat measurements were also determined (Table 4B) at each of the Honey Branch
pond and sediment ditch 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 aquatic insects 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. Substrates comprised of more gravel, pebble,
and/or organic materials are more desirable than those comprised mostly of silt and clay.
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 instream 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 and
potential instream sedimentation.
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.
13
-------
Pond/Ditch Cover - Cover vegetation is evaluated in terms of provision of shading and escape cover
for fish. A rating is obtained by visually determining the dominant vegetation type covering the
exposed pond bottom, bank, and top of bank. Riparian vegetation dominated by shrubs and
trees provides the CPOM source in allochthonous systems.
14
-------
HABITAT RESULTS
Upstream Honey Branch Station (Toe of Valley FilH
This station received excellent substrate and instream cover (primary) ratings, good to excellent
channel morphology (secondary) ratings, and fair to excellent riparian and bank structure
(tertiary) ratings. Overall, this upstream station on Honey Branch contained more than
adequate food sources, flows, excellent habitat and cover, but was slightly limited by bank
stability and the lack of deeper pools (Table 4A).
Middle Honey Branch Station
This station received excellent substrate and instream cover (primary) ratings, good to excellent
channel morphology (secondary) ratings, and fair to excellent riparian and bank structure
(tertiary) ratings. Overall, this station on Honey Branch contained adequate food sources, fine
flows, good cover and bank stability, but was limited by the lack of better streamside cover and
deeper pools (Table 4A).
Downstream Honey Branch (Mouth of Honey Branch)
This station received good to excellent substrate and instream cover (primary) ratings, good to
excellent channel morphology (secondary) ratings, and good riparian and bank structure
(tertiary) ratings. Overall, this station located at the mouth of Honey Branch contained
adequate food sources, but was limited by deposition, bank stability, and streamside cover
(Table 4A).
Upstream East Fork of Twelvepole Creek
This station received fair to excellent substrate and instream cover (primary) ratings, fair to
excellent channel morphology (secondary) ratings, and good riparian and bank structure
(tertiary) ratings. Overall, this station above the confluence with Honey Branch contained good
habitat and adequate food sources, but was severely limited by the lack of riffle areas, bank
stability, and the lack of adequate streamside cover (Table 4A).
Downstream East Fork of Twelvepole Creek
This station received excellent substrate and instream cover (primary) ratings, good to excellent
channel morphology (secondary) ratings, and good riparian and bank structure (tertiary) ratings.
Overall, this station below the confluence with Honey Branch contained good habitat and
adequate food sources, but was limited by deposition, bank stability, and the lack of adequate
streamside cover (Table 4A).
Honey Branch's Middle Pond (Number 2}
This pond had a surface area of 0.53 acres and was approximately 150 feet long by 150 feet
wide (Table 4B). Because it was completed many few years ago in 1988, banks were 100%
vegetated, and with grasses, herbaceous plants, shrubs, saplings, and larger trees. The
15
-------
substrate was silly, detrital material. This structure has fairly good storage potential, and it
should serve well as a sediment control pond. Because banks are stable, this structure will
most likely remain an open water pond for quite some time. This structure has good wetland
potential, and due to its larger size, may serve very well for waterfowl, fish, and amphibians.
Honey Branch's Lower Pond (Number 1)
This pond had a surface area of 1.01 acres, and was approximately 500 feet long by 300 feet
wide (Table 4B). Because it was completed many few years ago in 1988, banks were 100%
vegetated, and with grasses, herbaceous plants, shrubs, saplings, and larger trees. The
substrate was silly, detrital material. This structure has fairly good storage potential, and it
should serve well as a sediment control pond. Because banks are fairly stable, this structure
will most likely remain an open water pond for quite some time. This structure has tremendous
wetland potential, and due to its large size, should serve very well for waterfowl, fish, and
amphibians. In addition, due to its placement and surrounding settings, this structure has a very
high aesthetic value.
Honey Branch Sediment Ditch
This sediment ditch had a surface area of 0.05 acres, and was approximately 100 feet long by
20 feet wide (Table 4B). Because it was completed many few years ago in 1988, banks were
100% vegetated, and with grasses, herbaceous plants, shrubs, saplings, and larger trees. The
substrate was heavily organic, detrital material. This structure has some storage potential, but
appears to be close to reaching its full potential. This structure has good wetland potential,
even though it was small in size.
16
-------
DESCRIPTION OF BENTfflC MACROINVERTEBRATE METRICS
Several benthic macroinvertebrate measurements were calculated (Tables 3 A and 3B) for each
of the stations sampled on Honey Branch, the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek, the Honey Branch
sediment ponds and the sediment ditch on Honey Branch. The individual metrics are described below.
Metric 1. Taxa Richness - Reflects the health of the community through a measurement of the variety
of taxa present. Generally increases with increasing water quality, habitat diversity, and habitat
suitability. However, the majority should be distributed in the pollution sensitive groups, a
lesser amount in the facultative groups, and the least amount in the tolerant groups. Polluted
streams shift to tolerant dominated communities.
Metric 2. Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index - This index was developed by Hilsenhoff (1987) to
summarize overall pollution tolerance of the benlhic arthropod community with a single value.
Calculated by summarizing the number in a given taxa multiplied by its tolerance value, then
divided by the total number of organisms in the sample.
Metric 3. Ratio of Scraper and Filtering Collector Functional Feeding Groups - This ratio reflects the
riffle/run community foodbase and provides insight into the nature of potential disturbance
factors. The relative abundance of scrapers and filtering collectors indicate the periphyton
community composition, availability of suspended Fine Paniculate Organic Material (FPOM)
and availability of attachment sites for filtering. Filtering collectors are sensitive to toxicants
bound to fine particles and should be the first group to decrease when exposed to steady
sources of bound toxicants.
Metric 4. Ratio of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) and Chironomidae Abundances -
This metric uses relative abundance of these indicator groups as a measure of community
balance. Good biotic condition is reflected in communities having a fairly even distribution
among all four major groups and with substantial representation in the sensitive groups
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera. Skewed populations with large amounts of
Chironomidae in relation to the EPT indicates environmental stress.
Metric 5. Percent Contribution of Dominant Family - This is also a measure of community balance. A
community dominated by relatively few species would indicate environmental stress. A healthy
community is dominated by pollution sensitive representation in the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
and Trichoptera groups.
Metric 6. EPT Index - This index is the total number of distinct taxa within the Orders: Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Trichoptera. The EPT Index generally increases with increasing water quality.
The EPT index summarizes the taxa richness within the pollution sensitive insect orders.
17
-------
Metric 7. Ratio of Shredder Functional Feeding Group and Total Number of Individuals Collected -
Allows evaluation of potential impairment as indicated by the shredder community. Shredders
are good indicators of riparian zone impacts.
Metric 8. Simpson's Diversity Index - This index ranges from 0 (low diversity) to almost 1 (high
diversity). A healthy benthic macroinvertebrate community should have a higher Simpson's
Diversity Index.
Metric 9. Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index - Measures the amount of order in the community by using
the number of species and the number of individuals in each species. The value increases with
the number of species in the community. A healthy benthic macroinvertebrate community
should have a higher Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index.
Metric 10. Shannon-Wiener Evenness - Measures the evenness, or equitability of the community by
scaling one of the heterogeneity measures relative to its maximal value when each species in the
sample is represented by the same number of individuals. Ranges from 0 (low equitability) to 1
(high equitability).
18
-------
BENTfflC MACROINVERTEBRATE RESULTS
Upstream Honey Branch Station (Toe of Valley FilH
A total of 626 individuals comprising 22 taxa were collected (Tables 2A and 5). Five pollution
sensitive (intolerant) taxa comprising 6.9% of the station's abundance were present. The
sensitive mayfly Leptophlebia (Family: Leptophlebiidae) contributed 5.4% to the total
abundance at this upstream station. Nine facultative (intermediate tolerance) taxa were present
comprising 7.2% of the station's total abundance. The facultative springtail Collembola
contributed 3.4% to the total abundance. Eight tolerant taxa were present comprising 85.9% of
the abundance at this station. The tolerant aquatic worm, Oligochaeta, accounted for 51.1% of
the total abundance, and was the most abundant taxa present at this station on Honey Branch.
Ten EPT groups (Table 3A) were present which aided the EPT:Chironomidae Index in being
fairly desirable. All functional feeding groups were present and were fairly well represented at
this station. A very wide variety of stoneflies and caddisflies were collected at this station;
mayflies were less abundant. The Simpson's and Shannon-Wiener Diversity indices reflected a
moderately diverse community; the Shannon-Wiener Evenness value of 0.52 indicated that
abundances were only moderately distributed among the taxa. The Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic
Index (HBI) and the relative percentages of the three tolerance groups (sensitive, facultative,
and tolerant) indicated a moderately healthy, but pollution tolerant macroinvertebrate
community with a fairly good periphyton community composition.
Middle Honey Branch Station
A total of 558 individuals comprising 21 taxa were collected (Tables 2A and 6). Five pollution
sensitive (intolerant) taxa comprising 18.3% of the station's abundance were present. The
sensitive beetle Family: Elmidae contributed 14.0% to the total abundance at this Honey Branch
station. Eight facultative (intermediate tolerance) taxa were present comprising 22.9% of the
sample. The facultative stonefly Leuctra (Family: Leuctridae) contributed 10.0% to the total
abundance. Eight tolerant taxa were present comprising 58.8% of the abundance at this station.
Again, the tolerant aquatic worm, Oligochaeta, accounted for 30.0% of the total abundance,
and was the most abundant taxa at this station on Honey Branch. Eight EPT groups (Table 3 A)
were present which contributed to the EPT:Chironomidae Index in being very desirable. All
functional feeding groups were present and were very well represented. A wide variety of
stoneflies and caddisflies were collected at this station; mayfly population was again low. The
Simpson's and Shannon-Wiener Diversity indices reflected a very diverse community, and the
Shannon-Wiener Evenness indicated that abundances were moderately well distributed among
the taxa. The Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and the relative percentages of the three
tolerance groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) indicated a more balanced and less
tolerant community than the upstream station.
Downstream Honey Branch Station (Mouth of Honey Branch)
A total of 306 individuals comprising 19 taxa were collected (Tables 2A and 7). Five pollution
19
-------
sensitive (intolerant) taxa comprising 10.8% of the station's abundance were present. The
sensitive caddisfly Family: Philopotamiidae contributed 5.2% to the total abundance at this
station. Seven facultative (intermediate tolerance) taxa were present comprising 20.6% of the
sample. The facultative caddisfly Family: Hy dropsy chidae accounted for 8.5% of the station's
abundance. Seven tolerant taxa were present comprising 68.6% of the abundance at this
station at the Mouth of Honey Branch. The tolerant midge, Chironomidae, accounted for
28.1% of the total abundance, and was the most abundant taxa of aquatic insect present. Nine
EPT groups (Table 3 A) were present which again aided the EPT:Chironomidae Index in being
very desirable. All functional feeding groups were present and were well represented. A wide
variety of mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies were collected at this station. The Simpson's and
Shannon-Wiener Diversity Indices reflected a community moderately-high in diversity, and the
Shannon-Wiener Evenness indicated that abundances were well distributed among the taxa, or
heterogeneous. The Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and the relative percentages of the
three tolerance groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) indicated a pollution tolerant, but
healthy macroinvertebrate community with a very good periphyton community composition.
Upstream East Fork of Twelvepole Creek
A total of 1,800 individuals comprising 18 taxa were collected (Tables 2A and 8). Five
pollution sensitive (intolerant) taxa comprising 37.6% of the station's abundance were present.
The sensitive beetle Family: Elmidae contributed 15.8% to the total abundance at this station on
the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek. Nine facultative (intermediate tolerance) taxa were
present comprising 17.8% of the sample. The facultative mayfly Isonychia (Family:
Oligoneuridae) accounted for 5.8% of the station's abundance, and was a significant
contributor to the station. Four tolerant taxa were present comprising 44.7% of the abundance
at this station above the confluence with Honey Branch. The tolerant midge, Chironomidae,
accounted for 27.6% of the total abundance, and was once again the most abundant Family of
aquatic insect present. Ten EPT groups (Table 3 A) were present which again aided the
EPT:Chironomidae Index in being very desirable. All functional feeding groups were present
and were very well represented. Again, a wide variety of mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies
were collected at this station. The Simpson's and Shannon-Wiener Diversity Indices reflected
a community moderately-high in diversity; the Shannon-Wiener Evenness indicated that
abundances were moderately well distributed among the taxa, or heterogeneous. The Modified
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and the relative percentages of the three tolerance groups
(sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) indicated a slightly unbalanced, but healthy
macroinvertebrate community.
Downstream East Fork of Twelvepole Creek
A total of 1,244 individuals comprising 14 taxa were collected (Tables 2A and 9). Five
pollution sensitive (intolerant) taxa comprising 31.8% of the station's abundance were present.
The sensitive mayfly Stenonema (Family: Heptageniidae) contributed 10.5% to the total
abundance at this station on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek. Only two facultative
20
-------
(intermediate tolerance) taxa were present comprising 3.5% of the sample. The facultative
caddisfly Family: Hydropsychidae accounted for 2.6% of the station's abundance. Seven
tolerant taxa were present comprising 64.7% of the abundance at this station below the
confluence with Honey Branch. The tolerant midge, Chironomidae, accounted for 53.4% of
the total abundance, and was once again the most abundant Family of aquatic insect present.
Five EPT groups (Table 3 A) were present which again aided the EPT:Chironomidae Index in
being moderately desirable. All functional feeding groups were present and were very well
represented. A wide variety of mayflies were collected at this station; stoneflies and caddisflies
were not very well represented. The Simpson's and Shannon-Wiener Diversity Indices
reflected a community with moderate diversity; the Shannon-Wiener Evenness indicated that
abundances were moderately distributed among the taxa. The Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
(HBI) and the relative percentages of the three tolerance groups (sensitive, facultative, and
tolerant) indicated a somewhat unbalanced, but fairly healthy macroinvertebrate community.
Honey Branch's Middle Pond (Number 2}
A total of 2,720 individuals comprising 9 taxa were collected (Tables 2B and 10). Only one
pollution sensitive (intolerant) taxa was present, the mayfly, Ephemera (Family: Ephemeridae),
which contributed 1.2% to the total abundance of this pond. Two facultative (intermediate
tolerance) taxa were present comprising 7.1% of the sample. The facultative mayfly Baetis
(Family: Baetidae) accounted for 4.7% of the site's abundance, and was a significant
component to the site's community. Six tolerant taxa were present comprising 91.7% of the
abundance at this site. The tolerant midge, Chironomidae, accounted for 55.9% of the total
abundance, and was the most abundant taxa at this middle sediment pond on Honey Branch.
Three EPT groups (Table 3B) were present which contributed to the EPT:Chironomidae Index
in being fairly desirable. Again, no scrapers or collector/filterers were present, however, a
moderate variety of mayflies were collected at this station. The Simpson's and Shannon-
Wiener Diversity indices reflected a community moderately-low in diversity, and the Shannon-
Wiener Evenness indicated that abundances were moderately distributed among the taxa. The
Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and the relative percentages of the three tolerance
groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) indicated a very pollution tolerant benthic
macroinvertebrate community.
Honey Branch's Lower Pond (Number 1)
A total of 1,392 individuals comprising 8 taxa were collected (Tables 2B and 11). No pollution
sensitive (intolerant) taxa were present. Three facultative (intermediate tolerance) taxa were
present comprising 13.8% of the sample. The facultative mayfly Caenis (Family: Caenidae)
accounted for 9.2% of the site's abundance, and was a significant component to the site's
community. Five tolerant taxa were present comprising 86.2% of the abundance at this site.
The tolerant midge, Chironomidae, accounted for 49.4% of the total abundance, and was the
most abundant taxa at this lower sediment control pond on Honey Branch. One EPT group
(Table 3B) was present which helped to contribute to the EPT:Chironomidae Index. Again, no
21
-------
scrapers or collector/filterers were present. Not a wide variety of mayflies were collected at
this station (Caenis was the only taxa). The Simpson's and Shannon-Wiener Diversity indices
reflected a community moderately-low in diversity, and the Shannon-Wiener Evenness
indicated that abundances were moderately distributed among the taxa. The Modified
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and the relative percentages of the three tolerance groups
(sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) indicated a very pollution tolerant benthic macroinvertebrate
community.
Honey Branch's Sediment Ditch
A total of 2,192 individuals comprising 8 taxa were collected (Tables 2B and 12). Only one
pollution sensitive (intolerant) taxa was present, the beetle, Peltodytes (Family: Haliplidae),
which contributed 1.6% to the total abundance of this sediment ditch. Two facultative
(intermediate tolerance) taxa were present comprising 13.1% of the sample. The facultative
mayfly Baetis (Family: Baetidae) accounted for 12.4% of the site's abundance, and was a
significant component to the site's community. Five tolerant taxa were present comprising
85.3% of the abundance at this site. The tolerant midge, Chironomidae, accounted for 37.2%
of the total abundance, and was the most abundant taxa at this sediment ditch on Honey
Branch. One EPT group (Table 3B) was present which contributed to the EPT: Chironomidae
Index in being fairly desirable. Again, no scrapers or collector/filterers were present, and only
the one taxa of mayflies was collected at this station. The Simpson's and Shannon-Wiener
Diversity indices reflected a community with moderate diversity, and the Shannon-Wiener
Evenness indicated that abundances were moderately-well distributed among the taxa. The
Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and the relative percentages of the three tolerance
groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) indicated a pollution tolerant/facultative benthic
macroinvertebrate community.
22
-------
DISCUSSION
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing the abundances of aquatic
macroinvertebrates between the three stations sampled on Honey Branch concluded that abundances
between the three sites were not statistically significantly (7 = 0.05) different (F value = 1.82). In
addition, a one-way ANOVA comparing the number of taxa of aquatic macroinvertebrates between
the three stations on Honey Branch also concluded that there was no significant difference in the
number of taxa collected between the three stations.
When comparing total abundances between these three stations sampled on Honey Branch
(Table 2A), it is somewhat apparent that differences exist. As stated previously, these differences were
not statistically different. The Upstream Station (Toe of the Valley Fill) contained the largest total
abundance as well as a couple more taxa than the Middle and Downstream (Mouth) Stations. Habitat
(Table 4A) was very generally excellent and also very similar between the three Honey Branch sites
with the exception of bank stability and streams!de cover, but these parameters were not limiting to the
aquatic fauna. Water chemistry (Table 1 A) was overall fairly desirable, but the stations on Honey
Branch did have elevated levels of sulfates, hardness, dissolved solids, and some metals, although these
levels were not considered too limiting as several sensitive taxa comprised of many individuals were
collected. Influence from the sediment ponds located on Honey Branch was also not limiting to the
stream macroinvertebrate populations as the Upstream Honey Branch station (above the sediment
ponds) did not have significantly more desirable aquatic insect populations than the Downstream Honey
Branch station which was located below all sediment ponds and valley fills. The Downstream site did
have lower total abundances of aquatic insects, but percentages of sensitive and facultative groups
actually increased at the downstream station compared to the upstream station. It is also very
interesting to note that the total disturbed area of the Honey Branch watershed is 261.69 acres or 43%
of the total watershed area. Because this is now considered to be a high percentage of total disturbed
area within a watershed, one would expect that the Honey Branch stream stations would have had
poorer macroinvertebrate communities. However, the three stations located on Honey Branch
contained relatively healthy populations of aquatic insects. This is based on the macroinvertebrate data
which depicted that many individuals were collected from a very large number of taxa. Samples were
comprised of many EPT groups and individuals (Table 3 A), and all functional feeding groups were
present and were generally well represented. It is obvious that the loss of a portion of the headwater
area of Honey Branch from valley fills has not eliminated nor negatively affected the macroinvertebrate
community downstream as originally believed.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing the abundances of aquatic
macroinvertebrates between the two stations sampled on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek
concluded that abundances between the two sites were not statistically significantly (* = 0.05) different
(F value = 1.06). In addition, a one-way ANOVA comparing the number of taxa of aquatic
macroinvertebrates between the two stations also concluded that there was no significant difference in
the number of taxa collected between the two sites on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek. This
23
-------
observation is crucial, because it exemplifies that the discharge from Honey Branch is not having a
negative impact on the aquatic insect abundances located on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek.
When comparing total abundances and taxa between these two stations sampled on the East
Fork of Twelvepole Creek (Table 2A), one can observe that a few differences exist. As stated
previously, these differences were not statistically different. From the water chemistry data (Table 1 A),
one can observe that overall water quality at both the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek's stations was
desirable with near neutral pH levels, desirable alkalinity, and low conductivity, acidity, hardness, solids,
sulfates, and most metals. In general, the downstream station on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek
had higher levels of most chemical constituents, but none were considered limiting to the aquatic fauna.
These higher levels was obviously from the discharge of Honey Branch. From the habitat data (Table
4A), the downstream station on the East Fork had more desirable substrates as well as a better
representation of riffle areas. There was, however, a shift in the community from one comprised of fairly
equal percentages of sensitive and tolerant individuals at the upstream station, to one comprised of
many more tolerant than sensitive individuals at the downstream station. This shift is undoubtably a
factor of the water chemistry from Honey Branch. Although total abundances and total taxa are not
significantly affected from the discharge, the water chemistry is affecting the composition of the
macroinvertebrate community downstream. Nevertheless, both of the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek
stations were considered healthy because they were comprised of a large number of taxa consisting of
large abundances of aquatic insects. They both contained large numbers of sensitive individuals from
several taxa. Both stations also contained wide varieties and large abundances of mayflies, stoneflies,
and caddisflies (Table 3A).
The two stations located on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek were not statistically compared
to the stations located on Honey Branch because the streams represent different order (size) streams
(the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek is at least 3rd order at the confluence with Honey Branch; Honey
Branch is 1st order). With different order or stream sizes comes automatic differences in habitat (Table
4A), water quality/chemistry (Table 1 A), and benthic macroinvertebrate communities (Table 2A).
The two ponds studied on Honey Branch (Pond Number 2 and Pond Number 1) contained
large and low total numbers of aquatic insects, respectively. They both, however, contained relatively
low numbers of taxa even though they were the older, more established structures (completion dates in
1988). This may have been due to the somewhat high pH levels, the more alkaline waters, or the
elevated sulfates, magnesium, and/or chloride levels. The sediment ditch on Honey Branch contained a
relatively large abundance of aquatic insects as well as a moderate number of taxa. No single chemical
parameter or habitat parameter appeared limiting with the exception of the low dissolved oxygen level
of 2.57 (Table IB).
In general, the ponds and sediment control ditch on Honey Branch were well represented by
the groups of aquatic insects which are normally present in these lentic type habitats. The functional
feeding groups scrapers and collector/filterers were not present (Table 3B), but this was not surprising
24
-------
since scrapers need silt-free environments for them to feed on the periphyton that attaches to rock
substrates, and since the collector/filterers require faster-moving water in order to feed on the small
particles of food which collected on constructed silken nets or on hairs on their bodies. The shredder
functional feeding group (those that shred and consume leaves and other detrital materials) was also not
well represented, but this group is also considered to be sensitive to disturbances and pollution.
Generally, the sites were comprised mostly of tolerant organisms such as midges, dragonflies, and
aquatic worms (Table 2B). As stated previously, this was to be expected, and was representative of
aquatic insects which thrive in pond-type habitats.
If constructed properly, these sediment control ponds and sediment ditches 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, waterfowl, terrestrial wildlife, and potentially even fish. It should be
pointed out that prior to mining, there was very little wetland habitat available on Honey Branch. Now,
with the construction of the three sediment control ponds and the sediment ditch, several acres of open
water as well as the subsequent wetland areas surrounding each pond and the sediment ditch have been
added to the area. In addition, prior to mining, Honey Branch consisted of about 1,500 feet of
intermittent stream. Now, there is approximately 1-2 miles of drainage ditches and main stream channel
present, and but with the ponds available, total water surface area is considerably greater. The ponds
studied for this report, undoubtably, provide an additional facet to the aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna
currently found in area.
These sedimentation ponds can easily be converted into aesthetic, attractive, and usable wildlife
features with very few modifications. For example, trees felled into the pond add both food and habitat
for many species of aquatic insects. Additional structures can be placed in the ponds to provide hiding
habitat for lentic fish species such as sunfish and bass. These structures also provide a refuge for both
fish and insects, act as a breeding ground for many species of insects as well as some fish. Although
prohibited from planting permanent, larger-growing vegetation such as trees around structures which
are considered temporary, changes in management design could take place if these structures were to
be considered as a permanent, and additional habitat for the area. Tall grasses, shrubs, and willow
saplings, as well as larger trees could then be planted surrounding the pond to provide both a food
source from fallen leaves/sticks and shade along shoreline areas.
If one compares this study to the previous conducted studies, several comparisons can be
made. At the Upstream Honey Branch site (Toe of the Valley fill), during the SAIC Study (1998), only
41 organisms were collected from six taxa. Twenty-nine were isopods, leaving only 12 listed as being
in the Class Insecta. There were seven EPT individuals from two taxa. During the Heer, Inc. sampling
(1987), only six organisms from four taxa were collected. There were no common taxa present
between the 1987 or 1998 studies. From Table 2A, during the current study, there were 626
individuals from 22 taxa collected. At the Middle Honey Branch site, during the SAIC Study, 172
individuals from 14 taxa (6 EPT taxa) were collected. During the Heer, Inc. Study, no organisms were
25
-------
collected at this site. From Table 2A, there were 558 individuals from 21 taxa (8 EPT taxa) collected.
At the Downstream Honey Branch site (Mouth of Honey Branch), during the 1998 SAIC Study, 154
individuals from eleven taxa (4 EPT taxa) were collected. During the 1987 Heer, Inc. Study, 22
individuals from seven taxa (4 EPT taxa) were collected at the mouth of Honey Branch. During the
current study, 306 individuals from 19 taxa (including 9 EPT taxa) were collected (Tables 2A and 3 A).
At the Downstream East Fork of Twelvepole Creek station, during the SAIC Study, 154 individuals
from 16 taxa (9 EPT taxa) were collected. During the Heer, Inc. Study, 15 organisms from 6 taxa (1
EPT taxa) were collected. From this current study, 1,244 individuals from 14 taxa (5 EPT taxa) were
collected at the downstream station on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek.
Presumably, no upstream station on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek was sampled during
the SAIC and the Heer, Inc. Studies. Therefore, no determination on possible effects on East Fork's
downstream station from Honey Branch's discharge could not be made. From the water chemistry
data from the SAIC Study, iron levels are very similar; manganese levels have increased at the
Upstream and Middle Honey Branch sites; TSS levels are similar; chloride levels are similar on Honey
Branch, but have increased on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek; magnesium levels are similar on
Honey Branch, but have increased on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek; calcium levels are similar on
Honey Branch, but have increased on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek; and sodium levels have
increased at all sites. Most of these increases are most likely not significant, and are believed to be
non-limiting as overall benthic macroinvertebrate results have become more desirable since the 1998
study. Even though overall tolerance levels determined for the current study depict more tolerant
communities at each site than depicted from the previous studies, caution should be used here since the
relative percentages of the three tolerance groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) were based on
much smaller total numbers of individuals and very few taxa.
26
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Influence from the sediment ponds located on Honey Branch was also not limiting to the stream
macroinvertebrate populations as the Upstream Honey Branch station (above the sediment ponds) did
not have significantly more desirable aquatic insect populations than the Downstream Honey Branch
station which was located below all sediment ponds and valley fills. The Downstream site did have
lower total abundances of aquatic insects, but percentages of sensitive and facultative groups actually
increased at the downstream station compared to the upstream station. It is also very interesting to
note that the total disturbed area of the Honey Branch watershed is 261.69 acres or 43% of the total
watershed area. Because this is now considered to be a high percentage of total disturbed area within
a watershed, one would expect that the Honey Branch stream stations would have had poorer
macroinvertebrate communities. However, the three stations located on Honey Branch contained
relatively healthy populations of aquatic insects. This is based on the macroinvertebrate data which
depicted that many individuals were collected from a very large number of taxa. The stations contained
a wide variety of stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies, and were represented by all functional feeding
groups. Of the physical and chemical water quality parameters analyzed at the Honey Branch
locations, none were considered too limiting, although several were considered to be elevated. Food
inputs were readily available, and habitat was considered excellent at each location due to the
surrounding forest, which obviously contributed to the desirable aquatic macroinvertebrate communities
inhabiting Honey Branch. It is obvious that the loss of a portion of the headwater area of Honey
Branch from valley fills has not eliminated nor negatively affected the macroinvertebrate community
downstream as originally believed.
Overall, the benthic macroinvertebrate populations found at the two stations located on the East
Fork of Twelvepole Creek were considered to be healthy because they were comprised of
communities containing a very wide variety of taxa and very large abundances of individuals. They also
were comprised of many sensitive and facultative individuals represented by several taxa. Both stations
contained a wide variety of mayflies; stoneflies and caddisflies were less represented at the downstream
East Fork station. All functional feeding groups were present and were well represented at both
stations. Of the physical and chemical water quality parameters analyzed at both locations, none were
considered limiting, although the effects from Honey Branch entering the East Fork of Twelvepole
Creek were observable in the water chemistry data. There was also a shift towards a more tolerant
community at the downstream East Fork station. Nevertheless, both stations contained desirable
benthic macroinvertebrate communities which was a result of the good water quality, desirable habitat,
and available food inputs.
In general, the ponds and sediment control ditch on Honey Branch were well represented by
the groups of aquatic insects which are normally present in these lentic type habitats. The functional
feeding groups scrapers and collector/filterers were not present, but this was not surprising since
scrapers need silt-free environments for them to feed on the periphyton that attaches to rock substrates,
and since the collector/filterers require faster-moving water in order to feed on the small particles of
27
-------
food which collected on constructed silken nets or on hairs on their bodies. The shredder functional
feeding group (those that shred and consume leaves and other detrital materials) was also not well
represented, but this group is also considered to be sensitive to disturbances and pollution. Generally,
the sites were comprised mostly of tolerant organisms such as midges, dragonflies, and aquatic worms.
As stated previously, this was to be expected, and was representative of aquatic insects which thrive in
pond-type habitats.
Much greater abundances as well as more taxa of aquatic insects were collected during this
study compared to previous studies conducted at the same locations. Some of the levels of water
chemistry constituents have remained similar; others have increased, but not to limiting levels, and
mostly on the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek. Some shifts towards more tolerant communities may
have occurred since the previous studies, but caution should be used since the relative percentages of
the three tolerance groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) were based on much smaller total
numbers of individuals and very few taxa.
28
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
TABLE 1 A. Physical and chemical water-quality variables for stream stations on Honey Branch and on
Twelvepole Creek, above and below confluence with Honey Branch, 08 October 1999.
PARAMETER
Flow (ft3/s)
Temperature (*C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
pH (SI units)
Conductivity (7 mhos)
Acidity (mg/1)
Alkalinity (mg/1)
Chloride (mg/1)
Hardness (mg/1)
Sulfate (mg/1)
TDS (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
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)
Iron (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Magnesium (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Mercury (mg/1)
Nickel (mg/1)
Selenium (mg/1)
Silver (mg/1)
Sodium (mg/1)
Thallium (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Upstream
Honey
Branch
0.15
13.36
6.82
6.60
400
<1.0
138
3.5
303
188
412
O
23
0.109
<0.001
0.002
0.033
<0.001
<0.0003
53.4
<0.001
<0.005
0.370
<0.002
41.2
0.255
<0.0002
<0.030
<0.003
<0.004
7.86
<0.001
0.004
Midstream
Honey
Branch
0.08
14.41
7.74
7.91
367
<1.0
126
3.8
284
167
418
2
14
0.116
<0.001
<0.002
0.030
<0.001
<0.0003
49.6
<0.001
<0.005
0.358
<0.002
38.8
0.139
<0.0002
<0.030
<0.003
<0.004
7.35
<0.001
0.009
Mouth
Honey
Branch
0.11
16.29
6.64
7.92
348
<1.0
123
3.5
267
152
358
O
4
0.076
<0.001
<0.002
0.040
<0.001
<0.0003
48.1
<0.001
<0.005
0.060
<0.002
35.7
0.026
<0.0002
<0.030
<0.003
<0.004
6.88
<0.001
0.003
Upstream
Twelvepole
Creek
0.11
13.88
4.69
7.16
159
<1.0
85.1
12.0
87
28.2
166
14
150
0.130
<0.001
0.003
0.045
<0.001
<0.0003
20.9
<0.001
<0.005
0.481
<0.002
8.46
0.068
<0.0002
<0.030
<0.003
<0.004
10.7
<0.001
0.016
Downstream
Twelvepole
Creek
0.21
14.77
6.56
7.50
212
<1.0
93.7
9.3
137
66.3
218
6
110
0.102
<0.001
<0.002
0.043
<0.001
<0.0003
28.9
<0.001
<0.005
0.316
<0.002
15.7
0.046
<0.0002
<0.030
<0.003
<0.004
9.95
<0.001
<0.002
TABLE IB. Physical and chemical water-quality variables for Honey Branch sediment control ponds
-------
and ditch, 08 October 1999.
PARAMETER
Temperature (TC)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
pH (SI units)
Conductivity (* mhos)
Acidity (mg/1)
Alkalinity (mg/1)
Chloride (mg/1)
Hardness (mg/1)
Sulfate (mg/1)
TDS (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
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)
Iron (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Magnesium (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Mercury (mg/1)
Nickel (mg/1)
Selenium (mg/1)
Silver (mg/1)
Sodium (mg/1)
Thallium (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Middle Honey Branch
Pond
(1988)
11.83
10.34
<2
8.19
357
<1.0
122
3.9
280
167
324
3
105
0.064
<0.001
<0.002
0.028
<0.001
<0.0003
49.1
<0.001
<0.005
0.307
<0.002
38.3
0.154
<0.0002
<0.030
<0.003
<0.004
8.06
<0.001
<0.002
Lower Honey
Branch Pond
(1988)
16.71
7.25
<2
7.87
342
<1.0
121
3.8
268
161
381
<1
6
0.125
<0.001
<0.002
0.035
<0.001
<0.0003
47.3
<0.001
0.012
0.275
<0.002
36.3
0.126
<0.0002
<0.030
<0.003
<0.004
7.78
<0.001
0.010
Honey Branch
Sediment Ditch
(1988)
11.29
2.57
3
6.67
450
<1.0
94.6
2.4
349
274
501
11
9
0.070
<0.001
<0.002
0.019
<0.001
<0.0003
68.2
<0.001
<0.005
0.130
<0.002
43.4
0.165
<0.0002
<0.030
<0.003
<0.004
8.98
<0.001
0.002
-------
TABLE 2A. Total abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected via Surber and Kick-net
samples from stream stations on Honey Branch and Twelvepole Creek, above and below
_ confluence with Honey Branch, 08 October 1999.
TAXON
Upstream Midstream
Honey Honey
Branch Branch
STATION
Mouth Upstream Downstream
Honey Twelvepole Twelvepole
Branch Creek Creek
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Ameletidae
Ameletus (F)
Baetidae
Baetis (F)
Baetiscidae
Baetisca (S)
Caenidae
Caenis (S)
Ephemerellidae
Ephemerella (F)
Heptageniidae
Stenonema(S)
Leptophlebiidae
Leptophlebia (S)
Oligoneuridae
Isonychia(F)
Plecoptera (Stoneflies)
Capniidae (S)
Chloroperlidae (S)
Leuctridae
Leuctra(F)
Perlidae (S)
Perlodidae (F)
Taeniopterygidae (F)
Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
Hydropsychidae (F)
Lepidostomatidae
Lepidostoma (S)
Limnephilidae (F)
Philopotamiidae (S)
Polycentropodidae (F)
Rhyacophilidae (F)
12
2
1
34
36
68
76
12
244
104
126
30
130
2
2
8
4
4
56
12
26
4
16
4
2
6
26
16
2
36
16
88
32
-------
TABLE 2A. Continued.
TAXON
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T)
Chaoboridae (T)
Chironomidae (T)
Simuliidae (F)
Strati omyidae (T)
Tabanidae (T)
Tipulidae
Dicranota (T)
Hexatoma (T)
Tipula (T)
Upstream Midstream
Honey Honey
Branch Branch
38 8
2
148 148
4
2
8
2
16
2
STATION
Mouth Upstream Downstream
Honey Twelvepole Twelvepole
Branch Creek Creek
28
24
86 496 664
20
4
4
2
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Elmidae (S)
Psephenidae (S)
Saldidae (S)
Hemiptera (Water Bugs)
Corixidae (T)
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Coenagrionidae (T)_
Cordulegastridae
Cordulegaster (T)
Gomphidae (T)
Hagenius (T)
Lanthus (T)
Megaloptera (Hellgrammites)
Corydalidae
Corydalus (S)
Collembola (Springtails) (F)
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms) (T)
Planaridae (Flatworms) (T)
Crayfish (F)
78
2
22
320
4
2
2
2
156
8
12
284
4
102
2
5
13
16
20
2
69
2
15
276
104
4
11
-------
-------
TABLE 2A. Continued.
STATION
Upstream Midstream
TAXON
salamander larvae* (U)
clams* (U)
snails* (U)
Johnny darter* (IT)
Total Individuals
Taxa
Sensitive Ind. (%)
Sensitive Taxa
Facultative Ind. (%)
Facultative Taxa
Tolerant Ind. (%)
Tolerant Taxa
Honey Honey
Branch Branch
1
626 558
22 21
43(6.9) 102(18.3)
5 5
45 (7.2) 128 (22.9)
9 8
538 (85.9) 328 (58.8)
8 8
Mouth Upstream Downstream
Honey Twelvepole Twelvepole
Branch
306
19
33 (10.8)
5
63 (20.6)
7
210(68.6)
7
Creek Creek
16
4
1
16
1,800 1,244
18
676(37.6) 396(31
5
320(17.8) 43(3
9
804 (44.7) 805 (64
4
14
•8)
5
•5)
2
•7)
7
* = Not included in abundance or taxa calculations. For observation only.
( ) Classification of Pollution Indicator Organisms
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative
(T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
TABLE 2B. Total abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected via Ponar grab samples taken
from Honey Branch sediment control ponds and sediment ditch at the Pen Coal Corporation, 08
October 1999.
Middle Honey Lower Honey Honey Branch
Branch Pond Branch Pond Sediment Ditch
TAXON (1988) (1988) (1988)
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Baetidae
Baetis (F) 128 272
Caenidae
Caenis (F) 64 128
Ephemeridae
Hexagenia (S) 32
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T) 624 384 800
Chironomidae (T) 1520 688 816
Tipulidae
Tipula (T) 32
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Dytiscidae (T) 16
Haliplidae
Peltodytes (T) 32
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Coenagrionidae (T)
Corduliidae
Cordulia (T)
Collembola (F)
Oligochaeta (Aquatic worms) (T)
Crayfish (F)
clams* (IT)
Total Individuals
Total Taxa
16
16
288
16
2,720
9
16
16
48
96
16
208
1,392
8
48
16
192
2,192
8
-------
TABLE 2B. Continued
Sensitive Ind. (%)
Number of Taxa
Facultative Ind. (%)
Number of Taxa
Middle Honey
Branch Pond
(1988)
32(1.2)
1
192(7.1)
2
Lower Honey
Branch Pond
(1988)
0 (0.0)
0
192(13.8)
3
Honey Branch
Sediment Ditch
(1988)
32(1.6)
1
288(13.1)
2
Tolerant Ind. (%) 2,496(91.7) 1,200(86.2) 1,872(85.3)
Number of Taxa 655
* =
= Not included in abundance or taxa calculations. For observation only.
( ) Classification of Pollution Indicator Organisms
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative (T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
TABLE 3 A. Selected benthic macroinvertebrate metrics for stations on Honey Branch and stations on Twelvepole Creek, above and
below confluence with Honey Branch, 08 October 1999.
METRIC
Taxa Richness
Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic
Index
Ratio of Scrapers to
Collector/Filterers
Ratio of
EPT:Chironomidae
% Contribution of
Dominant Family
EPT Index
% Shredders to Total
Simpson's Diversity Index
Shannon-Wiener Diversity
Shannon-Wiener Evenness
Upstream
Honey
Branch
22
5.46
2:2
62:148
51.1%
Oligochaeta
10
5.4%
0.67
2.33
0.52
Midstream
Honey
Branch
21
4.77
80:46
130:148
30.0%
Oligochaeta
8
13.3%
0.82
3.01
0.68
Mouth
Honey
Branch
19
4.57
9:42
71:86
28.1%
Chironomidae
9
4.6%
0.85
3.27
0.77
Upstream
Twelvepole
Creek
18
4.76
532:212
684:496
27.6%
Chironomidae
10
2.9%
0.85
3.14
0.75
Downstream
Twelvepole
Creek
14
5.26
232:32
326:664
53.4%
Chironomidae
5
0.6%
0.68
2.32
0.61
-------
TABLE 3B. Selected benthic macroinvertebrate metrics for the Honey Branch sediment control ponds and sediment ditch located at the
Pen Coal Corporation, 08 October 1999.
METRIC
Taxa Richness
Modified HilsenhoffBiotic
Index
Ratio of Scrapers to
Collector/Filterers
Ratio of
EPT:Chironomidae
% Contribution of
Dominant Family
EPT Index
% Shredders to Total
Simpson's Diversity Index
Shannon-Wiener Diversity
Shannon-Wiener Evenness
1 = Diptera: Chironomidae
Middle Honey Branch
Pond
(1988)
9
6.06
0:0
224:1520
55.9%
Chiro.1
O
0.0%
0.63
1.91
0.58
Lower Honey Branch
Pond
(1988)
8
6.11
0:0
128:688
49.4%
Chiro.1
1
3.4%
0.66
1.99
0.66
Honey Branch
Sediment Ditch
(1988)
8
5.82
0:0
272:816
37.2%
Chiro.1
1
0.7%
0.70
2.06
0.69
-------
TABLE 4A. Habitat scores for the stations on Honey Branch and stations on Twelvepole Creek, above
and below confluence with Honey Branch, 08 October 1999.
Upstream Midstream Mouth Upstream Downstream
Honey Honey Honey Twelvepole Twelvepole
Branch Branch Branch Creek Creek
Primary - Substrate and Instream Cover
1. Bottom Substrate and Available Cover (0-20)
18 18
2. Embeddedness (0-20)
18 19
3. Flow/Velocity (0-20)
16 18
18
16
18
14
16
10
17
17
16
Secondary - Channel Morphology
4. Channel Alterations (0-15)
12 14
5. Bottom Scouring and Deposition (0-15)
12 14
6. Pool/Riffle, Run/Bend Ratio (0 -15)
11 11
10
11
14
14
13
12
10
12
Tertiary - Riparian and Bank Structure
7. Bank Stability (0-10)
5
8. Bank Vegetation Stability (0-10)
9
9. Streamside Cover (0-10)
10
10
Note: The scoring for each category Excellent Good Fair
Primary 16-20 11-15 6-10
Secondary 12-15 8-11 4-7
Tertiary 9- 10 6-8 3 -5
Poor
0-5
0-3
0-2
-------
TABLE 4B. Summary of habitat descriptions for the Honey Branch sediment control ponds and
sediment ditch located at the Pen Coal Corporation, 08 October 1999.
Middle Honey Branch Lower Honey Branch Honey Branch
Pond Pond Sediment Ditch
(1988) (1988) (1988)
Pond/Ditch Surface Acreage
0.53
1.01
0.05
Length x Width Cfeef)
150X150
500X300
100X20
Bottom Substrate Type
silty, detrital silty, detrital
all organic
Bank Stability
Bank Vegetation Stability
stable
fairly stable
very stable
100% vegetated 100% vegetated 100% vegetated
Vegetation Types
grasses, shrubs,
herbaceous plants,
filamentous algae,
submerged &
emergent aquatics
grasses, shrubs,
herbaceous plants,
filamentous algae,
submerged & emergent
aquatics
grasses, shrubs,
herbaceous plants,
filamentous algae,
submerged &
emergent aquatics
Pond/Ditch Cover
some
none
some
-------
TABLE 5. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from the Upstream Honey
Branch Station, Toe of the Valley Fill, 08 October 1999.
SAMPLE
TAXON Surber 1 Surber 2 Surber 3 Kick
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Leptophlebiidae
Leptophlebia (S) 34
Plecoptera (Stoneflies)
Chloroperlidae (S) 4
Leuctridae
Leuctra (F) 2
Perlidae (S) 1
Perlodidae (F) 1 2
Taeniopterygidae (F) 2
Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
Hydropsychidae (F) 2
Lepidostomatidae
Lepidostoma (S) 2
Polycentropodidae (F) 4 4
Rhyacophilidae (F) 4
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T) 2 4 32
Chironomidae (T) 12 40 24 72
Tabanidae (T) 4 4
Tipulidae
Hexatoma(T) 2842
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Elmidae (S) 1
Saldidae (S) 1
Hemiptera (Water Bugs)
Corixidae (T) 2
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Gomphidae (T) 2
Collembola (Springtails) (F) 2884
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms) (T) 28 204 64 24
-------
TABLES. Continued.
TAXON
Planaridae (Flatworms) (T)
Crayfish (F)
salamander larvae* (IT)
Total Individuals
Taxa
Surber 1
1
60
13
SAMPLE
Surber 2 Surber 3
4
1
272 110
7 7
Kick
2
184
12
* = Not included in abundance or taxa calculations. For observation only.
( ) Classification of Pollution
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative
Indicator Organisms
(T) = Tolerant (U)
= Unclassified
-------
TABLE 6. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from the Midstream Honey
Branch Station, 08 October 1999.
SAMPLE
TAXON Surber 1 Surber 2 Surber 3 Kick
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Ameletidae
Ameletus (F) 8
Plecoptera (Stoneflies)
Chloroperlidae (S) 4
Leuctridae
Leuctra (F) 56
Perlodidae (F) 2 10
Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
Hydropsychidae (F) 4 20 2
Limnephilidae (F) 4
Philopotamidae (S) 16
Polycentropodidae (F) 2 2
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T) 4 4
Chaoboridae (T) 2
Chironomidae (T) 48 32 56 12
Simuliidae (F) 4
Stratiomyidae (T) 2
Tipulidae
Dicranota (T) 2
Tipula (T) 2
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Elmidae(S) 38 24 6 6
Saldidae (S) 2
Megaloptera (Hellgrammites)
Corydalidae
Corydalus (S) 2
Collembola (Springtails) (F) 2
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms) (T) 20 16 76 44
Planaridae (Flatworms) (T) 4 4
-------
Crayfish (F)
TABLE 6. Continued.
Total
Taxa
Individuals
( ) Classification of Pollution
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative
Surber 1
132
13
Indicator Organisms
(T) = Tolerant (U)
SAMPLE
Surber 2 Surber 3
192 158
12 8
= Unclassified
Kick
76
7
-------
TABLE 7. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from the Downstream
Honey Branch Station, Mouth of Honey Branch, 08 October 1999.
SAMPLE
TAXON Surber 1 Surber 2 Surber 3 Kick
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Ameletidae
Ameletus(F) 444
Ephemerellidae
Ephemerella (F) 2
Heptageniidae
Stenonema (S) 1
Plecoptera (Stoneflies)
Capniidae (S) 2
Chloroperlidae (S) 6
Leuctridae
Leuctra (F) 4
Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
Hydropsychidae (F) 6146
Philopotamidae (S) 628
Polycentropodidae (F) 2
Diptera (True Flies)
Chironomidae (T) 34 14 14 24
Tipulidae
Tipula (T) 4
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Elmidae(S) 422
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Gomphidae(T) 4 1 8
Hagenius(T) 16
Lanthus (T) 20
Collembola (Springtails) (F) 2
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms) (T) 12 9 20 28
Planaridae (Flatworms) (T) 2
Crayfish (F) 1 2 12
-------
TABLE?. Continued.
SAMPLE
Surber 1 Surber 2 Surber 3 Kick
Total Individuals 76 52 62 116
Taxa 8 11 10 8
( ) Classification of Pollution Indicator Organisms
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative (T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
TABLE 8. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from the Upstream
Twelvepole Creek Station, Above confluence with Honey Branch, 08 October 1999.
TAXON
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Baetidae
Baetis (F)
Baetiscidae
Baetisca (S)
Caenidae
Caenis (S)
Ephemerellidae
Ephemerella (F)
Heptageniidae
Stenonema (S)
Oligoneuriidae
Isonychia (F)
Plecoptera (Stoneflies)
Leuctridae
Leuctra (F)
Taeniopterygidae (F)
Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
Hydropsychidae (F)
Rhyacophilidae (F)
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T)
Chironomidae (T)
Simuliidae (F)
Tipulidae
Hexatoma (T)
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Elmidae (S)
Psephenidae (S)
SAMPLE
Surber 1 Surber 2 Surber 3
16 12
24 20 16
12 28 24
12
68 124 32
16 56 32
8 16 8
16
12 20 52
4
20
120 128 192
4 16
60 96 80
4
Kick
8
8
12
20
4
4
8
56
4
48
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms) (T) 40 120 56 60
Crayfish (F) 4
-------
-------
TABLES. Continued.
clam* (U)
snail* (U)
Johnnv darter* (U)
Total Individuals
Taxa
Surber 1 Surber
4
400
14
* = Not included in abundance or taxa calculations. For observation
( ) Classification of Pollution
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative
Indicator Organisms
SAMPLE
2 Surber 3
4 8
4
1
652 512
12 10
only.
Kick
236
12
(T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
TABLE 9. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from the Downstream
_ Twelvepole Creek Station, Below confluence with Honey Branch, 08 October 1999.
SAMPLE
TAXON _ Surber 1 Surber 2 Surber 3 _ Kick
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Baetiscidae
Baetisca(S)
Caenidae
Caenis(S)
Heptageniidae
Stenonema(S)
Plecoptera (Stoneflies)
Capniidae (S)
Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
Hydropsychidae (F)
Diptera (True Flies)
64
12
28
26
4
14
20
6
32
16
8
56
* = Not included in abundance or taxa calculations. For observation only.
( ) Classification of Pollution Indicator Organisms
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative (T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
24
Ceratopogonidae (T)
Chironomidae (T)
Tipulidae
Tipula (T)
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Elmidae (S)
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Coenagrionidae (T)
Cordulegastridae
Cordulegaster (T)
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms) (T)
Planaridae (Flatworms) (T)
Crayfish (F)
clam* (IT)
Total Individuals
Taxa
20
404
16
52
4
4
612
10
4
92 132
2
24 20
2
20 24
4 2
8
188 268
8 11
36
42
2
3
8
5
4
176
9
-------
-------
TABLE 10. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from Middle Honey
Branch Pond (Pond Number 2), 08 October 1999.
SAMPLE
TAXON Ponar 1 Ponar 2 Ponar 3
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Baetidae
Baetis(F) 96 16 16
Caenidae
Caenis (F) 64
Ephemeridae
Hexagenia (S) 32
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T) 320 160 144
Chironomidae (T) 896 240 384
Tipulidae
Tipula (T) 32
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Coenagrionidae (T) 16
Corduliidae
Cordulia(T) 16
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms) (T) 128 112 48
clams* (U) 16.
Total Individuals 1504 528 688
Taxa 647
* = Not included in abundance or taxa calculations. For observation only.
( ) Classification of Pollution Indicator Organisms
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative (T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
TABLE 11. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from Lower Honey
Branch Pond (Pond Number 1), 08 October 1999.
SAMPLE
TAXON Ponar 1 Ponar 2 Ponar 3
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Caenidae
Caenis (F) 64 64
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T) 96 256 32
Chironomidae (T) 192 192 304
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Coenagrionidae (T) 16
Corduliidae
Cordulia(T) 16
Collembola (Springtails) (F) 48
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms) (T) 96
Crayfish (F) 16
clams* (U) 80 64 64_
Total Individuals 544 448 400
Taxa 823
* = Not included in abundance or taxa calculations. For observation only.
( ) Classification of Pollution Indicator Organisms
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative (T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
TABLE 12. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from Honey Branch
Sediment Ditch, 08 October 1999.
SAMPLE
TAXON Ponar 1 Ponar 2 Ponar 3
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Baetidae
Baetis(F) 112 64 96
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T) 288 320 192
Chironomidae (T) 208 320 288
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Dytiscidae (T) 16
Haliplidae
Peltodytes (S) 32
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Coenagrionidae (T) 16 32
Collembola (Springtails) (F) 16
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms^) (T) 64 128
Total Individuals 656 800 736
Taxa 655
( ) Classification of Pollution Indicator Organisms
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative (T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
Photograph 1. Upstream Honey Branch (Toe of Valley Fill) Station.
-------
Photograph 2. Upstream Honey Branch (Toe of Valley Fill) Station.
Photograph 3. Middle Honey Branch Station.
-------
Photograph 4. Middle Honey Branch Station.
Photograph 5. Middle Honey Branch Pond (Pond Number 2).
-------
Photograph 6. Lower Honey Branch Pond (Pond Number 1).
Photograph 7. Honey Branch Sediment Ditch.
-------
Photograph 8. Honey Branch Sediment Ditch.
-------
Supporting Information Supplied by Randall Maggard:
Downstream Impacts of Surface Mining And Valley Fill Construction
An Evaluation of the Aquatic Habitats Provided by Sediment Control Ponds and Other
Aquatic Enhancement Structures Located on Mine Permitted Areas in Southern West
Virginia
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Study of Honey Branch, And It's Control Ponds, and It's
Influence on The East Fork of the Twelvepole Creek Conducted 10/08/00
-------
AN EVALUATION OF THE AQUATIC HABITATS
PROVIDED BY
SEDIMENT CONTROL PONDS
AND OTHER AQUATIC ENHANCEMENT STRUCTURES
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
11/23/99
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Location of Study Area
Methods of Investigation:
Physical & Chemical Water Quality, Habitat, Benthic Macroinvertebrates .............. 4
Specific Station Locations / Physical Descriptions ...................................... 5
Physical & Chemical Water Quality Analysis .......................................... 8
Habitat Assessment Parameters [[[ 9
Habitat Results [[[ 10
Description of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metrics ..................................... 12
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Results ................................................ 14
Discussion [[[ 17
Conclusions [[[ 21
Appendix A
Figure 1 . Vance Branch (Roll em Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond Number
BP3).
Figure 2. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond Number 5).
Figure 3. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Pond Number 7).
Figure 4. Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch Number
CD3).
Figure 5. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-
3).
Figure 6. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6).
Appendix B
-------
Table 2B. Total abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected in sediment ditches.
Table 3 A. Selected benthic macroinvertebrate metrics for sediment control ponds.
Table 3B. Selected benthic macroinvertebrate metrics for sediment ditches.
Table 4A. Habitat scores for sediment control ponds.
Table 4B. Habitat scores for sediment ditches.
Table 5. Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond Number
BP3) macroinvertebrates.
Table 6. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond Number 5)
macroinvertebrates.
Table 7. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Pond Number 7) macroinvertebrates.
Table 8. Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch Number
CD3) macroinvertebrates.
Table 9. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-3)
macroinvertebrates.
Table 10. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6) macroinvertebrates.
Appendix C
Photographs 1-2. Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond
Number BP3).
Photographs 3-4. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond
Number 5).
Photographs 5-6. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Pond Number 7).
Photographs 7-8. Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch
Number CD3).
Photographs 9 - 10. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch
Number SD-3)
Photographs 11-12. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6).
-------
AN EVALUATION OF THE AQUATIC HABITATS
PROVIDED BY
SEDIMENT CONTROL PONDS
AND OTHER AQUATIC ENHANCEMENT STRUCTURES
LOCATED ON MINE PERMITTED AREAS
IN SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.
INTRODUCTION
Typically, sediment ditches and diversion ditches are constructed on coal company property 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 streams. The larger, sediment control ponds are generally constructed on coal company
property also 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
designed 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 also 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.
Nevertheless, according to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection-Office
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 being released from permitting regulations and
receiving back the 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 sediment
control ponds and sediment ditches which currently exist on mine permitted areas in southern West
Virginia. Several ponds of various ages would be studied as to their aquatic and wetland status, and
usefulness as quality habitats for fauna inhabiting the area.
-------
LOCATION OF STUDY SITES
The overall study area is located in Wayne County, in southwestern West Virginia. Ponds
sampled were located on Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond
Number BP3), Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond Number 5), and
Left Fork of Parker Branch (Pond Number 7). Sediment ditches sampled were located on 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 Left Fork of Parker
Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6).
-------
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
At each sampled pond or sediment ditch, measurements for physical water quality were taken.
Samples were also collected and returned to the laboratory for chemical analysis. Benthic
macroinvertebrate samples were also collected, and the habitat of the stations was 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™ Minisonde multi-parameter
probe.
Water samples were collected at each of the three pond sites as well as the three sediment
ditches, 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.
Habitat
The habitat at each of the sites was assessed, rated, and scored on a few parameters in three
categories using EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers (EPA 440/4-
89/001). Because these parameters were originally developed for streams and rivers, emphasis was
placed on the quantity and types of vegetation present, pond/ditch slopes, surface acreage, depth,
substrate composition, location of pond/ditch relative to detrimental impacts, and composition of
surrounding area (forested, open field, heavy haul traffic area, etc...).
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
At each site, collections were made via a Ponar grab sampler. The Ponar grab sampler has
several features which make it a desirable choice for the collection of aquatic macroinvertebrates in
lentic habitats such as ponds, lakes, as well as lotic deepwater habitats such as rivers. Sampler area
was 81 inch2 per replicate. Three samples were taken near the shoreline, and in the best available
spots (lowest siltation, highest percentage of gravel/pebble substrate, highest vegetation) at each station.
Samples were placed in 1-gallon plastic containers, preserved in 35% formalin, and returned to the
laboratory for processing. Samples were then picked under Unitron™ microscopes 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. Metrics were
-------
then calculated for each station.
-------
SPECIFIC SITE LOCATIONS / PHYSICAL DESCRIPTIONS
Vance Branch Pond (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine: On-Bench Pond Number
This station was located on Vance Branch, and was constructed in 1999 (Figure 1). The pond
is approximately 400 feet in length, and is approximately 125 feet wide. At the existing water
level, the pond is approximately 300 feet in length, approximately 60 feet wide, and has an area
of approximately 0.67 acres. The elevation of the pond's bottom is 984.4 feet above sea level.
The existing water depth was only about a foot, but the pond provides for 4.19 acre/feet of
accumulative sediment storage. Due to the pond's early completion, the banks were only about
50% vegetated, and this was with various rye and other grasses for erosion control. Aquatic
vegetation was minimal except for a small quantity of smartweed (Photographs 1 - 2). The
banks were very steep along the hillsides, and were noticeably unstable due to their steepness,
lack of vegetation, and composition. Alluvial fans were present from erosion. Adequate soils
had not yet formed due to the young age of this structure. This pond had noticeably higher
levels of solids (Table 1 A) probably due to sediments being washed into the pond easier than at
older, more established ponds. There was no pond cover present due to the far distance from
the surrounding deciduous forest, and the substrate was comprised mostly of sand and silt
(Table 4A).
Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine: On-Bench Pond Number 5}
This station was located on Rollem Fork, and was constructed in 1997 (Figure 2). The pond is
approximately 200 feet in length, and is approximately 150 feet wide. At the existing water
level, the pond is approximately 175 feet in length, approximately 130 feet wide, and has an
area of approximately 0.30 acres. The elevation of the pond's bottom is 930.0 feet above sea
level. The existing water depth is about 20 feet deep due to the steep slopes (2.1:1) of the side,
and the pond provides for 2.70 acre/feet of accumulative sediment storage. Even though the
pond was completed in 1997, the banks were almost 100% vegetated (Photographs 3 - 4),
and this was with various grasses, herbaceous plants such as St. John's wort, and small saplings
such as alder. The banks above water level were not too steep, and were noticeably more
stable due to their heavier vegetation. No signs of erosion were present. Soils appeared to be
more advanced at this structure. There was only a very little pond cover present from the
heavy cattails growing around the pond; there was a far distance from the surrounding
deciduous forest. The substrate was comprised mostly of sand and gravel (Table 4A).
Left Fork of Parker Branch (Pond Number 7)
This station was located on the Left Fork of Parker Branch, and was constructed in 1991
(Figure 3). The pond is approximately 160 feet in length, and is approximately 240 feet wide.
At the existing water level, the pond is approximately 150 feet in length, approximately 225 feet
wide, and has an area of approximately 1.0 acres. The elevation of the pond's bottom is 936.0
feet above sea level. The existing water depth was about 10 feet, and the pond provides for
4.98 acre/feet of accumulative sediment storage. Due to the pond being about 8 years old, the
-------
banks were 100% vegetated (Photographs 5 - 6), and this was with various grasses, rushes,
golden rod, greenbrier, sycamores. Aquatic vegetation was comprised of milfoil (Myriofyllum
sp.), pondweed (Potamogeton sp.), and cattails. The banks were not steep along the hillsides,
and were stable due to their low-steepness, heavy vegetation, and soil composition. No signs
of erosion were present. There was very little pond cover present due to the far distance from
the surrounding deciduous forest, but the heavy vegetation provided some cover along the
shoreline areas. The substrate was comprised mostly of silt and sand (Table 4A).
Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine: Combination Ditch Number
This station was located on Vance Branch, and was constructed in 1999 (Figure 4). The
combination ditch is approximately 2,250 feet in length, is approximately 41 feet wide, and has
an area of approximately 2.12 acres. The elevation of the ditch's bottom is about 1000 feet
above sea level. The existing water depth was only about a foot, but the combination ditch
provides for 4.28 acre/feet of accumulative sediment storage. Even though the ditch was
constructed in 1999, the banks were moderately vegetated, and this was with various rye and
clover grasses for erosion control. Aquatic vegetation was minimal except for a small quantity
of cattails (Photographs 7 - 8). 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 IB) probably due to sediments being washed into the structure easier than at
older, more established ones. There was no canopy cover present due to the far distance from
the surrounding deciduous forest, and the substrate was comprised mostly of silt and clay
(Table 4B).
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 (Figure 5). The
sediment ditch is approximately 900 feet in length, is approximately 40 feet wide, and has an
area of approximately 0.83 acres. The elevation of the ditch's bottom is about 950 feet above
sea level. The existing water depth was only about a few inches, but the sediment ditch
provides for 1 .67 acre/feet of accumulative sediment storage. Even though the ditch was
constructed in 1997, the banks were 100% vegetated, and this was with various rye and clover
grasses, and sedges. Aquatic vegetation was mostly the large abundance of cattails
(Photographs 9 - 10). 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 present due to
the far distance from the surrounding deciduous forest, and the substrate was comprised mostly
of vegetated silt (Table 4B).
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 sediment ditch is approximately 600 feet in length, is approximately 40 feet
-------
wide, and has an area of approximately 0.55 acres. The elevation of the ditch's bottom is
about 950 feet above sea level. The existing water depth was about 5 feet, and this sediment
ditch provides for over 2.5 acre/feet of accumulative sediment storage. The banks were well
vegetated, and this was with various rye and clover grasses, sedges, and goldenrod. Aquatic
vegetation consisted of cattails, pondweeds (Potamogeton sp.), and water milfoil
(Myriophyllum sp.) (Photographs 11 -12). There was a heavy algae growth which was
presumed to be a result of the higher pH level of this structure (Table IB). 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 present due to the far distance from the surrounding deciduous forest. The
substrate was comprised mostly of clay and silt (Table 4B).
-------
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
Physical and chemical water quality was analyzed at each of the pond and sediment ditch sites
sampled on Vance Branch, Rollem Fork, and the Left Fork of Parker Branch. The physical and
chemical water quality results are presented in Tables 1A and IB. Many of the ponds had large
differences between like parameters. For instance, the pH on Vance Branch's pond was low with a
pH of 5.04, whereas the pH for the pond on the Left Fork of Parker Branch was high with a pH of
8.77. The same observation was true with regards to the sediment ditches. For instance, the pH on
Rollem Fork's sediment ditch was low with a pH of 5.32, whereas the pH for the sediment ditch on the
Left Fork of Parker Branch was high with a pH of 9.39. Most of the chemical values such as dissolved
solids, hardness, sulfates, alkalinity, and most metals were considered fairly high. Although several of
these values were considered limiting to the benthic macroinvertebrate communities inhabiting them, it
should be remembered that one of the primary purposes of the ponds and sediment ditches is for
reducing the high levels of solids and metals by settling them out prior to reaching the downstream
portions of the receiving streams.
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT
Several habitat measurements were determined (Tables 4 A and 4B) 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 aquatic insects 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. Substrates comprised of more gravel, pebble,
and/or organic materials are more desirable than those comprised mostly of silt and clay.
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 instream 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 and
potential instream sedimentation.
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 and escape cover
for fish. A rating is obtained by visually determining the dominant vegetation type covering the
exposed pond bottom, bank, and top of bank. Riparian vegetation dominated by shrubs and
trees provides the CPOM source in allochthonous systems.
10
-------
HABITAT RESULTS
Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine: On-Bench Pond Number BP3^
This on-bench pond had a surface area of 0.67 acres, was 400 feet long by 125 feet wide, and
had an accumulative sediment storage potential of 4.19 acre/feet (Table 4 A). Due to the recent
completion of this structure (1999), banks were only about 50% vegetated, and only with erosional
control grasses. The substrate was sandy and silty. Because this structure has tremendous storage
potential, it should serve well as a sediment control pond, but banks are steep and unstable, and need
to become more established. This structure has fairly good wetland potential as it becomes more
established, but only around the edges of the pond, as it will likely have open water in the center for
quite some time.
Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine: On-Bench Pond Number 5}
This on-bench pond had a surface area of 0.30 acres, was 200 feet long by 150 feet wide, and
had an accumulative sediment storage potential of 2.70 acre/feet (Table 4A). Even though it was fairly
recently completed (1997), banks were almost 100% vegetated, and with grasses and other
herbaceous plants and shrubs. The substrate was sandy and gravely. This structure has good storage
potential, and it should serve well as a sediment control pond. Because banks are not steep and stable,
this structure will most likely remain an open water pond for quite some time. This structure has good
wetland potential along the edge as it becomes more established.
Left Fork of Parker Branch (Pond Number 7)
This pond had a surface area of 1.0 acres, was 160 feet long by 240 feet wide, and had an
accumulative sediment storage potential of 4.98 acre/feet (Table 4A). Because it was completed a few
years ago in 1994, banks were 100% vegetated, and with grasses and other herbaceous plants, shrubs,
and saplings. The substrate was silty. This structure has tremendous storage potential, and it should
serve well as a sediment control pond. Because banks are not steep and stable, this structure will most
likely remain an open water pond for quite some time. This structure has good wetland potential along
the edges, and due to its larger size, may serve very well for waterfowl, fish, and amphibians.
Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine: Combination Ditch Number
This combination ditch had a surface area of 2.12 acres, was 2250 feet long by 41 feet wide,
and had an accumulative sediment storage potential of 4.28 acre/feet (Table 4B). 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 do very well
as a water filtration structure.
Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine: Sediment Ditch Number SD-3^
This sediment ditch had a surface area of 0.83 acres, was 900 feet long by 40 feet wide, and
11
-------
had an accumulative sediment storage potential of 1.67 acre/feet (Table 4B). 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 vegetated silt. 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.
Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6^
This sediment ditch had a surface area of 0.55 acres, was 600 feet long by 40 feet wide, and
had an accumulative sediment storage potential of at least 2.5 acre/feet (Table 4B). 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.
12
-------
DESCRIPTION OF BENTfflC MACROINVERTEBRATE METRICS
Several benthic macroinvertebrate measurements were calculated (Tables 3 A and 3B) for each
of the pond and sediment ditch sites sampled. The individual metrics are described below.
Metric 1. Taxa Richness - Reflects the health of the community through a measurement of the variety
of taxa present. Generally increases with increasing water quality, habitat diversity, and habitat
suitability. However, the majority should be distributed in the pollution sensitive groups, a
lesser amount in the facultative groups, and the least amount in the tolerant groups. Polluted
streams shift to tolerant dominated communities.
Metric 2. Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index - This index was developed by Hilsenhoff (1987) to
summarize overall pollution tolerance of the benlhic arthropod community with a single value.
Calculated by summarizing the number in a given taxa multiplied by its tolerance value, then
divided by the total number of organisms in the sample.
Metric 3. Ratio of Scraper and Filtering Collector Functional Feeding Groups - This ratio reflects the
riffle/run community foodbase and provides insight into the nature of potential disturbance
factors. The relative abundance of scrapers and filtering collectors indicate the periphyton
community composition, availability of suspended Fine Particulate Organic Material (FPOM)
and availability of attachment sites for filtering. Filtering collectors are sensitive to toxicants
bound to fine particles and should be the first group to decrease when exposed to steady
sources of bound toxicants.
Metric 4. Ratio of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) and Chironomidae Abundances -
This metric uses relative abundance of these indicator groups as a measure of community
balance. Good biotic condition is reflected in communities having a fairly even distribution
among all four major groups and with substantial representation in the sensitive groups
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera. Skewed populations with large amounts of
Chironomidae in relation to the EPT indicates environmental stress.
Metric 5. Percent Contribution of Dominant Family - This is also a measure of community balance. A
community dominated by relatively few species would indicate environmental stress. A healthy
community is dominated by pollution sensitive representation in the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
and Trichoptera groups.
Metric 6. EPT Index - This index is the total number of distinct taxa within the Orders: Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Trichoptera. The EPT Index generally increases with increasing water quality.
The EPT index summarizes the taxa richness within the pollution sensitive insect orders.
Metric 7. Ratio of Shredder Functional Feeding Group and Total Number of Individuals Collected -
Allows evaluation of potential impairment as indicated by the shredder community. Shredders
13
-------
are good indicators of riparian zone impacts.
Metric 8. Simpson's Diversity Index - This index ranges from 0 (low diversity) to almost 1 (high
diversity). A healthy benthic macroinvertebrate community should have a higher Simpson's
Diversity Index.
Metric 9. Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index - Measures the amount of order in the community by using
the number of species and the number of individuals in each species. The value increases with
the number of species in the community. A healthy benthic macroinvertebrate community
should have a higher Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index.
Metric 10. Shannon-Wiener Evenness - Measures the evenness, or equitability of the community by
scaling one of the heterogeneity measures relative to its maximal value when each species in the
sample is represented by the same number of individuals. Ranges from 0 (low equitability) to 1
(high equitability).
14
-------
BENTfflC MACROINVERTEBRATE RESULTS
Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine: On-Bench Pond Number BP3^
A total of 1,144 individuals comprising 8 taxa were collected (Tables 2A and 5). No pollution
sensitive (intolerant) taxa were present in this pond. Only one facultative (intermediate
tolerance) taxa was present (the springtail Collembola) which comprised 0.3% of the sample.
Seven tolerant taxa were present comprising 99.7% of the abundance at this site. The tolerant
Dipteran, Chironomidae accounted for 88.5% of the total abundance, and was the most
abundant taxa present at this pond on Vance Branch. No EPT groups (mayflies, stoneflies, and
caddisflies) were present. No scrapers or collector/filterers were present (Table 3 A). The
Simpson's and Shannon-Wiener Diversity indices reflected a poorly diversified community; the
Shannon-Wiener Evenness value of 0.25 indicated that abundances were poorly distributed
among the taxa, or homogeneous. The Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and the relative
percentages of the three tolerance groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) indicated a heavily
pollution tolerant macroinvertebrate community with a relatively poor periphyton community
composition.
Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine: On-Bench Pond Number 5}
A total of 2,800 individuals comprising 12 taxa were collected (Tables 2A and 6). No
pollution sensitive (intolerant) taxa were present in this on-bench pond. Five facultative
(intermediate tolerance) taxa were present comprising 22.7% of the sample. The facultative
mayfly Caenis (Family: Caenidae) accounted for 16.4% of the site's abundance, and was a
significant component to the site's community. Seven tolerant taxa were present comprising
77.3% of the abundance at this site. The tolerant Dipteran, the midge, Chironomidae
accounted for 69.1% of the total abundance, and was the most abundant taxa at this sediment
pond on Rollem Fork. Four EPT groups (Table 3 A) were present which contributed to the
EPT:Chironomidae Index in being fairly desirable. No scrapers or collector/filterers were
present. A moderate variety of mayflies and caddisflies were collected at this station. The
Simpson's and Shannon-Wiener Diversity indices reflected a community moderately-low in
diversity, and the Shannon-Wiener Evenness indicated that abundances were only moderately
distributed among the taxa. The Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and the relative
percentages of the three tolerance groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) indicated a
pollution tolerant/facultative, but fairly healthy benlhic macroinvertebrate community.
Left Fork of Parker Branch (Pond Number 7)
A total of 4,936 individuals comprising 14 taxa were collected (Tables 2A and 7). No
pollution sensitive (intolerant) taxa were present in this pond. Three facultative (intermediate
tolerance) taxa were present comprising 20.4% of the sample. The facultative mayfly Caenis
(Family: Caenidae) accounted for 13.6% of the site's abundance, and was a significant
component to the site's community. Eleven tolerant taxa were present comprising 79.6% of the
abundance at this site. The tolerant aquatic worm, Oligochaeta, accounted for 38.2% of the
total abundance, and was the most abundant taxa at this sediment pond on the Left Fork of
15
-------
Parker Branch. Three EPT groups (Table 3 A) were present which contributed to the
EPT:Chironomidae Index in being very desirable. Again, no scrapers or collector/filterers were
present, however, a moderate variety of mayflies and caddisflies were collected at this station.
The Simpson's and Shannon-Wiener Diversity indices reflected a community moderately-high
in diversity, and the Shannon-Wiener Evenness indicated that abundances were well distributed
among the taxa. The Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and the relative percentages of
the three tolerance groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) indicated a pollution
tolerant/facultative, but fairly healthy benthic macroinvertebrate community.
Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine: Combination Ditch Number
A total of 464 individuals comprising 8 taxa were collected (Tables 2B and 8). No pollution
sensitive (intolerant) taxa were present in this combination ditch. Two facultative (intermediate
tolerance) taxa were present which comprised 1.7% of the sample. The facultative mayfly
Baetis (Family: Baetidae) and the springtail, Collembola, each accounted for 0.85% of the
site's abundance. Six tolerant taxa were present comprising 98.3% of the abundance at this
site. The tolerant Dipteran, Chironomidae accounted for 73.3% of the total abundance, and
was the most abundant taxa present at this combination ditch on Vance Branch. Only one EPT
group (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies) was present. No scrapers or collector/filterers
were present (Table 3B). The Simpson's and Shannon-Wiener Diversity indices reflected a
poorly diversified community; the Shannon-Wiener Evenness value of 0.46 indicated that
abundances were also relatively poorly distributed among the taxa, or homogeneous. The
Modified Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and the relative percentages of the three tolerance
groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) indicated a very heavily pollution tolerant
macroinvertebrate community with a relatively poor periphyton community composition.
Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine: Sediment Ditch Number SD-3^
A total of 2,576 individuals comprising 4 taxa were collected (Tables 2B and 9). No pollution
sensitive (intolerant) taxa were present in this sediment ditch. No facultative (intermediate
tolerance) taxa were present either. Four tolerant taxa were present comprising 100.0% of the
abundance at this site. The tolerant aquatic worm, Oligochaeta, accounted for 42.2% of the
total abundance, and was the most abundant taxa at this sediment ditch on Rollem Fork. No
EPT groups (mayflies, stoneflies, or caddisflies) (Table 3B) were present, and no scrapers or
collector/filterers were present. The Simpson's and Shannon-Wiener Diversity indices
reflected a community moderately-low in diversity, and the Shannon-Wiener Evenness
indicated that abundances were only moderately distributed among the taxa. The Modified
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and the relative percentages of the three tolerance groups
(sensitive, facultative, and tolerant) indicated a very pollution tolerant benthic macroinvertebrate
community.
Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6^
A total of 1,120 individuals comprising 12 taxa were collected (Tables 2B and 10). No
pollution sensitive (intolerant) taxa were present in this sediment ditch. Four facultative
16
-------
(intermediate tolerance) taxa were present comprising 11.4% of the sample. The facultative
mayfly Caenis (Family: Caenidae) accounted for 9.3% of the site's abundance, and was a
significant component to the site's community. Eight tolerant taxa were present comprising
88.6% of the abundance at this site. The tolerant midge, Chironomidae, accounted for 42.9%
of the total abundance, and was the most abundant taxa at this sediment ditch on the Left Fork
of Parker Branch. Three EPT groups (Table 3B) were present which contributed to the
EPT: Chironomidae Index in being fairly desirable. Again, no scrapers or collector/filterers
were present, however, a moderate variety of mayflies and caddisflies were collected at this
station. The Simpson's and Shannon-Wiener Diversity indices reflected a community
moderately-high in diversity, and the Shannon-Wiener Evenness indicated that abundances
were moderately-well distributed among the taxa. The Modified Ffilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI)
and the relative percentages of the three tolerance groups (sensitive, facultative, and tolerant)
indicated a pollution tolerant/facultative, but fairly healthy benthic macroinvertebrate community.
17
-------
DISCUSSION
When comparing total abundances and taxa (Table 2A) between the three sediment control
ponds sampled on October 08, 1999, it is obvious that large differences exist. The pond on Vance
Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond Number BP3) contained relatively low
abundances and low taxa diversity compared to the other ponds sampled, but this pond was only
recently completed and therefore had not yet established an aquatic community (both vegetation and
insects). Furthermore, this pond had a limiting pH level as well as limiting acidity, aluminum, and iron
levels (Table 1 A). The pond on Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond
Number 5) had large total abundances of aquatic insects as well as a desirable number of taxa present
even though this was also a relatively new pond (completion date 1997). This was most likely due to
the more desirable pH level, and lower acidity, aluminum, and iron levels. The pond on the Left Fork
of Parker Branch (Pond Number 7) contained the largest total abundance of aquatic insects as well as
the largest number of taxa collected. This was largely due to the older age of the structure (completed
in 1991), and due to the lower levels of most metals, even though pH was considered somewhat
limiting.
When comparing total abundances and taxa (Table 2B) between the three sediment control
ditches sampled on October 08, 1999, it is also obvious that large differences exist. The sediment ditch
on Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch Number CD3) contained
low abundances, but moderate taxa diversity. Of the water chemistry parameters tested, only sulfates
appeared to be high, thus the recent completion date of this combination ditch and hence the lack of
adequate vegetation growth may have been limiting factors. The sediment ditch sampled on Rollem
Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-3) contained the highest
total abundances, but lowest taxa diversity of all the sediment ditches sampled. The relatively recent
completion date (1997) and the low pH level (Table IB) were possible limiting factors. The sediment
ditch sampled on the Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6) contained a moderate
abundance of aquatic insects, and contained the largest number of taxa. This was somewhat a surprise
since the pH level (9.39) was considered limiting.
In general, most of the ponds and sediment control ditches sampled were well represented by
the groups of aquatic insects which are normally present in these lentic type habitats. The functional
feeding groups scrapers and collector/filterers were never present, but this was not surprising since
scrapers need silt-free environments for them to feed on the periphyton that attaches to rock substrates,
and since the collector/filterers require faster-moving water in order to feed on the small particles of
food which collected on constructed silken nets or on hairs on their bodies. The shredder functional
feeding group (those that shred and consume leaves and other detrital materials) was also not well
represented, but this group is also considered to be sensitive to disturbances and pollution. Generally,
the sites were comprised mostly of tolerant organisms such as midges, dragonflies, and aquatic worms.
As stated previously, this was to be expected, and was representative of aquatic insects which thrive in
pond-type habitats.
18
-------
19
-------
Primarily, there are two reasons for the differences in aquatic insect abundances and taxa
diversity between the different sediment ponds and sediment ditches: the age of the structure and water
chemistry. The age of the structure is an important factor for several reasons. First, the age determines
the overall composition of sediments entering the structure. Newly constructed ponds and sediment
ditches are far more likely to receive very large inputs of fill materials and materials employed during the
many cutting, grading, and logging activities that occur during the construction processes. Since banks
and surrounding areas are barren until erosional-control grasses can be established, precipitation events
can add large inputs into the new structure and cause erosional water marks. Older structures, with
their established soils and heavier surrounding vegetation can "soak up" or slow much of the rainfall
which would have undoubtably scarred newer structures. Second, older structures usually can have
surrounding vegetation in the forms of large herbaceous plants, shrubs, and if old enough, saplings and
larger trees. These larger plant forms add the detrital materials (leaves and sticks) which are a major
source of food input for the aquatic insects inhabiting the sediment control pond or ditch. Thus, older,
more established ponds will generally have more insects which feed directly upon the detrital materials
which enter the system. These detrital materials are also a key source of the sediments which are
necessary for many of the emergent and submerged aquatic plants which will eventually be desirable in
the system. Newer structures must rely on food materials entering directly from the incoming streams
or being flushed in from surface runoff. Newer structures with poor or unestablished benthic soils do
not have the capability to produce the varieties and abundances of aquatic plants that older, more
established ponds and ditches possess. Third, heavy surrounding vegetation as well as the aquatic
vegetation is the "key" to a wetland's ability to facilitate water filtration. Older, more established ponds
and sediment ditches, with heavy vegetation in and around the structure, are excellent at filtering solids
and contaminants from the water. This is important if a goal of the structure was to remove solids and
other contaminants by filtration or precipitation prior to them entering waterways farther downstream.
Newer structures do not have nearly as much filtration capability as older, more vegetated ones.
Fourth, the closer surrounding vegetation of the older structures provides shading to the pond's or
sediment ditch's shoreline areas, thus providing hiding places for fish (if present), cooler temperatures,
and places for terrestrial insects to thrive. Older structures are generally warmer along shoreline areas,
and have less areas for terrestrial insects to concentrate. An important note to remember is that when
most aquatic insects emerge from their aquatic stage to become an adult, they generally live near the
water, and many utilize the surrounding vegetation as places to emerge, mate, and lay eggs.
As stated earlier, water chemistry is also on of the reasons for the differences in aquatic insect
abundances and taxa diversity between the different sediment ponds and sediment ditches. Water
chemistry is critical because it is directly responsible for two components: the aquatic insects living in the
pond or sediment ditch, and the vegetation living both in and around the structure. In essence, poor
water chemistry can limit, or completely exclude, the abundances and number of taxa inhabiting the
aquatic resource regardless of the structure's physical habitat. Good water chemistry can provide for
at least some aquatic insect communities even in the most silted environments containing hardly any
food inputs. However, aquatic insects require plants, both living and dead. They utilize the dead plants
(leaves, sticks) as food sources, refuge places, and even home structures. They directly use the plants
20
-------
living in the pond also as food sources, refuge places, and home structures, but also use them indirectly
as water purifiers and as a major source of their oxygen. Normally, ponds and sediment ditches with a
very good establishment of aquatic, semi-aquatic, and terrestrial vegetation will have desirable aquatic
insect populations and better water quality compared to a similar, or newer, system without established
vegetation. It is critical to remember that none of the aquatic, semi-aquatic, or larger terrestrial
vegetation was seeded by the mining company. Waterfowl traveling from pond to pond, ingesting the
seeds from the wetland vegetation, then depositing the passed seeds at different pond locations has
eventually established the vegetation present at each location. Only the perennial rye, orchard grasses,
and clover are used by the mining company for erosional control on newly constructed, or disturbed
sites.
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. This relates to over
6 miles of additional aquatic habitat (both stream channel and wetland) which was previously non-
existent prior to their construction. With regards to the "on-bench" ponds, it is very important to
remember that no aquatic habitat was present in the immediate area prior to their construction.
Because they were not constructed from damming an existing mountain stream, but rather from digging
a hole and building up the area around the pit, no stream channels were sacrificed. They are supported
entirely from surface runoff and subsurface seepage, and not from intermittent or perennial streams.
Without on-bench pond and the sediment ponds located at the bottom of hollows, there would be no
"natural" ponds available in the area. As an example, on land owned or leased by the Pen Coal
Corporation, there are currently over 20 on-bench ponds. With each of these averaging about /^ acre
in size, Pen Coal has provided over 10 acres of pond and wetland habitat with just their on-bench
ponds. This does not include ponds located at the bottoms of hollows, where some stream length was
sacrificed for pond/wetland acreage. This 10 acres is entirely additional pond and subsequent wetland
habitat that was not available prior to their construction. These lower ponds, on-bench ponds, and
sediment ditches are readily used by aquatic insects, waterfowl, amphibians, reptiles, turkeys and other
wildlife creatures. An advantage to the animals which utilize the on-bench ponds, is that they do not
have to travel to the bottoms of the hollows for water; they now have water sources closer to the
ridgetops with the on-bench ponds. It should also be pointed out that this study was conducted during
a serious drought year, and that many small streams were dry, but each of the on-bench ponds and
lower elevation ponds still contained a more than adequate supply of water.
It seems ill-conceived 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 most likely have occurred during active mining practices. Even 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
21
-------
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 and sediment ditches 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, attractive, and usable wildlife
feature with only a few modifications. For example, trees felled into the pond would add both food and
habitat for many species of aquatic insects. Additional structures could be placed in the pond to
provide hiding habitat for lentic fish species such as sunfish and bass. These structures would also
provide a refuge for both fish and insects, act as a breeding ground for many species of insects as well
as some fish. Although prohibited from planting permanent, larger-growing vegetation such as trees
around structures which are considered temporary, changes in management design could take place
these structures were to be considered as a permanent, and additional habitat for the area. Tall
grasses, shrubs, and willow saplings, as well as larger trees could then be planted surrounding the pond
to provide both a food source from fallen leaves/sticks and shade along shoreline areas. The managed
pond could also be easily utilized as a refuge by waterfowl and other lentic-water animals such as
amphibians and reptiles. With very little modification, most of the ponds studied for this report could
provide an additional facet to the aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna currently found in area.
22
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, most of the ponds and sediment control ditches sampled were well represented by the
groups of aquatic insects which are normally present in these lentic type habitats. The functional feeding
groups scrapers and collector/filterers were never present, but this was not surprising since scrapers
need silt-free environments for them to feed on the periphyton that attaches to rock substrates, and
since the collector/filterers require faster-moving water in order to feed on the small particles of food
which collected on constructed silken nets or on hairs on their bodies. The shredder functional feeding
group (those that shred and consume leaves and other detrital materials) was also not well represented,
but this group is also considered to be sensitive to disturbances and pollution. Generally, the sites were
comprised mostly of large abundances and taxa of tolerant organisms such as midges, dragonflies, and
aquatic worms. As stated previously, this was to be expected, and was representative of pond-type
habitats.
Generally, there are two reasons for the differences in aquatic insect abundances and taxa
diversity between the different sediment ponds and sediment ditches: the age of the structure and water
chemistry. The age of the structure is an important factor because it determines the overall composition
of sediments entering the structure, determines the amount of detrital materials (leaves and sticks)
entering the system, determine the type and abundance of aquatic vegetation growing in and around the
structure, determine the abundances and types of aquatic insects which can be supported in the system,
and determine the filtering potential of the system. Water chemistry is critical because it is directly
responsible for two components: the aquatic insects living in the pond or sediment ditch, and the
vegetation living both in and around the structure. In essence, poor water chemistry can limit, or
completely exclude, the abundances and number of taxa inhabiting the aquatic resource regardless of
the structure's physical habitat.
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 aquatic habitat 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 1A 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
23
-------
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, attractive,
and useful habitat feature, and provide an additional facet to the aquatic, semi-aquatic, and terrestrial
wildlife currently found in area.
24
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
TABLE 1 A. Physical and chemical water-quality variables of sediment control ponds at Pen Coal
Corporation, 08 October 1999.
PARAMETER
Temperature (>C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
pH (SI units)
Conductivity (7 mhos)
BOD (mg/1)
TDS (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
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)
Iron (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Magnesium (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Mercury (mg/1)
Nickel (mg/1)
Selenium (mg/1)
Silver (mg/1)
Sodium (mg/1)
Thallium (mg/1)
Vance Branch
(1999)
14.00
6.73
5.04
43
<2
602
554
>800
26.5
2.5
11.2
<1.0
22.6
8.29
<0.001
0.003
0.080
<0.001
<0.0003
4.28
0.008
0.013
9.79
0.010
3.85
0.410
<0.0002
<0.030
<0.003
<0.004
0.836
<0.001
Rollem Fork
(1997)
19.42
6.45
7.82
189
<2
188
21
70
134
85.4
<1.0
<1.0
61.3
0.544
<0.001
0.003
0.040
<0.001
<0.0003
34.4
<0.001
<0.005
1.05
<0.002
11.8
0.160
<0.0002
<0.030
<0.003
<0.004
1.16
<0.001
Left Fork
Parker
(1991)
18.96
9.61
8.77
273
3
278
1
1
212
74.4
<1.0
<1.0
139
0.053
<0.001
<0.002
0.040
<0.001
<0.0003
41.1
<0.001
<0.005
0.037
<0.002
26.5
0.030
<0.0002
<0.030
<0.003
<0.004
2.09
<0.001
-------
Zinc (mg/i)
0.034
0.019
<0.002
TABLE IB. Physical and
chemical water-quality variables
of sediment ditches
at Pen Coal
Corporation, 08 October 1999.
PARAMETER
Temperature (*C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
pH (SI units)
Conductivity (* mhos)
BOD (mg/1)
TDS (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (#/100ml)
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)
Iron (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Magnesium (mg/1)
Manganese (mg/1)
Mercury (mg/1)
Nickel (mg/1)
Selenium (mg/1)
Silver (mg/1)
Vance Branch
(1999)
14.38
7.43
7.03
365
<2
302
172
>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
<0.002
25.8
1.44
<0.0002
<0.030
<0.003
<0.004
Rollem Fork
(1997)
10.05
5.42
5.32
281
<2
288
16
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
<0.002
18.2
3.94
<0.0002
0.036
0.003
<0.004
Left Fork
Parker
(1991)
18.36
9.46
9.39
96
<2
84
O
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
<0.002
6.50
0.017
<0.0002
<0.030
<0.003
<0.004
Sodium (mg/1)
1.12
1.08
0.690
-------
Thallium (mg/1) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Zinc (mg/T) 0.023 0.074 <0.002
TABLE 2A. Total abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected via Ponar grab samples taken
from sediment control ponds at the Pen Coal Corporation, 08 October 1999.
Vance Branch Rollem Fork Left Fork
(1999) (1997) Parker
TAXON (1991)
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Baetidae
Baetis (F) 272
Caenidae
Caenis (F) 460 672
Ephemerellidae
Ephemerella (F) 64
Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
Polycentropodidae (F) 32
Rhyacophilidae (F) 64 64
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T) 76 76 416
Chironomidae (T) 1012 1936 976
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Amphizoidae (T) 64
Dytiscidae (T) 12 48
Cybister (T) 72
Laccophilus (T) 12
Haliplidae
Haliplus (T) 8
Hemiptera (Water Bugs)
Corixidae (T) 4 20
Mesoveliidae (T) 136
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Aeshnidae
Gynacantha (T) 64
Coenagrionidae (T) 20 72 96
Gomphidae (T)
Dromogomphus (T) 4
Libellulidae (T) 40 160
-------
Insecta
-------
TABLE 2A. Continued
TAXON
Collembola (F)
Oligochaeta (AquaticWorms) (T)
smallmouth bass juvenile* (IT)
Total Individuals
Total Taxa
Sensitive Ind. (%)
Number of Taxa
Facultative Ind. (%)
Number of Taxa
Tolerant Ind. (%)
Number of Taxa
Vance Branch
(1999)
4
4
1,144
8
0 (0.0)
0
4 (0.3)
1
1140(99.7)
7
* = Not included in abundance or taxa calculations. For observation
( ) Classification of Pollution
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative
Indicator Organisms
Rollem Fork
(1997)
16
16
1
2,800
12
0 (0.0)
0
636 (22.7)
5
2164(77.3)
7
only.
Left Fork
Parker
(1991)
1888
4,936
14
0 (0.0)
0
1008 (20.4)
3
3928 (79.6)
11
(T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
TABLE 2B. Total abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected via Ponar grab samples taken
from sediment ditches at the Pen Coal Corporation, 08 October 1999.
Vance Branch Rollem Left
(1999) Fork Fork
TAXON (1997) (1994)
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Baetidae
Baetis (F) 48
Caenidae
Caenis(F) 104
Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
Polycentropodidae (F) 8
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T) 64 448 40
Chironomidae (T) 340 1024 480
Tipulidae
Tipula(T) 16
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Amphizoidae (T) 4
Dytiscidae
Cybister (T) 8
Laccophilus (T) 8
Hydrophilidae
Berosus(T) 16
Hemiptera (Water Bugs)
Mesoveliidae (T) 24
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Coenagrionidae (T) 80
Libellulidae (T) 32 104
Collembola (F) 48
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms^ (T) 8 1088 240
Total Individuals 464 2,576 1,120
Total Taxa 8 4 12
-------
TABLE 2B. Continued
Sensitive Ind. (%)
Number of Taxa
Facultative Ind. (%)
Number of Taxa
Tolerant Ind. (%)
Number of Taxa
( ) Classification of Pollution
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative
Vance
Branch
(1999)
0 (0.0)
0
8(1.7)
2
456 (98.3)
6
Rollem
Fork
(1997)
0 (0.0)
0
0 (0.0)
0
2576 (100.0)
4
Left
Fork
(1994)
0 (0.0)
0
128(11.4)
4
992 (88.6)
8
Indicator Organisms
(T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
TABLE 3 A. Selected benthic macroinvertebrate metrics for sediment control ponds located at the Pen
Coal Corporation, 08 October 1999.
METRIC
Taxa Richness
Modified Ffilsenhoff Biotic
Index
Ratio of Scrapers to
Collector/Filterers
Ratio of
EPT:Chironomidae
% Contribution of
Dominant Family
EPT Index
% Shredders to Total
Simpson's Diversity Index
Shannon-Wiener Diversity
Shannon-Wiener Evenness
1 = Diptera: Chironomidae
2 = Oligochaeta
Vance Branch
(1999)
8
6.05
0:0
0:1012
88.5%
Chiro.1
0
0.3%
0.21
0.74
0.25
Rollem Fork
(1997)
12
6.03
0:0
620:1936
69.1%
Chiro.1
4
0.6%
0.49
1.63
0.46
Left Fork
Parker
(1991)
14
6.06
0:0
1008:976
38.2%
Olig.2
3
0.0%
0.78
2.74
0.72
-------
TABLE 3B. Selected benthic macroinvertebrate metrics for sediment ditches located at the Pen Coal
Corporation, 08 October 1999.
METRIC
Taxa Richness
Modified HilsenhoffBiotic
Index
Ratio of Scrapers to
Collector/Filterers
Ratio of
EPT:Chironomidae
% Contribution of
Dominant Family
EPT Index
% Shredders to Total
Simpson's Diversity Index
Shannon-Wiener Diversity
Shannon-Wiener Evenness
1 = Diptera: Chironomidae
2 = Oligochaeta
Vance Branch
(1999)
8
6.19
0:0
4:340
73.3%
Chiro.1
1
0.9%
0.44
1.37
0.46
Rollem Fork
(1997)
4
6.00
0:0
0:1024
42.2%
Olig.2
0
0.0%
0.63
1.54
0.77
Left Fork
(1994)
12
6.53
0:0
120:480
42.9%
Chiro.1
3
0.7%
0.75
2.49
0.69
-------
TABLE 4 A. Summary of habitat descriptions for the sediment control ponds located at the Pen Coal
Corporation, 08 October 1999.
Vance Branch Rollem Fork Left Fork
(1999) (1997) Parker
(1991)
Pond/Ditch Surface Acreage
0.67 0.30 1.0
Length x Width (feet)
400x125 200x150 160x240
Accumulative Sediment Storage (Acre/feet)
4.19 2.70 4.98
Bottom Substrate Type
sand, silt sandy, gravel silty
Bank Stability
very steep, stable stable
unstable
Bank Vegetation Stability
* 50% vegetated 100% vegetated 100% vegetated
Vegetation Types
grasses grasses, shrubs, grasses, shrubs,
(terrestrial) herbaceous plants, herbaceous
filamentous algae plants,
filamentous algae,
emergent aquatics
Pond/Ditch Cover
none very little very little
-------
TABLE 4B. Habitat descriptions for the sediment control ditches located at the Pen Coal Corporation,
08 October 1999.
Vance Branch
(1999)
Rollem Fork
(1997)
Left Fork
(1994)
Pond/Ditch Surface Acreage
2.12
0.83
0.55
Length x Width (feet}
2,250x41
900 x 40
600 x 40
Accumulative Sediment Storage (Acre/feet)
4.28
1.67
>2.58
Bottom Substrate Type
Bank Stability
silly, clay
moderately stable
vegetated silt
stable
clay, silty
stable
Bank Vegetation Stability
moderately vegetated
(soils not fully
developed)
100% vegetated 100% vegetated
Vegetation Types
grasses (terrestrial),
some aquatic
vegetation
grasses, shrubs,
herbaceous plants,
filamentous algae,
submerged &
emergent aquatics
grasses, shrubs,
herbaceous plants,
filamentous algae,
submerged & emergent
aquatics
Pond/Ditch Cover
open
some
open
-------
TABLE 5. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from Vance Branch
(Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond Number BP3), 08 October 1999.
SAMPLE
TAXON Ponar 1 Ponar 2 Ponar 3
Insecta
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T) 8 32 36
Chironomidae (T) 148 648 216
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Dytiscidae (T) 12
Laccophilus (T) 12
Hemiptera (Water Bugs)
Corixidae (T) 4
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Coenagrionidae (T) 4 12 4
Collembola (Springtails) (F) 4
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms^ (T) 4
Total Individuals 172 704 268
Taxa 644
( ) Classification of Pollution Indicator Organisms
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative (T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
TABLE 6. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from Roll em Fork (Rollem
Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond Number 5), 08 October 1999.
SAMPLE
TAXON Ponar 1 Ponar 2 Ponar 3
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Caenidae
Caenis(F) 288 112 60
Ephemerellidae
Ephemerella (F) 64
Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
Polycentropodidae (F) 32
Rhyacophilidae (F) 64
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T) 64 12
Chironomidae (T) 1088 272 576
Hemiptera (Water Bugs)
Corixidae(T) 16 4
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Coenagrionidae (T) 64 8
Gomphidae
Dromogomphus (T) 4
Libellulidae (T) 32 8
Collembola (Springtails) (F) 16
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms) (T) 16
smallmouth bass juvenile* (U) L
Total Individuals 1696 432 672
Taxa 857
* = Not included in abundance or taxa calculations. For observation only.
( ) Classification of Pollution Indicator Organisms
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative (T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
TABLE 7. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from Left Fork of Parker
Branch (Pond Number 7), 08 October 1999.
SAMPLE
TAXON Ponar 1 Ponar 2 Ponar 3
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Baetidae
Baetis(F) 80 128 64
Caenidae
Caenis(F) 224 256 192
Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
Rhyacophilidae (F) 64
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T) 80 256 80
Chironomidae (T) 240 512 224
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Amphizoidae (T) 64
Dytiscidae (T) 16 32
Cybister (T) 8 64
Haliplidae
Haliplus (T) 8
Hemiptera (Water Bugs)
Mesoveliidae (T) 8 128
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Aeshnidae
Gynacantha (T) 64
Coenagrionidae (T) 16 64 16
Libellulidae (T) 32 128
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms) (T) 544 832 512
Total Individuals 1256 2560 1120
Taxa 11 12 7
( ) Classification of Pollution Indicator Organisms
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative (T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
TABLE 8. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from Vance Branch
(Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch Number CDS), 08 October 1999.
SAMPLE
TAXON Ponar 1 Ponar 2 Ponar 3
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Baetidae
Baetis (F) 4
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T) 12 52
Chironomidae (T) 56 156 128
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Amphizoidae (T) 4
Dytiscidae (T)
Laccophilus (T) 8
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Libellulidae (T) 24 4 4
Collembola (Springtails) (F) 4
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms^ (T) 4 4_
Total Individuals 96 220 148
Taxa 455
( ) Classification of Pollution Indicator Organisms
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative (T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
TABLE 9. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from Roll em Fork (Rollem
Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number SD-3), 08 October 1999.
SAMPLE
TAXON Ponar 1 Ponar 2 Ponar 3
Insecta
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T) 48 384 16
Chironomidae (T) 256 576 192
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Hydrophilidae
Berosus(T) 16
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms^) (T) 384 576 128
Total Individuals 704 1536 336
Taxa 433
( ) Classification of Pollution Indicator Organisms
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative (T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
-------
TABLE 10. Abundances of benthic macroinvertebrates collected per sample from Left Fork of Parker
Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6), 08 October 1999.
TAXON
Ponar 1
SAMPLE
Ponar 2
Ponar 3
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
Baetidae
Baetis (F)
Caenidae
Caenis (F)
Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
Polycentropodidae (F)
Diptera (True Flies)
Ceratopogonidae (T)
Chironomidae (T)
Tipulidae
Tipula (T)
Coleoptera (Beetles)
Dytiscidae (T)
Cybister (T)
Hemiptera (Water Bugs)
Mesoveliidae (T)
Odonata (Dragonflies)
Coenagrionidae (T)
Libellulidae (T)
Collembola (Springtails) (F)
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Worms') (T)
24
16
112
48
64
16
160
16
16
64
64
16
16
208
16
40
176
Total Individuals
Taxa
216
( ) Classification of Pollution Indicator Organisms
(S) = Sensitive (F) = Facultative (T) = Tolerant (U) = Unclassified
416
488
9
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
Photograph 1. Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond Number
BP3).
-------
Photograph 2. Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond Number
BP3).
Photograph 3. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond Number
5).
-------
Photograph 4. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; On-Bench Pond Number
5).
-------
Photograph 5. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Pond Number 7).
Photograph 6. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Pond Number 7).
-------
Photograph 7. Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch
Number CDS).
Photograph 8. Vance Branch (Rollem Fork Number 3 Surface Mine; Combination Ditch
Number CDS).
-------
Photograph 9. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number
SD-3)
Photograph 10. Rollem Fork (Rollem Fork Number 2 Surface Mine; Sediment Ditch Number
SD-3)
-------
Photograph 11. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6).
Photograph 12. Left Fork of Parker Branch (Sediment Ditch Number 6).
-------
AN EVALUATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
AT FOUR MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILL SITES IN WEST VIRGINIA
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to present the results of an assessment conducted at four (4)
mountaintop mining/valley fill sites in southwestern West Virginia. The assessment focused on
evaluating: 1) the effectiveness of current mining and reclamation practices relative to
minimizing adverse impacts to stream ecosystems; and 2) the potential for improving current
practices to mitigate for unavoidable adverse impacts. The assessment is a component of the
Interagency Environmental Impact Statement Technical Study. The assessment involved
conducting on-site tours of the four mountaintop mining/valley fill sites, reviewing
information/data provided by the mining companies, collecting additional information/data on-
site through interviews with mining company staff and field observations of current practices, and
photographically documenting those field observations. This assessment did not include detailed
monitoring, surveys or field data collection. Information for some sites was unavailable or
nonexistent. Where little or no information was available on pre-mining and post-mining
conditions the evaluation was based on information gathered from the research literature and field
observations. Consequently, the findings may reflect potential, rather than actual differences
between pre-mining and post-mining conditions.
Background Information
No information or data is available that characterizes the pre-mining conditions at the four
mountaintop mining/valley fill sites. Therefore, the following background information is
presented to provide a baseline for comparison to existing conditions. Since the four sites
evaluated are all located in the Western Appalachian Plateau physiographic province of West
Virginia, the information presented focuses on characteristics of stream ecosystems in this region.
First and second order watersheds/streams and the higher order systems, of which they are an
integral component, are dynamic units in the landscape. Within these units the entire complex of
interacting physical, chemical and biological processes operate to form a fairly self-supporting
ecosystem. Key structural components of these ecosystems include physical characteristics of the
watersheds and streams draining them, biological communities, and energy and material
resources. Functional components included the physical, chemical and biological processes that
affect long-term stability and govern the flow of energy and material through the ecosystems.
First and second order watersheds in the Western Appalachian Plateau are generally characterized
by steep, V-shaped valleys. Elevational relief is high, with ridges reaching elevations up to 2000
feet and valley floors situated 400 - 600 feet lower in elevation. The down-valley slopes of these
watersheds are often greater than 10% and adjacent hillslopes exceeding 50% are not uncommon.
The stream systems exhibit a dendritic pattern. Since the region is a plateau there is no general
trend to valley aspect.
Land cover is typically deciduous forest. Depending on historical land use practices, the typical
structure of these forests includes a canopy layer of mature trees, an understory layer of smaller
trees, a shrub layer, and a groundcover layer. The soil of the forest floor is usually covered with a
layer of humus or leaf litter. Although soils may be thinner and/or less permeable in some areas,
under these forested conditions organic material, soil microorganisms, and plant roots tend to
-------
increase soil porosity and permeability, and stabilize soil structure thereby increasing infiltration
rates.
As a consequence of high infiltration rates stream baseflows are fairly reliable, except under
drought conditions. Interception of precipitation in the forest canopy, high evapotranspiration
rates, and soil condition serve to maintain relatively low surface runoff rates during storm events.
Forest cover, litter and the presence of lower vegetation also moderate soil microclimate, in
particular the depth and frequency of soil frost. Thus infiltration may occur even during the
colder months. The higher infiltration rates and lower runoff rates tend to moderate storm
discharge volumes in-channel except during larger, less frequent storm events (RI: 50 - 100
YRS). In lower reaches where valley floors are wider, floodplains have developed. These areas
serve to detain floodwaters that overtop the channel banks, thereby extending the time of
concentration and moderating the effects of these flows on downstream reaches. In some
watersheds these floodplain areas support wetland communities, particularly where groundwater
discharges at the base of hillslopes.
Due to vegetative cover, stable soil structure, and low runoff rates, soil erosion and sediment
transport from upland areas is minimal. The stabilizing effect of vegetation and moderate storm
flow volumes result in relatively small inputs of sediment from in-channel sources as well.
The morphologic characteristics of stream channels in these first and second order watersheds
vary in confinement, slope, bed features, and bed materials. Steeper reaches are characterized as
a cascading or step-pool morphology with irregularly spaced drops and scour pools. The spacing
of these features is highly irregular and is controlled by bedrock and large woody debris (LWD).
These channels are entrenched (< 1.4) and confined between adjacent hillslopes. Width/depth
ratios are low (< 12). Channel gradient can range 4% to 10+%. These channels are relatively
straight with sinuosities less than 1.2. Reaches with these characteristics correspond to the A and
Aa+ stream types presented in A Classification of Natural Rivers (Rosgen, 1994).
Moderate gradient reaches, 2-4%, usually exhibit riffle-scour pool or rapid-scour pool
morphology. At the steeper end of this gradient range they may transition into step-pool
morphology. These reaches are characterized by moderate entrenchment (1.4 - 2.2) and a wider
valley floor. The valley floor will function as a floodplain for storm flows greater than bankfull
and may support wetland communities. Width/depth ratios greater than 12. Channel sinuosity is
not high (1.1 - 1.5) but is greater than the A stream types. These channels correspond to B
stream types (Rosgen, 1994). Flatter gradient reaches (i.e., less than 2%) are usually not
entrenched and may have a well developed floodplain that supports wetland communities. Width
to depth ratios are high (> 12). Sinuosity is also higher (1.2 - 2.1) than the steeper A and B
stream reaches. These channels correspond to C stream types (Rosgen, 1994). Channel materials
in the Aa+, A, B and C stream types vary depending on the lithography of the watershed. In this
region headwater reaches most commonly exhibit boulder or cobble beds with lesser amounts of
gravels, sands or silts. Bedrock reaches are interspersed throughout. The geometry and
dimensions of these channels have been shaped and maintained by the bankfull discharges that
occur on roughly an annual basis (RI: 1-2 YRS). As indicated previously, the volume of these
storm flows is moderated by the forested conditions typical of these watersheds.
The physicochemical properties (e.g., temperature, pH, dissolved gases, and dissolved and
suspended organic and inorganic compounds) of the water flowing in these streams are
influenced by many factors. In headwater streams, weathering and dissolution of rock is
commonly the major determinant of stream water chemistry. However, land use is also a
significant factor. For example, in forested watersheds reduced insolation moderates the diel and
annual range and seasonal minimum-maximum stream temperatures. Water temperature, in turn,
-------
affects the solubility of dissolved gases and solids, as well as the rate of chemical reactions.
Litterfall and the decomposition of plant and animal material in forested watersheds are a source
of inorganic nutrients that are transported to the stream via throughflow of infiltrated rain and
groundwater discharge.
In headwater streams, it is generally recognized that allochthonous material (i.e., leaves, needles,
and woody debris falling or blown into the stream from the adjacent forest) and autochthonous
sources (i.e., periphyton) are important sources of simple carbon compounds and that they
complement one another seasonally. However, forested stream systems are primarily
heterotrophic (i.e., rely primarily on allochthonous material) as an energy source. Although
autotrophic production is provided by periphytic diatoms, standing biomass is usually kept low
by stream scour, invertebrate grazing, and forest shade. Therefore, the ratio of autotrophic
production to heterotrophic respiration (P:R) is low (<1).
Consequently, large participate shredders (e.g., Trichoptera, Plecoptera, Coleoptera, Diptera) and
fine particulate collectors-gatherers (e.g., Ephemeroptera, Chironomidae, and Ceratopogonidae)
are co-dominant in the macroinvertebrate community of headwater streams. Periphyton grazers
(e.g., Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera, and Coleoptera) and predators (e.g.,
Megaloptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, and Odonata) make up smaller percentages of this
community. Primary production provided by algae and macrophytes and a macroinvertebrate
community with a large percentage of collector-filterers (e.g., Trichoptera, Diptera, and
Ephemeroptera) are more typically associated with higher order reaches where there is less shade,
slower moving water, and fine particulate organic matter is transported in suspension. Fish
species in these headwater streams are generally those adapted to cold or cool, swift flowing
water, with moderately high - high dissolved oxygen concentrations. Benthic invertebrate
feeders and too a lesser extent piscivores are the most representative trophic guilds of the fish
community.
To contribute energy to the food web of the stream reach, organic material (i.e., leaves, needles,
twigs) must be retained in the channel where it can be processed. Therefore, retention and export
determine the contribution of organic matter to the stream system. Small headwater stream
systems are generally efficient at retaining coarse particulate organic material (CPOM) and
processing it to fine particulate organic matter (FPOM) and dissolved organic matter (DOM).
Interstices in the streambed and roughness elements, such as boulders and large woody debris in
the channel, promote retention. Export of organic matter depends on the hydraulic power of the
stream, size of the particle, and retentive capacity of the channel.
-------
Methodology
The first part of the assessment involved the evaluation of current practices relative to
minimization of adverse impacts to the stream ecosystems via avoidance or mitigation (i.e.,
restoration or replacement of structure and function). Evaluating complex natural systems and
the effects of alterations to one or more of their components is a difficult task. Although the
limitations outlined in the Introduction precluded a more detailed assessment, to the extent
practical a number of considerations were incorporated into the evaluation process. Based on the
characterization of first and second order watersheds/stream ecosystems presented in the
Background Information a number of relevant questions were postulated. The answers to these
questions are presented as findings in this report.
1. Are the watershed/valley characteristics consistent with pre-mining conditions?
2. Is the vegetative cover consistent with pre-mining conditions?
3. Have the soil characteristics been modified?
4. Has the hydrologic regime been altered?
5. Has the sediment regime been modified?
6. Is channel morphology consistent with a natural, stable channel form?
7. Have the physicochemical properties of the streams been altered?
8. Have the biotic communities, trophic structure, and energy sources of the stream
ecosystems changed?
Although not included in this evaluation, these same questions should be posed relative to the
degree to which current mining and reclamation practices have altered or maintained the natural
(pre-mining) structure and function of the higher order watershed/stream ecosystems to which
these sites drain.
The second part of the assessment involved identifying opportunities for modifying current
practices or implementing new approaches that would minimize the adverse impacts of the
mining operations. These are presented as recommendations in this report.
-------
Assessment Results
1. Elk Run Coal Company
East of Stollings Surface Mine
a. General
This mine is located south of the town of Racine, West Virginia. The site has been mined since
1987. The operations on this site consist of surface mining of ridge tops with shovel and truck
and loader. The streams draining the site include first and second order tributaries to Mudlick
Fork and Stollings Fork, which are part of the Laurel Creek/Big Coal River/Kanawah River
drainage system. The mining operation will produce approximately 250 million cubic yards of
overburden. Roughly 34.8% (86.2 million cubic yards) of that material will be disposed of in the
seven (7) proposed valley fills. The valley fills are composed of durable rock fill built in 50 to
100 foot lifts.
Stormwater runoff conveyance and sediment control are provided for via a network of perimeter
sediment ditches, groin ditches, and sedimentation ponds. This network is designed to convey all
storm flows up to and including the 100-year runoff event and sediment that is eroded and
transported from exposed surfaces. The perimeter ditches colle ct and convey stormwater flow
across the face of the valley fill. Although the dimensions of the ditches vary with drainage area,
they are usually constructed on 20 - 30 foot wide benches and have a relatively flat gradient.
They are stabilized with a grass mix. Groin ditches convey stormwater flow down the face of the
valley fill. They are usually 10-15 feet wide. Although breaks in slope occur at the benches
where the perimeter ditches contribute their flow, the groin ditches are generally very steep.
Groin ditches are lined with large rock to provide stabilization. Sedimentation ponds are
constructed at the base of the valley fill to capture and retain sediment transported off the exposed
valley fill or active mining areas. The ponds are sized to manage the entire valley fill area. Since
baseflow from the streams buried beneath the valley fill discharges into the ponds they retain a
permanent pool. The ponds outfall immediately upslope from the receiving streams, Mudlick
Fork and Stollings Fork
b. Evaluation of Current Practices
1. Watershed/Valley Characteristics
The watershed impacted by Valley Fill #3 provides an example of how the mining
operation and reclamation will alter the watershed/valley characteristics at this site. The
pre-mining difference in elevational relief from the ridgelines to the valley floors was
fairly significant. The elevations of the ridgelines ranged from 1800 - 1900 feet while the
elevation of the valley floor at its confluence with Mudlick Fork was 1150 feet, an
elevational difference of as much as 750 feet. The watershed is being reconstructed with
flat or broadly rounded ridgelines, lower in elevation, and a broad valley floor, higher in
elevation. Consequently, the elevational difference between the ridgelines and new
valley floor will be 100 - 150 feet
Although the overall valley slope of the watershed was greater than 10%, pre-mining the
down-valley profile included areas of varying slopes. Some valley reaches were very
steep, while other reaches had a fairly gentle slope. Current reclamation practices have
-------
created a down valley slope that is uniformly moderate (4%) along the top of the fill and
uniformly steep (80%) down the face of the fill.
The pre-mining cross-section of the valley also exhibited variability. Hillslopes were
characterized by natural breaks where the form and gradient of the slopes changed from
steep and convex to relatively gentle and concave and back to steep and convex. As
pointed out above, ridgelines have been constructed to recreate the natural landform.
Unfortunately this effort falls short across the top of the valley fill and down the face of
the fill, where form is still linear and slopes uniform.
These modifications have reduced the size of the drainage area. The drainage pattern will
be altered and more closely resemble a modified trellis. Although the watershed will still
trend northwest southeast, its aspect relative to the prevailing winds, precipitation, and
insolation will be altered due to the changes in valley form.
2. Vegetative Cover
On this site all vegetation was cleared and grubbed prior to the mining operation
commencing. Reclaimed areas were seeded with a grass mix, which included K-31. A
few areas have been sparsely planted with one or two species of trees. However, at the
time of the tour most stabilized areas were covered with grasses and a few widely
scattered volunteer shrubs. The remnant forests on site were isolated on undisturbed
hillslopes adjacent to sedimentation ponds along Mudlick Fork and Stollings Fork, and as
yet unmined ridgelines.
3. Soil Characteristics
The valley fill is a durable rock fill laid down in lifts. The native topsoil and subsoil
layers were removed as part of the mining operation. They were not separated and
stockpiled for reuse during reclamation. The material laid down during reclamation is a
coarse mixture of rock and other overburden material (e.g., sandstone, limestone, clay,
shale, subsoils). This valley fill material has a very high percentage of mineral soil and
very low percentage of organic matter. As such it will make a very poor growth medium
for reestablishing a forest. No information was available regarding its permeability or
infiltration rates. However, since this unconsolidated material is composed of varying
types of rock and soil, it is likely that some areas will be permeable and other areas
impermeable. Another factor affecting the permeability of this material is mechanical
compaction of the fill surface by heavy equipment.
4. Hydrologic Regime
In the areas toured it appeared that baseflows are still flowing along the old valley floor,
emerging at the base of the valley fill into the sedimentation ponds. The perimeter
sediment ditches and groin ditches carry flow during and immediately after storm events.
There is no baseflow in these channels. Although no data was available relative to the
volume and time of concentration of storm flows, based on the characteristics of the fill
material, compaction of the fill surface, and a relatively sparse vegetative cover, it is
likely that the volume of runoff is significantly greater than under pre-mining conditions.
It is also likely that the time of concentration for these flow events has been reduced with
the potential to effect downstream reaches. The perimeter ditches and sedimentation
ponds help detain runoff and may provide some management for the increased runoff.
-------
5. Sediment Regime
No data was available to allow a quantitative comparison of erosion and sediment
transport rates. However, it is likely that erosion and sediment transport rates from
upland sources (i.e., active mining areas, valley fill areas, and adjacent disturbed areas)
are significantly higher than pre-mining conditions. However, it appears that disturbed
areas routed to the perimeter ditch/groin ditch/sedimentation pond systems are being
managed effectively thereby limiting actual sediment loadings to the receiving streams.
Erosion of channel bed and banks in receiving streams adjusting to increased storm flows
could provide an unmanaged source of sediment to downstream reaches.
6. Channel Morphology
Based on a review of the site map provided, it appears that approximately 10,500 feet of
the first and second order streams on site have been permanently impacted by valley fill.
Another 3500 feet of stream channel has been temporarily impacted for construction of
access roads, and sedimentation ponds.
The morphology of the perimeter ditches and groin ditches are consistent with that of
engineered drainage-ways, not natural stream channels. The perimeter ditches are wide,
trapezoidal, and relatively flat. The groin ditches are also trapezoidal but very steep
(80%). There are no discernible bed features (i.e., step-pools or riffle-pools). Since the
channels are designed to convey runoff from larger storm events all flows are confined to
that one channel. Consequently, there are no natural channels with typical baseflow and
bankfull channels and an adjacent floodprone bench or floodplain. However, it should be
noted that the constructed channels appeared to be stable and functioning as designed.
7. Physicochemical Properties
The Elk Run Coal Company collected water quality data in the Spring, Summer, and Fall
of 1999. Although that data was unavailable for this assessment, water quality data
collected from streams draining similar surface mining/valley fill operations may apply to
this site. On the sites they were monitoring, Maggard and Kirk (1998) found that several
water quality parameters varied from pre-mining levels. Their data indicates that
conductivity, total dissolved solids, hardness, alkalinity, sulfates, sodium, calcium, and
magnesium levels had increased significantly.
R.E.I. Consultants, Inc. (1999) evaluated the water quality of sedimentation ponds
constructed on similar mining sites. They found that water quality varied considerably
with the age of the facilities. For example, pH ranged from 5.04 - 8.77, in newer and
older ponds respectively. They reported that most of the chemical values (e.g., dissolved
solids, hardness, alkalinity, sulfates, and most metals) were initially fairly high,
diminishing somewhat with the age of the structure. Their data may apply to the ponds
on this site.
8. Biotic Communities, Trophic Structure, and Energy Sources
The Elk Run Coal Company collected biological data in the Spring, Summer, and Fall of
1999. Although that data was unavailable for this assessment, biological data collected
from streams draining similar surface mining/valley fill operations may apply to this site.
On the sites they monitoring, Maggard and Kirk (1998) found that the benthic
-------
macroinvertebrate community downstream of mining/valley fill operations shifted toward
more pollution tolerant species. Their data indicates that the number of individuals and
taxa richness increased, while diversity and evenness decreased.
R.E.I. Consultants, Inc. (1999) evaluated the biological communities in sedimentation
ponds constructed on other similar mining sites. They found that the biotic communities
developing in the sedimentation ponds include species typical of a lentic ecosystem.
Macrophytes and filamentous algae provide primary production. Allochthonous material
enters these sites as litterfall from forests on adjacent hillslopes.
The benthic macroinvertebrate community is composed of typical pond species (e.g.,
Diptera, Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Odonata, and Oligochaeta). The communities in the
newer facilities exhibited low abundance and diversity, and were represented
predominantly by very pollution tolerant species. The older facilities, where water
quality was better and vegetation was abundant, exhibited higher abundance and
diversity. Species present were still primarily pollution tolerant organisms. The fish
community was not represented in the ponds. In the short-term at least, it is not likely
that these structures will provide habitat for amphibians since most amphibian species are
very sensitive to poor water quality.
-------
Elk Run Coal Company's East of Stollings Surface Mine
Looking across valley fill toward active mining area.
-------
Active mining area with adjacent reclaimed area. Photo taken from valley fill looking toward
sedimentation pond.
Older (pre-1994) reclaimed area. Valley fill with groin ditch to perimeter ditch.
10
-------
More recent (post-1994) reclaimed area. Valley fill with perimeter ditches and groin ditches to
convey runoff from slopes.
Active valley fill with perimeter ditches across face of fill.
11
-------
Sedimentation ponds at base of valley fill. Photo shows undisturbed slopes on both sides and
perimeter ditch in fill to left.
Groin ditch to perimeter sedimentation ditch in older area.
12
-------
Photo shows sedimentation ditch at older site.
Outfall control structure for sedimentation ditch
13
-------
2. Catenary Coal Company
Samples Surface Mine
a. General
This mine is located near the town of Eskdale, West Virginia. Catenary Coal Company acquired
the site in 1989 and the current expansion commenced in 1993. The operations on this site
consist of dragline surface mining of ridge tops. The streams draining the site include first and
second order tributaries to Cabin Creek and White Oak Creek/Big Coal River, which are in the
Kanawah River drainage system. In 1998 the mining operation moved 80 million bank cubic
yards of material. Roughly 25% (20 million loose cubic yards) of that material was disposed of
in valley fills. The valley fills are composed of durable rock fill built in 50 to 100 foot lifts.
Stormwater runoff conveyance and sediment control are provided for via a network of
combination ditches, groin ditches, and sedimentation ponds. This network is designed to convey
all storm flows up to and including the 100-year runoff event and sediment that is eroded and
transported from exposed surfaces. The combination ditches collect and convey stormwater flow
across the top of the valley fill. The combination ditches are 10 - 15 feet wide across the bottom
and have a relatively flat gradient. They were stabilized with a grass mix. Groin ditches convey
stormwater flow down the face of the valley fill. They are usually 10-15 feet wide. Although
breaks in slope occur at the benches, the groin ditches are generally very steep. Groin ditches are
lined with large rock to provide stabilization. Sedimentation ponds were constructed at the top
and base of the valley fill to capture and retain sediment transported off the exposed valley fill or
active mining areas. The ponds are sized to manage the entire area draining to them. Some of the
ditches intercept groundwater at the back edge of the cut along the down dip side of the valley fill
and therefore carry a baseflow. Where this baseflow discharges into the sedimentation ponds
they retain a permanent pool.
c. Evaluation of Current Practices
1. Watershed/Valley Characteristics
The pre-mining difference in elevational relief from the ridgelines to the valley floors
was fairly significant. The surface mining/valley fill significantly reduced the elevational
difference between the original ridgelines and valley floors. However, contour/landform
grading and backstacking of overburden to heights of 300 feet has restored some of the
relief and recreated ridgelines.
Although the overall valley slope of the watershed was greater than 10%, pre-mining the
down-valley profile included areas of varying slopes. Some valley reaches were very
steep, while other reaches had a fairly gentle slope. Current reclamation practices have
created a down valley slope that is uniformly moderate along the top of the fill and
uniformly steep down the face of the fill.
The pre-mining cross-section of the valley also exhibited variability. Hillslopes were
characterized by natural breaks where the form and gradient of the slopes changed from
steep and convex to relatively gentle and concave and back to steep and convex. As
pointed out above, ridgelines have been constructed to recreate the natural landform.
Unfortunately this effort falls short across the top of the valley fill and down the face of
the fill, where form is still linear and slopes uniform.
14
-------
These modifications have reduced the size of the drainage area. The drainage patterns
have been altered and more closely resemble a modified trellis. As result of the changes
in landform, the watershed aspect relative to prevailing winds, precipitation, and
insolation has been altered.
2. Vegetative Cover
On this site all vegetation was cleared and grubbed prior to the mining operation
commencing. Reclaimed areas were seeded with a grass mix, which included K-31. A
few areas have been sparsely planted with one or two species of trees. However, at the
time of the tour most stabilized areas were covered with grasses and a few widely
scattered volunteer shrubs. The remnant forests on site were isolated on undisturbed
hillslopes adjacent to downstream reaches and unmined ridgelines.
3. Soil Characteristics
The valley fill is a durable rock fill laid down in lifts. The native topsoil and subsoil
layers were removed as part of the mining operation. They were not separated and
stockpiled for reuse during reclamation. The material laid down during reclamation is a
coarse mixture of rock and other overburden material (e.g., sandstone, limestone, clay,
shale, subsoils). This valley fill material has a very high percentage of mineral soil and
very low percentage of organic matter. As such it will make a very poor growth medium
for reestablishing a forest. No information was available regarding its permeability or
infiltration rates. However, since this unconsolidated material is composed of varying
types of rock and soil, it is likely that some areas will be permeable and other areas
impermeable. Another factor affecting the permeability of this material is mechanical
compaction of the fill surface by heavy equipment.
4. Hydrologic Regime
Some of the combination ditches intercept groundwater at the back edge of the cut along
the down dip side of the valley fill and therefore carry a baseflow. In the areas toured the
baseflows are maintaining a permanent pool in sedimentation ponds and supporting
wetland vegetation around the margins of the pond and in the ditches. Reclamation of the
Kayford Refuse Pile along Tenmile Fork was completed in 1999. This reclamation
included construction of a series of ponds, artificial wetland systems, and a channel that
conveys baseflow and stormflow.
Although no data was available relative to the volume and time of concentration of storm
flows, based on the characteristics of the fill material, compaction of the fill surface, and
a relatively sparse vegetative cover, it is likely that the volume of runoff is significantly
greater than under pre-mining conditions. It is also likely that the time of concentration
for these flow events has been reduced with the potential to effect downstream reaches.
The combination ditches and sedimentation ponds help detain runoff and therefore may
be providing some management for the increased storm flows.
5. Sediment Regime
No data was available to allow a quantitative comparison of erosion and sediment
transport rates. However, it is likely that erosion and sediment transport rates from
upland sources (i.e., active mining areas, valley fill areas, and adjacent disturbed areas)
15
-------
are significantly higher than pre-mining conditions. However, it appears that disturbed
areas routed to the combination ditch/groin ditch/sedimentation pond systems are being
managed effectively thereby limiting actual sediment loadings from the site to the
receiving streams. Increased storm flows from the site could contribute to channel
adjustment and instability of downstream reaches, thereby creating a potential source of
uncontrolled sediment.
6. Channel Morphology
No information was available to determine the linear feet of stream channel impacted by
the valley fills. However, given the size of the fill areas observed on site it appears that
major sections (i.e., several miles) of the first and second order streams on site have been
impacted by valley fill or the construction of the sedimentation ponds.
The morphology of the combination ditches and groin ditches are consistent with that of
engineered drainage-ways, not natural stream channels. The perimeter ditches are wide,
trapezoidal, and relatively flat. The groin ditches are also trapezoidal but very steep. The
one combination ditch observed during the tour along the top of the fill appeared to be
developing discernible bed features (i.e., riffle and pools). However, since the channels
are designed to convey runoff from larger storm events all flows are confined to that one
channel. Consequently, there are no bankfull channels with an adjacent floodplain. It
should be noted that the engineered channels constructed along the top and down the face
of the valley fill appeared to be stable and functioning as designed.
The channel constructed at the Kayford Reclamation site is also an engineered channel.
It has two distinct reaches. The upper reach starts at the base of the large sedimentation
pond. This reach is wide, trapezoidal, relatively flat and entrenched. It appeared to be
lined with a geotextile erosion control fabric. Given its dimensions, it is obviously
designed to carry fairly significant storm flows. Unfortunately, because it is entrenched
there is no floodplain surface to convey the high flows. During high flows channel
velocities and shear stresses will be considerable. This situation could affect the long-
term stability of the reach. The lower reach is also wide and trapezoidal, but very steep.
This section is lined with geotextile fabric and rock. During the tour of this area, it was
observed that the bed of the lower reach is incising immediately downstream of the break
in slope between the upper and lower reach and a headcut is eroding into the upper reach.
This unstable condition is probably the result of a number of interrelated factors,
including the unusually high shear stresses generated through the entrenched upper reach
and at the point where the slope suddenly increases at the upstream end of the lower
reach, the morphology of the channel in the steep reach, the size of rock used to stabilize
the reach, and flow eroding material from beneath the fabric. The natural reach
immediately downstream exhibited heavy sedimentation. If not corrected, the headcut
will continue upstream, destabilizing the upper reach.
7. Physicochemical Properties
Although no water quality data was available for this assessment, Maggard and Kirk
(1998) monitoring streams draining similar mining/valley fill operations found that
several water quality parameters had varied from pre-mining levels. Their data indicates
that conductivity, total dissolved solids, hardness, alkalinity, sulfates, sodium, calcium,
and magnesium had increased significantly. Their findings may apply to the receiving
streams on this site.
16
-------
R.E.I. Consultants, Inc. (1999) evaluated the water quality of sedimentation ponds
constructed on similar mining sites. They found that water quality varied considerably
with the age of the facilities. For example, pH ranged from 5.04 - 8.77, in newer and
older ponds respectively. They reported that most of the chemical values (e.g., dissolved
solids, hardness, alkalinity, sulfates, and most metals) were initially fairly high,
diminishing somewhat with the age of the structure. These findings may apply to the
ponds on this site.
8. Biotic Communities, Trophic Structure, and Energy Sources
No biological data was available for this assessment. However, Maggard and Kirk
(1998) monitoring streams below similar mining/valley fill operations found that the
benthic macroinvertebrate community shifted toward more pollution tolerant species.
Their data indicates that the number of individuals and taxa richness increased, while
diversity and evenness decreased. These findings may apply to the tributaries of Cabin
Creek and White Oak Creek.
R.E.I. Consultants, Inc. (1999) evaluated the biological communities in sedimentation
ponds constructed on similar mining sites. The biotic communities that have developed
in these facilities include species typical of a lentic ecosystem. Macrophytes and
filamentous algae provide primary production. Allochthonous material enters these sites
as litterfall from forests on adjacent hillslopes.
The benthic macroinvertebrate community is composed of typical pond species (e.g.,
Diptera, Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Odonata, and Oligochaeta. The communities in the
newer facilities exhibited low abundance and diversity, and were represented
predominantly by very pollution tolerant species. The older facilities, where water
quality was better and vegetation was abundant, exhibited higher abundance and
diversity. Species present were still primarily pollution tolerant organisms. The fish
community was not represented in the ditches and ponds. It is not likely that these
structures will provide habitat for amphibians since most amphibian species are very
sensitive to poor water quality.
17
-------
Ditch draining upper sedimentation pond.
Ditch draining upper sedimentation pond
21
-------
On-line sedimentation pond downstream of valley fill
Concrete spillway of on-line sedimentation pond
23
-------
Wetland ponds downstream of sedimentation pond. Photo shows runoff ditch to right of wetland
ponds. This ditch conveys baseflow and stormflows.
Runoff ditch along right valley wall adjacent to wetland ponds
24
-------
...... .. _ ;.
*.- - ' • vm
Headcut erosion at break in slope at downstream end of runoff ditch
25
-------
Headcut erosion working upstream through steep section of runoff ditch
26
-------
Heavy sedimentation in receiving stream below runoff ditch
Heavy sedimentation in receiving stream below runoff ditch
27
-------
3. Pen Coal Corporation
Kiah Creek Mine
a. General
This mine is located near the town of Ferrellsburg, West Virginia. The operations at this site
consist of ridgetop and contour surface mining utilizing truck and loader methods. The streams
draining the site include first and second order tributaries to Vance Branch of Trough Fork and
Rollem Fork of Kiah Creek, which are part of the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek drainage
system. The mining operation will produce approximately 360 million cubic yards of
overburden. Approximately 25% (9 0 million cubic yards) of that material will be disposed of in
the proposed valley fills. The valley fills are composed of durable rock fill built in 50 to 100 foot
lifts.
Stormwater runoff conveyance and sediment control are provided for via a network of
combination ditches, groin ditches, and sedimentation ponds. This network is designed to convey
all storm flows up to and including the 100 year runoff event and sediment that is eroded and
transported from exposed surfaces. The combination ditches collect and convey stormwater flow
around the perimeter of the valley fill. Although the dimensions of the ditches vary with drainage
area, they are commonly constructed with 10-15 foot bottom widths and 6-8 foot depth. They
have a relatively flat gradient and stone weirs are spaced regularly along the ditches to improve
sedimentation rates. The ditches are stabilized with a grass mix. Groin ditches convey
stormwater flow down the face of the valley fill. They are usually 10 - 15 feet wide. Although,
breaks in slope occur at the benches where the perimeter ditches contribute their flow, the groin
ditches are generally very steep. Groin ditches are lined with large rock to provide stabilization.
Sedimentation ponds are constructed on the benches along the valley fill and at the base of the
valley fill to capture and retain sediment transported off the exposed valley fill or active mining
areas. The ponds are sized to manage the entire disturbed area. Some of the ditches intercept
groundwater at the back edge of the cut along the down dip side of the valley fill and therefore
carry a baseflow. Where this baseflow discharges into the sedimentation ponds they retain a
permanent pool. In other areas baseflow from the streams buried beneath the valley fill
discharges into the ponds providing a permanent pool. Such is the case with the ponds that
outfall immediately upslope from the receiving streams, Vance Branch and Rollem Fork.
d. Evaluation of Current Practices
1. Watershed/Valley Characteristics
In the areas toured the majority of the operations were contour mining. Ridgetop mining
made up only a small percentage of the overall mining activity. Consequently, the
amount of valley fill and disturbance to ridgelines was significantly less than observed on
other mining sites where ridgetop mining made up the larger percentage of the
operations.
The pre-mining difference in elevational relief from the ridgelines to the valley floors
was fairly significant. In areas of ridgetop mining/valley fill the elevational difference
between the original ridgelines and valley floors fill have been significantly reduced.
Contour grading and backstacking of overburden has restored some of the relief.
28
-------
Although the overall valley slope of the watershed was greater than 10%, pre-mining the
down-valley profile included areas of varying slopes. Some valley reaches were very
steep, while other reaches had a fairly gentle slope. In the valley fill areas, current
reclamation practices have created a down valley slope that is uniformly moderate along
the top of the fill and uniformly steep down the face of the fill.
The pre-mining cross-section of the valley also exhibited variability. Hillslopes were
characterized by natural breaks where the form and gradient of the slopes changed from
steep and convex to relatively gentle and concave and back to steep and convex.
Reconstructed landform is still predominantly linear on this site.
2. Vegetative Cover
On this site clearing and grubbing of vegetation was mostly restricted to the areas to be
mined. Consequently, the undisturbed ridgelines and hillslopes above and below the
areas of contour mining are still heavily forested. Recently reclaimed areas along Vance
Branch and Rollem Fork were seeded with a grass mix and appeared to have a dense
grass cover. Some unmined valley floor areas were cleared to accommodate construction
of access roads, sedimentation ponds, relocation of the stream channel, and floodplain
fill. These areas were seeded with a grass/clover mix and appeared to have a dense grass
cover.
A reclamation site along Frank's Branch was toured to observe a reforestation effort that
was completed 10 years ago. One area appeared to be progressing very well. In addition
to the initial plantings, it was evident that volunteer species were doing well. This has
probably increased overall diversity of this early-successional vegetative community.
The overall vegetation was dense enough, even without foliage, to make it difficult to
determine the location of the groin ditch routed down the face of the valley fill.
Interestingly, an area immediately adjacent on the same slope had experienced rill and
gully erosion immediately after reclamation. The area had been repaired, stabilized with
a grass mix (that included K-31) and reforested. Although, the two areas were the same
age, this slope area was still covered in grass with only a few widely scattered shrubs.
3. Soil Characteristics
The valley fill is a durable rock fill laid down in lifts. The native topsoil and subsoil
layers were removed as part of the mining operation. They were not separated and
stockpiled for reuse during reclamation. The material laid down during reclamation is a
coarse mixture of rock and other overburden material (e.g., sandstone, limestone, clay,
shale, subsoils). This valley fill material has a very high percentage of mineral soil and
very low percentage of organic matter. Because this material makes a very poor growth
medium for reestablishing a forest a 6-inch layer of topsoil is added overall reclaimed
areas. No information was available regarding permeability or infiltration rates of the
valley fill material. However, Mr. Randy Maggard (personal communication)
characterized this unconsolidated material as a "psuedo-karst" landscape, composed of
varying types of rock and soil that will be permeable in some areas and impermeable in
others. Another factor affecting the permeability of the fill material is mechanical
compaction of the fill surface by heavy equipment.
29
-------
4. Hydrologic Regime
Some of the combination ditches intercept groundwater at the back edge of the cut along
the down dip side of the valley fill and therefore carry a baseflow. These ditches support
wetland vegetation. The baseflows are also maintaining a permanent pool in all the
sedimentation ponds observed. Many of the ponds exhibited a dense growth of wetland
vegetation around their margins. Although no data was available relative to the volume
and time of concentration of storm flows, based on the characteristics of the fill material,
compaction of the fill surface, and a relatively sparse vegetative cover, it is likely that the
volume of runoff is significantly greater than under pre-mining conditions. It is also
likely that the time of concentration for these flow events have been reduced with the
potential to affect downstream reaches. The combination ditch/groin ditch/sedimentation
pond systems help detain runoff and therefore may be providing some management for
the increased storm flows.
5. Sediment Regime
No data was available to allow a quantitative comparison of erosion and sediment
transport rates. However, it is likely that erosion and sediment transport rates from
upland sources (i.e., active mining areas, valley fill areas, and adjacent disturbed areas)
are significantly higher than pre-mining conditions. However, it appears that disturbed
areas routed to the combination ditch/groin ditch/sedimentation pond systems are being
managed effectively thereby limiting actual sediment loadings to the receiving streams.
Erosion of the stream bed and banks in areas that adjust to accommodate the increased
storm flow volumes provides a potential unmanaged source of sediment to downstream
reaches.
6. Channel Morphology
Based on a review of the site maps provided, it appears that approximately 8000 linear
feet of first and second order streams were permanently impacted by valley fill in the
Rollem Fork area. Another 3200 linear feet stream channel (and adjacent floodplain) of
Rollem Fork have been temporarily impacted for the construction and maintenance of the
sedimentation ponds. It is important to note that the contour mining operations on this
site have significantly reduced the potential impact on the Rollem Fork system relative to
the impacts observed at other sites where ridgetop mining operations dominate.
The morphology of the combination ditches and groin ditches are consistent with that of
engineered drainage-ways, not natural stream channels. The combination ditches are
wide, trapezoidal, and relatively flat. The groin ditches are also trapezoidal but very
steep. There are no discernible bed features (i.e., riffle-pools) in the combination ditches.
However, several of the groin ditches appeared to be developing a step-pool morphology.
Since the channels are designed to convey runoff from larger storm events all flows are
confined to that one channel. They were not designed to have a baseflow, and bankfull
channel with and adjacent floodplain. It should be noted that the constructed channels
appeared to be stable and functioning as designed.
7. Physicochemical Properties
Pen Coal Company at their mining sites has collected stream and pond water quality data.
Although no stream data was available for the sites evaluated in this assessment,
30
-------
Maggard and Kirk (1998) monitoring streams draining other Pen Coal mining sites found
that several water quality parameters had varied from pre-mining levels. Their data
indicates that conductivity, total dissolved solids, hardness, alkalinity, sulfates, sodium,
calcium, and magnesium had increased significantly. These trends in water quality may
apply to the receiving streams on this site as well.
R.E.I. Consultants, Inc. (1999) evaluated the water quality of combination ditches and
sedimentation ponds constructed in the Vance Branch, Rollem Fork, and the Left Fork of
Parker Branch drainage basins. Water quality varied considerably between the sampling
sites. For example, pH ranged from 5.04 - 8.77 in the ponds and from 5.32 - 9.39 in the
combination ditches. They found that most of the chemical values (e.g., dissolved solids,
hardness, alkalinity, sulfates, and most metals) were high. They found that water quality
improved with the age of the structure.
8. Biotic Communities, Trophic Structure, and Energy Sources
Pen Coal Company has collected a considerable amount of stream and pond biological
data at their mining sites. Although no stream data was available for the sites evaluated
in this assessment, Maggard and Kirk (1998) found that the benthic macroinvertebrate
communities downstream of mining/valley fill operations shifted toward more pollution
tolerant species. Their data indicates that the number of individuals and taxa richness
increased, while diversity and evenness decreased. These findings may apply to Rollem
Fork and Vance Branch.
RE.I. Consultants, Inc. (1999) evaluated the biological communities in the combination
ditches and sedimentation ponds constructed in the Vance Branch, Rollem Fork, and the
Left Fork of Parker Branch drainage basins. The biotic communities that have developed
in the combination ditches and sedimentation ponds include species typical of a lentic
ecosystem. Macrophytes and filamentous algae provide primary production.
Allochthonous material enters these sites as litterfall from forests on adjacent hillslopes.
The benthic macroinvertebrate community is composed of typical pond species (e.g.,
Diptera, Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Odonata, and Oligochaeta. The communities in the
newer facilities exhibited low abundance and diversity, and were represented
predominantly by very pollution tolerant species. The older facilities, where water
quality was better and vegetation was abundant, exhibited higher abundance and
diversity. Species present were still primarily pollution tolerant organisms. The fish
community was not represented in the ditches and ponds. It is not likely that these
structures will provide habitat for amphibians since most amphibian species are very
sensitive to poor water quality.
31
-------
Combination ditch with ponded baseflow
Outfall of combination ditch. Baseflow has gone subsurface into valley fill.
33
-------
Combination ditch with baseflow supporting wetland vegetation
Wetland vegetation and filamentous algae in combination ditch
34
-------
Groin ditches convey storm flow down face of valley fill
Groin ditch from upper sedimentation pond.
Photo shows outfall pipes from pond and early evolution of
"natural" channel within ditch.
35
-------
Groin ditch into first of lower sedimentation ponds in series
•fc-*^ iiiAlX • • '
•
• -
t -S
.-
Relocated reach of Rollem Fork.
36
-------
Photo shows undisturbed forested hillslope to left and floodplain fill to right.
Reforestation of old valley fill along Frank's Branch.
38
-------
Reforestation of old valley fill.
Groin ditch barely visible in center of photo.
39
-------
4. Arch Coal Company
Hobet # 21 Mine
a. General
This mine is located near the town of Madison, West Virginia. The operations at this site consist
of ridgetop surface mining utilizing walking dragline and electric shovel methods. The streams
draining the site include first and second order tributaries to Little Coal River and Mud River
which are part of the Guyandotte River Creek drainage system. Approximately 30 -35% of the
overburden material removed will be disposed of in valley fills. The valley fills are composed of
durable rock fill built in 50 to 100 foot lifts.
Stormwater runoff conveyance and sediment control are provided for via a network of
combination ditches, groin ditches, and sedimentation ponds. This network is designed to convey
all storm flows up to and including the 100-year runoff event and sediment that is eroded and
transported from exposed surfaces. The combination ditches collect and convey stormwater flow
around the perimeter of the valley fill. Although the dimensions of the ditches vary with drainage
area, they are commonly constructed with 10-15 foot bottom widths and 6-8 foot depth. They
have a relatively flat gradient and stone weirs are spaced regularly along the ditches to improve
sedimentation rates. The ditches are stabilized with a grass mix. Groin ditches convey
stormwater flow down the face of the valley fill. They are usually 10-15 feet wide. Although
breaks in slope occur at the benches where the perimeter ditches contribute their flow, the groin
ditches are generally very steep. Groin ditches are lined with large rock to provide stabilization.
Sedimentation ponds are constructed at points along the combination ditches on top of the valley
fill. Although the tour did not include the base of the valley fill presumably ponds have been
constructed there as well. This system serves to convey storm runoff and capture and retain
sediment transported off the exposed valley fill or active mining areas. The ponds are sized to
manage the entire disturbed area. . Some of the ditches intercept groundwater at the back edge of
the cut along the down dip side of the valley fill and therefore carry a baseflow. Where this
baseflow discharges into the sedimentation ponds they retain a permanent pool. In other areas
baseflow from the streams buried beneath the valley fill discharges into the ponds providing a
permanent pool.
e. Evaluation of Current Practices
1. Watershed/Valley Characteristics
Operations on this site involve surface mining of ridgetops. Consequently, the amount of
valley fill and disturbance to ridgelines is significant. The pre-mining difference in
elevational relief from the ridgelines to the valley floors was fairly significant. Removal
of ridgetops and disposal of overburden in valley fill has significantly reduced the
elevational difference between the original ridgelines and valley floors.
Contour/landform grading and backstacking of overburden to heights of 100 feet has
restored some of the relief and natural landform.
Although the overall valley slope of the watershed was greater than 10%, pre-mining the
down-valley profile included areas of varying slopes. Some valley reaches were very
steep, while other reaches had a fairly gentle slope. In the valley fill areas, current
reclamation practices have created a down valley slope that is uniformly moderate along
the top of the fill and uniformly steep down the face of the fill.
40
-------
The pre-mining cross-section of the valley also exhibited variability. Hillslopes were
characterized by natural breaks where the form and gradient of the slopes changed from
steep and convex to relatively gentle and concave and back to steep and convex.
Reclamation has restored some of the valley cross-section along the ridgelines. Although
the valley floor sits much higher in elevation, in some areas there has been an obvious
effort to recreate the swale and meander associated with a naturally formed valley floor.
The oldest area observed was reclaimed in the early 1980's. Reclamation of this area
involved 250 feet of conventional fill with four-foot lifts and a chimney core drain down
the center of the valley fill. In this area the valley fill is predominantly linear with a
uniform slope.
2. Vegetative Cover
On this site all vegetation was cleared and grubbed prior to the mining operation
commencing. Reclaimed areas were seeded with a grass mix. A few areas have been
densely planted with one or two species of shrubs and trees.
The new valley floor in the older (1980's) reclamation area is predominantly grasses with
scattered shrubs and trees and the adjacent slopes have a fairly good cover of trees.
However, the revegetation effort on these slopes has resulted in an even-aged stand that
lacks the species diversity and multi-layered vertical structure of a natural forest.
Most of the stabilized areas on site are covered with grasses and a few widely scattered
volunteer shrubs. The remnant forests on site were isolated on undisturbed hillslopes
adjacent to downstream reaches and unmined ridgelines.
3. Soil Characteristics
The valley fill is a durable rock fill laid down in lifts. The native topsoil and subsoil
layers were removed as part of the mining operation. They were not separated and
stockpiled for reuse during reclamation. The material laid down during reclamation is a
coarse mixture of rock and other overburden material (e.g., sandstone, limestone, clay,
shale, subsoils). This valley fill material has a very high percentage of mineral soil and
very low percentage of organic matter. This material makes a very poor growth medium
for reestablishing a forest. No information was available regarding permeability or
infiltration rates of the valley fill material. However, since this unconsolidated material
is composed of varying types of rock and soil it is likely that some areas will be
permeable and other areas will be impermeable. Another factor affecting the
permeability of the fill material is mechanical compaction of the fill surface by heavy
equipment.
4. Hydrologic Regime
Some of the combination ditches intercept groundwater at the back edge of the cut along
the down dip side of the valley fill and therefore carry a baseflow. These ditches support
wetland vegetation. The baseflows are also maintaining a permanent pool in all the
sedimentation ponds observed. Many of the ponds exhibited a dense growth of wetland
vegetation around their margins. Although no data was available relative to the volume
and time of concentration of storm flows, based on the characteristics of the fill material,
compaction of the fill surface, and a relatively sparse vegetative cover, it is likely that the
volume of runoff is significantly greater than under pre-mining conditions. It is also
41
-------
likely that the time of concentration for these flow events has been reduced with the
potential to effect downstream reaches. The combination ditch/groin ditch/sedimentation
pond systems help detain runoff and may provide some management of the increased
storm flows.
5. Sediment Regime
No data was available to allow a quantitative comparison of erosion and sediment
transport rates. However, it is likely that erosion and sediment transport rates from
upland sources (i.e., active mining areas, valley fill areas, and adjacent disturbed areas)
are significantly higher than pre-mining conditions. However, it appears that disturbed
areas routed to the combination ditch/groin ditch/sedimentation pond systems are being
managed effectively thereby limiting actual sediment loadings to the receiving streams.
Erosion of the stream bed and banks in areas that adjust to accommodate the increased
storm flow volumes may provide one unmanaged source of sediment to downstream
reaches.
6. Channel Morphology
No information was available to determine the linear feet of first and second order
streams permanently impacted by the valley fills. However, given the size of the fill
areas observed during the tour the total stream length impacted is probably fairly
substantial (i.e., several miles).
The morphology of the combination ditches and groin ditches are consistent with that of
engineered drainage-ways, not natural stream channels. The combination ditches are
wide, trapezoidal, and relatively flat. The groin ditches are also trapezoidal but very
steep. There are no discernible bed features (i.e., riffle-pools) in the combination ditches.
Since the channels are designed to convey runoff from larger storm events all flows are
confined to that one channel. They were not designed to have a baseflow and bankfull
channel with and adjacent floodplain. It should be noted that the constructed channels
appeared to be stable and functioning as designed.
During the tour a combination channel in the Stanley Fork drainage basin was observed.
This channel was constructed along the edge of a cut-slope and valley fill on the down
dip side of the valley. Completed in 1995, it carries a baseflow and supports wetland
vegetation. This drainage system also includes a series of shallow ponds and wetlands.
The constructed channel is routed away from the face of the valley fill outfalling instead
down an undisturbed forested hillslope. The result of this design has been to initiate the
carving of a channel down a slope where none had previously existed. At the time of the
tour it was evident that this channel is in its early evolutionary stages and would be
characterized as a gully or G stream type (Rosgen, 1994). Although, the upper 200 feet
of this reach is relatively stable, the lower sections are very unstable. Scour and
degradation of the channel bed is proceeding in a downslope direction as a result of
concentrated flows directed over these extremely steep slopes. In addition, a significant
headcut was observed eroding upslope. This channel will continue to adjust for some
time to come. Eventually it may erode to bedrock. This condition and/or the
accumulation of large woody debris (LWD) will arrest the bed degradation and provide
vertical control. Lateral adjustment will continue until the channel has carved the
dimensions necessary to convey the bankfull and greater storm flows. Until this channel
has reached a state of equilibrium it will be a significant source of sediment to
42
-------
downstream reaches. It is not known if this channel represents a common situation on
this or other mining sites.
7. Physicochemical Properties
Although no receiving stream water quality data was available for this site, Maggard and
Kirk (1998) monitoring streams draining other mountaintop mining/valley fill sites found
that several water quality parameters had varied from pre-mining levels. Their data
indicates that conductivity, total dissolved solids, hardness, alkalinity, sulfates, sodium,
calcium, and magnesium had increased significantly. These trends in water quality may
apply to the receiving streams on this site as well.
R.E.I. Consultants, Inc. (1999) evaluated the water quality of combination ditches and
sedimentation ponds constructed on other similar mining sites. Water quality varied
considerably between their sampling sites. For example, pH ranged from 5.04 - 8.77 in
the ponds and from 5.32 - 9.39 in the combination ditches. They found that most of the
chemical values (e.g., dissolved solids, hardness, alkalinity, sulfates, and most metals)
were high. They found that water quality improved with the age of the structure. Their
findings may apply to the water quality of the combination ditches and ponds on this site.
8. Biotic Communities, Trophic Structure, and Energy Sources
Although no receiving stream biological data was available for this site, Maggard and
Kirk (1998) found that the benthic macroinvertebrate community downstream of
mining/valley fill operations shifted toward more pollution tolerant species. Their data
indicates that the number of individuals and taxa richness increased, while diversity and
evenness decreased. These findings may apply to the tributaries of Little Coal River and
Mud River downstream of this site.
RE.I. Consultants, Inc. (1999) evaluated the biological communities in the combination
ditches and sedimentation ponds constructed on other mining sites. The biotic
communities that have developed in the combination ditches and sedimentation ponds
include species typical of a lentic ecosystem. Macrophytes and filamentous algae
provide primary production.
The benthic macroinvertebrate community is composed of typical pond species (e.g.,
Diptera, Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Odonata, and Oligochaeta. The communities in the
newer facilities exhibited low abundance and diversity, and were represented
predominantly by very pollution tolerant species. The older facilities, where water
quality was better and vegetation was abundant, exhibited higher abundance and
diversity. Species present were still primarily pollution tolerant organisms. The fish
community was not represented in the ditches and ponds. In the short-term, it is unlikely
that these structures will provide habitat for amphibians since most amphibian species are
very sensitive to poor water quality.
43
-------
Reclaimed area (1990).
Photo shows restored ridgelines, ponds, wetlands, and reforestation.
Recently reclaimed area with restored ridgelines and wetland system on valley fill
45
-------
Face of recent valley fill
Combination ditch with baseflow
46
-------
Combination ditch with baseflow. Photo shows wetland vegetation along margins of ditch.
48
-------
V
^ „ •'' I
f-'lSiw.:
P&.^M*'-' - . j,
V5* 'k\*llL^
«*c, . i
. '•• -
• »
^ . • •** *99U*> t^itft *
Outfall of combination ditch routed over undisturbed forested hillslope
49
-------
•LBML,,
Gully erosion on forested hillslope. Headcut eroding in an upslope direction.
50
-------
Summary of Findings
The results of this assessment indicate that current mining and reclamation practices
result in significant adverse impacts to the first and second order stream ecosystems on
mountaintop mining/valley fill sites. At all four sites evaluated watershed and stream
characteristics have been significantly, and in most cases, permanently altered.
The shape, slope, size and aspect of the watersheds and valleys have been altered.
Removal of ridgetops and raising of valley floors by disposal of overburden in valley fills
have significantly reduced the pre-mining difference in elevational relief between the
ridgelines and valley floors. The natural variability characteristic of valley profiles and
cross-sections has been replaced with linear landforms and uniform slopes. Reclamation
has reduced the size of the drainage area for some sites and enlarged it for others.
Drainage patterns have been altered from the characteristic dendritic pattern to one best
described as a modified trellis. Although the watersheds have no common aspect or
orientation, for some reclaimed sites their original aspect has been modified.
Some sites have incorporated contour/landform grading and backstacking of overburden
into their reclamation operations. The results of these efforts were obvious in restored
elevational relief and more natural ridgelines. However, the watersheds and valleys are
still very different than under pre-mining conditions. Some, perhaps all of these
differences have the potential to modify the influence of prevailing winds, precipitation,
and insolation on the hydrologic regime, soil characteristics, vegetative communities, and
channel morphology which, in turn, effect the physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of the stream ecosystem.
The creation of steep uniform slopes, disruption of the native soil and geologic strata by
the mining operations, construction of fill surfaces with highly variable permeability,
compaction of soils by heavy equipment, and alteration from forest to grassland all serve
to modify the hydrologic regime of the sites. The result of these modifications is
increased storm flow volumes and decreased time of concentration relative to pre-mining
forested conditions. Although, the combination ditch/groin ditch/sedimentation pond
systems are designed to convey storm runoff, it is unclear how effective these systems are
at actually managing the increased flows and restoring the pre-mining hydrology.
In addition to the effects on hydrology mentioned above, the alterations in soil
characteristics make the sites poorly suited for reestablishing forest cover. The soils are
very sterile, that is, high in mineral content and low in organic matter content. The
unconsolidated nature of the fills results in some areas with extremely high permeability
rates typified by droughty soil conditions while other areas that have relatively low
permeability rates typified by perched water conditions. Neither situation is conducive to
reestablishing a natural forest. Soil conditions will naturally improve with time.
However, until suitable soil characteristics redevelop the vegetative cover will be limited
to grasses and scattered shrubs. The situation is exacerbated by the lack of potential seed
banks adjacent to reclaimed areas on many sites. This situation is due to the complete
removal or isolation of mature forests from the reclamation sites. Sites where forested
ridgelines or hillslopes are adjacent to reclaimed areas may provide a source of pioneer
species. However, without substantial changes to current practices reestablishing natural
forest conditions on most of these sites could take as long as 400-500 years (S. Handel,
personal communication).
51
-------
Erosion and sediment transport rates from upland sources (i.e., active mining areas,
valley fill areas, and adjacent disturbed areas) are probably much higher than under pre-
mining conditions. The combination ditch/groin ditch/sedimentation pond systems are
being managed effectively and limit the actual sediment loadings to the receiving
streams. However, erosion of the streambed and banks in areas that adjust to
accommodate the increased storm flow volumes provide a potential unmanaged source of
sediment to downstream reaches. Two specific problem areas were pointed out in the
Assessment Results section. The first area involved an entrenched runoff ditch that was
experiencing headcut erosion at the break in slope where the channel gradient suddenly
increased. The second site involved a combination ditch that had been routed away from
the face of the valley fill outfalling down an undisturbed forested hillslope. The results of
this situation were even more severe. Scour and degradation of the channel bed is
proceeding in a downslope direction and a significant headcut is eroding upslope. Until
these channels have been stabilized or naturally evolve to a state of equilibrium they will
be significant sources of sediment to downstream reaches. It is not known if these cases
represent common situations on surface mining sites.
If the size of the valley fill areas observed during the tour is representative of
mountaintop mining/valley fill operations, the total stream length of first and second
order streams that could be impacted by current and future surface mining operations is
substantial. Utilizing information from these sites it is estimated that approximately 10
linear feet of stream channel are directly and permanently impacted (i.e., buried beneath
valley fills) for each acre of surface mining. An additional 3 feet of stream channel are
directly and temporarily impacted (i.e., construction of on-line sedimentation ponds) for
each acre of surface mining. This equates to 12,000 linear feet (2.27 miles) of permanent
impacts and 3600 linear feet (0.68 miles) of temporary impacts or a total of 15,600 linear
feet (2.95 miles) of impacts on a 1200-acre surface mining site. These numbers raise two
critical questions. Can these impacts be avoided? How can unavoidable impacts be
minimized and/or mitigated?
Consideration is being given to mitigating for the adverse impacts to the natural channels
on surface mining sites by creating aquatic habitat in the drainage systems (i.e., ditches
and ponds) routinely constructed to convey runoff and control sediment eroded from the
disturbed areas on site. On a linear foot basis this should be feasible since an equivalent
number of miles (or greater) of channel are created in the combination and groin ditches.
The critical issue is whether the constructed drainage systems can mitigate for the
impacts to the natural stream ecosystems on the surface mining sites. The results of this
assessment provide insight on this issue.
The morphology of the combination ditches and groin ditches are consistent with that of
engineered drainage-ways, not natural stream channels. The combination ditches are
wide, trapezoidal, and relatively flat. The groin ditches are also trapezoidal but very
steep. There are no discernible bed features (i.e., riffle-pools, step-pools) in the ditches.
These ditches were designed to convey runoff from larger storm events with all flows
confined to one channel. They were not designed to have a baseflow and bankfull
channel and an adjacent floodprone area.
Most of the drainage systems observed during the tour carry storm flow only (i.e., during
and immediately following storm events). Only a few sites were observed where these
ditches and ponds had been constructed along the edge of a cut-slope and valley fill on
52
-------
the down dip side of the valley. These ditches and ponds do carry a baseflow. Most of
these drainage systems support wetland vegetation. The more complex systems include
combination ditches and a series of shallow ponds and wetlands.
Although biotic communities have developed in many of the ditches and ponds the
species present are typical of lentic ecosystems. Abundance and diversity are low and
most species are very pollution tolerant. The structure of the biotic community is in part
due to channel morphology (wide, shallow and low gradient) and flow conditions (i.e.,
slow moving or standing/ponded water). It is also influenced by poor water quality and a
lack of vegetation.
Woody vegetation in the riparian zone is sparse or non-existent. No obvious attempts
have been made to plant trees or shrubs in these areas. Consequently, macrophytes and
filamentous algae provide primary production in these systems.
The results of this assessment indicate that first and second order stream ecosystems are
being significantly impacted by mountaintop mining/valley fill operations. Current
mining and reclamation practices have not been effective at avoiding or minimizing
adverse impacts to these stream ecosystems and aquatic habitat enhancement in the
constructed drainage systems does not mitigate (i.e., replace) the natural structure and
function of the first and second order stream ecosystems that existed pre-mining. .
53
-------
Summary of Recommendations
This section focuses on recommended approaches for minimizing and mitigating unavoidable
adverse impacts to first and second order stream ecosystems on mountaintop mining/valley fill
sites.
1. Modifications to Overburden Disposal and Reclamation Practices
Current mountaintop mining/valley fill practices involve the removal of overburden from
ridgetops to expose the coal seam(s) for mining. The overburden removed is disposed of
in the adjacent stream valleys. Valley fill is usually laid down in 50 to 100 foot lifts. The
new valley floor (i.e., top of valley fill) may be 400-600 feet above the original valley
floor. Generally, lifts are constructed such that the face of successively higher lifts is set
back 25-40 feet from the lift immediately below it. This creates a bench of uniform
width across the valley fill. Removal of ridgetops and disposal of overburden in valley
fill significantly reduces the elevational difference between the original ridgelines and
valley floors. In the valley fill areas, current reclamation practices create a down valley
slope that is uniformly moderate along the top of the fill and uniformly steep down the
face of the fill. The reconstructed landform is predominantly linear and uniform on most
sites.
Landform grading and backstacking of overburden to heights of 200 -300 feet would
restore some of the relief and natural landform of the ridgelines. The backstacking to
higher elevations would also provide additional upland disposal areas thereby reducing
the volume of overburden placed in valley fills. Although millions of cubic yards of
overburden material are removed during the mining operation, regulation requires that the
bulk (80%) of the material segregated for disposal as valley fill must have been
determined to be durable and geochemically suitable. A portion of the overburden
removed will be unsuitable for valley fill disposal. It would seem that these requirements
would encourage the disposal of overburden material in upland areas as opposed to the
valley fills.
Landform grading and modifying construction practices for the fill lifts could restore the
natural form and slope of the valleys. This would involve constructing irregular lifts of
varying face height and bench width. For example, a series of 15-foot high lifts with 10
foot wide benches might be followed by a series of 5 foot high lifts with 50 foot wide
benches. Lifts could be constructed such that those along the margins of the fill at the
interface with the hillslopes extend further out while those toward the center of the valley
fill are inset. The left side of a lift could be constructed higher than the right side to
provide variable cross-valley slopes.
Utilizing this approach, valleys could be recreated with a down-valley profile that
includes areas of varying slopes. Some valley reaches would be very steep, while other
reaches would have moderate or even fairly gentle slope. The variability exhibited by
the pre-mining valley cross-section could be restored creating ridgelines and hillslopes
with natural breaks where the form and gradient of the slopes change from steep and
convex to gentle and concave and back to steep and convex. Although the valley floor
would still sit much higher in elevation, the swale and meander associated with a
naturally formed valley floor could be recreated.
54
-------
The characteristics of the fill material itself should be modified. The upper layers must
be amended to provide a growth medium suitable for reestablishing a natural forest. This
could be accomplished by working in stages. The first stage would involve laying down
a layer of mulch and topsoil. The mulch can be prepared from the vegetation cleared and
grubbed from a new surface mining site. The topsoil can be salvaged from that same
surface mining site as well. After the soil has been prepared it is fertilized and seeded
with a grass mix of rye and clovers and native meadow grasses.
To initiate the process of reestablishing a natural forest, a variety of native of tree and
shrub pioneering species should be planted on the newly reconstructed ridgelines and
hillslopes and along the valley floors, concentrating on the drainage ways. This
vegetative community should be established (10-15 years) prior to the introduction of
native tree and shrub forest species. Where reclaimed areas are adjacent to undisturbed
forests this successional process may be accelerated.
2. Restoration of stream channels and floodplains
Opportunities for restoration of existing streams were harder to identify where ridgetop
mining operations were predominant and valley fills had been extensive. For example,
removal of on-line ponds from all the tributaries to Mudlick and Stollings Creek at Elk
Run's East of Stollings Mine site would recapture approximately 1800 linear feet of
stream channel with the two longest individual reaches being less than 500 feet each and
the rest ranging from 100 - 250 linear feet. However, on sites where contour mining was
predominant and valley fills had not been as extensive a number of restoration
opportunities exist. For example, removal of on-line sedimentation ponds, floodplain fill,
and sections of access road from Rollem Fork at Pen Coal's Kiah Creek Mine site would
recapture approximately 3600 feet of stream channel.
Rollem Fork provides an excellent example for presenting recommendations for
restoration of stream channels and floodplains. Rollem Fork appears to have been
relocated at some time in the past. Floodplain fill resulting from construction of the pond
berms, disposal of sediment removed from the ponds, and construction of the access road
has confined the stream between the fill and the adjacent hillslope. This condition has
created an entrenched G stream type channel. Woody riparian vegetation is sparse along
the fill side of the channel. One restoration approach would involve lowering of the pond
berms, and removal of floodplain fill and sections of access road. The existing stream
channel should be relocated away from the hillslope and towards the center of the valley
floor. This would also provide a floodprone area to accommodate overbank flows. The
off-line ponds at the base of valley fill and in the floodplain could be combined and
reconstructed as one large freshwater marsh with varying hydrologic regimes (i.e.,
permanently flooded, seasonally flooded and seasonally saturated). The outfall pipes
should be removed. The new outfall to this freshwater marsh/pond would be a small E
stream type channel that meanders along the floodplain before emptying into Rollem
Fork. The margins and seasonally saturated areas could be planted with trees and shrubs
and the flooded areas with emergent vegetation. The riparian zone along both banks of
the stream should be heavily planted with native trees and shrubs.
55
-------
3. Modifications to design of combination ditch/groin ditch/sedimentation ponds
Many of the combination ditches and groin ditches observed convey storm flows only.
Most of them appeared to be stable and functioning as designed. Unless baseflow can be
diverted to these channels, there is no reason to modify them. Where opportunities exist
to capture ground-water and generate a baseflow, the channels should be constructed with
natural channel morphology including planform, profile, and cross-sectional geometry.
Vertical and horizontal controls and flow diverting structures should be installed to
stabilize the channel bed and banks.
The design of these natural channels would include baseflow and bankfull channels and
floodprone areas. The channel form should be consistent with that appropriate for the
valley type in which they will be constructed. For example, the steeper reaches (i.e.,
down the face of the fill) of a groin ditch redesigned as a natural stream channel would
have the characteristics of an A or Aa+ stream type with a step-pool morphology. The
lower gradient reaches (i.e., across the top of the bench) of groin ditches and most
combination ditches redesigned as a natural channel would have the characteristics of B,
C or E stream types. Selection of the appropriate stream type would be guided by the
characteristics of stream types and valley types presented in A Classification of Natural
Rivers (Rosgen, 1994) and Applied River Morphology (Rosgen, 1996).
Specific design parameters would be developed utilizing a Natural Channel Design
Approach that includes: the use of regional hydrologic and hydraulic geometry curves;
channel morphology data obtained from field surveys of stable reference reaches of the
same stream type as that determined to be appropriate for the particular on-site situation;
vertical bed control provided by boulder and log drop structures, rock sills, cross vanes,
etc.; horizontal bank control provided by toe boulders, soil fabric lifts, and dense growth
of trees and shrubs along the banks and in the adjacent riparian zone. Flow diverting
structures (e.g., rock vanes j-hook vanes, cross vanes, w-weirs, etc.) can take stress off
the banks by diverting flows toward the center of the channel. The vertical and
horizontal controls and flow diverting structures are installed and key points along the
channel. They stabilize the channel bed and banks as well as create and maintain
diversity of channel features and habitat. Sedimentation ponds can be redesigned to
create shallow marsh and open water habitats in the floodprone areas adjacent to the
lower gradient channels (i.e., C and E stream types). Plantings of submerged aquatic,
emergent, and woody vegetation would improve water quality and enhance the habitat for
benthic macroinvertebrates, amphibians, reptiles and waterfowl. The natural channel
design approach has the greatest chance for success if it also incorporates the
modifications to valley fill practices presented above.
56
-------
FURTHER AMPLIFICATION AND CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES
RELATING TO LANDFORM RESTORATION
by
HORST J. SCHOR
The impact on aquatic habitat and the elimination of streams through the valley fill process
is really secondary and only provided the legal "hook" to those opposed to current practices
of Mountain Top Removal /Valley Fills. It has been my observation that the primary and
more fundamental issue is, what is perceived by a large segment of the public as the
destruction, the "flattening out" of an existing, pristine, mountainous topography with the
concurrent loss of the entire biological habitat on a fairly significant scale.
Current reclamation practices do not typically:
?? restore a natural topography - mountain tops and valleys and the associated
topographic relief
?? restore a natural hydrologic system, they only "control" drainage
?? restore streams but, build engineered ditches
?? re-vegetate the reclaimed forms to their original or approximate original
condition; distribution of trees, shrubs and ground cover species is not done by
aspect or by elevation but, rather uniform and standardized; single
groundcover mix is optimized for quick germination, dense coverage and
erosions prevention often preventing success of other plant and tree species
All of the above objectionable practices can be mitigated if the industry and its regulatory
agencies are willing, and some issues have already been addressed by some companies.
Reclamation efforts at the Sample and Holbert Mines demonstrated that the industry is
capable of restoring the mountaintop component of the original landforms and they need to
be commended for their efforts.
Not only does it recapture an aesthetic element of West Virginia's topography, it is also
reported to be more cost effective than conventional practices in drag line operations. It
further controls erosion on constructed fill slopes without unsightly, traditional benching
techniques by breaking the man made topography into smaller, none-erosive tributary
drainage areas - just like in nature.
In terms of landform restoration, we are half-way there!
However, the element, even with their efforts, that is still missing, is the recreation of the
valley form. Some of their spoil fills (parts of the recreated ridge tops) are actually stacked
on top of valley fills. Valley fills need to be significantly depressed so that there can be a
more gradual transition of the valley floor downstream from the fill segment to the
undisturbed natural valley/stream. Mountain top fill heights are then increased to make up
for loss of the valley's holding capacity.
Valleys are the foundation for streams. They are the collectors of both surface and
subsurface drainage, they capture, hold, concentrate and channel the water and together with
-------
the topography and vegetative cover become part of the overall aesthetic natural landscape
of any mountainous terrain.
You can't have streams without valleys forms, you can only build drainage ditches or, as Dr.
Handel put it so well, build plumbing devices.
I believe that the loss of the valley form with its associated stream habitat through the filling
process, appears to be the most serious and objectionable element in the public's perception.
It is only through ways of restoring this landform component with its habitat that we can
hope to find a middle ground to resolve the controversy, or valley fills may become highly
restrictive, if not off limits entirely.
It would be unfortunate if, because of the inflexibility of the industry, a court's ruling would
set reclamation practices rather than the technical expertise and the creative minds of the
industry itself and the cooperation of regulatory agencies. It is recognized that this will
require different design techniques, construction processes and maybe even machinery to
achieve this objective but, that has been done before as this industry evolved from
underground to surface operations.
-------
LOS Angeles
MARKETS/MONEY/PERSONAL FINANCE
BUSINESS
ORANGECOUNTY
Has Angeles SKtnes
Landform grading sculpts the hillside of Talega project into new shapes in technique created by Horst Schor.
Grading on the Curve
Developer Goes for Natural Look in Sculpting Hills for Talega Project
ByJOHNO'DELL
SAN CLEMENTE
Fred Moeller has been op-
erating bulldozers for al-
most 40 years now. pit-
ing din, cutting trenches
and grading slopes all over
Southern California.
Bui for all his experience,
Moeller has never been on a job
quite like this one.
Usually, when preparing hill-
sides and valleys for a housing
project, Moeller and other
heavy-equipment operators are
asked to prepare a stairstep
arrangement of flat-faced
slopes with building pads on top.
At Arvida Co.'s Talega devel-
opment in the hills just inland of
Orange County's southernmost
city, the rules have changed.
Moeller and fellow operators
are being asked to think like
sculptors as they follow a com-
plex natural grading plan that
calls for them to create slopes, valleys, gullies, hillocks and
hdgelines for the homes and commercial buildings that will one
day dot the 3,500-acre master-planned community.
In some places they are merely altering existing slopes to
accommodate building pads. In others they are creating hills
where none ever existed.
The grading process was invented in the late 1970s by Horst
Schor, now Arvida's vice president for development. At the
time, Schor worked for the Anaheim Hills Co. as it was
developing its hillside community on the southern slopes of
Santa Ana Canyon,
Fred Moeller guides his 25-ton bulldozer over a mound.
Bui no one else ever picked
up on the idea, Schor said,
despite the industry publicity
the technique received at the
time, when the American Plan-
ning Assn. bestowed an award
of merit on Anaheim Hills Co.
for iis innovative natural grad-
ing plan.
One reason other developers
didn't adopt what Schor calls
landform grading is that it costs
a little more—adding about 1 %
to a project's grading costs—and
requires a lillle effort to train
the grading crews,
"But Arvida feels the time is
really ripe for this." he said.
Environmental concerns and
complaints about development
that destroys natural landscape
and ridgelines can delay proj-
ects for months, even years.
Schor said Arvida's natural
grading plan shaved at least 12
months off the time it took lo
get approval from San Clemente
officials for the Talega develop*
ment—which is located partly within the city and partly m
unincorporated county territory. The time saved can more than
make up for the extra grading costs.
There are three key elements of landform grading, he said
Thursday during a demonstration of the process:
• Building hills and slopes with natural contours;
• Fitting the drainage system into the flow of the land so it
follows the valley bottoms like a natural creek system instead
of cutting straight down the face of slopes with concrete
channels, as is done m a typical stair-step grading plan; and
riease Me TALEGA, D7
-------
Cos Angeles (Times
MARKETS/MONEY/PERSONAL FINANCE
BUSINESS
ORANGE COUNTY
doe Angeles 3Kmc6
Grading on the Curve
Developer Goes for Natural Look in Sculpting Hills for Talega Project
[continued]
Continued (ram Dti
• Designing a natural landscape
plan that mimics nature by placing
the trees and shrubs in the valleys
and on flat spots, where the heavi-
est runoff collects, and covers the
protruding areas with less-thirsty
ground covers.
For Moeller. who spent Thurs-
day morning contouring a small
hill with a 25-ton Caterpillar bull-
dozer, the process isn't much more
difficult than building a traditional
stairstep.
"It's a lot more challenging,
because you're not just going in
straight lines."
Russ Churchill, who works with
Moeller and the other equipment
operators as a grade checker-
overseeing iheir work from the
ground to make sure they are
following the grading plan-said
there is a lot more for him to
concentrate on in a landform grad-
ing project.
"It's challenging." said Church-
ill, "but it is very satisfying to see
the end result. I didn't really see
the whole thing we're working on
here until the other day when I
was leaving the site about 6 in the
evening and I happened to look
back up the road and saw it all
highlighted with the setting sun
and the shadows. It was really
GLENN KOEN1C / UH An|tl« Tuna
Traditional grading of sites for homes is shown In picture of Tuscany Hills development in Lake Elsinore area.
-------
Native's Slopes
By HORST SCHOR
Senior Vice President, Anaheim Hills, Inc.
The advantages and necessities of hill-
side living are becoming more widely
evident as flatlands —the traditional
building sites — are consumed by hous-
ing, industry and agribusiness.
However, hillside building can require
massive grading that may become the
focal point of local resistance, thus im-
peding planning approval. The innova-
tive "landform" grading method was
born of negative impressions gained in
viewing the conventional, linear slopes
commonly manufactured throughout the
building industry.
Hills agreed to finance the experimenta-
tion and to use the results in the com-
munity.
There seemed to be no reason we
couldn't grade the slopes to resemble
natural slopes. The question then arose:
what do natural slopes look like? Curi-
ously, there was no published informa-
tion about slope shapes as a total unit
We were on our own.
Project research involved study of
slopes in such diverse areas as Death
Valley, Brazil, Alaska, Hawaii and Ana-
heim Hills in an attempt to separate dis-
TOPOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION of a section of landform-graded slope,
showing radial water flow, foliage placement in swales and redistribution of
land on lots to conform with landform configurations. Hatched area is concrete
terrace drain required by building codes.
Anaheim Hills is situated in 4,300
acres of beautiful, undulating hillsides in
northeastern Orange County, California.
We, like every other developer, were
taking natural terrain and transforming
it into rigid, mathematical shapes for
building. It was a practice based on the
idea: "We've always done it that way."
Since there was no specific reason, other
than expediency, why it was being done,
the time had come to examine ways of
changing the accepted thinking about
mass grading. The search for an alter-
native was an attempt to improve the
aesthetics of graded hillsides. Anaheim
tinct features from among the natural
slopes and to determine if there was any
relationship between climate, soil type
and vegetation and slope configuration.
Yet it was two years before distinct,
repeating patterns emeged from the
jumble of forms. Simply stated, cones,
pyramids, "elbows," ridges and various
combinations of these elements produce
natural slope shapes.
The challenge was now to apply these
basic shapes to the grading process.
Could they be designed and graded?We
would have to retrain everyone con-
cerned with the project. Designers, en-
gineers, grading contractors and public
officials had always worked in straight
lines. Now we were saying, "the more
irregular, the better."
Communication of the new ideas was
difficult at times. Initially we made clay
models in which we combined the basic
slope shapes and took them out to the
civil engineers and grading contractors.
They, in turn, conveyed the ideas to their
equipment operators in the field. How-
ever, the grading was not shaping up as
we expected. We finally had to go into
the field and call a bulldozer operator
off his machine, show him the drawings
and photos and explain the ideas. He
then said, "Sure, t can do that. Why
didn't you say that in the first place?"
With each grading project, we improved
and streamlined the operations.
We've now been doing the grading in
Anaheim Hills for seven years. Contrac-
tors experienced in landform grading
prefer it because the finished product
doesn't need to meet precise slope-
angle measurements, and it affords the
operator more leeway in his bulldozing.
There is less finishing cost to the con-
tractor, although there are more engi-
neering, design and field control costs
in landform grading. The cut and fill
slopes are very complex to design. It is
an art to assemble the various shapes on
the slopes so they won't look unnatural.
They have to blend together and work
structurally. Landform grading gets its
look not from one component shape or
one gully but from a series of them. The
landform shapes become a sequence of
undulations, peaks and gulleys.
We have to deal with three planning
commissions in Aanheim Hills: the cities
of Anaheim and Orange and the Coun-
ty of Orange. The planners are delighted
with the landform grading idea. At first
they were doubtful, but once we'd
graded several slopes, we invited them
out for a look. Thev walkeH over the
slopes, viewed them from different an-
gles and saw the value of what we were
doing.
The civil engineers were more skenti-
cal. Thev felt that the shapes we were
creatine would cause severe erosion. We
proved them wrong. Earlv on, we cradeH
an experimental slope 70 feet high with-
out the artificial drainage interception
aids required by the building codes.
Rather, we let the curves and elbow
shapes of the landforms absorb the im-
PACIFIC COAST BUILDER
-------
pact of the running water, as happens in
nature.
The rains from 1977 to this year have
been heavy. From September through
March 1977-78, it rained more than 31
inches. The same period in 1978-79 gave
us more than 21 inches, and 1979-80
during the similar months put more than
22 inches of water on the slope. The
siope is still in perfect condition. Nature
doesn't follow building codes, but its
designs still work.
Ironically, we found that conventional,
angular grading tends to encourage ero-
sion. Water generally will sheet flow on
a flat surface and will tend to carve
swales in the weakest sections of the
slope. To compensate, building regula-
tions require terrace drains every 25 feel
to break the momentum of the water.
Yet there is an entire set of building
regulations predicated upon the effi-
ciency of conventional, linear slopes.
On the other hand, the drainage pat-
tern of a landform-graded slope is radial
in nature and swales are already pro-
vided for the runoff. If the land is
formed naturally, as in our process, the
water follows the channels, which break
its speed by virtue of their energy-dissi-
pating shapes. Further, most foliage oc-
curs in the channels or swales, and its
presence breaks the speed of the running
water. Our landscaping also follows this
natural pattern. We also experimented
with such ideas as planting Acacia Rose-
mary, a lush, low growth, to cushion the
impact of rainfall.
Mother Nature is full of surprises. She
knows how to contro! erosion without
using the clumsy terrace drains we use
in man-made slopes. We've minimized
the visual impact of the required con-
crete drains by running them diagonally
and curvilinearly across the slopes,
which makes them considerably less
visible. We also line them with river
rock, so when they are visible they com-
plement the landform slope aesthetics.
AERIAL PHOTO of landform-graded region in Anaheim Hills. Note irregular pat-
terns formed by tandform-graded slopes ateng perimeter of lot pads.
Initially, we and the builders were
concerned about the buildable land that
would be lost to the landform grading
process on each lot. We solved that by
reshaping backyards to conform with the
grading configurations. The center sec-
tions of the lots, which are used most
extensively, bulge outward with the
ridgelines of the grading. The corners
of the yard are taken up by the swales
and these edges are characteristically
used less often. In effect, we redistrib-
uted the lot pad square footage to our
advantage.
We are pleased with the results of our
experiments. When covered with mature
vegetation, our landform graded slopes
appear very much like natural slopes.
The grading has allowed us to move
away from straight lines and abrupt an-
gles in our community planning. The
homes are positioned more irregularly,
which discourages the monotonous took
of row housing. And, importantly, we
come very close to restoring the slopes
to their natural conditions.
We believe that sooner or later de-
velopers will be required to use this
type of landform grading. This method
of grading is part of the future of land
development in this country and even-
tually in all other countries because most
urban and suburban flatland has been
built upon in one way or another. Land-
form grading involves more effort to
achieve, design, implement, construct
and engineer. However, the cost in time
and labor is well worth the results of
aesthetics, structural integrity and the
value to developers of public acceptance
and municipal planning approval. /*"\
FRESHLY GRADED landform slopes show ridges, swales
and pyramid shapes.
MATURE LANDFOKM s/opes wifh vegefafion and foliage
in swa/es.
JUNE, 1980
-------
Volume 9 • Number 11
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT
AND SPECIFIER NEWS
Seethe
LASN
Marketplace
on pages 26 - 41
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
-------
Landform Grading:
Comparative Definitions of
Grading Designs
by Horxt J. fchor
Tie advantages and
lecessities of
lillside living have
3ecnme more
*videlv evident as
flatlands, the traditional
building sites, are being
consumed rapidly by urban
development.
Hillside building, while
appealing to the consumer,
can require massive grading
that may become the focal
point of local resistance, thus
impending government
approval.
However, grading is a
necessity to accommodate
street and building areas for
development, meeting
building codes, and safe
engineering practices. Grad-
ing is also frequently required
to correct unstable soils and
22 / landscape Architect & Specifier Nines
geologic conditions inherent
inmany natural hillsides.
The innovative "Landform
Grading and Revegetation"
concept was conceived to
solve negative impressions
gained in viewing the typical
re-manufactured hillsides
using conventional planning,
engineering and construction
methods. Conventional
grading drastically alters a
landscape, remanufacturing
natural forms and shapes and
plant distribution patterns to
replace them with artificial,
sterile and uniform shapes
and patterns.
The concept, as developed
and described here, consists
of three components:
• Grading
• Drainage Structures
• Revegetation/ Landscaping
G rad ing
In recent years attempts have
been made by some to design
and construct "LANDFORM
grading," while in reality,
these efforts can only, at best,
be described as contouring or
rounding of slopes. Therefore
it is necessary to establish
proper definitions and
characteristics for the three
types of grading available:
Conventional, Contour and
Landform Grading.
Comparative Definitions of
Grading Designs
Conventional Grading
• Conventional graded slopes
are characterized by
essentially linear, planar slope
surfaces with unvarying
the M*-Mrtj*w€ Cwrvneiiis Card on p*J£ 39
gradients and angular slope
intersections. The resultant
pad configurationsare
rectangular.
• Slope drainage devices are
usually constructrd in a
rectilinear configuration in
exposed positions.
• Landscaping is applied in
random or geometric patterns.
Contour Grading
• Contour-graded slopes are
basically similar to
conventionally graded slopes
except that: the slopes are
curvilinear rather than linear,
the gradients are unvarying
and profiles are planar,
transition zones and slope
intersections have generally
some rounding applied.
Resultant pad configurations
Hillside
•
-------
Th* natural hilliM* obovt illutu otei that v*9*t«t>o
-------
The aerial photo to the iert sham a 4.100 acre planned community In
which the design rovolvvi around the landform gmding and revecjetation
concept.
The hill above Illustrate* how landform grading replicate? the Irregular
shqpes of natural slopes. The landscaping will be a "rw*getallon
proem emulatingthe patterns of natural growth.
In high visibility arms, concrete drainage devicesare lined with natural
river rock to createa stream bed effect (right) in the finished landscape.
are mildly curvilinear.
• Slope drainage devices
are usually constructed in a
geometric configuration
and in an exposed position
the slope face.
• Landscaping is applied in
random or geometric
patterns.
landform Grading
• Landform Grading
replicates the irregular
shapes of natural slopes,
resulting in aesthetically
pleasing elevations and
profiles. Landform-graded
slopes are characterized by
continuous series of
concave and convex forms
interspersed with mounds
that blend into the profiles.
Non-linearity and varying
1 liwmtnt
slope gradients are
significant transition zones
between man-made and
natural slopes. Resultant
pad configuration are
irregular.
• Slope down-drain devices
either follow "natural"
lines of the slopes or are
tucked away in special
swale andberm
combinations to conceal the
drains from view. Exposed
segments in high visibility
areas are treated with
natural rock (see right
photo).
• Landscaping becomes a
"revegetation" process and
is applied in patterns that
occur in nature. Trees and
shrubs are concentrated
largely in concave areas,
I - '.':.. .,
-------
Supporting Information Supplied by Horst J. Schor:
Grading on the Curve
Landform Grading: Building Nature's Slopes
Landform Grading Comparative Definitions of Grading Design
Landform Grading and Slope Evolution
Further Amplification and Clarification of Issues Relating to Landform Restoration
-------
LANDFORM GRADING AND SLOPE EVOLUTION
By Horst J. Schor1 and Donald H. Gray,2 Member, ASCE
i
ABSTRACT: Transportation corridors and residential developments in steep terrain both require that some
grading be carried out to accommodate roadways and building sites. The manner in which this grading is
planned and executed and the nature of the resulting topography or landforms that are created affect not only
the visual or aesthetic impact of the development but also the long-term stability of the slopes and effectiveness
of landscaping and revegetation efforts. Conventionally graded slopes can be characterized by essentially
planar slope surfaces with constant gradients. Most slopes in nature, however, consist of complex landforms
covered by vegetation that grows in patterns that are adjusted to hillside hydrogeology. Analysis of slope-
evolution models reveals that a planar slope in many cases is not an equilibrium configuration. Landform-
graded slopes on the other hand mimic stable natural slopes and are characterized by a variety of shapes,
including convex and concave forms. Downslope drains either follow natural drop lines in the slope or are
hidden from view in swale-and-berm combinations. Landscaping plants are placed in patterns that occur in
nature as opposed to random or artificial configurations. The relatively small increase in the costs of engineering
and design for landform grading are more than offset by improved visual and aesthetic impact, quicker
regulatory approval, decreased hillside maintenance and sediment removal costs, and increased marketability
and public acceptance.
INTRODUCTION
All slopes are subject to erosion and mass wasting. Various
measures can be invoked to slow, if not completely prevent,
this degradation. Biotechnical slope-protection methods, for
example, have attracted increasing attention as a cost-effec-
tive and visually attractive means of stabilizing slopes. This
approach has been used to stabilize and revegetate cut-and-
fill slopes along highways as well as slopes in residential hill-
side developments. Kropp (1989) described the use of contour
wattling in combination with subdrains to repair and stabilize
a debris flow above a housing development in Pacifica, Cal-
ifornia. Gray and Sotir (1992) described the use of brush
layering to stabilize a high, unstable cut slope along a highway
in northern Massachusetts. Brush layering and other soil
bioengineering measures have likewise been employed (Sotir
and Gray 1989) to repair a failing fill embankment along a
highway in North Carolina.
Transportation corridors and residential developments in
steep terrain both require that some excavation and regrading
be carried out to accommodate roadways and building sites.
The manner in which this grading is planned and executed
and the nature of the resulting topography or landforms that
are created affect not only the visual or aesthetic impact of
the development but also the stability of the slopes and ef-
fectiveness of landscaping and revegetation efforts.
Succinct descriptions and comparative definitions of grad-
ing designs are as follows.
Conventional Grading
Conventionally graded slopes are characterized by essen-
tially linear (in plan), planar slope surfaces with unvarying
gradients and angular slope intersections. Resultant pad con-
figurations are rectangular.
Slope drainage devices are usually constructed in a recti-
linear configuration in exposed positions.
>Prin., H.J. Schor Consulting, 626 N. Pioneer Dr., Aniheim, CA.
92805 (714)778-3767.
3Prof.. Dept. of Civ. & Envir. Engrg., Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Ml 48109.
Note. Discussion open until March t, 1996. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on September 14, 1994. This paper is pan of the
Journal of GtoUclinicoJ Engintering, Vol. 121. No. 10. October, 1995.
OASCE. ISSN 0733-941U/95/0010-0729-0734/$2.00 + $.23 per page.
Paper No. 9236.
Landscaping is applied in random or geometric patterns to
produce "uniform coverage."
Contour Grading
Contour-graded slopes are basically similar to convention-
ally graded slopes except that the slopes are curvilinear (in
plan) rather than linear, the gradients are unvarying, and
profiles are planar. Transition zones and slope intersections
generally have some rounding applied. Resultant pad config-
urations are mildly curvilinear.
Slope drainage devices are usually constructed in a geo-
metric configuration and in an exposed position on the slope
face.
Landscaping is applied in random or geometric patterns to
produce "uniform coverage."
Landform Grading
Landform grading replicates irregular shapes of natural,
stable slopes. Landform-graded slopes are characterized by
a continuous series of concave and convex forms interspersed
with swales and berms that blend into the profiles, nonline-
arity in plan view, varying slope gradients, and significant
transition zones between man-made and natural slopes. Re-
sultant pad configurations are irregular.
Slope drainage devices either follow "natural" slope drop
lines or are tucked away in special swale-and-berm combi-
nations to conceal the drains from view. Exposed segments
in high visibility areas are treated with natural rock.
Landscaping becomes a "revegetation" process and is ap-
plied in patterns that occur in nature: trees and shrubs are
concentrated largely in concave areas, whereas drier convex
portions are planted mainly with ground covers.
GRADING APPROACHES
Conventional
Conventional grading practice often results in drastically
altered slopes and the replacement of natural hillside forms
with artificial, sterile, and uniform shapes and patterns. Con-
ventionally graded slopes can be characterized by essentially
planar slope surfaces with constant gradients and angular in-
tersections as shown in Fig. 1. Slope-drainage devices are
usually constructed in a rectilinear and exposed fashion.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING/ OCTOBER 1995/729
-------
FIG. 1. Conventional Grading with Planar Slopes and Rectilinear
Drainage Ditch in Highly Visible and Exposed Location
FIG. 2. Conventionally Graded Hill Slope with Planar Face, Rec-
tilinear Drainage Ditch, and uniformly Spaced Plantings
Grading specifications in southern California, for example,
typically call for flat, planar 2:1 (H:V) slopes with a midslope
bench and a drainage ditch, commonly placed straight down
the slope, that collects and conveys water from brow and
midslope bench or terrace drains, respectively. Landscaping
and plants are applied in random or geometric patterns as
shown in Fig. 2.
Contour Grading
Contour grading offers a slight improvement over the ster-
ile and simple geometry achieved by conventional grading.
Some scalloping or curvilinear appearance is introduced onto
the slope when seen in plan view; however, the slope gra-
dients or profiles remain planar and unvarying. Transition
zones at the bottom and top of slopes may also have some
rounding applied. Slope drainage devices are still constructed
in the same geometric configuration and exposed position on
Ihe slope face us in conventional grading. Landscaping and
plants arc also applied in random or geometric patterns.
Landform Grading
"Landform grading" essentially attempts to mimic nature's
hills. This approach has been lamely developed and pioneered
by Schor (1980, 1992. 1993). who has successfully applied
landform grading to several large hillside developments and
planned communities in southern California, it is important
to note that very few hillsides are found in nature with linear,
planar faces. Instead, natural slopes consist of complex land-
730 JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNtCAL ENGINEERING OCTOBER 1995
forms covered by vegetation that grows in patterns that are
adjusted to hillside hydrogeology. as shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
Accordingly, landfornvgraded slopes are characterized by a
variety of shapes including convex and concave forms inter-
spersed with ridges and elbows in the slope.
Downslvpe drain devices either follow natural drop lines
in the slope or are tucked away and hidden from view in
special concave swale and convex berm combinations as shown
in Fig. 5. Landscaping plants are not placed in random or
artificial patterns. Instead they are applied in patterns that
FIG. 3. Natural Hill Slopes with Multiple and Complex Shapes and
Profiles
FIG. 4. Natural Hill Slopes Showing Vegetation Patterns
FIG. 5. Example of Landform Grading with Drainageway that is
Placed In Special Swale-and-Berm Combination to Conceal it from
View
-------
occur in nature (see Fig. 6). Trees and shrubs are concen-
trated primarily in concave areas, where drainage tends to
concentrate, while drier convex portions are planted primarily
with herbaceous ground covers. A schematic depiction of
conventional site planning versus landform site planning is
shown in Fig. 7.
SLOPE-EVOLUTION CONSIDERATIONS
Landform-graded slopes present more than a varied and
pleasing visual appearance. They also tend to be intrinsically
more stable. The general lack of straight, planar slopes in
nature says something. Slopes wear away or degrade over
time by gravity-driven forces of erosion and mass wasting.
The slopes proceed toward an equilibrium profile, which ev-
idently does not include a linear and unvarying gradient.
Geomorphologists have been interested for some time in
various slope-evolution models. The spatial and temporal var-
iation of any point in a slope can be expressed by a number
of two-dimensional mathematical models. These models pre-
dict the rate of change of elevation (dY/dT) of any point on
a slope with elapsed time (T) and coordinate location (X,
Y). Examples of these mathematical models are the follow-
ing:
Model #\ dYldT = -A (1)
Model #2 dY/dT = -B(dYldX) (2)
Model #3 dYldT = -C (height above base) (3)
Model #4 dY/dT = - D (distance from crest)"" (4)
Model #5 dYldT= - E (il-Y/tl-X)
(5)
"
FIG. 6. Example of Landform Grading and Revcgetation with Con-
cave and Convex Slope Forms and Nonlinear, Varying Slope Gra-
dients
FIG. 7. Plan View of Conventional versus Landtorm Site Planning
Graphical illustrations or simulations of these models are
shown in Figs. 8-12. Each of these mathematical models has
some physical basis. Model #2. for example, describes the
"parallel retreat of slope" concept, which postulates that upon
reaching its limiting slope angle (angle of repose) a slope
retreats back at a constant inclination. A purely frictional.
sandy slope whose stability is independent of slope height
could conceivably fit this model. Model #4 fits observations
from the Universal Soil Loss equation, which indicates that
rainfall erosion losses from a slope (all other factors equal)
are a function of the slope length. Model #5 is the so-called
diffusion model, which postulates that in a transport-limited
slope the passage of material down the slope from a point
above is limited by the transfer rale at a point below. The
slope profile adjusts itself over time to optimize this stepwise
or sequential transfer of material downslope by various ero-
sion or mass-wasting processes. Note that in the diffusion
model, an initially planar slope evolves over time into a con-
cave-convex slope as shown in Fig. 12.
The diffusion model (#5) was tested as part of a doctoral
dissertation on slope evolution models at the University of
FIG. 8. Evolution of Hillside Slope when Rate ot Lowering is Uni-
form over Entire Slope Profile (Model 1) [from Nash (1977)]
58
MODEL 2
3T
3T
oK
= -B •
•rar
FIG. 9. Evolution of Hill Slope when Rate of Lowering at Point on
Slope Is Proportional to Profile Gradient at Point (Model 2) [from
Nash (1977)]
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 1995 / 731
-------
MODEL 3
[= -C (HEIGHT HBOVE BRSE LEVEL)
FIG. 10. Evolution of Hillside Slope when Rale of Lowering of a
Point on Slope Is Proportional to Elevation of Point (Model 3) [from
Nash (1977)1
MODEL 4
. = -OtDISTHNCE FROM CREST)0-6
•Vo»
FIG. 11. Evolution of Hill Slope when Rate of Lowering at Point
on Slope Profile is Proportional to Distance that Point Lies from
Crest or Divide (Model 4) [from Nash (1977)]
Michigan (Nash 1977). The slope profiles of present-day,
modern wave-cut bluffs along Lake Michigan and those of
ancient, abandoned bluffs marking former glacial lake mar-
gins were used for this purpose. The study assumed that slope
processes at work on the bluffs have remained relatively con-
stant over geologic time. The ancient bluffs and their ages
respectively, are the Nipissing bluffs (4,000 yr) and Algonquin
bluffs (10,500 yr). Actual slope profiles for these three bluffs
superposed at their midpoint are shown in Fig. 13. The cor-
respondence or fit between the profiles predicted by the dif-
fusion model and the actual profiles was examined for various
diffusion constants. The configurations predicted by the dif-
fusion model for an abandoned bluff after 4,000 years and
10,500 years using a diffusion coefficient of 0.012 mVyr and
an initial, planar profile similar to the profile of the modern
bluff are shown in Fig. 14. According to the diffusion model,
the slope profiles gradually change over time from a linear
to a concave-convex configuration, as illustrated in Fig. 14.
The fit or correspondence between actual and predicted
profiles is quite good as can be seen by comparing slope
profiles in Figs. 13 and 14. More importantly, this modeling
732; JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING I OCTOBER 1995
MODEL 5
(JY/dT - E
-------
terns that are found in nature should also be mimicked. Shrubs
and other woody vegetation growing on natural slopes tend
to cluster in valleys and swales where moisture is more abun-
dant. Random patterns or uniform coverage should be avoided.
Instead, the vegetation is placed where it makes sense, i.e.,
where it has a better chance of surviving and does a better
job of holding soil. Trees and shrubs require more moisture,
and they also do a better job of stabilizing a soil mantle against
shallow mass wasting. Accordingly, it makes sense to cluster
them in swales and valleys in a slope (see Fig. 15), where
runoff tends to concentrate and evaporation is minimized.
Shrubs should also be heavily concentrated along the drainage
flow of each swale.
By purposely controlling the drainage patterns on a slope,
runoff can be concentrated in concave areas where it is needed
or where it can best be handled by woody slope vegetation
(see Fig. 16). Conversely, runoff and seepage will be diverted
away from convex areas. These areas should be planted with
grasses or more drought-tolerance herbaceous vegetation. Ir-
rigation needs are thus reduced by careful control of drainage
pattern on a slope and selection of appropriate plantings for
different areas.
IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Design Engineering and Surveying Costs
Design and surveying can be measurably higher if it is
initially performed by a team only experienced in conven-
tional methods. Design engineering and construction staking
FIG. 15. Topographic Representation of Landform Configuration
Showing Radial Flow of Water, Foliage Placement In Swales, and
Lots that Conform with Landform Grading Configuration [after Schor
(1992)1
and surveying costs are directly related to the experience,
talent, and versatility of the design engineer and his full
understanding of the concept. When first implemented with
a totally inexperienced staff during pioneering stages, design
cost was 15% higher and field cost 10% higher than conven-
tionally designed and surveyed slopes. From that initial ex-
perience, design costs quickly decreased to a factor of 1-3%,
and surveying to 1-5% over conventional methods and ap-
proaches.
A willingness and an open mind to depart from old concepts
are essential elements for realizing the benefits of landform
grading. In-depth training of the designer, draftsman, and
project manager are indispensable, as well, before attempting
the landform-grading method. Approving agencies must also
be brought into the information dissemination process so that
plan check, permitting and, later, inspection can proceed
smoothly.
Construction/Grading Costs
Construction/grading costs are most directly related to the
size and volume of earth movement than any other factor.
In addition, there is a direct relationship to the competitive
marketplace situation at a given time. Competition for larger
projects, such as those for 1,000,000 cu yd or more, tends to
eliminate adherence to landform-grading standards as a sig-
nificant factor.
Grading costs in hillsides of largely sedimentary materials
and not requiring blasting or extremely heavy ripping range
from $0.75 to $1.25 per cubic yard with an average of $1.00
per cubic yard. Variables affecting the unit cost include the
quantity of material, the nature of the operating area, i.e.,
open or confined, the length and steepness of the haul from
the cut areas to the fill areas, and the rippability by conven-
tional dozer/scraper equipment.
At first glance it appears that landform-graded projects
would be significantly more expensive to construct than con-
ventional ones because of the more intricate details and nat-
ural shapes required. However, experience has shown that
the differential is minor when compared to the total project
cost. This is true because the largest percentage (on average
90%) of the earth volume moved, the mass "X" shown in
Fig. 17, can be moved, placed, and compacted in a totally
conventional manner. Only the outer slope layers, 20-50 ft
thick (or approximately 10% of volume), require specialized
shaping. Moreover, even this outer layer can still be placed
and compacted with conventional equipment and methods.
This outer component needs an additional grade checker for
control and a dozer with an experienced operator for final
shaping. Accordingly, when costs are reckoned on the basis
of the actual additional operations involved they are a minor
component, typically on the order of \% of the total cost.
UMfOU EUOCB HOK KUUT
FIG. 16. Landforal-Graded Slope with Convex and Concave Slope
Shapes, Varying Gradient, Curvilinear Drainage Ditch Concealed
in Berm and Swale Configuration, and Clustered Plantings
FIG. 17. Relative Amounts and Location of Earth Movement by
Conventional as Opposed to Landform Grading
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING / OCTOBER 1995/733
-------
COST-IMPACT COMPARISONS ON VARIOUS
SIZE PROJECTS
Large-Scale Projects
On a recently completed hillside project involving 20,000,000
cu yd of earth movement at a cost of some $24,000,000, the
total additional cost incurred including design, surveying,
construction staking, and grading, was $250,000, or about 1%
of the total cost of the grading.
No loss of residential density was encountered, because
land planning was done concurrently with the engineering.
There was a loss of approximately 1% of commercial pad
area due to concave valleys projecting into them. This was
offset, however, by the credit given by the governing agency
for these indentations toward landscape requirements and
coverage calculations for the building pad areas. Further-
more, entitlement approvals were advanced by at least 1 year
by being able to mitigate the previous strong community op-
position to conventional hillside design and construction
methods.
Small-Scale Projects
A 10-acre, 24 custom-lot subdivision requiring 300,000 cu
yd of earth movement, initially designed by conventional
methods, with little hope for approval, was reconfigured to
landform-grading standards. The project applicants had pre-
viously proposed conventional grading and had for 2 1/2 years
tried to secure permitting agency approvals in a community
where grading practices had become a major and highly con-
troversial issue. The governing agency insisted that the ap-
plicant apply landform-grading concepts before any further
resubmittals. The project was redesigned by adhering to these
concepts, and the new layout resulted in 21 lots, a loss of
three lots. Design and staking costs also increased by ap-
proximately $10,000. However, this revision reduced con-
struction costs by reducing the amount of grading required
by 20%. The loss of the lots and additional design costs were
further offset by reduced street and storm-drain improve-
ments, tree-removal costs, and an enhanced and aesthetically
pleasing project with larger open spaces for each of the lots.
This in turn, increased the marketability of the projects. In
addition to these benefits, the project received unanimous
community approval within 3 months.
APPLICABILITY OF LANDFORM GRADING TO
OTHER PROJECTS
In addition to residential and commercial developments
the landform-grading concept should lend itself readily to
highway slopes. Public objections are often voiced against
these highly visible and stark slopes. In addition they are
sometimes prone to erosion problems and generation of ex-
cess runoff. These problems and objections could be greatly
mitigated by the application of this concept, thereby improv-
ing public acceptance. This benefit, would likely offset any
associated additional right-of-way acquisition costs.
Other large earthrnoving and shaping projects that result
in man-made landforms could also benefit from landform
grading. Such projects include sanitary landfills, tailings em-
bankments and mining waste stockpiles, and downstream faces
of earthfill dams.
CONCLUSIONS
Grading considerations are very important to the successful
stabilization and revegetation of slopes. Conventionally graded
slopes can be characterized by essentially planar slope sur-
faces with constant gradients. Most slopes in nature, however,
consist of complex landforms covered by vegetation that grows
in patterns that are adjusted to hillside hydrogeology. Anal-
ysis of slope evolution models reveals that a planar slope often
is not an equilibrium configuration.
Landform-graded slopes, on the other hand, are charac-
terized by a variety of shapes including convex and concave
forms that mimic stable natural slopes. Downslope drain de-
vices either follow natural drop lines in the slope or are tucked
away and hidden from view in special concave swale and
convex berm combinations. Similarly landscaping plants are
not placed in random or artificial patterns, but rather in pat-
terns that occur in nature. Trees and shrubs are clustered
primarily in concave areas, where drainage tends to concen-
trate, while drier convex portions are planted primarily with
herbaceous ground covers.
Design and engineering costs for landform grading increase
approximately 1-3%, and surveying 1-5% over conventional
methods. Construction and grading costs are most strongly
affected by the volume of earth movement and the compet-
itive market. Accordingly, a landform-grading specification
on a large project is not a significant factor. The relatively
small increase in the costs of engineering and design are more
than offset by improved visual and aesthetic impact, quicker
regulatory approval, decreased hillside-maintenance and sed-
iment-removal costs, and increased marketability and public
acceptance.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Gray, D. H., and Solir. R. (1992). "Biotechnical stabilization of a high-
way cut." J. Geolech. Engrg., ASCE. 118(10). 1395-1409.
Kropp, A. (1989). "Biotechnical stabilization of a debris flow scar."
Proc., XX Annu. Con/., Int. Erosion Control Assoc. (IECA). Steam-
boat Springs. Colo., 413-429.
Nash, D. B. (1977). "The evolution of abandoned, wave-cut bluffs in
Emmet County, Michigan," PhD dissertation, Univ. of Michigan. Ann
Arbor.
Schor. H. (1980). "Landform grading: building nature's slopes." Pacific
Coasl Builder. (Jun.), 80-83.
Schor, H. (1992). "Hills like nature makes them." Urban Land, (Mar.).
40-43.
Schor, H. (1993). "Landform grading: comparative definitions of grading
designs." Landscape Arch.
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF STREAM FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN SELECTED
REGIONS OF MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL/VALLEY FILL COAL MINING
(Order no. 1P-0130-NAEX)
TASK 4: PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT
Submitted to:
Mr. Jeffrey Alper
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Submitted by:
Jay R. Stauffer, Jr. and C. Paola Ferreri
School of Forest Resources
Pennsylvania State University
OCTOBER 2002
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In West Virginia, mountain top removal/valley fill coal mining targets coal that overlays
the Kanawha Formation and the Allegheny Formation found in Lincoln, Wayne, Mingo,
Logan, Boone, Wyoming, Raleigh, Kanawha, Fayette, Nicholas, Clay, Webster, and
Braxton counties (Fedorko and Blake 1998). Green et al. (2000) provides an overview of
the potentially affected watersheds. This type of mining also takes place in the adjacent
areas of Kentucky (Howard et al. 2000). Because there is little historical information
regarding stream fish populations in the primary region of mountain top removal/valley
fill coal mining, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested that we sample the fish
communities at several pre-selected sample sites. The objectives of this study were to 1)
characterize the fish communities that exist in the primary region of mountain top
removal/valley fill coal mining in West Virginia and Kentucky, 2) determine if any
unique fish populations exist in this area, and 3) evaluate the effects of these mining
operations on fish populations residing in downstream areas.
During 1999-2000, fish assemblages were sampled in 58 sites in West Virginia located
on 1st through 5th order streams, and in 15 sites in Kentucky located on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th
order streams (Table 1). The majority of the sample sites were selected in consultation
with personnel from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region III and
Region IV. A few sites were added in the field to enhance the characterization of the fish
communities in the primary region of mountain top removal/valley fill coal mining. Sites
in West Virginia were assigned an EIS Classification based on U.S. EPA Region III
(Green et al. 2000) classification. Sites in Kentucky were assigned an EIS Classification
based on Region IV (Howard et al. 2000) classifications. Two sites, a 2nd order in the
Island Creek watershed (stations 6) and a 4th order stream in the Mud River watershed
(station 22) were sampled during Fall 1999 and Spring 2000, and we determined that
collections at these sites were comparable between seasons. However, results from the
1999-2000 sampling effort indicated that not enough reference sites were included to
adequately assess the potential effects of mountain top mining/valley fill operations on
fish communities in the area. A strong relationship exists between stream size (as
described by stream order) and the total number offish species present (Figure 4). All of
11
-------
the unmined sites that were to serve as reference sites were located on 1st and 2nd order
streams, while sites classified as mined, filled, filled/residential, and mined/residential
occurred primarily on 3rd and 4th order streams making direct comparisons between
mined and filled sites difficult (Figure 4). As a result, in Fall 2001, eight sites in the Mud
River that were classified as filled or filled/residential were re-sampled along with five
sites in the Big Ugly and three sites in the Buffalo Creek drainages that were chosen to
serve as reference (of the unmined condition) sites in the Guyandotte River system.
At each site, a section of stream was selected for sampling the fish community. The
length of the study reach was at least 40 times the stream width, but no longer than 150m
(Lyons 1992). We collected fishes making three passes (depletion sampling) with a
backpack electrofishing unit. Fishes were preserved in 10% formalin and transferred to
the Pennsylvania State University Fish Museum for permanent storage in 50%
isopropanol.
Fifty-six species, including two hybrid sunfishes, were collected from the 73 sites in the
primary region of mountain top removal/valley fill coal mining in West Virginia and
Kentucky and the five sites in the Big Ugly drainage (Table 4). As small headwater
streams that harbor founding populations that were derived by stream captures have the
greatest potential for the progression from a local deme (interbreeding population) to
subspecies/species, we examined Cottus populations to look for evidence of speciation.
An undescribed Potomac River form closely related to Cottus cognatus has been
collected in West Virginia (R. L. Raesly, pers. comm.) and an undescribed form endemic
to the Bluestone River is expected to occur within the state (Stauffer et al. 1995). Our
analysis of Cottus populations in this area determined that unique species were not
present in the study area. However, elimination of these populations would interrupt
selective processes that may in turn result in speciation.
Six sites in West Virginia failed to produce any fish (Table 5). Three of these site were
in the unmined category (stations 2, 24, 46), one site was in the mined category (station
31), one site was in the filled category (station 1), and one site was in the filled/residential
in
-------
category (station 37). Details of each collection including numbers per species caught,
abundance estimate (if possible to calculate), total biomass caught, and biomass per
square meter per species are available in Appendix B.
Due to the confounding effects of drought, small stream size (low stream order), and
human impact on reference sites in West Virginia, we could not compare reference
(unmined) sites to filled sites directly during the 1999/2000 sampling season. Thus, we
concentrated on Kentucky sites and 2nd order streams in the New River Drainage where
we had comparable reference (unmined) and filled sites to determine the effects of
mountain top mining/valley fill coal mining. Comparison of unmined sites and filled
sites in Kentucky and in 2nd order streams in the New River Drainage indicate that
mountain top removal/valley fill coal mining has impacted the condition of streams. In
general, the numbers of total species and benthic species were substantially lower in
filled sites than in mined sites in both Kentucky and 2nd order streams in the New River
Drainage (Figures 5-8).
In 2001, we were able to compare the fish samples taken in the mined sites in the Mud
River with reference sites sampled in the Big Ugly Creek drainage. Both the Mud River
and Big Ugly Creek watersheds are part of the Guyandotte River system. Both the total
number of species and the total number of benthic species were greater in the reference
sites (median 17 and 6 respectively) than in the filled sites collected in 2001 (median=8
and 1.5). The total number of species collected during 1999/2000 was considerably
higher (median = 12.5) than the total number of species collected at the same sites in
2001 (median 8; Figures 9 & 10). Water chemistry analysis revealed that five of the Mud
River sites sampled in 2001 had detectable levels of selenium (9.5 - 31.5 |ig/L). Sites
that were associated with valley fills and had detectable levels of selenium supported
fewer species than sites solely associated with valley fills. Although the medians of total
number of species present in both groups were equal (median = 8 in both cases), the
range associated with sites that had fills and selenium was lower than sites with fills
alone (Figure 11). Total number of species was dramatically lower in both, sites
classified as filled that had selenium present (Mann-Whitney U Test P=0.008) and sites
IV
-------
classified as filled that did not have selenium present (Mann-Whitney U Test P=0.0179),
than in unmined sites (median = 17). Total number of benthic species followed a similar
trend (medians: unmined = 6, filled & selenium = 0, filled & no selenium = 3; Figure 12).
Clearly, a multiple year collecting regimen is needed to see if there continues to be a
decrease in the number of species over time in the sites associated with valley fills. It
may be that with continued mining, heavy metals will continue to be released into the
system and have adverse impacts on the fauna.
v
-------
INTRODUCTION
The State of West Virginia encompasses 62,890 km2 and is drained by over 45,000 km of
streams. The diversity and distribution of fishes in West Virginia is intimately related to
drainage divides. The Potomac and James rivers drain the Atlantic Slope, while the remainder of
the state drains to the Gulf of Mexico via the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. The fauna of all West
Virginia systems draining into the greater Ohio River are similar in composition and have an
interrelated history. The greater Ohio River drainage is chiefly comprised of the Monongehela,
Little Kanawha, Kanawha, Guyandotte, and Big Sandy/Tug Fork rivers. The upper Kanawha
(New) River system above the 7.3 m Kanawha Falls has a unique fauna with six endemic
species; the bigmouth chub (Nocomisplatyrhynchus), the New River shiner (Notropis
scabriceps), the Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretulus), the candy darter (Etheostoma
osburni), the Kanawha darter (Etheostoma kanawhae), and the Appalachia darter (Percina
gymnocephalci); all but E. kanawhae occur in West Virginia. For this reason, the New River is
treated separately from the greater Ohio River drainage with respect to fish distribution. In the
ichthyological literature, New River refers to all of the Kanawha River drainage above Kanawha
Falls. Thus, all the collections that we made in the Gauley River are reported as the New River
fauna.
The Mississippi River basin is considered to be the primary center of origin and dispersal of
freshwater fishes east of the Rocky Mountains. The ancient Teays system, which headed against
the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina and Virginia, was proposed as a major route of
dispersal of fishes east to the Atlantic Slope and north to the upper Ohio River system. The Ohio
River did not exist prior to the Pleistocene; during the Pliocene, the two major systems in the
central Appalachians were the Teays and Pittsburgh rivers. The existing New-Kanawha River
system is regarded as a remnant of the upper Teays River. The Pittsburgh River was a southern
tributary of an ancestral river that flowed through the region now occupied by Lake Erie, Lake
Huron, and St. Lawrence River. The Old Upper Ohio, Monongahela, and Youghiogheny rivers
were tributaries of this system. Pleistocene glaciations reorganized the Teays and Pittsburgh
river systems into drainages similar to those present today.
-------
Three Atlantic Slope streams competed for drainage west of the Blue Ridge Mountains during
the Tertiary Period: 1) the Potomac River, flowing through the gap at Harpers Ferry; 2) Goose
Creek, flowing from west of Massanutten Mountain eastward through Manassas Gap to its
confluence with the lower Potomac; and 3) the Rockfish River, which drained the southern
Shenandoah Valley through Rockfish Gap into the present Rivanna River drainage of the James
River (Stauffer et al. 1978). Thompson (1939) suggested that all streams heading on the western
side of the Blue Ridge flowed northwest. The Potomac River was the first to breach this divide
and diverted many of these streams to the Atlantic Ocean. The Teays River drained the area
west of the Blue Ridge, north to Buchanan, Virginia and Highland County, Virginia via the
Fincastle River, which headed against the Old South River. The drainage of the latter included
parts of the present-day James and Shenandoah rivers. The Old South River was apparently a
tributary to the Shenandoah River, which headed farther south than it does today. Biological
evidence in support of this is the widespread distribution of the torrent sucker (Thoburnia
rhothoecd) in the southern Potomac River west of the Blue Ridge and its absence to the east and
north. The mountain redbelly dace (Phoxinus oreas) is found in the James and Shenandoah
rivers but may have been introduced to the Potomac system. The bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus) is widely distributed in the New, Roanoke, and James rivers and is known
northward from the South Fork of the Shenandoah and the South River of the Rapidan in the
Rappahannock drainage. The margined madtom (Noturus insignis) also may have entered the
Atlantic Slope via a Teays-Roanoke connection.
The Greenbrier (New River Drainage) and Potomac rivers oppose each other on the Allegheny
Mountain along the Pocahontas County, West Virginia- Highland County, Virginia and
Pocahontas-Pendleton County, West Virginia lines. The divide does not appear to have been
breached; however, the East and West forks of the Greenbrier River have captured drainage from
the more northern Monongahela system, and this route has apparently served as a major avenue
for the dispersal of fishes from the Teays system including the rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), the tonguetied minnow (Exoglossum laurae\ and the sharpnose darter (Percina
oxyrhynchus).
-------
Some of the strongest evidence for a Greenbrier-Monongahela-Potomac route offish dispersal
illustrated by the distribution of the river chub (Nocomis micropogori) and the bigmouth chub
(Nocomisplatyrhynchus). The bigmouth chub is endemic to the New River system;
introgression has occurred between it and river chub populations of the upper Monongahela, and
genes from the bigmouth chub have been carried into river chub populations of the upper
Potomac. Schwartz (1965) gave additional evidence that the greenside darter (Etheostoma
blennioides) may have followed a similar route. Further evidence of this proposed route includes
the presence of the rainbow darter {Etheostoma caeruleum) from the South Branch of the
Potomac River (Esmond and Stauffer 1983).
Wallace (1973) concluded that silerjaw minnows (Ericymba buccata) in the Potomac basin were
of a Monongahela drainage origin, and Hocutt et al. (1978) hypothesized that the species may
have entered the Monongahela by way of the Greenbrier River. The silver] aw minnow probably
entered the Susquehanna and Rappahannock rivers from the Potomac. Other species regarded as
having entered the Potomac River through the Monongahela River system include the Ohio
logperch (Percina caprodes caprodes) and the southern blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus
obtusus), which are confined to the Potomac on the central Atlantic Slope.
The least brook lamprey (Lampetra aepypterd) is a western form that entered Atlantic drainages,
first through captures involving the New River system in Virginia, and then via coastal migration
prior to the development of the Chesapeake Bay. The fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare)
probably migrated to the Atlantic Coast by means of a variety of headwater captures involving
the New and Monongahela rivers.
The banded sculpin (Coitus carolinae) complex apparently originated in the Tennessee system
and subsequently invaded the upper Ohio, New, and Potomac rivers. The Teays was a center of
dispersal of the mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi). Robins (1961) recognized the Potomac sculpin
(Cottus girardi) as once thought to be endemic to the Potomac, derived from primitive C.
carolinae stock.
-------
The above discussion emphasizes the uniqueness and importance of the study area in the
evolution and speciation of North American freshwater fishes. 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. Populations located in the periphery of the distribution of a given species
represent those groups that will most likely be involved in a speciation event (Mayr and Ashlock
1991). Certainly, small headwater streams that harbor founding populations that were derived by
stream captures have the greatest potential for the progression from a local deme (interbreeding
population), to subspecies/species. For example, an undescribed Potomac River form closely
related to Cottus cognatus has been collected in West Virginia (R. L. Raesly, pers. comm.) and
an undescribed form endemic to the Bluestone River is expected to occur within the state
(Stauffer et al. 1995). Thus, we examined Cottus populations to look for evidence of speciation.
The burying of these systems essentially eliminates the genetic diversity needed to fuel
speciation processes.
Mountain top mining for the most part targets coal that overlays the Kanawha Formation and the
Allegheny Formation found in Lincoln, Wayne, Mingo, Logan, Boone, Wyoming, Raleigh,
Kanawha, Fayette, Nicholas, Clay, Webster, and Braxton counties (Fedorko and Blake 1998).
Green et al. (2000) provides an overview of the potentially affected watersheds; the Mud River
and Island Creek watersheds are located in the Guyandotte River Drainage, the Clear Fork and
Spruce Fork watersheds are located in the Kanawha River Drainage, and the Twentymile Creek
watershed is located in the New River Drainage. Because there is little historical information
regarding stream fish populations in the primary region of mountain top removal/valley fill
(MTM/VF) coal mining, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested that we sample the fish
communities at several pre-selected sample sites. The objectives of this study were to 1)
characterize the fish communities that exist in the primary region of mountain top removal/valley
fill coal mining in West Virginia and Kentucky, 2) determine if any unique fish populations exist
in this area, and 3) evaluate the effects of these mining operations on fish populations residing in
downstream areas.
-------
METHODS
Fish communities were sampled at 58 sites in West Virginia located on 1st through 5th order
streams, and in 15 sites in Kentucky located on 2nd through 4th order streams during Fall 1999
and Spring 2000 (Table 1). In general, comparisons between unmined sites and filled sites were
confounded by stream size, effects of drought, and a lack of adequate reference (unmined) sites
that were not impaired by other human impacts (including residences, trash, driving through
streams). In an effort to elucidate the effects of MTM/VF operations, we sampled 16 sites during
Fall 2001 in the Guyandotte River Basin, eight in the Mud River, five in the Big Ugly, and three
in Buffalo Creek (Table 2).
Sample Site Selection Fall 1999/Spring 2000
The majority of the sample sites visited in Fall 1999/Spring 2000 were selected in consultation
with personnel from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region III and Region IV.
A few sites were added in the field to enhance the characterization of the fish communities in the
primary region of mountain top removal mining. Green eta al. (2000) provide a general
description of each of the watersheds sampled in West Virginia. Sites in West Virginia were
assigned an EIS Classification based on U.S. EPA Region III (Green et al. 2000) classification:
"unmined" (EIS Class = 0), "mined" (EIS Class = 1), "filled" (EIS Class = 2), "filled/residential"
(EIS Class = 3), and "mined/residential" (EIS Class = 4). Only three sites (stations 16, 21, and
27 in Table 1) that we sampled in West Virginia were classified as "mined/residential" (EIS
Class = 4); thus, we dropped this category from our analysis due to limited sample size. Two
sites, a 2nd order stream in the Island Creek watershed (stations 6) and a 4th order stream in the
Mud River watershed (station 22) were sampled during both the Fall 1999 and Spring 2000
index periods to determine the comparability of samples between index periods.
Fifteen sites in Kentucky were selected and assigned an EIS Classification based on Region IV
(B. Berrang and H. Howard, U.S. EPA Region IV, personal communication) classifications;
these were classified as either "reference" (EIS Class = 0) or "filled" (EIS Class = 2) (Table 1).
Howard et al. (2000) provide a general description of the watersheds sampled in Kentucky.
Based on on-site observations, EPA personnel reclassified one site (PSU station 66 - EPA
-------
Station 9 - Lost Creek) as "filled/residential" after sampling was completed (Howard et al.
2000). Howard et al. (2000) removed this site from further analysis as it represented only one
site in the filled/residential category. As a result, we removed this site from our analysis as well.
Due to differences in site classifications and major drainage differences (Ohio River Drainage in
WV vs Cumberland and KentuckyRiver Drainages in Kentucky), we analyzed data from the two
regions separately.
Sample Site Selection Fall 2001
In Fall 2001, we selected eight sites in the Mud River that were classified as either "filled" or
"filled/residential " in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order streams for further study (Table 2). In consultation
with the USEPA, USFWS, and representatives of the mining companies, we selected sites
outside the immediate region of MTM/VF coal mining to serve as reference sites that would
characterize the "unmined" condition within the Guyandotte River drainage. Five sites in the
Big Ugly watershed (Guyandotte River drainage) and three sites in Buffalo Creek (Guyandotte
River drainage) on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order streams were selected (Table 2). After sampling was
completed, J. R. Stauffer was informed that the sites in Buffalo Creek were not good reference
sites as they were reported to have been "running orange" earlier in the year (William Booth,
caretaker for Chief Logan Park, personal communication). As such, comparisons between sites
categorized as "filled" or "filled/residential " and unmined sites are limited to the five reference
sites in the Big Ugly watershed.
Characterization of Fish Communities
At each site, a section of stream that included representative habitat types (riffle, pool, and run
habitats) was selected for sampling the fish community. The length of the study reach was at
least 40 times the stream width, but no longer than 150m (Lyons 1992). In general, fishes were
sampled near the location of the EPA benthic macroinvertebrate sampling stations. We did not
sample the exact riffle that was designated as the benthic macroinvertebrate site so as not to
disturb that site. Thus, the exact sampling reach for fishes is generally located upstream or
downstream of the designated EPA site.
-------
Fishes were collected at each site by making three passes using a backpack electrofishing unit.
Collections began at the downstream end of the section and proceeded upstream for the entire
section. All fishes from the first pass were placed in a bucket labeled "Collection #1." Two
additional collections were made in a similar fashion, and fishes placed in buckets labeled
"Collection #2" and "Collection #3." Each collection was preserved separately. Fishes were
preserved in 10% formalin and transferred to The Pennsylvania State University Fish Museum
for permanent storage in 50% isopropanol. Fishes from each sample were identified to species,
enumerated, measured (standard length, mm), and weighed (nearest O.Olg). Total biomass
caught was determined for each collection as the product of the average weight of the species
and the total number caught. Biomass per square meter sampled was determined by dividing
total biomass caught by the total surface area sampled (stream section length in meters x average
stream width in the section in meters).
Sampling resulted in three separate counts for each species (corresponding to the electrofishing
pass number). These counts were used to estimate abundance of each species using the BASIC
program, MicroFish (van Deventer and Platts 1983). The program also calculated the 95%
confidence interval associated with the estimate. In most cases, it is assumed that the lower
confidence limit was equal to the number caught; thus, only the upper 95% confidence limit was
reported. Calculation of abundance using this method (depletion sampling) depends on a
continuous decrease in numbers caught with each subsequent electrofishing pass. In some cases,
we could not calculate an abundance estimate because the species did not exhibit a normal
depletion pattern (i.e., numbers did not decrease with increasing number of electrofishing
passes), there were too few individuals caught to make an estimate possible, or all individuals
were caught in the first pass.
Evaluation of Mining Effects
The number of species for each of the major drainages sampled in West Virginia (i.e., the
Guyandotte, Kanawha, and New River Drainages) during Fall 1999/Spring 2000 was plotted
against stream order and categorized by EIS class (i.e., unmined, mined, filled, filled/residential,
mined/residential). The number of species that we collected was compared to the number of
species that would be expected in relatively unimpacted sites based on historical collections in
-------
the Guyandotte River (Stauffer et al. 1989) and the Greenbrier River (Hocutt et al. 1978). The
purpose of these historical surveys was to describe the fish community in these river systems.
As such, sites were extensively sampled using seines until the investigators deemed that further
sampling would not add additional species. Although the sampling effort is different between
the historical surveys and our current survey, the historical surveys serve as a benchmark for
total number of species in the general area of MTM/VF coal mining prior to the development of
these operations. The Guyandotte River collections serve as a baseline for fishes collected in the
Guyandotte River Drainage (Mud River and Island Creek) and in the Kanawha River Drainage
(Spruce Fork and Clear Fork). The Greenbrier River drains into the New River above Kanawha
Falls, and fish communities in the system above the falls are generally considered to be similar
(Stauffer et al. 1995). Thus, the historical collections in the Greenbrier River serve as a baseline
for our collections in the New River Drainage (Twentymile Creek).
The use of particular attributes of a fish community, such as total number of species or total
number of benthic species, to evaluate stream condition is becoming widely accepted (e.g., Karr
1981, Leonard and Orth 1986, Ohio EPA 1987, Davis and Simon 1995, Angermeier et al. 2000).
A recent study testing the ability of potential metrics based on attributes of the fish community to
distinguish between sites of differing quality in Mid-Atlantic Highland streams found that the
total number of species present and the total number of benthic species were most consistently
related to site quality (Angermeier et al. 2000). In general, the total number offish species is
expected decrease with increasing degradation (Barbour et al. 1999). However, this number will
also vary with stream size (generally increases as stream size increases, e.g. Fausch et al. 1984,
Messinger and Chambers 2001), so comparisons of condition between EIS classes must be kept
within similar stream orders. Benthic species are generally sensitive to degradation resulting
from siltation and benthic oxygen depletion because they feed and reproduce in benthic habitats;
thus, we expect the total number of benthic species to decrease with increasing degradation
(Barbour et al. 1999). Like the total number of species, the total number of benthic species will
also vary with stream size and comparisons between EIS classes must be made between sites in
similar stream orders. Benthic species included darter (Etheostoma spp. and Percina spp),
sculpin (Coitus spp), and madtom (Noturus spp) species.
-------
In addition to the effect of stream size (i.e., stream order), major drainage divides also influence
attributes of the fish assemblage and comparisons among site classes based on these attributes
(Angermeier et al. 2000). As such, all comparisons between EIS classifications (e.g.,
comparisons between sites classified as unmined and filled) must be limited to similar stream
orders within major drainage basins.
To evaluate differences in attributes of the fish community between EIS classes, we used box-
and-whisker plots. These plots display the median (solid line in box), the upper (75th percentile)
and lower (25th percentile) quartiles (the solid box), the 10th and 90th percentiles (the whiskers),
and any outliers of a population of sites. We used the degree of overlap of the attribute ranges to
visually assess differences between the EIS classes. The greatest degree of difference is
indicated by no overlap of the interquartile ranges. Overlap between the interquartile ranges that
excludes the medians indicates the next greatest difference between EIS classes. Extensive
overlap of the interquartile range that includes both medians within the overlap indicates little or
no difference between EIS classes (Barbour et al. 1999). Where we had a large enough sample
size within EIS class (n>2), we also calculated the Mann-Whitney U Test probability to test for
statistical significance.
Water Chemistry Analysis - Fall 2001
During Fall 2001, we collected water samples at each of the 16 stations where we sampled fish
communities. A single water sample was collected at each site (according to directions provided
by the EPA) and sent to the Research Environmental & Industrial Consultants, Inc (REIC) for
laboratory analysis of total metals (mg/L of aluminum, iron, arsenic, copper, and selenium) and
hardness (as mg/L CaCOs). In addition to the water samples, we measured pH and conductivity
in-situ using an Oakton pH testr and TDS Testr 20 respectively.
Determination of Unique Populations
Coitus species were analyzed to determine if unique populations existed within the study area.
External counts and measurements followed Stauffer (1991) (Table 3A). Except for gill raker
meristics, all counts and measurements were made on the left side of the fish. Morphometric
values were expressed as percent standard length (SL) or percent head length (HL).
-------
We analyzed the data to determine which populations of Coitus bairdi were different from each
other. Morphology has always played an important role in the study of the systematics and
evolution of organisms. As part of these studies, attempts have been made to qualify and
quantify the shape of the organism. Historically, biological shapes have been delineated by a
single measurement or a small number of measurements that have been standardized by the use
of ratios. The use of ratios is now generally believed to be statistically invalid when delineating
among groups (Humphries et al. 1981, Bookstein et al. 1985, Reyment et al. 1984).
Morphological data have been analyzed using principal component analysis. The first principal
component has been regarded as a size component, while the additional components are
considered to be dependent on the shape of the individual. This technique has also been
questioned because there is an effect of size on components other than the first one.
Consequently, a sheared principal components analysis was developed by Humphries et al.
(1981), which restricts the variation due to size to the first component; the subsequent
components are strictly shape related.
Differences in body shape were analyzed using sheared principal component analysis of the
morphometric data following Stauffer et al. (1997). Pectoral-fin length and pelvic-fin length
were not be included in the analysis, as well as any other variables that were influenced by sex
and reproductive stage of the fish. Meristic data were analyzed using principal component
analysis. The correlation matrix was factored in the calculation of all principal component
analyses, while the covariance matrix was factored in the calculation of the sheared principal
components. This analysis ordinated factors independently of a main linear ordination (Reyment
et al. 1984). Differences among populations were illustrated by plotting either the sheared
second or third principal components of the morphometric data against the first principal
components of the meristic data. The minimum polygon cluster ofCottus with single chin pores
were compared to that formed by Coitus with double chin pores.
Determination ofNocomis micropogon andN. platyrhynchus
The river chub (Nocomis micropogon) and the bigmouth chub (N. platyrhynchus) are easily
confused. The bigmouth chub is delineated from all other Nocomis species based on the tubercle
10
-------
pattern on the head of breeding males. Historically, the river chub (N. micropogon) was not
believed to inhabit the New River where the bigmouth chub (N. platyrhynchus) occurs.
However, there were some fishes collected in Twentymile Creek (New River Drainage) that
appeared to resemble N. micropogon. Not enough males with breeding tubercles were collected
to identify these fishes. As a result, we conducted a shape analysis of these specimens (using the
same methods as described above for the analysis ofCottus spp, but using different counts and
measures described in Table 3B and compared them with known populations of TV. micropogon.
RESULTS
Fifty-six (56) species, including two hybrid sunfishes, were collected from the 73 sites in the
primary region of mountain top removal/valley fill coal mining in West Virginia and Kentucky
and the five sites in the Big Ugly Creek watershed (Table 4). Information on the distribution,
life history, and biology of each of these 56 species can be found in Appendix A.
Characterization of Fish Communities - Fall 1999/Spring 2000
Six sites in West Virginia failed to produce any fish (Table 5). Three of these site were in the
unmined category (stations 2, 24, 46), one site was in the mined category (station 31), one site
was in the filled category (station 1), and one site was in the filled/residential category (station
37). Details of each collection including numbers per species caught, abundance estimate (if
possible to calculate), total biomass caught, and biomass per square meter per species are
available in Appendix B.
Guyandotte River Drainage (Mud River and Island Creek). We sampled fishes at 23 stations in
the Guyandotte River drainage (Tables 5 & 6). These collections yielded 5,442 fishes distributed
among 30 species. In the Guyandotte River drainage, we sampled five 1st order streams, three
unmined and two filled. As expected, these 1st order streams yielded low species diversity. One
unmined and one filled site yielded no fish at all. The other unmined site yielded two species
(Rhinichthys atratulus, Semotilus atromaculatus). Only one species, Rhinichthys atratulus, was
11
-------
collected at two of the filled sites. Biomass/m2 and number of individuals/m2 were highest at
the unmined site where fish were collected (Station 5; Table 5).
We made fish collections at nine sites in 2nd order streams. We collected between 1-9 species at
each of the unmined sites and 1-12 species at the filled sites (Tables 5 & 6). All of the sites
yielded fewer species than collected historically in 2nd order streams in the Guyandotte (Figurel).
The highest number of individuals per m2 and the highest biomass per m2 were collected at
Station 12 (MT-14), which was a filled site (Table 5). The high biomass at this site was largely
attributable to the high numbers of Semotilus atromaculatus and Lepomis cyanellus (Table 6);
both species are considered tolerant, and the presence of high numbers of these species is
considered to be indicative of environmental stresses (Barbour et al. 1999, Messinger and
Chambers 2001).
We collected fish at eight sites in 3rd order streams. The collections yielded between 6-20
species (Tables 5 & 6). All of the sites were classified as filled, filled/residential, or
mined/residential. Five of the sites produced more species than historically associated with 3rd
order streams in the Guyandotte River drainage (Figure 1).
The two 4th order streams sampled were classified as filled/residential and yielded 19 to 20 fish
species, which was a higher number of species expected, based on historical records (Figure 1).
Two stations, 6 (2nd order stream) and 22 (4th order stream), were sampled in both Fall 1999 and
Spring 2000. At station 6, we caught only two species, R. atratulus and S. atromaculatus, each
season. During spring, we completed only one pass of electrofishing at station 6 because we
caught the same two species in the same relative numbers that we had collected in the fall. At
station 22, we caught 20 species during each season. Fifteen of the species were represented in
both collections, and, in each collection, we caught an additional five different species. Five
species, Notropisphotogenis, Noturus miums, Lepomis megalotis, Micropteruspunctulatus, and
Micropterus salmoides, were represented by one individual in the fall sample and were absent in
the spring sample. In the spring, Pimephales notatus (5), Moxostoma erythrurum (1),
Ambloplites rupestris (1), Percina caprodes (3), and Percina maculata (1) were represented by a
12
-------
few individuals (number in paretheses following species name), and these were not collected in
the fall sample. Because the majority of the species were represented in both fall and spring
collections, and those that were different were generally represented by only one or a few
individuals, we determined that fall and spring samples in this region are comparable.
Kanawha River Drainage (Clear Fork and Spruce Creek watersheds). We sampled fishes at 22
stations in the Kanawha River Drainage (Tables 5 & 7). These collections yielded 3,792 fishes
distributed among 30 species. In the Kanawha River drainage, we sampled one site in a 1st order,
unmined stream where no fish were collected.
We made fish collections at eight sites in 2nd order streams. The only unmined site yielded 20 R.
atratulus. Three mined sites were sampled; one yielded no fish and the other two yielded S.
atromaculatus and R. atratulus in low numbers (Table 6). One site sampled was classified as
mined/residential and yielded two species, R. atratulus and Coitus bairdi. Three species were
collected at two sites that were classified as filled and one site classified as filled/residential. All
of the sites yielded fewer species than collected historically in 2nd order streams in the
Guyandotte (Figure 2). As both the Guyandotte River Drainage and the Kanawha River
Drainage are part of the Ohio River system, historical collections in the Guyandotte serve as a
baseline for fishes collected in the Kanawha River Drainage (Stauffer et al. 1995).
No unmined 3rd order streams were sampled in the Kanawha River drainage. The mined 3rd
order streams produced between 2-6 species, and the filled 3rd order streams yielded between 9-
14 species (Tables 5 & 7). Samples from sites classified as filled/residential produced between
0-7 species. Two of these sites yielded the highest biomass (station 36 and 39) that was probably
due to the very high number of Coitus bairdi collected at these stations (327 and 200
respectively; Tables 5 & 7). Most of the sites sampled in 3rd order streams yielded fewer species
than collected historically in 3rd order streams in the Guyandotte River drainage (Figure 2).
We collected fishes at three 4th and one 5th order streams that were classified as filled/residential
and found between 13-20 species at each of these sites (Table 5 & 8).
13
-------
New River Drainage (Twentymile Creek watershed). We sampled fishes at 13 stations in the
New River Drainage (Table 7). These collections yielded 1,963 fishes distributed among 23
species (including one sunfish hybrid). We sampled one 1st order, unmined site that yielded no
fishes. We sampled fishes in six 2nd order streams. Four of these sites were unmined and
yielded 3-6 species. Two were filled sites that yielded 3 species each (Tables 5 & 8). All 2nd
order sites yielded fewer fish species than would be expected based on historical data (Figure 3).
No unmined sites were sampled in 3rd or 4th order streams. Three of four collections from 3rd
order streams in this drainage were at sites classified as filled and yielded between 9-17 species
(Table 8). One site on a 3rd order stream was classified as mined. The mined site and two of the
filled sites yielded a lower number of species than would be expected based on historical data,
while one filled site yielded a comparable number of species (Figure 3). Two sites classified as
mined/residential were sampled in 4th order streams yielding 9-16 species (Table 8).
Kentucky Sites. We sampled fishes at 15 stations in Kentucky (Tables 5 & 9). These
collections yielded 5,354 individuals distributed among 36 species (including one sunfish
hybrid). Collections at five reference sites, two on 2nd order streams and three on 3rd order
streams, yielded 9-20 species. The filled sites on 2nd and 3rd order streams yielded between 2-14
fish species. Eight species (Ericymba buccata, Lythrurus ardens, Phoxinus erythrogaster,
Lepomis megalotis, Etheostoma nigrum, Etheostoma sagitta, Percina maculata, and Percina
stictogaster) were only collected at the reference stations (Table 9). Six of these species are
classified as moderately tolerant of environmental stresses (Barbour et al. 1999). Information
regarding tolerance was not available for two of these species, E. sagitta and P. stictogaster. Six
species (Nocomis micropogon, Rhinichthys atratulus, Ameiurus natalis, Noturus miurus,
Lepomis cyanellus, Etheostoma variatum) were found only at filled sites (Table 9). Four of these
species, R. atratulus, A. natalis, L. cyanellus, E. variatum, are classified as tolerant of
environmental stress, while the other two species, Nocomis micropogon and Noturus miurus, are
classified as intolerant of environmental stress (Barbour et al. 1999). One 3rd order stream site
was classified as filled/residential and yielded 13 species (station 66), while two 4th order stream
sites classified as filled yielded between 7-14 species (stations 59 and 73). These three stations
were not considered further in the analysis as there was only one filled/residential site and no
reference site on a 4th order stream.
14
-------
Characterization of Fish Communities — Fall 2001
We sampled fishes at 16 stations in the Guyandotte River Drainage during Fall 2001 (Table 10).
Three of these stations (79, 80, and 81) were chosen to serve as reference sites for our Mud River
filled and filled/residential sites, but were impacted by other sources of degradation (William
Booth, caretaker of Chief Logan Park, personal communication). Thus, results concentrate on 13
sites - five reference sites in the Big Ugly watershed and eight "filled" and "filled/residential "
sites in the Mud River; unmined and filled sites were sampled on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order streams.
These collections yielded 2,739 fishes distributed among 35 species (Table 11). Details of each
collection including numbers per species caught, abundance estimate (if possible to calculate),
total biomass caught, and biomass per square meter per species are available in Appendix C.
In general, sites that were categorized as filled or filled/residential yielded fewer species that
unmined sites (Tables 10 & 11). We collected fishes at four stations in 2nd order streams. Two
unmined sites yielded 12 and 13 species, while two "filled" sites yielded 2 and 6 species. We
sampled five 3rd order streams - one unmined, two filled, and two filled/residential. The
unmined site yielded 17 species, while the filled sites only yielded 6 and 9 species. The
filled/residential sites yielded 8 and 18 species. We collected fishes at four 4th order sites, two
unmined and two filled/residential. The unmined sites yielded 21 and 24 species, while the
filled/residential sites yielded only 8 and 12 species. Of interest, we collected Lepomis
cyanellus, a species often indicative of environmental degradation (Karr 1981, Barbour et al.
1999), at seven of the eight Mud River stations and at none of the reference sites (Table 11).
Evaluation of Effects of Mining
Evaluation of MTM/VF coal mining operations on fish communities in the West Virginia
samples collected in Fall 1999/Spring 2000 was confounded by differences in stream order
(Figure 4). In general, the total number of species is expected to increase as stream size
(measured by stream order) increases (Fausch et al. 1984, Messinger and Chase 2001). In our
samples from West Virginia, a significant relationship exists between stream order and the total
number of species collected at a particular site (R2 = 0.5849; P < 0.001). The fact that unmined
sites were only available in 1st and 2nd order streams (Figure 4), limited our ability to compare
15
-------
unmined to filled sites directly in most cases. Second order streams in the New River basin
(Twentymile Creek watershed) provided one instance where we had unmined (n=4) and filled
(n=2) sites available for a given stream order allowing a direct comparison of the site classes.
Comparisons between unmined and filled site classes were possible for sites sampled in
Kentucky because we had unmined sites (n=5) and filled sites (n=7) in both 2nd and 3rd order
streams. We sampled two unmined sites (stations 62 and 63) and three filled sites (stations 64,
65, and 68) in 2nd order streams, and we sampled three unmined sites (stations 61,71, and 72)
and four filled sites (stations 60, 67, 69, 70) in 3rd order streams. As we had unmined and mined
sites in both stream orders, sites were pooled across stream order by site classification for the
analysis. We sampled one site (PSU station 66 - EPA station 9: Lost Creek) that was redefined
as a EIS class of filled/residential after Region IV EPA visited the site (Howard et al. 2000).
This site was removed from our analysis as it represented only one site in this EIS category. We
sampled two sites on 4th order streams that were classified as filled; however, we did not sample
any 4th order unmined sites. Because of the strong relationship between stream order and
number of species present, the 4th order sites were not included inour analysis, as we did not have
an appropriate reference condition (unmined sites) for the comparison.
Kentucky Fish Community Attributes: In general, filled sites (median = 7) had a significantly
lower number of total species than the unmined sites (median = 12) in Kentucky (Figure 5;
Mann-Whitney U Test, P=0.037). Total number of benthic species was also significantly lower
in filled sites (median =1) than in unmined sites (median = 6; Figure 6; Mann-Whitney U Test,
P=0.0059).
Second Order Streams in Twentymile Creek Watershed: In the Twentymile Creek watershed,
we were able to sample four unmined sites and two filled sites in 2nd order streams allowing a
comparison to be made between EIS classes (Figures 7 & 8). Filled sites on 2nd order streams in
Twentymile Creek watershed yielded fewer total species (median = 3) and benthic species
(median = 0.5) than unmined sites (median = 5.5 and 2.5 respectively).
16
-------
Guyandotte River Drainage Comparisons - Fall 2001: We compared the total number of species
and total number of benthic species collected at five unmined sites on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order
streams in the Big Ugly watershed with collections from eight sites on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order
streams in the Mud River watershed that were classified either as filled or filled/residential
(Figures 9 & 10). Both the total number of species and the total number of benthic species were
greater in the unmined sites than in the filled sites (total species: unmined median =17, filled
median = 8, Mann-Whitney U Test P=0.0093; benthic species: unmined median = 6, filled
median =1.5, Mann-Whitney U Test P=0.0088). The total number of species collected at the
unmined sites (median =17) was also greater than the total number of species collected at the
same set of Mud River sites (filled and filled/residential) during the Fall 1999/Spring 2000
period (median = 12.5). The total number of species collected at the Mud River sites during Fall
1999/Spring 2000 was considerably higher (median = 12.5) than the total number of species
collected during Fall 2001 (median = 8; Figure 9). The same trend holds for the total number of
benthic species (Figure 10). The total number of benthic species collected at the unmined sites is
greater (median = 6) than the number of benthic species collected in the Mud River during Fall
1999/Spring 2000 (median = 4), but this number is greater than the number of benthic species
collected at the same stations in Fall 2001 (median = 1.5).
Water chemistry analysis (see results below) revealed that five of the Mud River sites sampled in
Fall 2001 had detectable levels of Selenium (range from 9.5 to 31.5 |ig/L). Selenium has been
documented to toxic effects on aquatic life (Lemly 1993). In fact, mortality of rainbow trout,
chinook salmon, striped bass, and bluegill has been documented at concentrations of selenium
ranging from 4 to 10 |ig/L (Kennedy et al. 2000). As such, we grouped the Mud River sites
according to presence (n=5) or absence (n=3) of selenium and repeated the analysis of total
number of species and total number of benthic species (Figures 11 & 12). Sites that were
associated with valley fills and had detectable levels of selenium supported fewer species than
sites solely associated with valley fills. Although the medians of total number of species present
in both groups were equal (median = 8 in both cases), the range associated with sites that had
fills and selenium was lower than sites with fills alone (Figure 11). Total number of species was
dramatically lower in both, sites classified as filled that had selenium present (Mann-Whitney U
Test P=0.008) and sites classified as filled that did not have selenium present (Mann-Whitney U
17
-------
Test P=0.0179), than in unmined sites (median = 17). Total number of benthic species followed
a similar trend (medians: unmined = 6, filled & selenium = 0, filled & no selenium = 3; Figure
12).
Water Chemistry Analysis — Fall 2001
Water chemistry analysis detected selenium in five of the eight sites in the Mud River watershed
associated with valley fills (Table 12; original data sheets from REIC are included in Appendix
D). Stations 7 (MT-18), 17 (upstream of MT-15), 18 (MT-15), 22 (MT-23), and 23 (MT-17) all
had detectable levels of selenium present, while stations 12 (MT-14), 19 (MT-07), and 20 (MT-
05) did not. Station 17 (MT-15) also had elevated levels of aluminum (10.4 mg/L), iron (43.6
mg/L), and copper (0.027 mg/L) as compared to the other filled or unmined sites. It is
interesting to compare these values to those measured at station 18 which was located upstream
of station 17 and upstream of the valley fill above station 17 (i.e., stations 17 and 18 essentially
bracket a valley fill with station 18 at the upstream end and station 17 at the downstream end).
Levels of all detectable metals were lower at station 18 (upstream of the valley fill) than at
station 17 (Table 12).
Like the related benthic macroinvertebrate studies in West Virginia (Green et al. 2000) and
Kentucky (Hoke et al. 2000), we found elevated values of conductivity and pH at sites associated
with valley fills as compared to the unmined sites (Table 12). Conductivity values at the filled
and filled/residential sites in the Mud River watershed ranged from 513 to 2330 |imhos/cm with
an average of 1716.5 |imhos/cm. These values are substantially higher than conductivity values
at the five unmined sites that ranged from 125 to 210 |imhos/cm with an average of 164.2
|imhos/cm. The range of pH values at sites associated with valley fills was higher (7.3 to 8.3)
than the range of pH at the reference sites (7.0 to 7.2).
Analysis of Coitus Populations.
Sculpins identified as Coitus bairdi had either one or two central chin pores. The number of
central chin pores has been used as a diagnostic character to separate eastern sculpin species.
Therefore, a series of counts and measurements (Table 2) were made on the collections of C.
bairdi. A plot of the sheared second principal component of the morphometric data versus the
18
-------
first principal component of the meristic data demonstrated that there was complete overlap
between the clusters formed by those C. bairdi with two chin pores and those specimens with a
single chin pore (Figure 13). Thus, there were no other morphometric or meristic factors that
supported the theory that the number of chin pores was an informative character that separated
the two populations. Nevertheless, it is important to continue to tract these populations. Ideally,
one would want to conduct a series of behavior observations to determine if individuals with one
and two chin pores assortatively mate.
Determination ofNocomis micropogon andN. platyrhynchus
A plot of the sheared second principal component of the morphometric data versus the first
principal component of the meristic data demonstrated that there was some minor separation
between the clusters formed by those known populations of TV. micropogon and N. platyrhynchus
(Figure 14). These data are equivocal; hence we identified all specimens collected in
Twentymile Creek as N. platyrhynchus, but more analyses of these populations are needed.
DISCUSSION
The primary region of mountain top removal/valley fill coal mining in West Virginia
encompasses an important region for fish diversity. The Kanawha River harbors 105 native
species, four of which may be introduced, and 11 introduced forms, two of which may be native.
No endemic forms are reported from the Kanawha River below the falls. The West Virginia
portion of the New River has a depauperate fauna, when compared to the Kanawha River. There
are 56 native species, six of which are endemic and 12 of which may be introduced, and 30
introduced species, 18 of which may be native. The relatively high degree of endemism and the
reduced number of native species is most likely attributable to the presence of Kanawha Falls,
which is a major barrier to fish dispersal. A total of 90 native species (three of which may be
introduced - see Stauffer et al. 1995) inhabits the Guyandotte River, and an additional five
introduced species are reported.
19
-------
The uniqueness of this area is further emphasized by the fact that we collected high numbers of
Coitus bairdi with single chin pores. Although our analysis indicates that Coitus with single and
double chin pores constitute a single species, the fact that both forms occur in relatively even
numbers is unusual. In most places, deviations from the norm, such as a single chin pore versus
a double chin pore, are rare in the population. Thus, single chin pore C. bairdi may be on a
different evolutionary trajectory than those with double chin pores that may ultimately lead to
speciation. The continued disruption of streams in the area may eliminate the genetic diversity
necessary for this process to continue. Certainly, more observations and studies on these forms
is warranted.
Determining the effects of mountain top removal/ valley fill coal mining operations on stream
fishes in West Virginia was difficult. In the five watersheds we studied in West Virginia,
unmined sites (reference condition) were limited to 1st and 2nd order streams. This was primarily
because there were no higher order streams in this area that had not been mined in this manner.
Unfortunately, it is clear that these sites do not adequately portray a reference condition - one
where fish communities would not be disturbed - for several reasons. First, fish diversity
generally increases with increasing stream order (Fausch et al. 1984). Thus, our findings our
confounded by stream order - a general increase in the number of species found in filled sites
relative to unmined sites is really due to the fact that we sampled filled sites in 2nd through 5th
order streams which naturally have a higher diversity of fishes. Second, Green et al. (2000)
documented that many unmined sites were affected by the drought of 1999 because they were
located on smaller streams that were likely to have no surface water flow during drought
conditions. Drought, in and of itself, can act as a major perturbation on fish communities.
Although fish may recolonize an area after a drought, it will take several years before the fish
community resembles that which was in place before the drought. Certainly, the recolonization
rate of fishes is slower than other fauna present in these systems. For example, many aquatic
insects have aerial components of their life cycle; thus, water falls, polluted areas, and other
obstructions to upstream dispersal are not as effective barriers to recolonization. We have
anecdotal information that some of our sites were severely impacted by drought. For example, in
a study conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1998, researchers recorded finding
Coitus spp. in benthic invertebrate samples from White Oak Branch (Station 32), an unmined,
20
-------
2nd order stream (C. Tibbott, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication). When
we sampled, in May 2000, we found only one species, Rhinichthys atratulus. Because R.
atratulus inhabits the water column and is typically a headwater species, we would expect that
this species would recolonize an area quickly after a drought. Sculpins (Coitus spp.), however,
are benthic species that typically have a restricted home range. This restricted movement hinders
the dispersal rate of these fishes, making it more difficult for them to recolonize an area after a
drought. The same study by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documented many fishes in the
pools of Oldhouse Branch (Station 24), an unmined, 1st order stream (C. Tibbott, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, personal communication). When we sampled in May 2000, we found no fish at
all. The lack offish during the spring sampling is most likely due to the effects of the drought in
1999.
As a result, we focused our attention on collections on 2nd order streams in the New River
Drainage and on 2nd and 3rd order streams in Kentucky to evaluate the effects of mountain top
removal/ valley fill coal mining on fish communities. Comparison of unmined sites and filled
sites in Kentucky and in the New River Drainage indicate that mountain top removal/valley fill
coal mining has had an effect on the number and composition of the fish communities in these
streams. Streams classified as filled had lower numbers of total species and benthic species than
unmined streams in both areas.
21
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Angermeier, P.L., R.A. Smogor, J.R. Stauffer. 2000. Regional frameworks and candidate
metrics for assessing biotic integrity in Mid-Atlantic Highland streams. Trans. Amer. Fish.
Soc. 129:962-981.
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.
Bookstein, F., B. Chernoff, R. Elder, J. Humphries, G. Smith and R. Strauss. 1985.
Morphometrics in evolutionary biology. Academy of Natural Sciences, Spec. Publ. 15,
Philadelphia, PA.
Davis, W.S., and T.P. Simon. 1995. Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource
planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Esmond, E. F. and J. R. Stauffer Jr. 1983. Taxonometric comparison of the Atlantic Slope and
Ohio River populations ofEtheostoma caeruleum Storer. Am. Midi. Nat. 109:390-397.
Etnier, D. A. and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Fausch, D.D., J.R. Karr, and P.R. Yant. 1984. Regional application of an index of biotic
integrity based on stream fish communities. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 113:39-55.
Fedorko, N. and M. Blake. 1998. A geologic overview of mountaintop removal mining in West
Virginia. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey.
Green, J. M. Passmore, and H. Childers. 2000. Quality assurance project plan: A survey of the
condition of streams in the pirmary region of mountaintop removal/valley fill coal mining.
USEPA. Wheeling, WV.
Howard, H., B. Berrang, M. Flexner, G. Pond, and S. Call. 2000. Mountaintop mining in
Kentucky: A study of the biology and water quality of watersheds associated with mining.
May 1-4, 2000. U.S. EPA, Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Ecological Assessment
Branch, Athens, Georgia.
Hocutt, C. H., R. F. Denoncourt, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1978. Fishes of the
Greenbrier River, West Virginia with drainage history of the Central Appalachians. J. of
Biogoegraphy 5:59-80.
Humphries, J., F. Bookstein, B. Chernoff, G. Smith, R. Elder, and S. Poss. 1981. Multivariate
discrimination by shape in relation to size. Systematic Zoology 30:291-308.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 66:21-27.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long neglected aspect of water resource management.
Ecological Applications 1:66-84.
Karr, J.R., and E.W. Chu. 1999. Restoring life in running waters: Better biological monitoring.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Kennedy, C. J., L. E. McDonald, R. Loveridge, and M. M. Strosher. 2000. The effect of
bioaccumulated Selenium on nortalities and deformities in the eggs, larvae, and fry of a wild
population of cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
39:46-52.
Lemly, A. D. 1993. Guidelines for evaluating selenium data from aquatic monitoring and
assessment studies. Environ. Mon. Assess. 28:83-100.
22
-------
Leonard, P.M., and DJ. Orth. 1986. Application and testing of an index of biotic integrity in
small, coolwater streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:401-414.
Lyons, J. 1992. The length of stream to sample with a towed electrofishing unit when fish
species richness is estimated. North Am. J. of Fish. Manage. 12:198-203.
Mayr, E. and P. Ashlock. 1991. Principles of systematic zoology 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Inc. New
York, New York.
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 Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4048. Charleston, WV.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 1987. Biological criteria for the protection
of aquatic life: volumes I-III. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio.
Page, L. M. and B. M. Burr. 1991. A Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes. The Peterson Field
Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Reyment, R., R. Blackith, and N. Cambell. 1984. Multivariate morphometrics. Academic
Press, New York, N. Y.
Robins, C. R. 1961. Two new cottid fishes from the fresh waters of eastern United States.
Copeia 1961:305-315.
Schwarts, F. J. 1965. The distribution and probable porglacial dispersal of the percid fish,
Etheostoma b. blennioides in the Potomac River. Copeia 1965:285-290.
Stauffer, J. R., Jr. 1991. Description of a facultative cleanerfish (Teleostei: Cichlidae) from
Lake Malawi, Africa. Copeia 1991:141-147.
Stauffer, J. R., Jr., J. M. Boltz, and L. R. White. 1995. The fishes of West Virginia. Proc. Acad.
Nat. Sci. of Phil. 146:1-389.
Stauffer, J. R., Jr., N. J. Bowers, K. A. Kellogg, and K. R. McKaye. 1997. A revision of the
blue-black Pseudotropheus zebra (Teleostei: Cichlidae) complex from Lake Malawi, Africa,
with a description of a new genus and ten new species. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil. 148: 189-
230.
Stauffer, J. R., Jr., R. F. Dononcourt, C. H. Hocutt, and R. L. Miles. 1989. Fishes of the
Guyandotte River, West Virginia. Bull. Chicago Acad. Sci. 14:3-14.
Stauffer, J. R., Jr., C. H. Hocutt, and D. S. Lee. 1978. The zoogeography of the freshwater
fishes of the Potomac River, 44-54. In: KI. C. Flynn and W. T. Mason (eds.). The
Freshwater Potomac: Aquatic Communities and Environmental stresses. Interstate Comm.
Potomac River Basin, Rockville, Maryland.
Thompson, H. D. 1939. Drainage evolution in the southern Appalachians. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am.
50:1323-1356.
Van Deventer, J. S. and W. W. Platts. 1983. Sampling and estimating fish populations from
streams. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Natural Res. Conf. 48:349-354.
Wallace, D. C. 1973. Reproduction of the silver] aw minnow, Ericymba buccata Cope. Trans.
Sm. Fish. Soc. 102:786-793.
23
-------
24
-------
Table 1. PSU collection number, PSU station number, stream name, corresponding USEPA MT or Station number where applicable, locality,
stream order, EIS Class (0=unmined, l=mined, 2=filled, 3=filled/residential, 4=mined/residential), sample date, drainage, and USEPA MT Basin
for fish collections completed during Fall 1999 and Spring 2000 in the primary region of MTM/VF coal mining in West Virginia and Kentucky.
PSU
Station
Collection # Number Stream Name
EPAMT
or
Station Locality
Stream EIS
order Class Sample Date Drainage
MT Basin
JRS-99-67
1 Hall Fork
JRS-99-69 2 Sang Branch
JRS-00-61 3 Left Fork
JRS-00-62 4 Cow Creek
MT-57B of Left Fork of Cow Creek
approximately 100 m above
confluence with Left Fork
approximately 100 m upstream of
first stream crossing on Sang
Branch Road.
MT-58 Left Fork of Cow Creek upstream
of Hall Fork
MT-52 Cow Creek downstream of valley
1 2 23Oct1999 Guyandotte Island Creek
0 23Oct1999 Guyandotte Island Creek
2 28 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Island Creek
2 28 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Island Creek
JRS-00-67
JRS-99-68
JRS-00-50
JRS-00-52
JRS-00-59
JRS-00-60
Spring Branch MT-13 (tributary of Ballard Fork)
approximately 500m above mouth
Left Fork MT-60 of Cow Creek
7 Sugartree Branch MT-18 downstream of grouted spill way
8 Cabin Branch MT-50 approximately 100m upstream of
confluence with Jacks Fork
9 Left Fork MT-59 of Cow Creek downstream of Hall
Fork
2
2
2
0
29 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Mud River
23Oct1999 Guyandotte Island Creek
01 Apr 2000
01 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Mud River
28 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Island Creek
28 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Island Creek
25
-------
PSU
Station
Collection # Number Stream Name
EPAMT
or
Station Locality
Stream EIS
order Class Sample Date Drainage MT Basin
JRS-00-64 10 Rushpatch
Branch
JRS-00-65 11 Lukey Fork
JRS-00-68 12 BallardFork
MT-02 approximately 170m above mouth 2
MT-03 above 3rd valley fill approximately
one mile above mouth
MT-14 approximately 100m above mouth
0 29 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Mud River
0 29 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Mud River
2 30 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Mud River
JRS-00-69 13 Cabin Branch
JRS-00-91
14 Island Creek
JRS-99-70 15 Cow Creek
JRS-00-53 16 Mud River
MT-51 approximately 600m upstream of 2
Copperas Mine Fork
just upstream of mouth of Cow 3
Creek
MT-55 along Rt 13 approximately 3.3 3
miles downstream from Mingo-
Logan Coal mine
MT-01 downstream of Rushpatch Branch 3
30 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Island Creek
3 31 May 2000 Guyandotte Island Creek
23Oct1999 Guyandotte Island Creek
02 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Mud River
JRS-00-54 17 Stanley Fork
JRS-00-55 18 Stanley Fork
JRS-00-57 19 Mud River
JRS-00-58 20 Mud River
JRS-00-66 21 Mud River
upstream of valley fill and
upstream of (MT-15)
MT-15 downstream of valley fill, above
beaver ponds
MT-07 upstream of Ballard fork upstream
of Bridge
MT-05 just upstream of Passenger Fork,
downstream of Lukey Fork
MT-04 just upstream of Lukey Fork
02 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Mud River
02 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Mud River
03 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Mud River
03 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Mud River
29 Apr 2000 Guyandotte Mud River
26
-------
Collection #
JRS-99-76
JRS-00-51
JRS-00-56
JRS-00-92
JRS-99-71
JRS-99-80
JRS-99-81
JRS-00-73
JRS-00-76
JRS-00-79
JRS-00-80
JRS-00-93
JRS-99-72
JRS-99-73
PSU
Station
Number Stream Name
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Mud River
Mud River
Oldhouse Branch
Rockhouse Creek
Buffalo Fork
Ewing Fork
Toney Fork
Davis Creek
Lem Fork
Sycamore Creek
White Oak
Branch
Beech Creek
Pigeonroost
Branch
EPAMT
or
Station
MT-23
MT-17
MT-42
MT-25B
MT-64
MT-69
MT-70
MT-79
MT-80
MT-82
MT-39
MT-32
MT-45
Stream
Locality order
approximately 1800 ft
downstream of confluence with
Connelly Branch
just upstream of Sugartree
Branch
of Spruce Fork
approximately 0.5 km above Rock
House Creek Lake
of Toney Fork approximately .06
mile above confluence
at mouth
upstream of mouth of Ewing Fork
at mouth
at mouth
bove unnamed tributary above
MT-82 near AMD plant
of Spruce Fork
just downstream of Peats Branch
downstream of security gate
4
4
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
EIS
Class
3
3
0
2
2
4
3
1
1
1
0
2
1
Sample Date
250ct1999
01 Apr 2000
02 Apr 2000
31 May 2000
24Oct1999
30Oct1999
30Oct1999
08 May 2000
09 May 2000
09 May 2000
09 May 2000
31 May 2000
24Oct1999
24Oct1999
Drainage
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
MT Basin
Mud River
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
JRS-99-78
35 Sycamore Creek
below mouth of Right Fork
29 Oct 1999 Kanawha Clear Fork
27
-------
PSU
Station
Collection # Number Stream Name
EPAMT
or
Station Locality
Stream EIS
order Class Sample Date Drainage MT Basin
36 Toney Fork
37 Toney Fork
JRS-99-79
JRS-99-82
JRS-00-70
JRS-00-74
JRS-00-77
JRS-00-78
JRS-99-74
JRS-00-71 43 Spruce Fork
JRS-00-72 44 Spruce Fork
JRS-99-75 45 Spruce Fork
JRS-00-88 46 Laurel Run
38
39
40
41
42
Beech Creek
Toney Fork
Sycamore Creek
Sycamore Creek
Spruce Fork
MT-28
MT-63
MT-85
MT-81
MT-40
MT-62 at Buffalo Fork confluence South
East of Clear Fork
MT-70 approximately 1 km above mouth
of Ewing Run
0.9 miles upstream from gate
above confluence with Buffalo
Fork
downstream of Lem Fork
upstream of Lem Fork
upstream from Blair Bridge along
StRt17
upstream of Pigeonroost Branch
150m downstream of mouth of
Pigeonroost Branch
MT-46
MT-47
MT-48 upstream of bridge in Dobra-
starting 80m above bridge
MT-93 at confluence with Rader Fork
JRS-00-83 48 Twentymile Creek
JRS-00-84 49 Neff Fork
just upstream of mouth of Rader
Fork
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
JRS-99-86 47 Hughes Fork MT-98 approximately 500 m above Jim's 2
Hollow
3 30Oct1999 Kanawha Clear Fork
3 30Oct1999 Kanawha Clear Fork
2 30 Apr 2000 Kanawha Spruce Fork
3 08 May 2000 Kanawha Clear Fork
1 09 May 2000 Kanawha Clear Fork
1 09 May 2000 Kanawha Clear Fork
3 24Oct1999 Kanawha Spruce Fork
3 01 May 2000 Kanawha Spruce Fork
3 01 May 2000 Kanawha Spruce Fork
3 25Oct1999 Kanawha Spruce Fork
0 11 May 2000 New
01 Nov1999 New
1 10 May 2000 New
Twentymile
Creek
Twentymile
Creek
Twentymile
Creek
MT-87 near mouth
10 May 2000 New Twentymile
28
-------
Collection #
JRS-00-85
JRS-00-86
JRS-00-87
JRS-00-89
JRS-99-84
JRS-99-85
JRS-00-81
JRS-00-82
JRS-99-83
PSU
Station
Number Stream Name
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Neil Branch
Ash Fork
Rader Fork
Rader Fork
Twentymile Creek
Hughes Fork
Rader Fork
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
EPAMT
or Stream
Station Locality order
MT-95 from mouth to road culvert (40m)
at mouth
MT-91 500 ft upstream of confluence
with Neff Fork
MT-94 upstream of confluence with
Laurel Run
downstream of Ash Fork
below pond
MT-86 just 200m upstream of confluence
of Twentymile Creek
just downstream of mouth of
Rader Fork
just downstream of Peach
Orchard Branch
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
EIS
Class
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
Sample Date
11 May 2000
11 May 2000
11 May 2000
11 May 2000
31 Oct1999
01 Nov1999
10 May 2000
10 May 2000
31 Oct1999
Drainage
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
MT Basin
Creek
Twentymile
Creek
Twentymile
Creek
Twentymile
Creek
Twentymile
Creek
Twentymile
Creek
Twentymile
Creek
Twentymile
Creek
Twentymile
Creek
Twentymile
Creek
JRS-00-95 59 Left Fork
JRS-00-96 60 Sims Fork
JRS-00-97 61 Clear Creek
of Straight Creek at Rt 66 bridge
upstream of confluence with
Howard Branch
downstream of confluence with
Camp Branch
RT 190 bridge west of Clear
Creek Springs, Kentucky Ridge
State Forest (reference)
03 Jun 2000 Cumberland
03 Jun 2000 Cumberland
04 Jun 2000 Cumberland
29
-------
Collection #
PSU
Station
Number Stream Name
EPAMT
or
Station Locality
Stream EIS
order Class Sample Date Drainage
MT Basin
JRS-00-94 62 Big Double 12
JRS-00-98 63 Sugar Creek 13
JRS-00-99 64 Buffalo Creek 3
JRS-00-100 65 Grapevine Creek 2
JRS-00-101 66 Lost Creek 9
JRS-00-102 67 Lick Branch 14
JRS-00-103 68 FugateFork 5
JRS-00-104 69 Laurel Fork
JRS-00-105 70 Long Fork
JRS-00-106 71 demons Fork
JRS-00-107 72 Coles Fork
JRS-00-108 73 Spring Fork
along Big Double Road (FR1501)
down dirt road that is 0.9 road
miles upstream of RT 66
(reference)
on FR1500 approximately 1/2
mile above mouth, 0.8 road miles
upstream of RT 66 (reference)
just upstream of RT 15 bridge
along 1096
upstream of Clear Fork
1.8 road miles upstream of RT 15
along 2446
of Ball Fork just above mouth
at mouth
2
3
3
2
4 at upper Laurel Fork Road Bridge 3
1 at mouth 3
10 0.3 road miles upstream of 3
confluence with Buckhorn Creek
in Robinson Forest (reference)
11 in Robinson Forest (reference) 3
7 of Quicksand Creek just upstream
of Hughes Creek
0 02 Jun 2000 Kentucky
0 04 Jun 2000 Kentucky
2 04 Jun 2000 NF Kentucky
2 05 Jun 2000 NF Kentucky
3 05 Jun 2000 NF Kentucky
2 05 Jun 2000 NF Kentucky
2 05 Jun 2000 NF Kentucky
2 05 Jun 2000 NF Kentucky
2 05 Jun 2000 NF Kentucky
0 06 Jun 2000 NF Kentucky
0 06 Jun 2000 NF Kentucky
2 06 Jun 2000 NF Kentucky
30
-------
Table 2. PSU collection number, PSU station number, stream name, corresponding USEPA MT number where applicable, locality, stream order,
EIS Class (0=unmined, l=mined, 2=filled, 3=filled/residential, 4=mined/residential), sample date, drainage, and USEPA MT Basin for
fish collections completed during Fall 200 lin the primary region of MTM/VF coal mining in the Guyandotte River Drainage of West
Virginia.
Collection #
PSU
Station
number Stream Name EPA MT Locality
Stream EIS
order Class Sample Date Drainage MT Basin
JRS-01-84 7 Sugartree Branch MT-18
JRS-01-87 12 Ballard Fork MT-14
JRS-01-85 17 Stanley Fork
JRS-01-86 18 Stanley Fork MT-15
JRS-01-88 19 Mud River MT-07
JRS-01-89 20 Mud River MT-05
JRS-01-82 22 Mud River MT-23
JRS-01-83 23 Mud River MT-17
JRS-01-90 74 Big Ugly
downstream of grouted spill way
approximately 100m above mouth
upstream of valley fill and
upstream of (MT-15)
downstream of valley fill, above
beaver ponds
upstream of Ballard fork upstream
of bridge
just upstream of Passenger Fork,
downstream of Lukey Fork
approximately 1800 ft
downstream of confluence with
Connelly Branch
just upstream of Sugartree
Branch
at mouth of Pigeon Roost - (Ref
1)
2 2 9/14/2001 Guyandotte Mud River
2 2 9/14/2001 Guyandotte Mud River
3 2 9/14/2001 Guyandotte Mud River
3 2 9/14/2001 Guyandotte Mud River
3 3 9/14/2001 Guyandotte Mud River
3 3 9/14/2001 Guyandotte Mud River
4 3 9/14/2001 Guyandotte Mud River
4 3 9/14/2001 Guyandotte Mud River
4 0 9/15/2001 Guyandotte
31
-------
PSU
Station
Collection # number Stream Name
EPAMT Locality
Stream
order
EIS
Class
Sample Date Drainage MT Basin
JRS-01-91 75 Big Ugly
JRS-01-92
JRS-01-94
76 Back Fork
JRS-01-93 77 Laurel Creek
78 Laurel Creek
JRS-01-95 79 Buffalo Run
JRS-01-96 80 Right Fork
JRS-01-97 81 Buffalo Creek
approximately downstream of
mouth of Laurel Creek (Ref 2)
0.3 mile above confluence with
Laurel Creek (Ref 3)
at confluence of Charley Fork
(Ref 4)
0.9 road miles upstream of
confluence w/ Big Ugly Creek
(Ref 5)
approximately 0.25 miles
upstream of entrance to Chief
Logan State Park (Ref 6)
of Buffalo Creek approximately
300 meter upstream of mouth
(Ref 7)
above confluence with Right Fork
of Buffalo Creek (Ref 8)
0 9/15/2001 Guyandotte
9/15/2001 Guyandotte
9/15/2001 Guyandotte
9/15/2001 Guyandotte
9/16/2001 Guyandotte
9/16/2001 Guyandotte
9/16/2001 Guyandotte
32
-------
Table 3 A. Counts and measurements taken on each Cottus specimen.
Expressed as Percent Standard
Length
Head length
Snout to dorsal-fin origin
Snout to pelvic-fin origin
Greatest body depth
1st dorsal-fin base length
2nd dorsal-fin base length
Ant. 1st dorsal - ant anal
Ant 2nd dorsal - ant. anal
Post. 2nd dorsal - post anal
Post. 1st dorsal - post, anal
Post. 2nd dorsal - post, anal
Post. 2nd dorsal - vent, caudal
Post, anal - dorsal caudal
Post, dorsal - pelvic-fin org.
Anal-fin base length
Expressed as Percent Head
Counts
Horizontal eye diameter
Vertical eye diameter
Snout length
Postorbital head length
Interorbital distance
No. of lateral-line pores
Branchialsteigal rays
No. chin pores
No. center chin pores
1st dorsal-fin rays
2nd dorsal-fin rays
Pectoral-fin rays
Anal-fin rays
Table 3B. Counts and measurements taken on each Nocomis specimen.
Expressed as Percent Standard
Length
Head length
Snout to dorsal-fin origin
Snout to pelvic-fin origin
Caudal peduncle depth
Greatest body depth
Body width
Expressed as Percent Head
Counts
Horizontal eye diameter
Vertical eye diameter
Snout length
Postorbital head length
Lower jaw length
Upper jaw length
Head depth
Gage width
Lateral-line scales
Scales above lateral line
Scales below lateral line
Dorsal rays
Anal rays
33
-------
Table 4. List of species collected in the primary region of mountain top removal / valley fill
coal mining in West Virginia and Kentucky during Fall 1999/Spring 2000 and Fall
2001.
Scientific name
Common name
Lampetra aepyptera
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Salmo trutta
Campostoma anomalum
Clinostomus funduloides
Cyprinella galactura
Cyprinella spiloptera
Cyprinus carpio
Ericymba buccata
Luxilus albeolus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Lythrurus ardens
Nocomis micropogon
Nocomis platyrhynchus
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis photogenis
Notropis rubellus
Notropis telescopus
Notropis volucellus
Phoxinus erythrogaster
Pimephales notatus
Pimephales promelas
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Catostomus commersoni
Hypentelium nigricans
Moxostoma erythrurum
Ameiurus melas
Ameiurus natalis
Ameiurus nebulosus
Noturus miurus
Labidesthes sicculus
Coitus bairdi
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis cyanellusx L. macrochirus
Lepomis cyanellus x L. gibbosus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis megalotis
Micropterus dolomieu
Micropterus punctulatus
Micropterus salmoides
Least brook lamprey
Rainbow trout
Brown trout
Central stoneroller
Rosyside dace
Whitetail shiner
Spotfin shiner
Common carp
Silver] aw minnow
White shiner
Striped shiner
Rosefm shiner
River chub
Bigmouth chub
Sand shiner
Silver shiner
Rosyface shiner
Telescope shiner
Mimic shiner
Southern redbelly dace
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Blacknose dace
Creek chub
White sucker
Northern hog sucker
Golden redhorse
Black bullhead
Yellow bullhead
Brown bullhead
Brindled madtom
Brook silverside
Mottled sculpin
Rock bass
Redbreast sunfish
Green sunfish
Sunfish hybrid
Sunfish hybrid
Pumpkinseed
Bluegill
Longear sunfish
Smallmouth bass
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
34
-------
Scientific name
Common name
Etheostoma baileyi
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma kennicotti
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma sagitta
Etheostoma variatum
Etheostoma zonale
Percina caprodes
Percina maculata
Percina stictogaster
Emerald darter
Greenside darter
Rainbow darter
Fantail darter
Stripetail darter
Johnny darter
Arrow darter
Variegate darter
Banded darter
Logperch
Blackside darter
Frecklebelly darter
35
-------
Table 5. Summary (total number of species, total number of individuals (indivs), total biomass caught, biomass caught per sq. meter
sampled, number of individuals (indivs) per sq. meter sampled) offish collections completed in Fall 1999 and Spring 2000
by PSU station, PSU collection number, and corresponding USEPA MT or Station number where applicable.
PSU
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Collection #
JRS-99-67
JRS-99-69
JRS-00-61
JRS-00-62
JRS-00-67
JRS-99-68
JRS-00-503
JRS-00-52
JRS-00-59
JRS-00-60
JRS-00-64
JRS-00-65
JRS-00-68
JRS-00-69
JRS-00-91
JRS-99-70
JRS-00-53
EPAMT
or
Station
MT-57B
MT-58
MT-52
MT-13
MT-60
MT-60
MT-18
MT-50
MT-59
MT-02
MT-03
MT-14
MT-51
MT-55
MT-01
EIS
Class
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
3
3
4
Stream
Order
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Area
Sampled
(m2)
136.80
136.67
273.33
167.20
60.20
322.00
250.00
217.60
196.80
366.00
218.13
287.00
166.88
278.25
1394.50
380.00
383.47
Total #
Species
0
0
1
1
2
2
2a
2
2
1
1
9
12
2
13
7
15
Total #
Indivs
0
0
12
14
13
59
25 a
9
44
12
3
27
157
6
2336
380
438
Total
Biomass (g)
0.0
0.0
31.7
45.5
95.8
535.1
87.1 a
50.9
73.3
77.3
1.5
171.7
1689.4
44.9
14772.2
2224.3
9944.8
Biomass
(9/m2)
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
1.6
1.7
0.35 a
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.6
10.1
0.2
10.6
5.9
25.9
Indivs
perm2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1a
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.9
0.0
1.7
1.0
1.1
Drainage
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
36
-------
PSU
Station
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Collection #
JRS-00-54
JRS-00-55
JRS-00-57
JRS-00-58
JRS-00-66
JRS-99-76
JRS-00-51b
JRS-00-56
JRS-00-92
JRS-99-71
JRS-99-80
JRS-99-81
JRS-00-73
JRS-00-76
JRS-00-79
JRS-00-80
JRS-00-93
JRS-99-72
JRS-99-73
EPAMT
or
Station
MT-15
MT-07
MT-05
MT-04
MT-23
MT-23
MT-17
MT-42
MT-25B
MT-64
MT-69
MT-70
MT-79
MT-80
MT-39
MT-32
MT-45
EIS
Class
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
3
0
2
2
4
3
1
1
1
0
2
1
Stream
Order
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
Area
Sampled
(m2)
216.00
172.50
538.33
584.00
408.63
573.20
667.50
523.75
40.00
330.33
107.33
133.79
151.43
68.80
87.00
40.00
102.40
220.53
1 1 1 .60
Total #
Species
7
6
13
20
14
20
20
19
0
3
3
2
3
2
2
0
1
14
2
Total #
Indivs
82
38
291
358
115
511
313
199
0
67
137
139
109
17
5
0
20
167
43
Total
Biomass (g)
424.1
318.2
1019.8
20418.8
1151.5
1650.7
1474.0
2054.6
0.0
497.3
371.7
248.0
372.5
114.9
5.4
0.0
20.6
1225.3
53.0
Biomass
(g/m2)
2.0
1.8
1.9
35.0
2.8
2.9
2.2
3.9
0.0
1.5
3.5
1.9
2.5
1.7
0.1
0.0
0.2
5.6
0.5
Indivs
perm2
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.3
09
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.2
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.8
0.4
Drainage
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Guyandotte
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
37
-------
PSU
Station
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Collection #
JRS-99-78
JRS-99-79
JRS-99-82
JRS-00-70
JRS-00-74
JRS-00-77
JRS-00-78
JRS-99-74
JRS-00-71
JRS-00-72
JRS-99-75
JRS-00-88
JRS-99-86
JRS-00-83
JRS-00-84
JRS-00-85
JRS-00-86
JRS-00-87
JRS-00-89
EPAMT
or
Station
MT-62
MT-70
MT-28
MT-63
MT-85
MT-81
MT-40
MT-46
MT-47
MT-93
MT-98
MT-87
MT-95
MT-91
MT-94
EIS
Class
1
3
3
2
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
0
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
Stream
Order
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
Area
Sampled
(m2)
283.67
212.00
50.00
406.02
222.13
418.67
251.67
1372.50
1220.00
1778.00
1590.00
30.00
305.00
472.00
234.93
65.60
97.30
297.87
88.00
Total #
Species
6
7
0
9
4
2
2
14
13
18
20
0
3
8
3
5
6
6
3
Total #
Indivs
207
420
0
90
274
51
26
498
527
488
507
0
43
277
89
52
65
183
13
Total
Biomass (g)
658.4
1893.1
0.0
1110.2
2269.5
577.6
370.6
1406.0
5693.1
7719.6
4372.7
0.0
203.9
883.2
165.5
53.9
278.8
564.3
34.2
Biomass
(g/m2)
2.3
8.9
0.0
2.7
10.2
1.4
1.5
1.0
4.7
4.3
2.8
0.0
0.7
1.9
0.7
0.8
2.9
1.9
0.4
Indivs
perm2
0.7
2.0
0.0
0.2
1.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.1
Drainage
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
38
-------
PSU
Station
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Collection #
JRS-99-84
JRS-99-85
JRS-00-81
JRS-00-82
JRS-99-83
JRS-00-95
JRS-00-96
JRS-00-97
JRS-00-94
JRS-00-98
JRS-00-99
JRS-00-100
JRS-00-101
JRS-00-102
JRS-00-103
JRS-00-104
JRS-00-105
JRS-00-106
JRS-00-107
EPAMT
or
Station
MT-86
8
6
12
13
3
2
9
14
5
4
1
10
11
EIS
Class
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
0
0
Stream
Order
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Area
Sampled
(m2)
1286.00
301.00
296.80
1036.50
800.00
1350.00
377.67
1027.48
423.67
231.20
173.87
298.13
827.00
282.13
102.83
317.33
140.40
211.06
117.47
Total #
Species
17
9
6
9
16
14
7
16
20
12
10
6
13
4
12
14
2
12
9
Total #
Indivs
279
327
149
238
248
430
881
494
784
559
91
514
281
94
112
121
23
654
220
Total
Biomass (g)
3589.0
1041.0
754.9
2375.1
2564.8
6061.4
2976.0
7369.3
2354.0
691.1
444.5
1113.9
799.8
349.8
233.1
607.0
192.0
1205.7
401.2
Biomass
(g/m2)
2.8
3.5
2.5
2.3
3.2
4.5
7.9
7.2
5.6
3.0
2.6
3.7
1.0
1.2
2.3
1.9
1.4
5.7
3.4
Indivs
perm2
0.2
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.3
2.3
0.5
1.9
2.4
0.5
1.7
0.3
0.3
1.1
0.4
0.2
3.1
1.9
Drainage
New
New
New
New
New
Cumberland
Cumberland
Cumberland
Kentucky
Kentucky
NF Kentucky
NF Kentucky
NF Kentucky
NF Kentucky
NF Kentucky
NF Kentucky
NF Kentucky
NF Kentucky
NF Kentucky
39
-------
PSU
Station
73
Collection #
JRS-00-108
EPAMT
or
Station
7
EIS
Class
2
Stream
Order
4
Area
Sampled
(m2)
426.67
Total #
Species
7
Total #
Indivs
76
Total
Biomass (g)
114.1
Biomass
(g/m2)
0.3
Indivs
perm2
0.2
Drainage
NF Kentucky
aTwo collections were completed at Station 6 (JRS-99-68 in Fall 1999 and JRS-00-50 in Spring 2000). The Spring collection, JRS-00-50 consisted of a single
pass of electrofishing because of the small size of the stream and the simple fish assemblage (2 species). As such, numbers of individuals caught and biomass
caught are most likely underestimated for the Spring sample.
bTwo collections were completed at Station 22 (JRS-99-76 in Fall 1999 and JRS-00-51 in Spring 2000). Three passes of electrofishing were completed in each
case.
40
-------
Table 6. Total number of individuals of each species collected in the Guyandotte River Drainage by PSU station number (PSU
collection number and EPA MT or Station number are available in Table 5). Stream order and EIS class are also included
for each station. Two stations (6 and 22) were sampled both during Fall 1999 and Spring 2000 - seasonal collections are
designated by F (fall collection) and S (spring collection).
Guyandotte River Fishes
Stream order
E/S Class
STATION
Lampetra aepyptera
Campostoma anomalum
Clinostomus funduloides
Ericymba buccata
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis photogenis
Notropis rubellus
Pimephales notatus
Pimephales promelas
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Catostomus commersoni
Hypentelium nigricans
Moxostoma erythrurum
Ameirus natalis
Noturus miurus
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis megalotis
Micropterus punctulatus
Micropterus salmoides
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
1
2
1
N
O
F
I
S
H
1
0
2
N
O
F
I
S
H
1
2
3
12
1
2
4
14
1
0
5
1
12
2
2
6F
41
18
2
2
6S
22
3
2
2
7
2
7
2
0
8
15
29
2
2
9
12
2
0
10
3
2
0
11
3
2
1
11
1
2
3
2
2
2
12
11
2
4
2
1
45
8
1
53
24
2
0
13
1
5
3
3
14
198
171
1
360
352
629
185
58
46
1
2
43
290
3
3
15
10
7
231
73
15
35
9
3
4
16
10
64
41
17
21
15
77
122
28
2
8
1
8
3
2
17
24
1
1
13
31
6
6
3
2
18
7
2
1
11
1
16
3
3
19
1
36
11
13
16
1
7
30
3
82
3
3
20
2
74
26
45
16
26
57
1
12
2
24
1
1
1
2
9
3
4
21
1
34
1
18
2
1
29
3
4
12
1
4
4
3
22F
145
5
3
21
1
4
36
5
9
1
1
60
3
1
1
1
37
114
4
3
22S
66
28
27
62
3
5
9
4
20
1
1
1
16
1
20
28
4
3
23
6
7
12
23
3
9
8
2
1
2
83
3
4
2
14
8
41
-------
Stream order
E/S Class
STATION
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma zonale
Percina caprodes
Percina maculata
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS
TOTAL SPECIES
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
2
3
12
1
1
2
4
14
1
1
0
5
13
2
2
2
6F
59
2
2
2
6S
25
2
2
2
7
9
2
2
0
8
44
2
2
2
9
12
1
2
0
10
3
1
2
0
11
2
27
9
2
2
12
2
4
157
12
2
0
13
6
2
3
3
14
2336
13
3
3
15
380
7
3
4
16
15
9
438
15
3
2
17
82
7
3
2
18
38
6
3
3
19
24
65
2
291
13
3
3
20
15
36
6
2
358
20
3
4
21
2
3
115
14
4
3
22F
5
58
511
20
4
3
22S
1
16
3
1
313
20
4
3
23
6
4
2
199
19
42
-------
Table 7. Total number of individuals of each species collected in the Kanawha River Drainage by PSU station number (PSU
collection number and EPA MT or Station number are available in Table 5). Stream order and EIS class are also included
for each station.
Kanawha River Fishes
Stream order
E/S Class
STATION
Lampetra aepyptera
Salmo trutta*
Campostoma anomalum
Cyprinella spiloptera
Cyprinus carpio
Ericymba buccata
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis photogenis
Notropis rubellus
Notropis volucellus
Phoxinus erythrogaster
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Catostomus commersoni
Hypentelium nigricans
Moxostoma erythrurum
Cottus bairdi
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus dolomieu
Micropterus salmoides
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
1
0
24
N
0
F
I
S
H
2
2
25
7
59
1
2
2
26
1
107
29
2
4
27
9
130
2
3
28
14
7
88
2
1
29
11
6
2
1
30
4
1
2
1
31
N
0
F
I
S
H
2
0
32
20
3
2
33
61
2
1
2
1
12
3
4
1
24
32
1
18
3
7
34
37
6
3
1
35
6
111
41
5
12
3
3
36
3
5
44
35
1
7
327
1
3
3
37
N
0
F
S
I
H
3
2
38
18
1
9
13
19
6
3
5
16
3
3
39
62
2
10
200
3
1
40
18
33
3
1
41
6
20
4
3
42
28
1
3
45
2
43
27
35
24
187
2
1
87
4
3
43
30
23
94
1
4
13
27
149
2
13
7
160
4
3
44
1
86
19
47
10
86
12
12
23
20
4
79
2
1
9
2
74
5
3
45
14
1
19
46
8
66
4
1
1
40
6
8
1
2
12
14
218
43
-------
Stream order
E/S Class
STATION
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma variatum
Etheostoma zonale
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS
TOTAL SPECIES
1
0
24
0
0
2
2
25
67
3
2
2
26
137
3
2
4
27
139
2
2
3
28
109
3
2
7
29
17
2
2
7
30
5
2
2
7
31
0
0
2
0
32
20
1
3
2
33
5
167
14
3
7
34
43
2
3
7
35
32
207
6
3
3
36
420
7
3
3
37
0
0
3
2
38
90
9
3
3
39
274
4
3
1
40
51
2
3
1
41
26
2
4
3
42
13
498
14
4
3
43
4
527
13
4
3
44
1
488
18
5
3
45
15
9
22
507
20
*Salmo tmtta were caught outside of the sample reach (therefore are not included in column totals) and were measured and released.
44
-------
Table 8. Total number of individuals of each species collected in the New River Drainage by
PSU station number (PSU collection number and EPA MT or Station number are
available in Table 5). Stream order and EIS class are also included for each station.
New River Fishes
Stream order
E/S Class
STATION
Campostoma anomalum
Cyprinella galactura
Ericymba buccata
Luxilus albeolus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Nocomis platyrhynchus
Notropis rubellus
Notropis telescopus
Notropis volucellus
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Catostomus commersoni
Hypentelium nigricans
Cottus bairdi
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis cyanellus x
L. macrochirus
Micropterus dolomieu
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS
TOTAL SPECIES
1
0
46
N
O
F
I
S
H
0
0
2
2
47
40
2
1
43
3
3
1
48
13
112
50
8
1
22
2
69
277
8
2
2
49
72
12
5
89
3
2
0
50
7
4
1
38
2
52
5
2
0
51
25
5
5
17
12
1
65
6
2
0
52
1
89
31
4
30
28
183
6
2
0
53
7
3
3
13
3
3
2
54
27
18
8
1
46
16
75
1
3
13
15
6
3
2
36
5
4
279
17
3
2
55
72
72
46
21
1
11
1
95
8
327
9
3
2
56
70
40
11
3
1
24
149
6
4
2
57
17
12
69
53
15
10
21
18
23
238
9
4
2
58
63
7
30
15
3
1
26
4
20
2
17
11
7
31
2
9
248
16
45
-------
Table 9. Total number of individuals of each species collected in the Cumberland and Kentucky
River Drainages by PSU station number (PSU collection number and EPA MT or
Station number are available in Table 5). Stream order and EIS class are also included.
Cumberland & Kentucky River Fishes
Stream order
E/S Class
STATION
Lampetra aepyptera
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Campostoma anomalum
Ericymba buccata
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Lythrurus ardens
Nocomis micropogon
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis rubellus
Phoxinus erythrogaster
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Catostomus commersoni
Hypentelium nigricans
Moxostoma erythrurum
Ameirus natalis
Noturus miurus
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis cyanellus x L. gibbosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis megalotis
Micropterus dolomieu
Micropterus punctulatus
Etheostoma baileye
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma kennicotti
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma sagitta
Etheostoma variatum
Percina maculata
Percina stictogaster
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS
TOTAL SPECIES
4
2
59
94
25
3
37
1
30
26
39
6
11
4
115
32
7
430
14
3
2
60
154
1
276
306
7
121
16
881
7
3
0
61
8
4
5
1
1
83
24
15
3
148
88
2
3
1
88
20
494
16
2
0
62
1
100
125
35
68
44
1
13
3
4
1
1
11
50
196
91
23
1
10
6
784
20
2
0
63
41
2
6
108
2
95
21
59
97
59
64
5
559
12
2
2
64
5
1
6
35
30
4
1
1
3
5
91
10
2
2
65
1
294
93
6
1
119
514
6
3
3
66
32
15
1
1
1
80
2
25
1
1
3
3
116
281
13
3
2
67
1
2
90
1
94
4
2
2
68
7
76
1
1
9
2
1
1
1
5
7
1
112
12
3
2
69
15
39
3
4
2
28
1
2
3
6
5
3
9
1
121
14
3
2
70
22
1
23
2
3
0
71
93
44
47
101
4
60
19
75
85
124
1
1
654
12
3
0
72
113
12
54
7
7
20
3
2
2
220
9
4
2
73
2
3
3
42
19
6
1
76
7
46
-------
Table 10. Summary (total number of species, total number of individuals (indivs), total biomass caught, biomass caught per sq. meter
sampled, number of individuals (indivs) per sq. meter sampled) offish collections completed in Fall 2001 in the Guyandotte River
Drainage by PSU station, PSU collection number, and corresponding USEPA MT or Station number where applicable.
PSU
Station
7
12
17
18
19
20
22
23
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Collection #
JRS-01-84
JRS-01-87
JRS-01-85
JRS-01-86
JRS-01-88
JRS-01-89
JRS-01-82
JRS-01-83
JRS-01-90
JRS-01-91
JRS-01-92
JRS-01-93
JRS-01-94
JRS-01-95
JRS-01-96
JRS-01-97
EPAMT
or Station
MT-18
MT-14
MT-15
MT-07
MT-05
MT-23
MT-17
EIS
Class
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
?
?
?
Stream
Order
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
2
2
3
2
1
2
Area
Sampled
(m2)
168.27
161.50
280.00
130.00
503.33
356.00
700.00
487.50
906.66
766.66
115.00
110.83
340.66
347.66
77.00
118.33
Total #
Species
2
6
9
6
8
18
12
8
24
21
12
13
17
7
2
2
Total #
Indivs
9
21
32
20
107
251
107
29
504
818
171
145
525
668
144
78
Total
Biomass (g)
99
362
547
338
331
1612
1290
1250
2258
2351
450
462
1354
3691
355
141
Biomass
(9/m2)
1.3
2.2
2.0
2.6
0.7
4.5
1.8
2.6
2.5
3.1
3.9
4.2
4.0
10.6
4.6
1.2
Indivs
perm2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.6
1.1
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.9
1.9
0.7
Basin
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Big Ugly
Big Ugly
Big Ugly
Big Ugly
Big Ugly
Buffalo Creek
Buffalo Creek
Buffalo Creek
47
-------
Table 11. Total number of individuals of each species collected during Fall 2001 in the
Guyandotte River Drainage by PSU station number (PSU collection number and EPA
MT or Station number are available in Table 10). Stream order and EIS classification
is also included.
Guyandotte River Fishes - Fall 2001
Stream Order
E/S Class
STATION
Lampetra aepyptera
Campostoma anomalum
Clinostomus funduloides
Cyprinella spiloptera
Ericymba buccata
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis rubellus
Pimephales notatus
Pimephales promelas
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Catostomus commersoni
Hypentelium nigricans
Moxostoma erythrurum
Ameiurus melas
Ameiurus natalis
Ameiurus nebulosus
Noturus miurus
Labidesthes sicculus
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis megalotis
Micropterus dolomieu
Micropterus punctulatus
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma variatum
Etheostoma zonale
Percina caprodes
Percina maculata
TOTAL INDIVIDUALS
TOTAL SPECIES
2
2
7
3
6
9
2
2
2
12
2
1
13
2
2
1
21
6
3
2
17
1
2
11
2
1
12
1
1
1
32
9
3
2
18
1
3
2
1
1
12
20
6
3
3
19
1
1
6
50
22
10
12
5
107
8
3
3
20
2
11
2
8
1
4
3
115
13
16
38
1
1
3
4
16
10
3
251
18
4
3
22
29
1
1
12
2
1
16
1
10
22
2
10
107
12
4
3
23
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
17
29
8
4
0
74
30
11
11
29
81
2
4
80
46
9
17
4
1
4
19
1
19
7
22
11
84
4
5
3
504
24
4
0
75
4
56
16
207
14
3
174
54
24
2
3
12
4
4
26
77
15
89
14
16
4
818
21
2
0
76
13
23
9
4
29
50
2
2
30
5
2
2
171
12
2
0
77
1
3
5
17
2
5
18
57
2
1
24
5
5
145
13
3
0
78
4
29
50
47
66
2
74
7
7
23
5
5
144
14
36
6
6
525
17
2
?
79
154
21
9
141
314
25
4
668
7
1
9
80
92
52
144
2
2
9
81
38
40
78
2
48
-------
Table 12. Water chemistry measurements for sites in the Mud River, Big Ugly, and Guyandotte drainages sampled in September
2001. Chemical analyses were conducted by REIC (data sheets available in Appendix D). In-situ pH and conductivity were
measured on site using an Oakton pH Testr and an Oakton TDS Testr 20.
PSU
Station
7
12
17
18
19
20
22
23
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
PSU
Collection
No.
JRS-01-84
JRS-01-87
JRS-01-85
JRS-01-86
JRS-01-88
JRS-01-89
JRS-01-82
JRS-01-83
JRS-01-90
JRS-01-91
JRS-01-92
JRS-01-93
JRS-01-94
JRS-01-95
JRS-01-96
JRS-01-97
EPA MT or
Station
No.
MT-18
MT-14
MT-15
MT-07
MT-05
MT-23
MT-17
EIS
Class
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
?
?
?
Stream
Order
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
2
2
3
2
1
2
Total Al
mg/L
0.147
0.514
0.437
10.400
0.117
0.174
0.177
0.154
0.077
0.138
0.092
0.296
0.064
0.146
0.089
0.158
Total Fe
mg/L
0.308
1.440
0.854
43.600
0.318
1.330
0.250
0.398
1.060
0.560
0.125
1.330
0.500
0.062
0.088
0.075
Total As
mg/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Total Cu
mg/L
ND
ND
ND
0.027
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Total Se
mg/L
0.0315
ND
0.0095
0.0158
ND
ND
0.0121
0.0107
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Hardness
mg/L as
CaCOS
1510.0
1330.0
1520.0
1660.0
267.0
245.0
1140.0
1380.0
72.9
76.7
73.6
60.4
48.8
407.0
129.0
441.0
In-situ
PH
7.6
7.9
8.2
8.3
8.0
7.3
7.9
8.1
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.0
7.0
6.4
6.5
6.3
In-situ
Conduct.
umhos/cm
2290
1953.00
2330
2160
530.00
513.00
1836.00
2120
210.00
206.00
137.00
143.00
125.00
883.00
280.00
926.00
49
-------
25 n
20 -
(A
0)
o
0) -ic;
0. 10
W
•5
0)
-Q 10 -
3
5 -
0 -
C
X X
X
^m
X
-
X
5123456
Stream Order
• unmined • mined filled filled&residences —historical
Figure 1. Comparison of number of species found in the Guyandotte River drainage
(Mud River and Island Creek watersheds) in sites classified as unmined,
mined, filled, filled/residential, and mined/residential and number of species
recorded in historical collections in the Guyandotte River by stream order
(Stauffer et al. 1989).
50
-------
25
20
i/)
0
O -IK. -
a. I0
CO
M—
o
0)
1 10
3
Z
5
0
(
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
• •
) 1 2 3 4 5 6
Stream Order
* unmined • mined filled filled&residences —historical
Figure 2. Comparison of number of species found in the Kanawha River drainage
(Spruce Fork and Clear Fork watersheds) in sites classified as unmined,
mined, filled, filled/residential, and mined/residential and number of species
recorded in historical collections in the Guyandotte River by stream order
(Stauffer et al. 1989). Because the Guyandotte River Drainage and the
Kanawha River Drainage below Kanawha Falls are in the Ohio River system,
fish communities are similar and historical collections from the Guyandotte
River can serve as baseline for Kanawha River drainage collections.
51
-------
18
16
14
i/)
.9! 12
i
W 10
M—
O
k. o
0) o
.D
1 6
4
2
0
C
—
A A
•
— *
) 1 2 3 4 5 6
Stream Order
* unmined • mined filled filled&residences —historical
Figure 3. Comparison of number of species found in the New River drainage
(Twentymile Creek watershed) in sites classified as unmined, mined, filled,
filled/residential, and mined/residential and number of species recorded in
historical collections in the Greenbrier River by stream order (Hocutt et al.
1978).
52
-------
25 -,
20
t/)
0)
g. 15-
(/)
.
0
0)
•Q 10
E
3
^
5
n
XXX
X
X
A
A
A
X X
A
•
?
X
>v
U n • i • • ^^ i
0123456
Stream Order
* unmined • mined filled filled&residences
Figure 4. Relationship between total number of species collected and stream order sampled
by EIS classification for 58 sites sampled in West Virginia. As stream order
increases, the total number of species present increases (R2 = 0.5849; P < 0.001).
Unmined sites are located only on 1st and 2nd order streams while most of the
mined, filled, filled/residential sites occur on 3rd, 4th, and 5th order streams.
53
-------
21
(D 18
'o
&15
CO
•512
/1\
UJ
_Q
1 9
(0 6
"o
I—
3
0
: I
-
: 1
-
N=5
i
Unmined
EIS Class
1
1
N=7
i
Filled
Figure 5. Comparison of number of total number of species between unmined (EIS
Class = 0) and filled (EIS = 2) sites in 2nd and 3rd order streams in Kentucky.
Sites were pooled across stream order for this analysis because we sampled
both filled and unmined sites in both stream orders (two unmined sites and
order streams, three unmined sites and four filled sites
three filled sites in z
in 3rd order streams).
nd
54
-------
(U
8
Q.
CO
O
(U
CD
(U
.Q
E
8
o
-2
N=5
N=7
Unmined
Filled
EIS Class
Figure 6. Comparison of number of benthic species between unmined (EIS Class = 0)
and filled (EIS = 2) sites in sites in 2nd and 3rd order streams in Kentucky.
Sites were pooled across stream order for this analysis because we sampled
both filled and unmined sites in both stream orders (two unmined sites and
->nd
three filled sites in 2n order streams, three unmined sites and four filled sites
,rd
in 3r order streams).
55
-------
IU
co 8
(U
'o
(U
o
t5
0)
"F 4
^ 2
"o
0
-
-
_
-
1
N=4 N=2
i i
Unmined
Filled
EIS Class
Figure 7. Comparison of total number species between unmined (EIS Class =
0) and filled (EIS = 2) sites in second order streams in Twentymile Creek
watershed, West Virginia.
56
-------
(U
(U 3
Q.
CO
O
(U
CD
_
(U
.a
E
= 0
-1
N=4
N=2
Unmined
Filled
EIS Class
Figure 8. Comparison total number of benthic species between unmined (EIS
Class=0) and filled (EIS = 2) sites in second order streams in Twentymile
Creek watershed, West Virginia.
57
-------
25
$20
'o
(U
Q.
2 16
(U
.a
E 10
CO
O 5
0
N=5
N=8
N=8
Unmined
Mud River 2001
EIS Class
Mud River 2000
Figure 9. Comparison of total number of species between unmined (EIS Class=0) in
the Big Ugly watershed and combined filled (EIS = 2) and
filled/residential (EIS=3) sites in the Mud River watershed, West Virginia.
The eight sites in the Mud River were sampled both in Fall 2001 (Mud
River 2001) and in Fall 1999 and Spring 2000 (Mud River 2000). Sites in
the Big Ugly were only sampled in Fall 2001. Comparison of collections
in unmined and filled sites in Fall 2001 indicate that unmined sites had
greater number of species than filled sites (unmined median =17, filled
(Mud River 2001) = 8, Mann-Whitney U Test P=0.0093).
58
-------
\
-------
30
25
(/)
(U
820
Q.
CO
° 15
(U
.a
I 10
(0
P 5
0
N=5
N=3
N=5
Unmined Filled & No Se Filled & Se
EIS Class & Selenium
Figure 11. Comparison total number of species collected in Fall 2001 in the Big
Ugly and Mud River watersheds. Sites in the Big Ugly were unmined
(EIS Class=0) and had no detectable selenium. Sites in the Mud River
were a combination of filled (EIS = 2) and filled/residential (EIS=3)
categories. Three stations sampled in Fall 2001 in the Mud River did not
have detectable levels of selenium (PSU stations 12, 19, 20) while five
sites had detectable levels of selenium (PSU stations 7, 17, 18, 22, 23).
Total number of species was dramatically lower in sites classified as
filled with selenium (median = 8, Mann-Whitney U Test P=0.008) and
sites classified as filled without selenium (median = 8, Mann-Whitney U
Test P=0.0179) than in unmined sites (median = 17).
60
-------
10
•8 8
CD
Q.
CO 6
o
(U
CD
(U
.a
=5 0
-2
N=5
N=3
N=5
Unmined Filled & No Se Filled & Se
EIS Class & Selenium
Figure 12. Comparison total number of benthic species collected in Fall 2001 in the
Big Ugly and Mud River watersheds. Sites in the Big Ugly were
unmined (EIS Class=0) and had no detectable selenium. Sites in the
Mud River were a combination of filled (EIS = 2) and filled/residential
(EIS=3) categories. Three stations sampled in Fall 2001 in the Mud
River did not have detectable levels of selenium (PSU stations 12, 19,
20) while five sites had detectable levels of selenium (PSU stations 7,
17, 18,22,23).
61
-------
1? "•'
« 0.15
| 0.05-
1 o-
•§, -0.05 -
1 -0-1'
^ -o-15
% -o-2
c/5 n 9K
. * \ *
* »* >* *»
<"r * •
*
* *
^ *
-4-20 2
PCI (Meristic Data)
• 1 Chin Pore
2 Chin Pores
Figure 13. Sheared second principle component (morphometric data) vs first
principle component (meristic data) ofCottus bairdi populations.
62
-------
if
•c o
•o c
c o
o o.
<•> E
-------
APPENDIX Al Distribution, life history, and biology information for the 56 species
collected in the primary region of MTM/VF coal mining in West Virginia and Kentucky
during Fall 1999/Spring 2000 and Fall 2001. Species are listed in phylogenetic order.
Lampetra aepyptera (Abbott), Least Brook Lamprey.
The least broook lamprey superficially resembles the American brook lamprey (Lampetra
appendix), but the former has fewer than 62 myomeres, and its teeth are poorly developed or
missing. The least brok lamprey is found along the Atlantic Slope from North Carolina to
Pennsylvania and west of the Appalachian Mountains in the Mississippi River basin from
Pennsylvania and Alabama west to Missouri and Arkansas (Rhode and Jenkins 1980). It is
widespread in West Virginia and has been collected in the Monongahela, Little Kanawha,
Kanawha, Big Sandy, and Guyandotte rivers. We found it in this survey in the Guyandotte
River drainage at stations 16, 19, 20, 21, which are all located in the Mud River. In Fall
2001, this lamprey was collected at station 20 of the Mud River and stations 74, 75, 77, and
78 of the Big Ugly. This lamprey is a filter feeding, headwater species, of intermediate
tolerance to environmental disturbance.
Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum), Rainbow Trout.
The rainbow trout can be distinguished from the brown trout (Salmo trutta) because it has
dark spots on its caudal fin, which are absent from the brown trout's; the rainbow trout's body
bears a longitudinal reddish stripe, whereas the brown trout's has orange or red spots; the
former has 10-12 anal-fin rays, while the brown trout typically has nine. The rainbow trout
can be distinguished from the brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), because the rainbow trout is
light with brown or black spots; whereas the brook trout's back has light vermiculations. The
rainbow trout's natural distribution encompasses northwest Asia and the Pacific Coast of
North America. In West Virginia, it has been introduced statewide. We found it at one
station in Spruce Fork (station 44; Kanawha River drainage) in this survey.
Salmo trutta Linnaeus, brown trout.
The absence of spots on the caudal fin of the brown trout distinguishes it from the rainbow
trout, which possesses caudal spots. The brown trout can be distinguished from the brook
trout (Salvelinus fontinalis\ because the brown trout is light with brown or black spots;
whereas the brook trout's back has light vermiculations. Brown trout are native to Europe
and western Asia. In West Virginia, fingerlings and catchable trout have been stocked
extensively. We collected three specimens in Toney Fork (station 36) of the Kanawha River
drainage. The brown trout was not included in the calculations of species richness and total
numbers because although it was collected in Toney Fork, it was taken the stream reach
outside of the measured sampling area.
Campostoma anomalum (Rafinesque), Central Stoneroller.
Adult central stonerollers superficially resemble Nocomis spp. and juvenile white suckers
(Catostomus commersonf). The stonerollers can be readily distinguished from all of these by
the presence of a cartilaginous plate on their lower lips and their lack of barbels. The central
stoneroller is widely distributed over the eastern two-thirds of the United States. It is present
from New York south to Alabama and Louisiana, west to the Red River of North and South
Dakota, and north to the Upper Mississippi River in Minnesota. In West Virginia, it is
64
-------
common and often locally abundant in all of the major river systems. We collected it
throughout the New, Guyandotte, Kanawha, and Kentucky drainages. This minnow is an
herbivore of intermediate tolerance.
Clinostomus funduloides Girard, Rosyside Dace.
The rosyside dace is an elongate minnow that is compressed laterally. It is most easily
confused with the redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus). The rosyside dace has less than 55
scales along its lateral row, while the redside dace has 60 or more. The rosyside dace occurs
in the Atlantic Slope drainages from the Delaware River south to the Savannah River of
Georgia. It is also found in the tributaries of the Ohio River in Ohio and West Virgina and
tributaries of the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers in Tennessee and Kentucky. In West
Virginia, the rosyside dace is found in the Shenandoah River, in the South Fork of the
Potomac River, and in the James, Monongahela, New, Guyandotte, and Big Sandy drainages.
We collected it at three stations (11, 16, 17) during the 1999/2000 season and two stations
(20 and 77) in Fall 2001 in the Guyandotte River drainage. This minnow is a headwater
species, an insectivore, a simple lithophil, of intermediate tolerance to environmental
disturbances.
Cyprinella galactura (Cope), Whitetail Shiner.
The whitetail shiner superficially resembles other members of Cyprinella, but can be
spearated from all other species in this genus by the presence of an hourglass-shaped white
spot at the base of its caudal fin. The whitetail shiner as a disjunct distribution. It is found in
Arkansas and Missouri west of the Mississippi River and in Tennessee and Cumberland
rivers east of the Mississippi River. It also occurs in the New River drainage of Virginia and
West Virginia, but these populations are believed to be introduced. We collected it at one
location (station 54) in Twentymile Creek in the New River drainage. In Fall 2001, we
collected it at one station (74) in the Big Ugly watershed (Guyandotte Drainage).
Cyprinella spiloptera (Cope), Spotfm Shiner.
The spotfin shiner can be distinguished form the whitetail shiner because it lacks the
hourglass-shaped white spot at the base of its caudal fin. It can be delineated from other
Cyprinella species, becausethe melanophores on its dorsal fin are concentrated in the
posterior 3-4 membranes, whereas these melanophores are found throughout all of the
membranes in the other species in this genus. The spotfin shiner usually has eight anal-fin
rays, while the others usually have nine. The spotfin shiner occurs from the Potomac River
to the Hudson River on the Atlantic Slope, throughout the lower Great Lakes, and in the
upper Mississippi Valley south to the Tennessee River drainage in Alabama and the
Arkansas River drainage in Oklahoma. In West Virginia, it is found statewide, being absent
only from the James River drainage. We collected one specimen at station 45 in Spruce Fork
of the Kanawha River drainage. The spotfin shiner is an insectivore with intermediate
tolerance to environmental stress.
Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, Common Carp.
The common carp is a large minnow with a thick, laterally-compressed body and two pairs of
barbels on the upper jaws. The common carp is native to temperate Asia and portions of
Europe. It is has been introduced to much of North America. In West Virginia, it occurs in
65
-------
all of the major drainages. We collected one specimen at station 42 in Spruce Fork of the
Kanawha River basin. The common carp is an omnivore that is tolerant to environmental
stress.
Ericymba buccata Cope, Silver) aw Minnow.
The silver]aw minnow is most easily confused with the sand, mimic, and bigmouth shiners
(Notropis ludibundus, Notropis volucellus, and Notropis dorsalis, respectively). It can be
distinguished from all three of these species by virtue of its greatly enlarged suborbital
canals, which appear as large, honey-comb-shaped spaces. The silver]aw minnow occurs
from the Apalachicola drainage of Florida west to the Pearl River drainage of
Mississippi/Louisiana. Further north, it occurs from the Suspuehanna and Potomac rivers
west to the Mississippi River drainage in Illinois. It is common throughout the upper Ohio
Valley. There is one record from the upper Tennessee River drainage and this possibly
represents a remnant population. In West Virginia, the silver]aw minnow is found statewide.
We collected it at eight stations in the Guyandotte River drainage, one in the Kanawha River
drainage, and at two sites in Kentucky. In Fall 2001, we collected this minnow in two Mud
River stations (19, 20), all five Big Ugly stations (74-78), and one Guyandotte station (79).
This minnow is considered a pioneering species; it is an insectivore with intermediate
tolerance to environmental stress.
Luxilus albeolus (Jordan), White Shiner.
The white shiner is most easily confused with the common shiner, Luxilus cornutus and the
striped shiner, Luxilus chrysocephalus. It can be distinguished from the common shiner by
its lack of crowded pre-dorsal scales. The presence of three or four parallel dark bands,
which converge at the mid-dorsal line in the striped shiner, are absent in the white shiner.
The white shiner is present on the Atlantic slope from the Roanoke River drainage of
Virginia south to the Cape Fear River drainage of North Carolina. The white shiner also
occurs in the New River drainage of North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, where it
was possibly introduced. We collected it at three localities (stations 54, 57, 58) in Twenty
Mile Creek of the New River drainage.
Luxilus chrysocephalus (Rafinesque), Striped Shiner.
The striped shiner is most similar to the common shiner and the white shiner. It can be
distinguished from the former by virtue of its heavier chin pigmentation and its lack of
crowded pre-dorsal scales. It can be distinguished from the white shiner, because the striped
shiner has 3-4 parallel dark bands, which converge on the mid-dorsal line. The striped shiner
occurs from the lower Great Lakes basin south throughout the Ohio River drainage, south
throughout the Mississippi River Valley, and east along the Gulf Coast to the Mobile Bay
drainage. In West Virginia, the striped shiner is found in the Potomac drainage and
throughout the Ohio River and its tributaries. We collected it at six localities in the Kanawha
River drainage, seven localities in the Guyandotte River drainage, two localities in the New
River drainages, and at 10 sites in Kentucky. In Fall 2001, we collected this minnow at three
Mud River stations (20, 22, 23) and all five Big Ugly stations. This insectivore is a simple
lithophil that has intermediate tolerance to environmental stress.
66
-------
Lythrurus ardens (Cope), Rosefm Shiner.
The rosefm shiner has a dark pigment spot on the base of the first several dorsal-fin rays, and
9-11 anal rays. The rosefm shiner occurs on the Atlantic Slope from the York River of
Virginia south to the Neuse River of North Carolina. In the Ohio Valley it occurs in the
Tennessee River north to the Scioto River of Ohio, and is also present in the new River of
Virginia and West Virginia. We collected it in Clear Fork of the Cumberland River and Big
Double Creek in the Kentucky River in Kentucky. The rosefm shiner is an insectivore with
intermediate tolerance to environmental stress.
Nocomis micropogon (Cope), River Chub.
The river chub is most easily confused with other species in this genus. The river chub has
only one row of pharyngeal teeth, while the hornyhead chub (Nocomis biguttatus) has two.
The simple S-shaped intestine of the river chub delineates it from the bluehead chub,
Nocomis leptocephalus, which has a long coiled intestine. The river chub does not inhabit
the New River, where the bigmouth chub, Nocomispaltyrhynchus occurs. The river chub
occurs from the Susquehanna River drainage in New York south to the James River drainage
of Virginia and West Virginia. It is also found throughout the lower Great Lakes and the
Ohio River basins. In West Virginia, it occurs statewide, being absent only from the New
River. We collected one specimen in Island Creek (station 14) of the Guyandotte River
drainage, one specimen from Fugate Fork (station 68) of the Kentucky River in Kentucky.
This minnow is an insectivore that is intolerant of environmental stress.
Nocomisplatyrhynchus Lachner and Jenkins, Bigmouth Chub.
The short S-shaped intestine of the bigmouth chub distinguishes it from the bluehead chub,
Nocomis leptocephalus, which has a long coiled intestine. It is delineated from all other
Nocomis species, based on tubercle patterns on the head of breeding males; the bigmouth
chub is endemic to the New River system. We collected it at stations 54 and 58 located on
Twentymile Creek in the New River drainage. There were some fishes collected in
Twentymile Creek that appeared to resemble Nocomis micropogon. Not enough males with
breeding tubercles were collected to identify these fishes. We did a shape analysis of these
specimens and compared them with known populations ofN. micropogon (Fig. 14). Again,
these data were equivocal; hence we identified all specimens collected in Twentymile Creek
as N. platyrhynchus, but more analyses of these populations are needed.
Notropis ludibundus (Girard), Sand Shiner.
The sand shiner superficially resembles the ghost shiner (Notropis buchananf) and the mimic
shiner (Notropis volucellus). It can be separated from both of these species, because the
anal-fin of the sand shiner has only seven rays, while the other two species have eight anal
rays. The sand shiner occurs from the Rio Grande River of Texas north through the
Mississippi Valley and the lower Great Lakes basin. In West Virginia, the sand shiner occurs
throughout the Ohio River drainage. We collected it at three localities in the Guyandotte
River drainage and two localities in the Kanawha River basin. In Fall 2001, we collected it
in one Mud River station (22) and two Big Ugly stations (74, 75). The sand shiner is an
insectivore with intermediate tolerance to environmental stress.
67
-------
Notropisphotogenis (Cope), Silver Shiner.
The silver shiner can be delimited from all other Notropis species in the study area because it
has nine pelvic-fin rays, and all other Notropis species have 8 pelvic-fin rays. The silver
shiner is present in the western portion of the Lake Erie basin and the Grand River of
Ontario. It is found throughout most of the Ohio River drainage south to the Tennessee river.
In West Virginia, the silver shiner is found in all of the major Ohio River tributaries. We
collected it at stations 42-45 in the Kanawha River drainage. The silver shiner is an
insectivorous lithophil that is intolerant of environmental stress.
Notropis rubellus (Agassiz), Rosyface Shiner.
The rosyface shiner can be delimited from all other Notropis species because its insertion of
the dorsal fin is posterior to the pelvic-fin insertion. The rosyface shiner occurs from the
Great Lakes Basin and upper Mississippi Valley south to the Tennessee and Missouri river
drainages. There is an isolated population in the Ouachita River drainage of Arkansas. In
West Virginia, it occurs in every major river drainage. The New River population is distinct
and will probably be described as a separate species (Mayden, personal comm.). We
collected it from five sites in the Kanawha River basin, one site in the Guyandotte River
basin, one site in the New River basin, and at four sites in Kentucky. In Fall 2001, we
collected it in two Big Ugly stations (74, 75). The rosyface shiner an insectivorous lithophil
that is intolerant to environmental stress.
Notropis telescopus (Cope), Telescope Shiner.
The telescope shiner can be recognized by the presence of an irregular scale pattern on the
first one or two scale rows. It occurs in the upland areas of the Mississippi Valley from the
White River of Arkansas south to the Tennessee River in Alabama and east to the
Cumberland River drainage in Virginia. In West Virginia, the telescope shiner is restricted to
the Kanawha, and Big Sandy rivers. We collected it at two sites (stations 54 and 58) in
Twentymile Creek in the New River drainage.
Notropis volucellus (Cope), Mimic Shiner.
The mimic shiner can be easily confused with the sand and ghost shiners. It can be
distinguished from the sand shiner, because it has eight anal-fin rays, while the sand shiner
only has seven. Its pelvic fins are shorter than the ghost shiner's and reach the anal-fin
origin. We collected the mimic shiner at one station (54) in the New River drainage, 2
stations in the Kanawha River drainage, and at two stations in Kentucky. The mimic shiner is
an insectivore that is intolerant to environmental stress.
Phoximis erythrogaster (Rafinesque), Southern Redbelly Dace.
The southern redbelly dace is most easily confused with the mountain redbelly dace
(Phoxinus oreas). It can be distinguished from the mountain redbelly dace, because the
southern redbelly dace has two parallel lateral stripes along the entire length of its body,
whereas the mountain redbelly dace has lateral stripes, which are not parallel and do not
extend along the entire length of its body. The southern redbelly dace is widely distributed
from southern Minnesota and Wisconsin east ot western Pennsylvania and south to Alabama
and northern Arkansas. There are isolated populations in the upper Arkansas River of New
Mexico and along the Mississippi River in Mississippi. In West Virginia, the southern
68
-------
redbelly dace is found in the small headwater streams in the Ohio River drainage. We
collected it at station 26 in Buffalo Fork in the Kanawha River drainage and at two localities
(stations 61, 63) in Kentucky. This minnow described as an herbivorous headwater species
that is a simple lithophil and has an intermediate tolerance to environmental stress.
Pimephales notatus (Rafmesque), Bluntnose Minnow.
The bluntnose minnow can be distinguished from the fathead minnow because the bluntnose
minnow has a slimmer body and a complete lateral line. It can be separated from other
minnows in West Virginia on the basis of its crowded pre-dorsal scales. The bluntnose
minnow is widely distributed throughout the Mississippi Valley and Great Lakes. Atlantic
Coast populations occur from Virginia to Quebec. It is found in all of the major drainages of
West Virginia, with the exception of the James. We collected it at two localities in the
Kanawha River drainage, three in the New River drainage, seven in the Guyandotte, and at
nine localities in Kentucky. In Fall 2001, we collected this minnow at three Mud River
stations (12, 19, 20), all five Big Ugly stations (74-78), and one Guyandotte station (79).
This minnow is an omnivorous pioneering species that is tolerant to environmental stress.
Pimephalespromelas Rafmesque, Fathead Minnow.
The fathead minnow can be distinguished from other Pimephales species, because an
incomplete lateral line and a more robust body. The fathead minnow is distributed
throughout most of North America. In West Virginia, it can be found in all of the major
drainages. It is used as a bait fish and, as such, has been introduced widely. We collected it
in Stanley Fork (station 18) in the Guyandotte River during the 1999/2000 season and at two
stations (17 and 18) during the 2001 season. This omnivorous minnow is a pioneering
species that is tolerant of environmental stress.
Rhinichthys atratulus (Hermann), Blacknose Dace.
The blacknose dace is most easily confused with the longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae)
from which is differs because the blacknose dace lacks a fleshy snout hanging over its mouth.
The blacknose dace occurs from Nova Scotia west throughout the Great Lakes and upper
Mississippi River drainages and south to Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. In West
Virginia, the blacknose dace is found in all of the major river drainages. We collected it at
18 localities in the Guyandotte River drainage, 19 sites in the Kanawha River drainage, eight
sites in the New River drainage, and at five stations in Kentucky. During Fall 2001, we
collected this minnow at two Mud River stations (19, 20), three Big Ugly stations (76, 77,
78), and all three Guyandotte stations (79, 80, 81). The blacknose dace is described as a
generalist, headwater, lithophilous, minnow that is tolerant to environmental stress.
Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill), Creek Chub.
The creek chub is a large minnow with a robust body and a broad, stout head. The creek
chub occurs throughout much of the United States from Montana and New Mexico east to
the Atlantic Coast. In West Virginia, it is found in all of the major drainages. We collected
it 17 localities in the Guyandotte River drainage, at 17 localities in the Kanawha River
drainage, at 11 localities in the New River drainage, and at 14 localities in Kentucky.
During Fall 2001, the creek chub was collected at all stations. The creek chub is a generalist
pioneering minnow that is tolerant of environmental stress.
69
-------
Catostomus commersoni (Lacepede), White Sucker.
The white sucker superficially resembles the longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus). The
two can be distinguished form each other because the white sucker has 55-85 lateral-line
scales, whereas the longnose sucker has 98-108. The white sucker is found throughout
Canada south to New Mexico and Georgia. In West Virginia, it is found in all of the major
drainages. We collected it at three stations in the Kanawha River drainage, 10 stations in the
Guyandotte, six localities in the New River drainage, and four sites in Kentucky. During Fall
2001, white suckers were collected at four Mud River stations (12, 17, 20, 23), one Big Ugly
(77), and one Guyandotte station (79). The white sucker is described as an omnivorous
lithophil that is tolerant of environmental stress.
Hypentelium nigricans (LeSueur), Northern Hog Sucker.
The combination of a short dorsal fin (< 18 rays), a complete lateral line, and a head, which
is concave between the eyes distinguishes the northern hog sucker from all other suckers in
our study. The northern hog sucker occurs throughout the Mississippi River system, the
Great Lakes region, and the Atlantic Slope from New York to northern Georgia. In West
Virginia, the northern hog sucker occurs in virtually all stream systems. We collected it at
eight localities in the Guyandotte River drainage, nine stations in the Kanawha River
drainage, 10 sites in the New River drainage, and 10 sites in Kentucky. In Fall 2001, we
collected it in two Mud River stations (18, 22), four Big Ugly stations (74, 75, 77, 78), and
one Guyandotte station (79). The northern hog sucker is an insectivorous lithophil that is
intolerant to environmental stress.
Moxostoma erythrurum (Rafmesque), Golden Redhorse.
The golden redhorse superficially resembles several of the large redhorse suckers
(Moxostoma spp.) in West Virginia. Its slate-colored tail distinguishes it from both the river
redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum) and the Ohio shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma
macrolepidotum breviceps). The northern shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum
macrolepidotum), which has a slate-colored tail has a medial bulb on its upper lip that the
golden redhorse lackes. The number of lateral-line scales present in the golden redhorse (39-
43) separates it from the black redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei), which has 44-47. The
golden redhorse is widely distributed throughout the Mississippi River north to the Great
Lakes. An isolated population (possibly introduced) is found in the Potomac River. In West
Virginia, the golden redhorse occurs in all of the major drainages except the James River.
We collected it at three sites in the Guyandotte River drainage, at one site in the Kanawha
River drainage, and at one site in Kentucky. During Fall 2001, it was only collected at one
station in the Big Ugly watershed (station 74). The golden redhorse is described as an
insectivorous lithophil that is moderately tolerant to environmental stress.
Ameiurus melas (Rafmesque), Black Bullhead.
The black bullhead differs from the yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis) in having brown or
black chin barbells and a slightly forked or rectangular caudal fin. It is distinguished from
the brown bgullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) because it lacks strongly barbed pectoral fins and
usually has fewer anal-fin rays (16-22) than does the brown bullhead (21-24). The black
bullhead is native from southern Canada, Montana, and northern Mexico east to the Saint
Lawrence River, the Appalachian Mountains, and Alabama. In West Virginia, it is found in
70
-------
the main channel and greater Ohio River. It occupies both lotic and lentic areas throughout
its range. It prefers silty water and is not able to populate the cool, clear waters inhabited by
brown and yellow bullheads. In this survey, we collected one specimen at one station in the
Mud River watershed (station 17) during Fall 2001.
Ameiurus natalis (LeSueur), Yellow Bullhead.
The yellow bullhead has yellow/white chin barbels, while both the brown bullhead
(Ameiurus nebulosus) and the black bullhead {Ameiurus melas) have brown to black chin
barbels. The yellow bullhead's caudal fin in slightly rounded, while the brown bullhead's
caudal fin has a straight posterior margin. The yellow bullhead is indigenous to central and
eastern North America. In West Virginia, it occurs in both the Ohio and Atlantic Slope
drainages. We collected it at three localities in the Guyandotte River drainage and at one
locality in Kentucky. In Fall 2001, we collected it at two Mud River stations (22, 23). The
yellow bullhead is described as a tolerant insectivore.
Ameiurus nebulosus (LeSueur), Brown Bullhead.
The brown bullhead can be distinguished from the yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis)
because the brown bullhead has brown or black barbels, wheras the yellow bullhead has
white/hellow barbells. Strongly-barbed pectoral spines and 21-24 anal-fin rays distinguish
the brown bullhead from the black bullhead {Ameiurus melas)., which has 16-20 anal-fin rays
and weakly-barbed pectoral spines. The brown bullhead is native to eastern North America,
but it has been widely introduced outside its native range. In West Virginia, it is found in the
Potomac and Ohio River drainages. It occurs in both lentic and lotic habitats, in associated
with moderate amounts of aquatic vegetation, and prefers clearer, cooler water than do other
Ameiurus species. We collected one specimen at one station in the Mud River watershed
(station 18) in Fall 2001.
Noturus miurus Jordan, Brindled Madtom.
The brindled madtom can be distinguished from other Noturus species, because it posseses a
curved pectoral spine with anterior and posterior serrae, and it has three bold, distinct
blotches on its dorsal surface. The brindled madtom is native to the portions of the Gulf
Slope, including the Mississippi River through the Ohio River basin and throughout the
lower parts of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario drainages. In West Virginia, it occurs throughout
the Ohio River basin. We collected one specimen at one site (station 22 in Spring 2000) in
the Mud River during the 1999/2000 season and four specimens at one site in the Big Ugly
(station 74) in Fall 2001 (both in Guyandotte River drainage). The brindled madtom is an
intolerant benthic insectivore.
Labidesthes sicculus (Cope), Brook Silverside.
The brook silverside superficially resembles a slender minnow. It can be distinguished,
however, by its beak-like snout and the presence of two clearly separted dorsal fins. The
brook silverside is widely distributed throughout the Mississippi Valley, including all of the
Ohio River drainage. It is also present throughout the lower Great Lakes basin, the Atlantic
Slope from South Carolina to Florida, and west along the Gulf Coast to Texas. In West
Virginia it is found throughout the Ohio River basin and is most common in the Little
Kanawha River, the West Fork of the Monongahela River, and in Twelvepole Creek. We
71
-------
found the brook silverside at only one station in the Mud River watershed (station 20) during
Fall 2001. Brook silversides prefer pool areas of streams and quiet areas of lakes with an
abundance of aquatic vegetation.
Cottus bairdi Girard, Mottled Sculpin.
The mottled sculpin can be distinguished from the Potomac sculpin (Cottus girardf) and the
banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) because the mottled sculpin's chin is uniformaly colored,
whereas those of the latter two species have distinct blotches. The mottled sculpin can be
distinguished from the slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) because it has 4 pelvic-fin rays, as
opposed to three. The mottled sculpin usually has two medial chin pores. In several of the
populations that we sampled, we found an almost equal number of mottled sculpins with
either one or two chin pores. The mottled sculpin's native range is discontinuous throughout
North America with populations occurring from Canada south to Georgia, Alabama, and
New Mexico. In West Virginia, it is found in all of the major drainages. The mottled sculpin
is an intolerant, benthic, headwater insectivore.
Ambloplites rupestris (Rafinesque), Rock Bass.
The rock bass superficially resembles crappies (Pomoxis spp.), warmouths (Lepomis
gulosus), and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus). It differs from all Lepomis species in
having five to eight anal spines, instead of three. The rock bass has 10-13 dorsal-fin spines,
whereas Pomoxis species have six to eight. The rock bass occurs from northern Georgia
north to southern Ontario and west to the western tributaries of the Mississippi River. In
West Virginia, it occurs in all of the major drainages. We collected it in the Guyandotte,
Kanawha, New, and Kentucky drainages. During Fall 2001, we collected it in one Mud
River site (23) and three Big Ugly sites (74, 75, 78). The rock bass is a piscivore that
exhibits intermediate tolerance to environmental stresses.
Lepomis auritus (Linnaeus), Redbreast Sunfish.
The redbreast sunfish superficially resembles the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), because
these are the only two Lepomis species that have a black margin to its opercular spot. It
differs from the bluegill, because the redbreast sunfish lacks the black spot, which is present
at the posterior base of the bluegill's dorsal fin. The redbreast sunfish is native to the
Atlantic Slope from southern Canada to central Florida, and west to the Apalachicola River.
It has been widely introduced outside of its native range. We collected it at only two sites in
the Cumberland River drainage in Kentucky. The redbreast sunfish is described as an
insectivore with intermediate tolerance to environmental stresses.
Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque, Green Sunfish.
The green sunfish resembles the warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), but unlike the warmouth's
tongue, the tongue of the green sunfish bears no teeth. The green sunfish can be
distinguished from all other Lepomis species because the green sunfish possesses a large
mouth, the maxilla of which, extends to or beyond the middle of the eye. We collected it in
all of the major drainages that we sampled. In Fall 2001, the green sunfish was caught at
seven of the Mud River stations, but it was not caught at any of the Big Ugly reference
stations. The green sunfish is described as a pioneering insectivore that is tolerant to
environmental stresses.
72
-------
Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus), Pumpkinseed.
The pumpkinseed can be distinguished from the longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) and the
redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) because the pumpkinseed's opercle is stiff to its bony
margin. It differs from other Lepomis species because its gill rakers are short and thick. The
pumpkinseed is native to the Atlantic Slope drainages from Canada to northern Georgia, and
west throughout the Great Lakes drainages and upper Mississippi River basin. In West
Virginia, it is found in most of the major drainages. It appears to prefer cooler water than do
most of the other Lepomis species. We collected it in one site of the Big Ugly watershed
(station 75) during Fall 2001.
Lepomis macrochirus Rafmesque, Bluegill.
Only the bluegill and the redbreast sunfish have an opercular spot that is black to its margin.
The black spot at the posterior base of the bluegill's dorsal fin distinguishes it from the
redbreast sunfish. The bluegill is native to eastern and central North America from Virginia
to Florida, west to Texas and northern Mexico, and north to western Minnesota and western
New York. It has been introduced throughout North America, Europe, and South Africa.
The bluegill is widely distributed throughout West Virginia and has been collected in all of
the major drainages. We collected it in the Guyandotte and Kanawha rivers and at the sites
in Kentucky. In Fall 2001, we collected it at three Mud River sites and one Big Ugly site.
The bluegill is an insectivore that demonstrates intermediate tolerance to environmental
stresses.
Lepomis megalotis (Rafmesque), Longear Sunfish.
The longear sunfish resembles the pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) and the redear
sunfish (Lepomis microlophus). It differs from the pumpkinseed sunfish because the longear
sunfish's opercle is flexible at its margin, whereas the pumpkinseed's is stiff to its bony
margin. The longear sunfish as short pectoral fins, while the redear's are long, extending
beyond the eye when laid forward. The longear sunfish is widely distributed throughout the
Mississippi River basin and long the Gulf Slope from western Florida to Texas; it is patchily
distributed in the Great Lakes drainages. The longear sunfish is distributed throughout West
Virginia, being only absent from the James River. We collected it in the Guyandotte and
Kentucky river drainages. During Fall 2001, we collected it at two Mud River sites and four
Big Ugly sites. The longear sunfish is described as an insectivore with intermediate
tolerance to environmental stresses.
Micropterus dolomieu Lacepede, Smallmouth Bass.
The lack of a dark mid-lateral band distinguishes the smallmouth bass from both the spotted
bass (Micropteruspunctulatus) and the largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). The
smallmouth bass is native to the Great Lakes drainages and the Mississippi River basin. It
has been introduced throughout the world. In West Virginia, it occurs in all of the major
drainages. We caught it in the Kanawha, Guyandotte, and Kentucky drainages. During Fall
2001, we only caught it at four of the Big Ugly reference sites. Smallmouth bass are
piscivores with intermediate tolerance to environmental stresses.
73
-------
Micropteruspunctulatus (Ranfinesque), Spotted Bass.
The spotted bass can be distinguished from the smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)
because of its dark mid-lateral band. Its unbranched pyloric caeca and the tricolored tails of
juveniles distinguish it from the largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides}. The spotted bass
is indigenous to the central Misissippi River basin from northern Missouri to western
Pennsylvania, south to Mississippi and Louisana, and along the Gulf Coast from Texas to
western Florida. It has been introduced elsewhere. In West Virginia, the spotted bass is
distributed widely throughout the Ohio River drainages. We captured it in the Guyandotte
River in West Virginia and the Cumberland River drainages in Kentucky. In Fall 2001, we
caught it in two stations in the Mud River and two stations in the Big Ugly. Spotted bass are
piscivores with intermediate tolerance to environmental stresses.
Micropterus salmoides (Lacepede), Largemouth Bass.
Two strains of largemouth bass are recognized in North America, a northern strain and a
Florida strain. The former is native to West Virginia; members of the latter probably now
occur within the state. The largemouth bass can be distinguished from other Micropterus
species in West Virginia and Kentucky on the basis of its large mouth, the maxilla of which
extends behind the eye in adults. The largemouth bass is indigenous to the Mississippi River
basin from northeastern Mexico to Florida, and north to the Great Lakes drainages of
southern Canada. Its native range on the Atlnatic Slope was restricted to southern Florida
north to southern or central South Carolina. It has been introduced throughout the world. In
West Virginia, the largemouth bass occurs in all of the major drainages. We collected it in
the Guyandotte and Kanawha river drainages. Largemouth bass are piscivores with
intermediate tolerance to environmental stresses.
Etheostoma baileyi Page and Burr, Emerald Darter.
The emerald darter is the only member of the subgenus Ulocentra, which occurs in the
Cumberland River system upstream of the Big South Fork (Etnier and Starnes 1993). The
emerald darter is native to the upper Kentucky River and Cumberland river drainages of
Kentucky and Tennessee above Cumberland Falls, and in the Rockcastle and Big South Fork
systems, below Cumberland Falls (Etnier and Starnes 1993). We collected it throughout the
stations sampled in Kentucky. The emerald darter is a benthic lithophilous insectivore that is
intolerant of environmental stresses.
Etheostoma blennioides Rafinesque, Greenside Darter.
The greenside darter superficially resembles the banded darter (Etheostoma zonale). The
greenside darter has a blunt snout and lacks a frenum, unlike the banded darter. The
greenside darter is found from Kansas and Oklahoma east to New York, and from Ontario
south to Alabama, Georgia, and Arkansas. In West Vriginia, the greenside darter is found in
all of the major drainages except for the James River. We collected it throughout all of the
major drainages that we sampled. During Fall 2001, we collected it at two sites in the Mud
River and three sites in the Big Ugly. The greenside darter is a benthic lithophious
insectivore with intermediate tolerance to environmental stresses.
74
-------
Etheostoma caeruleum Storer, Rainbow Darter.
The rainbow darter superficially resembles the orangethroat darter (Etheostoma spectabile).
The rainbow darter has red coloration in its anal fin and a complete infraorbital canal, both of
which the oragnethroat darter lacks. The rainbow darter occurs primarily in the Great Lakes
and Mississippi River drainages, from Minnesota east to New York and south to Arkansas,
Alabama, and Georgia. Esmond and Stauffer (1983) reported it from the upper Potomac
River in West Virginia. Elsewhere in West Virginia, it is found in the tributaries of
thegreater Ohio River. There are no records of this species from the Little Kanawha River.
We found it in all of the major drainages that we sampled. In Fall 2001, we found it in both
the Mud River and Big Ugly. The rainbow darter is described as a benthic lithophilous
insectivore. Barbour et al. (1999) describe this species as having intermediate tolerance to
environmental stresses, while Messinger and Chambers (2001) describe it as being intolerant.
Etheostoma flabellare Rafmesque, Fantail Darter.
The fantail darter is the only member of the subgenus Catonotus in West Virginia. In
Kentucky, it superficially resembles the stripetail darter (Etheostoma kennicotti\ which had a
prominent black submarginal band in the first dorsal fin that the fantail darter lacks (Etnier
and Starnes 1993). We collected it in all of the major drainages that we sampled. In Fall
2001, we found it at two Mud River stations and all five Big Ugly stations. This darter is
described as a headwater benthic insectivore with intermediate tolerance to environmental
stresses.
Etheostoma kennicotti (Putnam), Stripetail darter.
The stripetail darter does not occur in West Virginia. In Kentucky, it superficially resembles
the fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare). The presence of a dark submarginal band on the
first dorsal fin of the stripetail darter distinguishes it from the fantail darter. It is native
throughout much of the Tennessee River drainage, above and below the Cumberland Falls in
the Cumberland drainage, and in the Green River drainage of the Ohio River (Etnier and
Starnes 1993). We collected it at two sites in the Cumberland River drainage. This darter is
described as a benthic headwater insectivore with intermediate tolerance of environmental
stresses.
Etheostoma nigrum Rafmesque, Johnny Darter.
The johnny darter resembles both the longfin darter (Etheostoma longimanum) and the
tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi). The johnny darter has one anal-fin spine, while the
longfin darter has two. The tessellated darter has an incomplete infraorbital canal and the
johnny darter has a complete infraorbital canal. The johnny darter is occurs as far west as
Colorado and as far south as Alabama. Although it is mostly restricted to the Mississippi
Valley drainages, it does occur in the Atlantic Slope drainages in Canada, Virginia, and
North Carolina. In West Virginia, the johnny darter is widely distributed throughout the
Ohio River drainages. We collected it in all of the major drainages we sampled. In Fall
2001, we collected it at three Mud River stations and all five Big Ugly stations. The johnny
darter is described as a benthic pioneering insectivore with intermediate tolerance to
environmental stresses.
75
-------
Etheostoma sagitta (Jordan and Swain), Arrow Darter.
The arrow darter is distinguished by its pointed snout and the presence of 9-11 dorsal-fin
spines. It is native to the Cumberland River drainage and tributaries of the upper Kentucky
River system (Etnier and Starnes 1993). We collected it at two localities in Kentucky. The
arrow darter is a benthic headwater insectivore.
Etheostoma variatum Kirtland, Variegate Darter.
The variegate darter superficially resembles the candy darter {Etheostoma osburnf). The
variegate darter has four dark saddles, whereas the candy darter as between 5-6. The
variegate darter is endemic to the Ohio River drainage. In West Virginia, it is widely
distributed throughout this drainage, being absent only from the Kanawha River system
above Kanawha Falls (New River). We collected it in the Kanawha River drainages and in
Kentucky. In Fall 2001, we collected it at three sites in the Big Ugly watershed. The
variegate darter is a benthic lithophilous insectivore that is intolerant of environmental
stresses.
Etheostoma zonale (Cope), Banded Darter.
The banded darter superficially resemble the greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides). The
banded darter has a frenum, which is lacking in the greenside darter. The banded darter is
widely distributed and common throughout the Mississippi River basin from Kansa and
Tennessee, north to Minnesota and New York. In West Virginia, the banded darter is found
throughout most of the Ohio River drainage, with the exception of the Tygart Valley River
and New River drainages. We collected it in the Kanawha and Guyandotte river drainages.
During Fall 2001, we collected it at one Mud River station (22) and two Big Ugly stations
(74, 75). This darter is a benthic lithophilous insectivore that is intolerant of environmental
stresses.
Percina caprodes (Rafinesque), Logperch.
The logperch is distinguished by its subterminal mouth and fleshy conical snout. It is widely
distributed throughout the Ohio River basin in central United States, the White River system
in the Ozak Mountains, the Red Rvier system in the Ouachita Mountains, the Atchafalaya
River system, the upper Mississippi River basin, the Great Lakes, the Hudson Bay drainages,
and south along the central Atlantic Coastal Plain rivers. In West Virginia, the logperch is
widely distributed throughout the greater Ohio River drainage. We collected it only in the
Guyandotte River drainage during both sampling periods. This benthic lithophilous
insectivore exhibits intermediate tolerance to environmental stresses.
Percina maculata (Girard), Blackside Darter.
The blackside darter (subgenus Alvordius) resembles the Appalachia darter (Percina
gymnocephala\ and the shield darter (Percinapeltata). The blackside darter lacks the shield
darters characteristic chin bar. The Appalachia darter is endemic to New River. The
blackdarter is widely distributed throughout the Mississippi River basin, along the Gulf Slope
from Louisiana to Alabaama and in the Great Lakes drainages. In West Virginia, it occurs
throughout the greater Ohio River, excluding the New River. We collected it in the
Guyandotte River in West Virginia and at several sites in Kentucky. During Fall 2001, we
76
-------
collected it only at four stations of the Big Ugly watershed. This benthic lithophilous
insectivore exhibits intermediate tolerance to environmental stresses.
Percina stictogaster, Frecklebelly Darter.
The frecklebelly darter is an undescribed Percinia species from the upper Kentucky and
Green river drainages in eastern and central Kentucky and north central Tennessee (Page and
Burr 1991). We collected it at two localities in Kentucky. The frecklebelly darter is
described as a benthic lithophilous insectivore.
77
-------
APPENDIX B: Tables of catch composition for each collection by drainage basin (Table
IB = Guyandotte River Drainage (Mud River and Island Creek watersheds), Table 2B =
Kanawha River Drainage (Spruce Fork and Clear Fork watersheds), Table 3B = New River
Drainage (Twentymile Creek watershed), Table 4B = Cumberland and Kentucky River
Drainages) during Fall 1999 and Spring 2000.
78
-------
Table IB. Total number caught (Number), total biomass (g), biomass per square meter
(g/sq.m.), population estimate (based on 3-pass depletion), and the associated upper 95%
confidence limit on the estimate (Upper CL) by species for fish collections completed in the
Guyandotte River Drainage (Mud River and Island Creek watersheds), West Virginia during
Fall 1999 and Spring 2000. NA in the Estimate column indicates samples where an estimate
could not be calculated due to too few fish being caught, an irregular depletion pattern, or all
fish being caught in the first pass.
Station # 1 Collection #: JRS-99-67 EPA #: MT-57B EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 1
Species
Number Biomass (g) g/m
EstimateUpper CL
No Fish Caught
Station # 2 Collection #: JRS-99-69 EPA #: NA EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 1
Species
Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
No Fish Caught
Station # 3 Collection #: JRS-00-61 EPA #: MT-58 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 1
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
Rhinichthys atratulus
12
31.7
0.12
12
12.2
Station # 4 Collection #: JRS-00-62 EPA #: MT-52 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 1
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
Rhinichthys atratulus
14
45.5
0.27
14
14.3
Station # 5 Collection #: JRS-00-67 EPA #: MT-13 EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 1
Species
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
1
12
Biomass (g)
0.1
95.7
g/m2
0.00
1.59
EstimateUpper CL
NA
NA
79
-------
Station # 6F Collection #:JRS-99-68 EPA #: MT-60 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 2
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 Estimate Upper CL
Rhinichthys atratulus 41 126.6 0.39 41 42.5
Semotilus atromaculatus 18 408.5 1.27 18 20.1
Station # 6S Collection #:JRS-00-50 EPA #: MT-60 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 2
Species
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
22
3
Biomass (g)
76.8
10.3
g/m2
0.31
0.04
EstimateUpper CL
NA
NA
** Only 1 pass completed - repeat of collection made in Fall 1999.
Station #7 Collection #: JRS-00-52 EPA#:MT-18 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 2
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
Rhinichthys atratulus 2 2.2 0.01 NA
Semotilus atromaculatus 7 48.7 0.22 7 8.4
Station # 8 Collection #: JRS-00-59 EPA #: MT-50 EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 2
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
Rhinichthys atratulus 15 20.7 0.11 19 32.4
Semotilus atromaculatus 29 52.6 0.27 30 33.5
Station # 9 Collection #: JRS-00-60 EPA #: MT-59 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 2
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
Rhinichthys atratulus 12 77.3 0.21 12 14.1
Station # 10 Collection #: JRS-00-64 EPA #: MT-02 EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 2
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
Rhinichthys atratulus 3 1.5 0.01 NA
80
-------
Station # 11 Collection #: JRS-00-65 EPA #: MT-03 EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 2
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Clinostomus funduloides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma nigrum
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis cyanellus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
11
Station* 12 Collection #: JRS-00-68 EPA#:
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Lepomis cyanellus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
1
11
8
2
24
2
4
53
4
2
1
45
Station* 13 Collection #: JRS-00-69 EPA#:
Species
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
1
5
Biomass (g)
11.4
11.3
10.4
2.7
2.8
31.4
10.4
1.2
90.1
MT-14 EIS
Biomass (g)
114.0
40.9
609.5
3.8
15.8
1.1
2.2
260.6
7.3
7.3
0.9
626.0
MT-51 EIS
Biomass (g)
3.1
41.8
g/m2
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.04
0.00
0.31
Class: 2
g/m2
0.68
0.25
3.65
0.02
0.09
0.01
0.01
1.56
0.04
0.04
0.01
3.75
Class: 0
g/m2
0.01
0.15
EstimateUpper CL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Stream Order: 2
EstimateUpper CL
NA
16 36.8
9 15
NA
27 34.8
NA
4 5.7
73 104.6
4 5.7
2 6.8
NA
45 46.5
Stream Order: 2
EstimateUpper CL
NA
NA
81
-------
Station* 14 Collection*: JRS-00-91 EPA#:NA EIS Class: 3 Stream Order: 3
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis cyanellus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus salmoides
Notropis ludibundus
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
198
58
171
43
290
46
1
1
2
360
352
629
185
Station* 15 Collection #: JRS-99-70 EPA#:
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma caeruleum
Hypentelium nigricans
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
10
15
7
9
35
231
73
Biomass (g)
1,538.3
646.1
369.1
141.3
388.2
2,207.6
22.2
14.8
22.1
814.9
765.3
1,931.2
5,911.0
MT-55 EIS
Biomass (g)
176.5
71.0
13.7
14.7
278.4
492.0
1,177.9
g/m2
1.10
0.46
0.26
0.10
0.28
1.58
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.58
0.55
1.38
4.24
Class: 3
g/m2
0.46
0.19
0.04
0.04
0.73
1.29
3.10
EstimateUpper CL
198
58
209
43
312
46
NA
NA
NA
378
367
NA
186
Stream Order:
199.82
58.26
240.2
43.3
327.7
47.153
390.7
378.3
188.9
3
EstimateUpper CL
10
17
7
9
36
252
84
11.4
24.1
7.8
10.1
39.4
268.3
98.4
82
-------
Station # 16 Collection #: JRS-00-53 EPA #: MT-01 EIS Class: 4 Stream Order: 3
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Clinostomus funduloides
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Lampetra aepyptera
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis megalotis
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Moxostoma erythrurum
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
64
28
41
17
8
15
9
10
8
1
21
2
15
77
122
Station* 17 Collection #: JRS-00-54 EPA#:
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Clinostomus funduloides
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Lepomis cyanellus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
24
1
6
6
31
1
13
Biomass (g)
189.3
7,422.1
117.6
33.1
10.0
28.7
8.8
55.9
152.3
24.4
77.5
1,251.9
27.0
115.4
430.7
NA EIS Class
Biomass (g)
81.6
9.8
24.4
12.1
164.6
2.4
129.2
g/m2
0.49
19.36
0.31
0.09
0.03
0.07
0.02
0.15
0.40
0.06
0.20
3.26
0.07
0.30
1.12
EstimateUpper CL
64
28
41
17
8
19
9
NA
NA
NA
21
NA
15
77
125
65.31
28.8
41.9
17.8
9.8
32.3
10.1
23.4
15.9
78.1
130.1
: 2 Stream Order: 3
g/m2
0.38
0.05
0.11
0.06
0.76
0.01
0.60
EstimateUpper CL
25
NA
6
6
31
NA
13
28.8
7.7
7.71
49.6
13.2
83
-------
Station # 18 Collection #: JRS-00-55 EPA #: MT-15 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 3
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Lepomis cyanellus
Pimephales promelas
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Station* 19 Collection*:
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma zonale
Hypentelium nigricans
Lampetra aepyptera
Lepomis cyanellus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
7
1
16
2
1
11
JRS-00-57 EPA #:
Number
36
1
3
82
24
65
2
7
1
30
11
13
16
Biomass (g)
32.0
9.4
158.2
4.7
2.1
111.8
MT-07 EIS
Biomass (g)
107.0
209.9
6.5
66.4
35.0
49.9
1.8
285.4
2.7
132.9
19.1
19.3
83.9
g/m2
0.19
0.05
0.92
0.03
0.01
0.65
Class: 3
g/m2
0.20
0.39
0.01
0.12
0.07
0.09
0.00
0.53
0.01
0.25
0.04
0.04
0.16
EstimateUpper CL
7 7.
NA
18 25
NA
NA
NA
Stream Order: 3
3
.1
EstimateUpper CL
37 40
NA
NA
85 90
26 31
124 230
NA
NA
NA
NA
14 26
14 19
17 21
.9
.3
.9
.3
.2
.3
.2
84
-------
Station#20 Collection*: JRS-00-58 EPA#:MT-05 EIS Class: 3 Stream Order: 3
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma zonale
Hypentelium nigricans
Lampetra aepyptera
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis megalotis
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus punctulatus
Moxostoma erythrurum
Percina caprodes
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
2
74
57
26
2
9
15
36
6
1
2
24
1
1
45
1
12
2
16
26
Biomass (g)
289.3
195.4
13,284.9
79.1
2.3
5.4
35.7
40.3
6.0
86.3
9.8
143.7
0.5
7.1
298.2
2.3
5,519.1
9.6
79.3
324.5
g/m2
0.50
0.33
22.75
0.14
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.07
0.01
0.15
0.02
0.25
0.00
0.01
0.51
0.00
9.45
0.02
0.14
0.56
EstimateUpper CL
NA
76
57
NA
NA
9
15
43
6
NA
NA
31
NA
NA
53
NA
NA
NA
16
26
80.5
57.0
11.8
17.5
56.4
6.9
47.9
66.6
17.2
27.9
85
-------
Station # 21 Collection #: JRS-00-66 EPA #: MT-04 EIS Class: 4 Stream Order: 3
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Hypentelium nigricans
Lampetra aepyptera
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
34
3
1
4
2
3
4
1
12
1
18
2
1
29
Biomass (g)
135.4
127.3
2.7
5.0
3.9
3.1
366.5
4.2
75.7
1.0
254.4
6.4
1.5
164.4
g/m2
0.33
0.31
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.90
0.01
0.19
0.00
0.62
0.02
0.00
0.40
EstimateUpper CL
34
NA
NA
4
NA
3
NA
NA
12
NA
18
NA
NA
29
34.9
5.7
4.1
13.2
18.1
29.4
86
-------
Station # 22F Collection #: JRS-99-76 EPA #: MT-23 EIS Class: 3 Stream Order:4
Species
Ameiurus natalis
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma zonale
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis megalotis
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus punctulatus
Micropterus salmoides
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis photogenis
Notropis rubellus
Noturus miurus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
1
145
5
5
37
114
5
58
9
60
3
1
3
1
1
21
1
4
1
36
Biomass (g)
45.6
383.6
22.7
9.1
61.5
64.9
3.8
47.2
148.7
463.8
12.8
33.2
4.1
101.0
15.4
24.5
2.6
6.5
0.0
202.2
g/m2
0.08
0.67
0.04
0.02
0.11
0.11
0.01
0.08
0.26
0.81
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.18
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.35
EstimateUpper CL
NA
149 154
NA
5 5.
37 38
124 135
5 5.
67 80
9 10
69 82
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
27 42
NA
4 4.
NA
36 37
.7
5
.8
.3
5
.5
.6
.4
.8
6
.1
87
-------
Station # 22S Collection #: JRS-00-51 EPA #: MT-23 EIS Class: 3 Stream Order: 4
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Ameiurus natalis
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma zonale
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Moxostoma erythrurum
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis rubellus
Percina caprodes
Percina maculata
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
1
1
66
4
28
20
28
1
16
20
16
1
27
1
62
3
3
1
5
9
Biomass (g)
152.9
75.6
433.9
26.1
58.7
39.2
15.9
1.0
13.2
194.9
128.9
0.7
152.7
5.4
86.7
6.3
15.6
1.8
23.8
40.7
g/m2
0.23
0.11
0.65
0.04
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.29
0.19
0.00
0.23
0.01
0.13
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.06
EstimateUpper CL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
40 71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Station # 23 Collection #: JRS-00-56 EPA #:MT-17 EIS Class: 3 Stream Order: 4
Species
Ameiurus natalis
Semotilus atromaculatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Pimephales notatus
Percina caprodes
Notropis ludibundus
Moxostoma erythrurum
Micropterus salmoides
Lepomis megalotis
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma zonale
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis cyanellus
Ambloplites rupestris
Hypentelium nigricans
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Number
1
9
3
23
2
12
2
2
4
6
14
8
6
4
3
83
2
8
7
Biomass (g)
81.4
9.2
1.3
122.6
5.9
14.6
405.0
249.2
106.3
9.2
27.5
9.7
6.7
3.5
15.2
541.8
180.3
164.8
100.4
g/m2
0.16
0.02
0.00
0.23
0.01
0.03
0.77
0.48
0.20
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
1.03
0.34
0.31
0.19
Estimate Upper
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
14
8
6
NA
NA
CL
7.0
14.3
8.6
9.5
105 131.4
NA
8
NA
8.7
89
-------
Table 2B. Total number caught (Number), total biomass (g), biomass per square meter
(g/sq.m.), population estimate (based on 3-pass depletion), and the associated upper 95%
confidence limit on the estimate (Upper CL) by species for fish collections completed in the
Kanawha River Drainage (Spruce Fork and Clear Fork watersheds), West Virginia during
Fall 1999 and Spring 2000. NA in the Estimate column indicates samples where an estimate
could not be calculated due to too few fish being caught, an irregular depletion pattern, or all
fish being caught in the first pass.
Station # 24 Collection #: JRS-00-92 EPA #: MT-42 EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 1
Species
Number Biomass (g) g/m
EstimateUpper CL
No Fish Caught
Station # 25 Collection #: JRS-99-71 EPA #: MT-25B EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 2
Species
Lepomis cyanellus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
1
7
59
Biomass (g)
2.8
16.3
478.1
g/m2
0.01
0.05
1.45
EstimateUpper CL
NA
7
59
7.8
60.6
Station # 26 Collection #: JRS-99-80 EPA #: MT-64 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 2
Species
Phoxinus erythrogaster
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
1
107
29
Biomass (g)
2.6
156.9
212.2
g/m2
0.02
1.46
1.98
EstimateUpper CL
NA
107
29
107.8
30.3
Station#27 Collection*: JRS-99-81 EPA#:MT-69 EIS Class: 4 Stream Order: 2
Species
Number Biomass (g) g/m
EstimateUpper CL
Coitus bairdi
Rhinichthys atratulus
130
9
224.8
23.3
1.68
0.17
152
9
173.2
10.1
90
-------
Station # 28 Collection #: JRS-00-73 EPA #: MT-70 EIS Class: 3 Stream Order: 2
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 Estimate Upper CL
Coitus bairdi
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
88
14
7
264.7
43.4
64.4
1.75
0.29
0.43
103
14
NA
120.7
15.4
Station # 29 Collection #: JRS-00-76 EPA #: MT-79 EIS Class: 1 Stream Order: 2
Species
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
11
6
Biomass (g)
28.9
86.0
g/m2
0.42
1.25
EstimateUpper CL
11 11.2
6 6.4
Station # 30 Collection #: JRS-00-79 EPA #: MT-80 EIS Class: 1 Stream Order: 2
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
Rhinichthys atratulus 4 3.6 0.04 4 4.6
Semotilus atromaculatus 1 1.8 0.02 NA
Station # 31 Collection #: JRS-00-80 EPA #: MT-82 EIS Class: 1 Stream Order: 2
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
No Fish Caught
Station # 32 Collection #: JRS-00-93 EPA #: MT-39 EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 2
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
Rhinichthys atratulus 20 20.6 0.20 NA
91
-------
Station # 33 Collection #: JRS-99-72 EPA #: MT-32 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 3
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Coitus bairdi
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma nigrum
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus salmoides
Notropis rubellus
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
61
3
1
18
5
4
24
32
2
1
1
2
1
12
Station # 34 Collection #: JRS-99-73 EPA #:
Species
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
37
6
Biomass (g)
453.9
65.3
1.5
44.6
4.9
10.8
357.7
52.6
38.1
2.1
1.7
9.6
3.6
179.0
MT-45 EIS
Biomass (g)
43.2
9.8
g/m2
2.06
0.30
0.01
0.20
0.02
0.05
1.62
0.24
0.17
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.81
Class: 1
g/m2
0.39
0.09
EstimateUpper CL
64
NA
NA
18
5
4
25
32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12
Stream Order: 3
69.7
19.1
7.2
5.7
28.8
34.1
12.2
EstimateUpper CL
37
6
38
6.9
92
-------
Station # 35 Collection #: JRS-99-78 EPA #: NA EIS Class: 1 Stream Order: 3
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Coitus bairdi
Etheostoma flabellare
Hypentelium nigricans
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
6
12
32
5
111
41
Station # 36 Collection #: JRS-99-79 EPA #:
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Coitus bairdi
Etheostoma caeruleum
Hypentelium nigricans
Rhinichthys atratulus
Salmo trutta*
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
5
1
327
1
7
44
3
35
Biomass (g)
49.9
48.3
30.9
62.5
170.9
295.9
MT-62 EIS
Biomass (g)
148.1
265.0
684.9
1.2
472.1
71.7
NA
250.2
g/m2
0.18
0.17
0.11
0.22
0.60
1.04
Class: 3
g/m2
0.70
1.25
3.23
0.01
2.23
0.34
NA
1.18
EstimateUpper CL
6 6.4
NA
34 39.4
NA
129 147.9
62 102.3
Stream Order: 3
EstimateUpper CL
5 6.2
NA
342 353.4
NA
7 7.8
46 50.7
NA NA
61 121.2
Salmo trutta were caught outside of the study site, measured (TL, mm), and released.
Station # 37 Collection #: JRS-99-82 EPA #: MT-70 EIS Class: 3 Stream Order: 3
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
No Fish Caught
93
-------
Station #38 Collection #: JRS-00-70 EPA #: MT-28 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 3
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Coitus bairdi
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
18
19
3
6
5
16
1
9
13
Station #39 Collection #: JRS-00-74 EPA#:
Species
Coitus bairdi
Hypentelium nigricans
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Station # 40 Collection #:
Species
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
200
10
62
2
JRS-00-77 EPA #:
Number
18
33
Station #41 Collection #: JRS-00-78 EPA#:
Species
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
6
20
Biomass (g)
155.2
172.0
7.6
420.4
39.2
23.5
8.0
27.7
256.6
MT-63 EIS
Biomass (g)
931.8
1,158.2
174.7
4.9
MT-85 EIS
Biomass (g)
76.8
500.9
MT-81 EIS
Biomass (g)
26.4
344.2
g/m2
0.38
0.42
0.02
1.04
0.10
0.06
0.02
0.07
0.63
Class: 3
g/m2
4.19
5.21
0.79
0.02
Class: 1
g/m2
0.18
1.20
Class: 1
g/m2
0.10
1.37
EstimateUpper CL
18 19.4
19 19.5
NA
NA
5 6.2
25 26.5
NA
9 9.6
NA
Stream Order: 3
EstimateUpper CL
214 226.3
NA
62 63.1
NA
Stream Order: 3
EstimateUpper CL
18 19.4
34 37.6
Stream Order: 3
EstimateUpper CL
NA
20 20.5
94
-------
Station # 42 Collection #: JRS-99-74 EPA #: MT-40 EIS Class: 3 Stream Order: 4
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Coitus bairdi
Cyprinus carpio
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma zonale
Hypentelium nigricans
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus dolomieu
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis photogenis
Notropis rubellus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
28
187
1
1
87
13
24
3
2
45
2
43
27
35
Station #43 Collection*: JRS-00-71 EPA#:
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Cottus bairdi
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma zonale
Hypentelium nigricans
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus dolomieu
Notropis photogenis
Notropis rubellus
Notropis volucellus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
2
149
7
160
4
27
30
13
23
94
1
4
13
Biomass (g)
73.1
245.7
9.7
4.5
95.5
13.7
570.7
2.8
5.6
39.2
5.3
73.7
57.9
208.6
MT-46 EIS
Biomass (g)
419.6
312.3
32.6
183.6
5.7
1,817.4
784.3
1,598.3
64.1
231.6
1.2
4.5
238.0
g/m2
0.05
0.18
0.01
0.00
0.07
0.01
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.05
0.04
0.15
Class: 3
g/m2
0.34
0.26
0.03
0.15
0.00
1.49
0.64
1.31
0.05
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.20
EstimateUpper CL
28
207
NA
NA
110
NA
33
NA
NA
47
NA
43
35
37
Stream Order:
30.3
223.7
137
55.2
51.8
44.4
53
41.9
4
EstimateUpper CL
NA
165
7
175
NA
30
31
13
24
95
NA
4
13
180.1
9.9
188.8
37.7
34.4
14.5
27.6
97.7
4.6
15.4
95
-------
Station # 44 Collection #: JRS-00-72 EPA #: MT-47 EIS Class: 3 Stream Order: 4
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma anomalum
Coitus bairdi
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma zonale
Hypentelium nigricans
Lampetra aepyptera
Lepomis macrochirus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus dolomieu
Moxostoma erythrurum
Notropis photogenis
Notropis rubellus
Notropis volucellus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
2
86
79
19
2
74
1
20
1
1
47
9
4
10
86
12
12
23
Biomass (g)
385.2
590.2
168.1
27.1
9.1
72.7
0.9
1,400.6
1.3
6.3
1,195.3
1,169.5
2,166.5
20.9
199.4
12.7
18.7
275.1
g/m2
0.22
0.33
0.09
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.00
0.79
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.66
1.22
0.01
0.11
0.01
0.01
0.15
EstimateUpper CL
2
94
NA
19
NA
NA
NA
22
NA
NA
58
9
NA
10
107
NA
12
27
6.9
104.5
19.5
28.6
75.9
9.6
10.2
131.7
12.8
37.4
96
-------
Station # 45 Collection #: JRS-99-75 EPA #: MT-48 EIS Class: 3 Stream Order: 5
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma anomalum
Coitus bairdi
Cyprinella spiloptera
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma variatum
Etheostoma zonale
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus dolomieu
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis photogenis
Notropis rubellus
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
8
14
6
1
14
218
15
9
22
40
1
2
19
12
46
8
66
4
1
1
Biomass (g)
793.7
106.7
21.8
3.0
34.3
151.8
10.8
38.1
19.4
1,439.8
10.8
5.2
71.6
1,462.7
45.0
18.6
98.7
15.1
0.2
25.5
g/m2
0.50
0.07
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.91
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.92
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.02
EstimateUpper CL
8
14
NA
NA
15
NA
18
NA
27
41
NA
NA
22
12
NA
8
77
NA
NA
NA
8.3
16.6
19.9
27.9
39.9
44.5
30.9
13.6
10.5
92.1
97
-------
Table 3B. Total number caught (Number), total biomass (g), biomass per square meter
(g/sq.m.), population estimate (based on 3-pass depletion), and the associated upper 95%
confidence limit on the estimate (Upper CL) by species for fish collections completed in the
New River Drainage (Twentymile Creek watershed), West Virginia during Fall 1999 and
Spring 2000. NA in the Estimate column indicates samples where an estimate could not be
calculated due to too few fish being caught, an irregular depletion pattern, or all fish being
caught in the first pass.
Station # 46 Collection #: JRS-00-88 EPA #: MT-93 EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 1
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
No Fish Caught
Station # 47 Collection #: JRS-99-86 EPA #: MT-98 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 2
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
Catostomus commersoni 1 29.5 0.10 NA
Rhinichthys atratulus 40 77.9 0.26 50 67.9
Semotilus atromaculatus 2 96.5 0.32 NA
Station # 48 Collection #: JRS-00-83 EPA #: NA EIS Class: 1 Stream Order: 3
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Coitus bairdi
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Hypentelium nigricans
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
13
8
22
2
69
1
112
50
Biomass (g)
150.3
93.2
63.6
3.6
113.1
32.2
226.1
201.1
g/m2
0.32
0.20
0.13
0.01
0.24
0.07
0.48
0.43
EstimateUpper CL
13
NA
22
NA
80
NA
118
51
14.5
24.3
95
125.9
54.2
Station # 49 Collection #: JRS-00-84 EPA #: MT-87 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 2
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
Etheostoma flabellare 5 8.1 0.03 NA
Rhinichthys atratulus 72 116.0 0.49 74 78.3
Semotilus atromaculatus 12 41.5 0.18 12 13.6
98
-------
Station # 50 Collection #: JRS-00-85 EPA #: MT-95 EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 2
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Coitus bairdi
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
7
1
38
2
4
Station # 5 1 Collection #: JRS-00-86 EPA #:
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
25
17
12
1
5
5
Station # 52 Collection #: JRS-00-87 EPA #:
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Coitus bairdi
Etheostoma flabellare
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
1
4
30
28
89
31
Station # 53 Collection #: JRS-00-89 EPA #:
Species
Coitus bairdi
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
3
7
3
Biomass (g)
20.0
0.8
25.9
2.4
4.8
g/m2
0.30
0.01
0.39
0.04
0.07
NA EIS Class: 0
Biomass (g)
140.2
8.5
11.5
4.0
31.6
83.0
MT-91 EIS
Biomass (g)
18.6
79.3
125.5
51.9
175.1
113.9
MT-94 EIS
Biomass (g)
6.0
13.2
15.0
g/m2
1.44
0.09
0.12
0.04
0.32
0.85
Class: 0
g/m2
0.06
0.27
0.42
0.17
0.59
0.38
Class: 0
g/m2
0.07
0.15
0.17
EstimateUpper CL
7 7.3
NA
38 40.2
NA
NA
Stream Order: 2
EstimateUpper CL
25 26.8
17 18.8
NA
NA
NA
5 5.5
Stream Order: 2
EstimateUpper CL
NA
NA
31 35.0
29 32.9
89 91.1
31 31.4
Stream Order: 2
EstimateUpper CL
NA
7 8.4
NA
99
-------
Station # 54 Collection #: JRS-99-84 EPA #: NA EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 3
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma anomalum
Cyprinella galactura
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis cyanellus
Luxilus albeolus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus dolomieu
Nocomis platyrhynchus
Notropis rubellus
Notropis telescopus
Notropis volucellus
Pimephales notatus
Number
15
27
18
2
36
5
4
13
6
8
1
3
46
16
75
1
3
Station # 55 Collection #: JRS-99-85 EPA #:
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis cyanellus
Number
72
95
8
1
11
Lepomis cyanellus x L.macrochirus 1
Nocomis platyrhynchus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
72
46
21
Biomass (g)
952.5
216.8
135.9
5.8
24.5
8.0
3.5
632.3
91.1
72.9
21.7
183.4
1,112.8
19.6
97.2
2.1
8.0
g/m2
0.74
0.17
0.11
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.49
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.14
0.87
0.02
0.08
0.00
0.01
NA EIS Class: 2
Biomass (g)
271.2
95.1
12.8
46.0
202.7
11.0
281.9
50.8
69.4
g/m2
0.90
0.32
0.04
0.15
0.67
0.04
0.94
0.17
0.23
EstimateUpper CL
15
31
18
NA
46
NA
NA
13
6
8
NA
3
50
17
82
NA
NA
Stream Order: 3
16.6
40.7
19.7
65.1
14.4
7.7
8.6
4.1
57.6
21.2
92.1
EstimateUpper CL
81
101
8
NA
NA
NA
74
51
27
93.4
109.3
9.8
78.3
59.9
42.8
100
-------
Station # 56 Collection #: JRS-00-81 EPA #: MT-86 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 3
Species
Catostomus commersoni
Coitus bairdi
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
11
3
1
24
70
40
Station # 57 Collection #: JRS-00-82 EPA #:
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Cottus bairdi
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Hypentelium nigricans
Luxilus albeolus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
17
15
21
18
23
10
12
69
53
Biomass (g)
296.2
16.2
1.1
31.6
144.2
265.5
g/m2
1.00
0.05
0.00
0.11
0.49
0.89
NA EIS Class: 2
Biomass (g)
192.1
372.9
86.5
29.4
48.0
750.2
114.2
152.2
629.5
g/m2
0.19
0.36
0.08
0.03
0.05
0.72
0.11
0.15
0.61
EstimateUpper CL
NA
3
NA
29
71
42
Stream Order: 4
4.1
41.3
74.2
46.9
EstimateUpper CL
20
15
22
19
NA
10
12
107
76
29.3
17.4
25.9
23.2
12.5
14.1
163
113.1
101
-------
Station #58 Collection #: JRS-99-83 EPA #: NA EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 4
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Coitus bairdi
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis cyanellus
Luxilus albeolus
Micropterus dolomieu
Nocomis platyrhynchus
Notropis telescopus
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
17
63
4
2
7
31
2
9
20
11
30
7
15
3
1
26
Biomass (g)
735.6
343.7
246.2
5.0
18.3
22.9
0.8
10.0
351.7
154.7
160.0
125.8
79.4
9.4
2.4
298.9
g/m2
0.92
0.43
0.31
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.44
0.19
0.20
0.16
0.10
0.01
0.00
0.37
EstimateUpper CL
19
65
4
NA
NA
32
NA
9
27
NA
31
7
15
NA
NA
26
25.7
69.7
5.7
35.9
9.6
46.3
34.7
8.4
16.3
26.4
102
-------
Table 4B. Total number caught (Number), total biomass (g), biomass per square meter
(g/sq.m.), population estimate (based on 3-pass depletion), and the associated upper 95%
confidence limit on the estimate (Upper CL) by species for fish collections completed in the
Cumberland, Kentucky, and North Fork of the Kentucky River Drainages, Kentucky during
Spring 2000. NA in the Estimate column indicates samples where an estimate could not be
calculated due to too few fish being caught, an irregular depletion pattern, or all fish being
caught in the first pass.
Station # 59 Collection #: JRS-00-95 EPA #: 8 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 4
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma anomalum
Etheostoma baileye
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma kennicotti
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis auritus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus dolomieu
Micropterus punctulatus
Notropis rubellus
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
26
94
4
115
32
7
30
39
25
6
11
3
37
1
Biomass (g)
2,011.2
570.8
2.7
89.8
22.9
6.2
1,085.3
1,361.7
235.3
141.3
456.5
5.4
68.6
3.7
g/m2
1.49
0.42
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.80
1.01
0.17
0.10
0.34
0.00
0.05
0.00
EstimateUpper CL
33
128
NA
240
33
NA
43
73
29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
49.1
167.5
421.9
36.8
71.8
151.8
39.0
Station # 60 Collection #: JRS-00-96 EPA #: 6 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 3
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 EstimateUpper CL
Campostoma anomalum 154 1,178.6 3.12 155 157.7
Etheostoma caeruleum 121 167.6 0.44 131 142.0
Etheostoma flabellare 16 18.9 0.05 16 17.5
Hypentelium nigricans 7 119.0 0.32 7 7.3
Pimephales notatus 1 1.8 0.00 NA
Rhinichthys atratulus 276 444.7 1.18 288 298.0
Semotilus atromaculatus 306 1,045.5 2.77 314 321.8
103
-------
Station # 61 Collection #: JRS-00-97 EPA #: NA EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 3
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma anomalum
Etheostoma baileye
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma kennicotti
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis macrochirus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Lythrurus ardens
Micropterus punctulatus
Notropis rubellus
Phoxinus erythrogaster
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
3
8
3
1
88
20
15
148
88
4
5
2
1
1
83
24
Biomass (g)
11.7
47.7
2.2
4.6
71.1
14.7
1,408.2
3,985.2
1,350.7
14.2
4.6
188.2
0.5
2.9
113.5
149.3
g/m2
0.01
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.01
1.37
3.88
1.31
0.01
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.15
EstimateUpper CL
3
8
NA
NA
96
20
NA
192
110
4
5
NA
NA
NA
93
25
4.1
9.8
106.5
20.3
231.4
135.7
7.1
5.5
105.6
28.8
104
-------
Station # 62 Collection #: JRS-00-94 EPA #: 12 EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 2
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Etheostoma baileye
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma sagitta
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis megalotis
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Lythrurus ardens
Micropterus dolomieu
Moxostoma erythrurum
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Percina maculata
Percina stictogaster
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
4
100
1
11
50
196
91
23
1
13
1
125
35
1
3
1
10
6
68
44
Biomass (g)
113.8
180.3
0.1
8.6
75.9
139.8
102.6
10.7
1.6
133.3
30.0
272.4
31.4
266.0
706.0
81.0
18.7
8.9
71.2
101.7
g/m2
0.27
0.43
0.00
0.02
0.18
0.33
0.24
0.03
0.00
0.31
0.07
0.64
0.07
0.63
1.67
0.19
0.04
0.02
0.17
0.24
EstimateUpper CL
NA
101
NA
11
52
199
92
24
NA
13
NA
129
35
NA
NA
NA
10
6
71
47
104.1
13.8
56.4
203.6
95
27.6
13.5
134.8
36.5
11.4
7.7
76.3
53.1
105
-------
Station # 63 Collection #: JRS-00-98 EPA #: 13 EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 2
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma baileye
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Percina stictogaster
Phoxinus erythrogaster
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
41
2
21
59
97
59
64
6
5
108
2
95
Station # 64 Collection #: JRS-00-99 EPA #:
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Etheostoma flabellare
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis cyanellus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Moxostoma erythrurum
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
5
4
5
1
3
1
1
6
35
30
Biomass (g)
122.1
5.1
12.5
72.8
63.2
44.4
27.8
8.9
5.0
54.3
1.9
273.2
g/m2
0.53
0.02
0.05
0.31
0.27
0.19
0.12
0.04
0.02
0.23
0.01
1.18
3 EIS Class: 2
Biomass (g)
29.4
62.3
5.5
10.9
5.5
3.6
7.1
9.7
75.1
235.4
g/m2
0.17
0.36
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.43
1.35
EstimateUpper CL
41 42
NA
21 22
61 65
109 122
65 74
70 79
6 6.
5 6.
Ill 116
NA
97 101
Stream Order: 2
.6
.1
.8
.8
.6
.3
9
2
.0
.0
EstimateUpper CL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
39 47
40 61
.5
.6
106
-------
Station # 65 Collection #: JRS-00-100 EPA #: 2 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 2
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Etheostoma caeruleum
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis macrochirus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
1
119
6
1
294
93
Station #66 Collection*: JRS-00- 101 EPA
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Etheostoma baileye
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis hybrid
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus dolomieu
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis rubellus
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
32
2
3
3
116
25
1
15
1
1
1
1
80
Station #67 Collection*: JRS-00- 102 EPA
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Lepomis macrochirus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
1
1
2
90
Biomass (g)
5.1
144.2
57.1
1.7
610.8
294.9
g/m2
0.02
0.48
0.19
0.01
2.05
0.99
#: 9 EIS Class: 3
Biomass (g)
99.3
14.1
2.6
3.7
65.5
246.1
7.4
48.7
3.0
1.3
1.5
2.1
304.6
g/m2
0.12
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.30
0.01
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.37
#: 14 EIS Class: 2
Biomass (g)
11.2
45.4
7.9
285.3
g/m2
0.04
0.16
0.03
1.01
EstimateUpper CL
NA
120 123.1
6 6.9
NA
295 297.4
98 105.1
Stream Order: 3
EstimateUpper CL
32 34.1
NA
3 4.1
NA
150 184.6
25 25.4
NA
15 15.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
85 92.4
Stream Order: 3
EstimateUpper CL
NA
NA
NA
125 166.9
107
-------
Station # 68 Collection #: JRS-00-103 EPA #: 5 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 2
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma anomalum
Etheostoma baileye
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma variatum
Hypentelium nigricans
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Nocomis micropogon
Noturus miurus
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
1
7
1
5
7
1
2
76
1
1
1
9
Station #69 Collection*: JRS-00- 104 EPA
Species
Ameiurus natalis
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Etheostoma baileye
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma variatum
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Notropis rubellus
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
2
15
1
5
3
9
1
3
6
39
3
4
2
28
Biomass (g)
8.3
8.3
0.4
6.7
3.6
0.6
15.8
113.2
4.0
4.0
1.4
66.8
g/m2
0.08
0.08
0.00
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.15
1.10
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.65
#: 4 EIS Class: 2
Biomass (g)
65.9
51.4
8.4
3.8
8.3
7.5
5.4
22.2
60.6
120.0
4.2
11.1
2.4
235.8
g/m2
0.21
0.16
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.19
0.38
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.74
EstimateUpper CL
NA
7
NA
5
7
NA
NA
76
NA
NA
NA
9
Stream Order: 3
7.8
6.2
8.4
76.2
11.2
EstimateUpper CL
NA
16
NA
5
NA
9
NA
NA
6
40
NA
NA
NA
28
20.5
6.2
10.6
6.4
43.4
29.1
108
-------
Station # 70 Collection #: JRS-00-105 EPA #: 1 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 3
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 Estimate Upper CL
Hypentelium nigricans 1 38.2 0.27 NA
Semotilus atromaculatus 22 153.9 1.10 NA
Station#71 Collection*: JRS-00-106 EPA#:10 EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 3
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma baileye
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma sagitta
Hypentelium nigricans
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Percina maculata
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
93
44
60
19
75
85
124
1
4
47
1
101
Station #72 Collection*: JRS-00- 107 EPA
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Etheostoma baileye
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Percina maculata
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
113
7
7
20
3
2
12
2
54
Biomass (g)
295.0
52.5
53.5
34.3
66.6
69.5
52.1
3.3
30.2
132.1
2.1
414.6
g/m2
1.40
0.25
0.25
0.16
0.32
0.33
0.25
0.02
0.14
0.63
0.01
1.96
#: 1 1 EIS Class: 0
Biomass (g)
131.1
3.9
8.8
12.1
4.6
1.0
32.4
2.7
204.7
g/m2
1.12
0.03
0.07
0.10
0.04
0.01
0.28
0.02
1.74
EstimateUpper CL
93
44
60
19
75
86
127
NA
4
NA
NA
102
Stream Order: 3
94.7
45.5
61.0
19.7
75.5
88.6
132.1
4.6
104.8
EstimateUpper CL
113
7
7
20
NA
NA
12
NA
55
113.6
7.8
8.4
20.9
12.4
58.2
109
-------
Station # 73 Collection #: JRS-00-108 EPA #: 7 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 4
Species Number Biomass (g) g/m2 Estimate Upper CL
Campostoma anomalum 3 0.9 0.00
Catostomus commersoni 19 5.1 0.01 23 34.5
Etheostoma blennioides 1 1.5 0.00 NA
Hypentelium nigricans 6 0.6 0.00 NA
Lampetra aepyptera 2 3.9 0.01 NA
Pimephales notatus 3 10.4 0.02 NA
Semotilus atromaculatus 42 91.7 0.22 42 43.4
110
-------
APPENDIX C. Total number caught (Number), total biomass (g), biomass per square
meter (g/sq.m.), population estimate (based on 3-pass depletion), and the associated upper
95% confidence limit on the estimate (Upper CL) by species for fish collections completed in
the Guyandotte River Drainage (Mud River, Big Ugly, and Buffalo Creek watersheds) in Fall
2001. NA in the Estimate column indicates samples where an estimate could not be
calculated due to too few fish being caught, an irregular depletion pattern, or all fish being
caught in the first pass.
Station#7 Collection*: JRS-01-84 EPA#:MT-18 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 2
Species
Lepomis cyanellus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Station # 12 Collection #:
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Etheostoma caeruleum
Lepomis cyanellus
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
6
3
JRS-0 1-87
Number
2
2
1
2
1
13
Biomass (g)
59
40
EPA#:MT-14
Biomass (g)
6
25
1
20
6
304
g/m2
0.351
0.930
EIS Class:
g/m2
0.037
0.155
0.006
0.124
0.037
1.882
Estimate
NA
NA
2 Stream
Estimate
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Upper CL
Order: 2
Upper CL
Station#17 Collection*: JRS-01-85 EPA#:NA EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 3
Species
Ameiurus melas
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Pimephales promelas
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number Biomass (g)
1
1
2
1
1
12
1
2
11
157
12
10
5
1
92
7
4
259
g/m2 Estimate Upper CL
0.561
0.043
0.036
0.018
0.004
0.329
0.025
0.014
0.925
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
12
NA
4
12
14.1
5.7
17.6
111
-------
Station # 18 Collection #: JRS-01-86 EPA #: MT-15 EIS Class: 2 Stream Order: 3
Species
Ameiurus nebulosus
Campostoma anomalum
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis cyanellus
Pimephales promelas
Semotilus atromaculatus
Station #19 Collection*:
Species
Ericymba bucatta
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Lepomis cyanellus
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
1
1
1
12
3
2
JRS-01-88
Number
1
10
12
5
22
1
6
50
Biomass (g)
83
2
44
155
8
46
EPA #: MT-07
Biomass (g)
3
9
10
3
91
1
13
201
g/mz
0.638
0.015
0.338
1.192
0.062
0.354
EIS Class:
g/mz
0.006
0.018
0.020
0.006
0.181
0.002
0.026
0.399
Estimate
NA
NA
NA
12
NA
NA
3 Stream
Estimate
NA
10
12
NA
23
NA
6
51
Upper CL
14.1
Order: 3
Upper CL
10.9
13.2
26.8
7.0
54.0
112
-------
Station#20 Collection*: JRS-01-89 EPA#:MT-05 EIS Class: 3 Stream Order: 3
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Clinostomus fimduloides
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Labidesthes sicculus
Lampetra aepyptera
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis megalotis
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus punctulatus
Percina caprodes
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Station # 22 Collection #:
Species
Ameiurus natalis
Campostoma anomalum
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma zonale
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis cyanellus
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus punctulatus
Notropis ludibundus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
11
13
2
8
4
16
10
16
2
38
1
1
1
3
3
4
3
115
JRS-0 1-82
Number
1
29
10
22
2
10
2
16
1
1
1
12
Biomass (g)
48
201
8
21
5
21
10
22
3
301
4
14
10
6
9
10
8
911
EPA #: MT-23
Biomass (g)
272
193
20
16
1
10
89
291
4
314
2
78
g/mz
0.135
0.565
0.022
0.059
0.014
0.059
0.028
0.062
0.008
0.846
0.011
0.039
0.028
0.017
0.025
0.028
0.022
2.559
EIS Class:
g/mz
0.389
0.276
0.029
0.023
0.001
0.014
0.127
0.416
0.006
0.449
0.003
0.111
Estimate
11
13
NA
8
4
16
10
16
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
3
4
3
127
3 Stream
Estimate
NA
29
10
23
NA
12
NA
17
NA
NA
NA
12
Upper CL
12.8
15.4
10.5
5.7
16.9
11.4
18.3
4.1
4.1
4.7
4.1
140.2
Order: 4
Upper CL
29.2
10.2
27.2
21.2
21.2
12.8
113
-------
Station # 23 Collection #: JRS-01-83 EPA #: MT-17 EIS Class: 3 Stream Order: 4
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Ameiurus natalis
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis megalotis
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Station # 74 Collection #:
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma anomalum
Cyprinella spiloptera
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma variatum
Etheostoma zonale
Hypentelium nigricans
Lampetra aepyptera
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis megalotis
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus dolomieu
Micropterus punctulatus
Moxostoma erythrurum
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis rubellus
Noturus miurus
Percina maculata
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
1
2
1
2
1
17
1
4
JRS-01-90
Number
1
11
11
29
7
22
11
84
4
5
9
30
4
19
81
1
19
17
2
4
4
3
80
46
Biomass (g)
113
392
8
107
8
300
39
283
EPA #: NA
Biomass (g)
41
13
20
29
12
13
10
40
7
3
454
127
46
216
230
1
315
423
3
8
3
4
114
126
g/mz
0.232
0.804
0.016
0.219
0.016
0.615
0.080
0.581
EIS Class: 0
g/mz
0.045
0.014
0.022
0.032
0.013
0.014
0.011
0.044
0.008
0.003
0.501
0.140
0.051
0.238
0.254
0.001
0.347
0.467
0.003
0.009
0.003
0.004
0.126
0.139
Estimate
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19
NA
4
Upper CL
25.7
7.1
Stream Order: 4
Estimate
NA
11
11
34
7
22
11
84
NA
NA
NA
31
NA
19
82
NA
19
17
NA
4
4
NA
96
48
Upper CL
12.3
11.2
45.0
7.3
22.1
11.5
86.0
35.0
21.0
84.9
20.3
18.1
4.7
5.7
115.8
52.5
114
-------
Station # 75 Collection #: JRS-01-91 EPA #: NA EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 4
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma anomalum
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma variatum
Etheostoma zonale
Hypentelium nigricans
Lampetra aepyptera
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis megalotis
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus dolomieu
Micropterus punctulatus
Notropis ludibundus
Notropis rubellus
Percina maculata
Pimephales notatus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Station # 76 Collection #:
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Lepomis megalotis
Luxulus chrysocephalus
Micropterus dolomeiu
Percina maculatum
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
2
56
16
26
77
15
89
14
16
24
4
3
12
207
4
4
14
3
4
174
54
JRS-01-92
Number
13
23
30
5
2
2
9
2
2
4
29
50
Biomass (g)
2
110
24
38
33
14
45
47
7
348
7
28
129
809
9
58
20
5
5
271
340
EPA #: NA
Biomass (g)
52
34
29
7
2
16
11
4
4
11
46
234
g/mz
0.003
0.143
0.031
0.050
0.043
0.018
0.059
0.061
0.009
0.454
0.009
0.037
0.168
1.055
0.012
0.076
0.026
0.007
0.007
0.353
0.443
EIS Class: 0
g/mz
0.452
0.296
0.252
0.061
0.017
0.139
0.096
0.035
0.035
0.096
0.400
2.035
Estimate
NA
56
25
29
81
15
100
14
17
25
4
NA
13
250
NA
4
16
NA
NA
198
97
Upper CL
57.5
55.2
36.6
87.5
16.3
113.4
15.4
21.2
28.9
4.7
18.1
282.0
5.7
23.6
218.0
178.1
Stream Order: 2
Estimate
13
23
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
29
50
Upper CL
13.4
23.1
31.3
29.3
52.1
115
-------
Station#77 Collection*: JRS-01-93 EPA#:NA EIS Class: 0 Stream Order: 2
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Clinostomus funduloides
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Hypentelium nigricans
Lampetra aepyptera
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Station # 78 Collection #:
Species
Ambloplites rupestris
Campostoma anomalum
Ericymba buccata
Etheostoma blennioides
Etheostoma caeruleum
Etheostoma flabellare
Etheostoma nigrum
Etheostoma variatum
Hypentelium nigricans
Lampetra aepyptera
Lepomis megalotis
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Micropterus dolomieu
Percina maculata
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
3
2
5
17
24
5
5
1
1
2
5
18
57
JRS-0 1-94
Number
7
29
50
5
144
14
36
6
7
4
23
47
5
6
66
2
74
Biomass (g)
11
19
8
32
22
8
3
16
2
9
14
18
300
EPA #: NA
Biomass (g)
7
92
79
9
91
13
19
28
176
16
339
94
111
10
53
2
215
g/mz
0.099
0.171
0.072
0.289
0.198
0.072
0.027
0.144
0.018
0.081
0.126
0.162
2.707
EIS Class: 0
g/m2
0.021
0.270
0.232
0.026
0.267
0.038
0.056
0.082
0.517
0.047
0.995
0.276
0.326
0.029
0.156
0.006
0.631
Estimate
3
NA
5
17
24
5
5
NA
NA
NA
5
18
57
Upper CL
4.1
5.5
17.8
25.3
5.5
5.5
5.5
19.7
59.2
Stream Order: 3
Estimate
7
29
50
5
146
14
36
NA
7
4
23
47
5
6
69
NA
74
Upper CL
7.3
29.1
50.2
5.5
149.7
14.4
37.1
8.4
7.1
24.1
47.2
6.2
6.4
74.5
74.4
116
-------
Station # 79 Collection #: JRS-01-95 EPA #: NA EIS Class: ? Stream Order: 2
Species
Campostoma anomalum
Catostomus commersoni
Ericymba buccata
Hypentelium nigricans
Pimephales notatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Station # 80 Collection #:
Species
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Station #81 Collection*:
Species
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Number
154
25
21
4
9
141
314
JRS-01-96
Number
92
52
JRS-01-97
Number
38
40
Biomass (g)
711
320
59
41
42
224
2294
EPA #: NA
Biomass (g)
135
220
EPA #: NA
Biomass (g)
72
69
g/mz
2.045
0.920
0.170
0.118
0.121
0.644
6.598
EIS Class: ?
g/mz
1.753
2.857
EIS Class: ?
g/mz
0.608
0.583
Estimate
157
25
21
NA
9
141
344
Upper CL
162.0
26.0
21.1
9.2
141.8
348.6
Stream Order: 1
Estimate
92
52
Upper CL
92.4
52.1
Stream Order: 2
Estimate
38
40
Upper CL
38.1
40.1
117
-------
APPENDIX D. Laboratory data sheets for chemical analysis conducted by Research
Environmental & Industrial Consultants, Inc (REIC) for water samples collected at the 16
sites sampled for fishes (Table 10) in the Mud River, Big Ugly, and Guyandotte drainages
that were sampled in September 2001. A single water sample was collected at each site
(according to directions provided by the EPA) and sent to the REIC for laboratory analysis of
total metals (mg/L of aluminum, iron, arsenic, copper, and selenium) and hardness (as mg/L
CaCO3).
118
-------
Kentucky Mountaintop Mining
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey
Central Appalachian Ecoregion, Kentucky
October 2001
Science and Ecosystem Support Division
Ecological Assessment Branch
980 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30605
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study plan for this project was prepared by Hoke S. Howard and Bobbi Berrang of U.S. EPA,
Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) and Morris Flexner of EPA Region 4,
Water Management Division (WMD). Pre-project assistance in developing the study plan for this
project was provided by Greg Pond and Skip Call of the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW). Study
site selection and mapping needs were met by Trudy Stiber and Don Norris of EPA Region 4, SESD,
Office of Quality Assurance and Data Integration, Athens, Georgia. Anne Keller, Section Chief
provided administrative support and guidance during the project. Field sampling was conducted by
Jim Maudsley and Jerry Ackerman of ManTech, Inc., Environmental Services Assistance Team,
Morris Flexner, Bobbi Berrang, Lonnie Dorn, Ronald Weldon, and Hoke Howard, EPA Region 4,
SESD, BTES. Richard Wahrer and Susan Wind of the Kentucky Department of Surface Mining,
Reclamation, and Enforcement also assisted in the field studies. Skip Call and Mike Compton of
KDOW assisted with reconnoitering during the field sampling. Data reduction and interpretation were
conducted by Hoke S. Howard, Bobbi Berrang, and Morris Flexner. Greg Pond also provided
guidance on the use of Kentucky's Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index and document review.
Appropriate citation:
toward, Hoke S., 'Bobbi Berrang, 2Morris Flexner, 3Greg Pond and 3Skip Call. 2000. Kentucky
Mountaintop Mining Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey. October 2001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Ecological Assessment Branch, Athens,
Georgia.
'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Division, 980
College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30605.
2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Management Division, 61 Forsyth street,
S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
3Kentucky Division of Water, Ecological Support Section, 14 Reilly Road, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.
11
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to a request by the EPA Region 4 Water Management Division, an assessment of stream
macroinvertebrate community health was conducted by EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support
Division staff at 12 sites in the Eastern Coalfield area of Kentucky, May 1-4, 2000. The study was
designed to determine if streams in mined watersheds were being impacted by a practice known as
"mountaintop mining and valley fill " (MTM/VF). This mining approach consists of disrupting or
removing the tops of mountains to access multiple coal seams, and depositing the bulk of the
overburden in adjacent valleys burying first- and second-order streams under tons of soil and rock.
The eight mining-related sites selected for this study were located in Breathitt, Perry, Knot, and Bell
Counties. These locations represent sites downstream of active mining, inactive mining and/or
reclaimed mining sites. Four reference sites were located in the Robinson Forest and Redbird Wildlife
Management Areas located in Breathitt, Knott, Clay, and Leslie Counties, areas within which mining
has not occurred. At each study site, a habitat evaluation was performed, in situ water quality was
measured, and macroinvertebrate samples were collected. In addition, sediment characterization
samples were collected at eight of the 12 sites. Habitat evaluation, collection of macroinvertebrates,
and interpretation of results were based on US EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols and EPA Region 4
Standard Operating Procedures. Sediment characterization sampling and interpretation techniques
followed US EPA EMAP protocols.
Various measures of in situ water quality, habitat quality and macroinvertebrate community structure
were found to be related to mining activities. In particular, conductivity was considerably higher at all
mined sites than it was at reference sites. Conductivity showed the strongest correlation to indicators
of macroinvertebrate community health (i.e., % ephemeroptera, taxa richness, EPT index, biotic index,
and MB I) suggesting this as either a route by which impairment occurred in mined areas, or that
conductivity is a surrogate for other factors that were not measured. Severe impact to the mayfly
(Ephemeroptera) fauna was exhibited at all mined sites. Habitat scores, generally lower at sampling
locations downstream of mined areas than at reference sites, were correlated to several measures of
diversity and dominance of key groups of macroinvertebrates. Especially noted was the decrease in
pollution-sensitive macroinvertebrates (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) at the mined
watersheds. Sediment deposition scores were also strongly correlated with conductivity.
In summary, impacts of MTM/VF activities in eastern Kentucky were evident based on stream
biological and habitat indicators. Mine sites generally had higher conductivity, greater sediment
deposition, smaller substrate particle sizes, and a decrease in pollution sensitive macroinvertebrates
with an associated decrease in taxa diversity compared to reference sites.
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 BACKGROUND 1
3.0 STUDY AREA 1
4.0 METHODS 4
4.1 In situ Water Quality 4
4.2 Macroinvertebrate Sample Collection 4
4.3 Habitat Evaluation 5
4.4 Substrate Characterization 5
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 6
6.0 RESULTS 7
6.1 In situ Water Quality 7
6.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrates 8
6.3 Habitat Evaluation 11
6.4 Substrate Characterization 11
7.0 Associations Between Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metrics and
Physical/Chemical Variables 13
8.0 CONCLUSIONS 15
9.0 LITERATURE CITED 17
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Kentucky Study Watersheds 2
2. Conductivity and Percent Ephemeroptera at reference and test sites 10
LIST OF TABLES
1. Stream sampling locations, Eastern Kentucky, May 2000 3
2. In situ water quality measurements, Eastern Kentucky, May 2000 7
3. Genus Level Tentative scoring criteria for MBI metrics from Pond and
McMurray (2000 unpublished) 8
4. Genus Level Tentative MBI and habitat narrative scoring criteria from Pond and
McMurray (2000 unpublished) 8
5. Metric results, tentative scores, and final index (MBI) scores 9
6. Substrate size classes and class scores 12
7. Summary of substrate size and composition data 12
8. Summary of substrate characterization metrics at sampling sites 13
9. Correlations between benthic macroinvertebrate metrics and physical/chemical variables 14
APPENDICES
A. Box and Whisker Plots
B. Macroinvertebrate Identifications
C. Habitat Evaluation Forms
D. Substrate Characterization Data and Cumulative Distribution Graphs
v
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ecological health of first to third order streams subjected
to mountain top mining/valley fill (MTM/VF) practices in the Central Appalachian Ecoregion of
Kentucky (Omernik 1987). Mountaintop mining is the term that describes a mining practice in which
millions of tons of dirt and rock are removed from mountaintops in order to extract multiple seams of
coal. The resulting overburden is often placed in the adjacent valleys resulting in the stream being
completely filled or receiving excessive sedimentation. Both pre-mining deforestation and
mountaintop mining lead to accelerated sediment deposition, disrupted hydrology, and habitat
degradation affecting the stream biota. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1998), in an inventory of
Kentucky mining permits issued pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act report
that the Department for Surface Mining Reclamation authorized impacts to 354 miles of streams
during the permitting period of April 1986 through July 1995. This included the authorization of
placement of overburden in 180 miles of streams, and impacts to an additional 152 miles of streams
between valley fills and the downstream sediment retention structures.
2.0 BACKGROUND
EPA Region 4 staff participated in meetings with EPA Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Office of Surface Mining, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the Kentucky
Division of Water, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to discuss the environmental impacts associated with mountaintop mining
operations. These agencies are currently collaborating to develop an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) relative to mountaintop mining practices in the Central Appalachian Ecoregion.
In response to ecological concerns and a lack of available information, the EPA Region 4, Water
Management Division requested that the EPA Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division
evaluate the ecological health of streams associated with mountaintop mining activities.
3.0 STUDY AREA
The study area is located in the Central Appalachian Ecoregion of eastern Kentucky. This area,
referred to as the Eastern Coalfield, contains rich deposits of bituminous coal. Stretching from the
Appalachian Mountains westward across the Cumberland Plateau, the Eastern Coalfield encompasses
much of eastern Kentucky. The Central Appalachian Ecoregion is primarily a rugged plateau
composed of sandstone, shale, conglomerate, and coal vegetated by a mixed mesophytic forest. The
rugged terrain, cool climate, and infertile soils limit agriculture in this region.
Using land use and cover type information on permitted mining sites, Kentucky orthoquad maps, and
information from the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW), watersheds were selected in areas of
active mountaintop mining or recently closed mines. Eight study watersheds were selected, ranging in
size from approximately 2 to!6 square miles (Figure 1, Table 1). Attempts were made to avoid
locating study watersheds in the vicinity of residential areas or permitted municipal/industrial (non-
mining) discharges. As a result, only one station (Lost Creek, Station 9) had possible influences from
straight pipes (direct discharges of untreated sewage from private residences) and a permitted
-------
figure 1
-------
discharge. In addition, a permitted discharge (Perry County school) was located on Sixteen Mile
Creek, a tributary to Lost Creek approximately 4.2 miles upstream of Station 9. All stream stations in
mined areas were located downstream of the sediment retention ponds that were constructed as part of
the mining process. The selected watersheds were classified in the following categories relative to
mountaintop mining operations: inactive (old mining), active/inactive, active/reclaimed, and unmined
(forested reference) watersheds (Table 1).
Table 1. Stream sampling locations, Eastern Kentucky. May 1-4, 2000.
Stream
Long Fork
Buffalo
Creek
Laurel Fork
Fugate
Branch
Sims Fork
Spring Fork/
Quicksand
Creek
Lost Creek
Lick Branch
demons
Fork (Ref)
Coles Fork
(Ref)
Big Double
Cr. (Ref)
Sugar Cr.
(Ref)
Station
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
14
10
11
12
13
Locale
Buckhorn Cr.
Road
Fourseam Road
Upper Laurel
Fork Road
Fugate Fork
Road
Sims Fork
Road
near confluence
with Hughes
Creek
SR 1446
Cyprus AMAX
WMA
Robinson
Forest
Robinson
Forest,
Buckhorn Ck.
Road
FR 1501
Redbird WMA
Latitude/
Longitude
37 26.78461
83 11.2066
37 13.5054
83 10.3722
37 26.4033
83 12.46167
3727.55833
83 14.22333
3650.51167
83 36.38667
37 32.905
8303.815
3723.78
83 16.013
3723.275
8308.31
37 27.97667
8309.12833
37 27.8522
8307.81434
37 06.050
8335.51
37 07.576
83 32.446
County
Breathitt
Perry
Breathitt/
Perry
Breathitt
Bell
Breathitt
Perry
Knott/
Perry
Breathitt
Knott/
Breathitt
Clay
Leslie/
Clay
Drainage
area (sq.
mi)
8.105
2.755
3.735
2.661
6.323
12.007
16.858
3.212
5.016
6.115
3.716
4.421
Mining
Status
active /
inactive
inactive
active /
inactive
active /
inactive
active /
reclaimed
active /
inactive
active /
inactive
active /
inactive
unmined
unmined
unmined
unmined
Ref - reference stream
Four reference watersheds were selected in the Robinson Forest and the Redbird WMA (Table 1,
Figure 1). Reference watersheds were selected based on the absence of mining activity, proximity to
test sites, similar stream order, and recommendations by the KDOW.
4.0 STUDY METHODS
-------
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III (RBP III) developed by EPA (Plafkin et al. 1989, Harbour et al.
1999) was used to evaluate impacts to these streams. Included in the RBP III are measures of in situ
water quality and evaluations of the physical habitat which indicate the streams' chemical and physical
status. The benthic macroinvertebrate community is the indicator of biological condition. Substrate
size, one of the most important determinants of habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates in streams, was
determined using EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) protocols
(Kaufmann and Robison 1998, Kaufmann et al. 1999). The substrate characterization was used to
evaluate differences in stream bed composition between reference and test sites. Study methods are
described below.
4.1 In Situ Water Quality
In situ water quality measurements included instantaneous measurements of pH, conductivity, water
temperature, and dissolved oxygen. These measurements serve to identify water quality conditions
which may affect aquatic life. In situ water quality measurements were made prior to collection of
macroinvertebrates and habitat evaluations. Hydrolab® multi-parameter field instruments, calibrated
prior to daily use, were positioned at approximately 0.5 feet in the water column in an undisturbed area
of the study station. All in situ water quality measurements were recorded in the field log along with
appropriate station information (station number, date, time).
At the end of each sampling day, field instruments used to measure in situ water quality were checked
for calibration. Results of both pre- and post- sampling instrument calibration were recorded in the
field log.
4.2 Macroinvertebrate Sample Collection
Methods used in this study (Plafkin et al. 1989, Barbour et al. 1999, U.S. EPA 2000a) evaluate the
status of the benthic macroinvertebrate community. Due to their limited mobility and relatively long
life span, benthic macroinvertebrates integrate and reflect water quality effects over time and are
excellent indicators of stress in aquatic systems. Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III (RBP III) requires
the most intense level of effort of the protocols, followed by identifying macroinvertebrates to at least
genus level. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from multiple habitats as follows:
riffles - 3 "kicks" in the faster current and 3 "kicks" in the slower current with a
standard D-frame biological dip net (800 X 900 jim mesh),
snags/woody debris - 5-6 pieces (-!' length) washed in sieve bucket or standard
D-frame biological dip net,
leaf packs - equivalent to one half dip net,
undercut banks - 6 "jabs" with standard D-frame biological dip net, and
bottom substrate - 3 sweeps (disturb sediment to 3 cm depth).
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were stored in plastic, one quart containers in ethanol (90%).
Sample containers were labeled both inside and outside with labels containing the following
information: station number, stream name, date and time of collection, and sample type. Samples were
checked for adequate preservation at the end of the daily sampling and secured in locked field vehicles
until returned to the laboratory where they were sorted under lighted magnification, and then identified
and enumerated with the aid of microscopy.
-------
Staff of the KDOW have developed collection methods, tentative scoring criteria for core metrics, and
a tentative scoring index referred to as the Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index (MBI), for small,
headwater streams (1st - 2nd order) in eastern Kentucky (Pond and McMurray 2000). These scoring
criteria were developed based on sampling of 42 sites (25 reference and 17 test) scattered throughout
the Central and Southwestern Appalachians of Kentucky. Reference streams were located in highly
forested, undisturbed areas, whereas test sites ranged from slightly to severely impacted by mining,
logging, and residential development. The core metrics used in this index represent four major
measures of benthic community health:
1) Richness — Taxa Richness, EPT Index
2) Composition — %Ephemeroptera, %Chironomidae + Oligochaeta
3) Tolerance — Biotic Index, and
4) Habit -- % Clingers.
In discussions prior to this study, biologists from KDOW and EPA Region 4 determined that sampling
methods utilized by both agencies were similar both in extent and the approach used to select habitats
to be sampled. In order to provide data that are consistent with and complimentary to those of KDOW,
riffle kick samples were kept separate from the composite sample for other habitats during sampling
and identification. KDOW uses this approach to evaluate the relationship between sediment and biota
in productive riffle habitats. This differs from the RBP III protocol and usual EPA Region 4 sampling
methods. For data evaluation, the percent metrics (Ephemeroptera, Clingers, Chironomidae +
Oligochaeta) and biotic index were calculated from riffle samples only, while taxa richness and EPT
index were calculated from both riffle and multihabitat samples combined.
4.3 Habitat Evaluation
Physical habitat quality is a major determinant of biological diversity of stream benthic
macroinvertebrate communities. Habitat evaluation results, when compared to reference sites, identify
degraded conditions and the severity of such degradation. The High Gradient Habitat Evaluation
Form (Barbour et al. 1999) was utilized during this study. Parameters assessed as part of the habitat
evaluation include epifaunal substrate, embeddedness, velocity/depth regime, sediment deposition,
channel characteristics, bank stability, vegetative cover, and riparian zone integrity.
4.4 Substrate Characterization
Substrate characteristics are important determinants of habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates in
streams (Kaufmann and Robison 1998, Kaufmann et al. 1999), and are often sensitive indicators of
anthropogenic impacts on streams (Minshall et al 1985). Substrate size characterization was used to
evaluate reference versus test sites. Cobble-sized substrate provides the greatest amount of usable
habitat to benthic macroinvertebrates, while smaller sized substrate offers reduced habitat for
colonization (Green et al. 2000).
-------
Substrate size characterization was performed using EMAP protocols (Kaufmann and Robison 1998,
Kaufman et al. 1999). Eleven transects were assessed in each 100 meter reach. The middle transect
was located in the riffle where the biological sample was collected. Five transects were located
upstream of the middle transect and five downstream of the middle transect. Transects were spaced at
10 meter intervals. Five substrate particles (e.g., cobble, sand, gravel, etc.) selected at evenly spaced
intervals across each transect (left, left middle, middle, right middle, and right) were measured (to the
nearest millimeter), recorded, and classified. A total of 55 particle measurements were made at each
station.
Particle measurements were used to determine the proportion of bedrock, boulder, cobble, coarse
gravel, fine gravel, and sand and fines present in the reach, according to Wentworth size classes as
described in Wolman (1954). Particles with diameter less than 2 mm were differentiated into specific
sand-sized fractions (e.g., 0.125, 0.250, 0.500, 1.00 mm) with the aid of a waterproof "sand card" or
identified as silt/clay (<0.062 mm) (Pruitt et al. 1999). The 55 particle measurements were also used
to determine the mean particle size in the reach. Since the transects were evenly spaced, the riffle and
pool habitat within the reach was sampled in proportion to their presence in the reach. For example, if
the 100 meter reach was 20% pool and 80% riffle, then the measurements generally occurred 20% of
the time in the pools and 80% of the time in riffles. Bankfull depth, thalweg (the location of the
deepest part of the channel), slope, and wetted width were also recorded for each transect. Bankfull
depth was estimated by identifying field indicators of bankfull stage (e.g., the top of well-established
point bars, vegetation, and/or lichen lines, etc.). Thalweg, slope, and wetted width were measured
directly.
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Field and laboratory methods utilized on this project followed EPA approved methodology (Plafkin et
al. 1989, Barbour et al. 1999, U.S. EPA 2000a, U.S. EPA 2000b). To provide an indication of field
and laboratory precision, duplicate macroinvertebrate samples were collected at two of the 12
sampling sites as determined by the field team leader.
Field instruments utilized during the in situ water quality studies were calibrated before and after daily
field sampling according to manufacturer's instructions and U.S. EPA (2000b). Calibration results
were recorded in the field log book and signed by the project investigator.
-------
6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6.1 In Situ Water Quality
In situ water quality measurements (pH, conductivity, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen) were
collected at each of the 12 study sites (Table 2, Appendix A). The most noticeable in situ water
quality parameter was elevated conductivity values observed at watersheds associated with MTM/VF
operations. EPA Region 3 reported similar findings in recent studies of watersheds in West Virginia
associated with mountaintop mining operations (Green et al. 2000). Conductivity values at the test
sites ranged from 420 to 1690 |imhos/cm with an average of 994 |imhos/cm (Table 2). When
compared to the range (29.9 - 65.8 |imhos/cm) and mean ( 46.75 |imhos/cm) at the reference
watersheds, conductivity at the test sites was 21 times higher.
Table 2. In situ water quality measurements, Eastern Kentucky. May 1-4, 2000.
Station
#
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
14
10REF
HREF
12REF
13REF
Stream
Long Fork
Buffalo Creek
Laurel Fork
Fugate Branch
Sims Fork
Spring Fk/Quicksand Cr.
Lost Creek
Lick Branch
demons Fork
Coles Fork
Big Double Creek
Sugar Creek
Date
05/02/00
05/03/00
05/03/00
05/02/00
05/03/00
05/02/00
05/02/00
05/04/00
05/02/00
05/02/00
05/03/00
05/03/00
Time
1300
1500
0915
1305
1500
1000
1500
1005
1500
1015
1300
1000
D.O.
mg/L
9.34
8.44
9.54
9.58
8.52
9.17
9.69
8.92
9.50
9.44
9.13
9.60
Temp.
°C
15.16
18.18
13.66
15.00
18.57
15.01
15.97
16.33
15.40
13.00
14.30
12.28
pH
Units
8.08
8.01
7.64
8.19
8.14
7.15
7.99
8.16
7.08
7.13
7.32
7.42
Cond.
(imhos/cm
1310
784
1550
836
420
480
881
1690
65.8
40.6
50.7
29.9
REF - reference watershed
The range of observed pH values (Table 2) at watersheds associated with mountaintop mining
operations (7.15 to 8.19) was higher than that of the reference watersheds (7.08 to 7.42). This finding
is consistent with that observed in EPA Region 3 studies where mined areas exhibited higher pH
(Green et al. 2000). Only one test site, Station 7, had a pH that was within the range of pH values
observed at the reference watersheds; all other test sites exceeded a pH of 7.6.
In situ water temperature was generally higher at the test sites than at the reference sites (Table 2;
Appendix A). Water temperature measurements were made in the morning, midday, or afternoon.
Three morning (9:00 - 10:00 a.m.) measurements of water temperature at the test sites ranged from
13.66 to 16.33 °C, while reference sites were 12.28 and 13.00 °C for the same period (Table 2).
7
-------
Midday (1:00 p.m.) water temperatures at two test sites were 15.16 and 15.00 °C, while midday water
temperature measured at one of the reference sites was 14.30 °C. Afternoon (3 p.m.) measurements of
water temperature at three of the test sites ranged from 15.97 to 18.57 °C while measurement of water
temperature at a reference site during this same period was 15.40 °C.
Dissolved oxygen values at the test sites ranged from 8.44 to 9.69 mg/L while reference sites ranged
from 9.13 to 9.60 mg/L (Table 2). As illustrated by the box and whisker plot (Appendix A), dissolved
oxygen values at the test sites exhibited a greater variation over the morning through afternoon period
than was observed at the reference sites.
6.2
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrates were identified to genus level (Appendix B). As discussed previously, the
choice of core metrics was consistent with Kentucky's Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index (MBI)
for Headwater Streams of the Eastern Coalfield Region of Kentucky (Pond and McMurray 2000 draft).
This study adopted Kentucky's genus level Tentative Scoring Criteria for MBI Metrics (Table 3) and
the Tentative MBI and Habitat Narrative Scoring Criteria (Table 4).
Table 3. Genus level tentative scoring criteria for MBI metrics from Pond and McMurray (2000,
unpublished).
METRIC
Taxa Richness
EPT Index
Biotic Index
% Clingers
% Ephemeroptera
% Chironomidae + Oligochaeta
SCORE
6
>40
>22
<2.68
>50
>43
<3.0
3
20-39
11-22
2.68-4.50
25-50
22-43
3.1 -7.4
0
<20
<11
>4.51
<25
<22
>7.4
Table 4. Genus level tentative MBI and habitat narrative scoring criteria (genus level) from Pond and
McMurray (2000 uni
Metric
MBI
Habitat score
Dublisned).
Narrative Scoring Criteria
Excellent
33 -36
175-200
Good
27-30
161 - 174
Fair
18-24
147- 160
Poor
0- 15
0- 146
To provide a unitless and weighted scoring method, the actual result for each metric (Table 5) was
-------
given a score of 6, 3, or 0 (from Table 3). The metric scores were then summed to yield the MBI
(Table 5). Habitat and MBI narrative rankings (excellent, good, fair, poor) were derived from Table 4.
Table 5. Metric results, tentative scores, and final index (MBI) scores, Eastern Kentucky. May 1-4,
2000.
Station
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
14
10 (ref)
1 1 (ref)
12 (ref)
13 (ref)
METRIC RESULTS AND TENTATIVE SCORES
Taxa
Richness
34
24
31
42
28
33
31
25
46
38
41
47
EPT
Index
12
4
9
11
15
9
4
7
21
16
24
24
Biotic
Index
4.19
5.56
5.46
3.74
4.42
5.52
4.86
4.92
3.23
3.23
2.97
2.74
%
Clingers
54
o
5
13
28
22
3
7
21
59
46
29
59
%
Ephem
3
0
0
0.77
0.57
2
0
0
58
49
50
66
% Chir
+ Olig
26
92
81
50
54
83
85
38
2
3
3
4
HABITAT
Score
173
166
128
138
144
131
171
149
167
174
181
181
Rank
good
good
poor
poor
poor
poor
good
fair
good
good
excellent
excellent
MBI
Score
15
o
J
3
15
9
3
o
J
3
30
24
30
30
Rank
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
poor
good
fair
good
good
(ref) - reference watershed
Of the individual core metrics, % Ephemeroptera (Table 5) revealed the greatest sensitivity to
environmental perturbation. A composition measure, % Ephemeroptera, represents the numerical
abundance of mayflies as a percentage of the total individuals collected at a site. Past studies by EPA
Region 4 in the Martha Oil Field region of Kentucky (U.S. EPA 1989), Hurricane Creek in Alabama
(U.S. EPA 2000c) and recent studies in West Virginia by EPA Region 3 (Green et al. 2000) have
identified a strong correlation between elevated conductivity and low numbers of mayflies in streams
where mining operations exist. Figure 2 depicts the inverse relationship between elevated conductivity
and absence or paucity of Ephemeroptera noted at test sites in the present study. Mayflies, along with
the stoneflies (Plecoptera) and caddisflies (Trichoptera) are generally considered pollution-sensitive
macroinvertebrates. Mayflies were absent in samples collected at half (4) of the test sites. The
remaining four test sites had % Ephemeroptera results ranging from only 0.57% to 3.0% (Table 5).
Conversely, reference sites had % Ephemeroptera ranging from 49% to 66%.
-------
Figure 2. Conductivity and % Ephemeroptera at reference and test sites.
>•»
-M
'>
O
O
2000
1500
1000
500
JL
c3
O
-t—»
I
I
43
w"
5 6 7 9 14 10 11 12 13
Station Number
Conductivity
% Ephemeroptera
Although mayflies were drastically reduced in streams associated with mountaintop mining operations,
pollution-sensitive stoneflies (Plecoptera) and caddisflies (Trichoptera) were collected at those
locations. The core metric EPT Index, a summation of taxa in the pollution-sensitive Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Trichoptera, is a richness measure specifically focusing on the presence/absence of
pollution-sensitive fauna. Although effects were not as severe as those observed in the mayfly fauna,
comparison of the range of the EPT Index at the test sites (4 to 15) with that of the reference sites (16
to 24) indicated the loss of some stoneflies and caddisflies at the test sites (Table 5). The core metric
EPT Index has been identified in past studies and in the literature as one of the most discriminatory
metrics (Barbour et al. 1996; Wallace et al. 1996).
A third metric, Taxa Richness, is the sum of benthic macroinvertebrate species collected from a given
stream location and represents diversity. Taxa Richness values revealed a reduction in the number of
benthic macroinvertebrate species in test watersheds when compared to reference watersheds. For
example, Taxa Richness at test sites ranged from 24 to 42 while Taxa Richness for the reference
watersheds ranged from 38 to 47 (Table 5). The previously identified reduction in pollution-sensitive
EPT fauna contributed to the decrease in Taxa Richness at the test sites.
The Biotic Index, derived from Hilsenhoff (1987), is calculated by applying tolerance values to
collected individuals to derive a community-based estimate of overall pollution at a given site. The
tolerance values of various taxa range from 0-10, with 0 being the most pollution intolerant and 10
being the most pollution tolerant taxa. The presence of sensitive (intolerant) organisms would result in
a low Biotic Index value, whereas, the presence of more tolerant organisms would result in a higher
value. Biotic Indices at the test sites were higher (3.74 to 5.56) than those at the reference watersheds
(2.74 to 3.23).
Whereas the core metrics % Ephemeroptera and EPT Index focus on fauna sensitive to pollution, the
% Chironomidae + Oligochaeta metric focuses on pollution-tolerant organisms. A composition
measure, % Chironomidae + Oligochaeta represents the numerical abundance of pollution-tolerant
midges
10
-------
(Chironomidae) and worms (Oligochaeta) as a percentage of the total individuals collected at a site. In
a healthy, balanced benthic macroinvertebrate community, percentages of pollution-tolerant organisms
are minimal. This was not the case in watersheds associated with mountaintop mining operations.
Percent Chironomidae + Oligochaeta at the test sites ranged from 26 to 92 (Table 5) with a mean of
over 63%. Conversely, % Chironomidae + Oligochaeta for reference watersheds range from 2% to
4%.
Percent Clingers, the final core metric utilized in the derivation of the MB I, represents the numerical
abundance of organisms (percentage of the total individuals) that are morphologically adapted for
attachment to stream substrates in generally faster currents such as riffles. Percent clingers for
watersheds associated with mountaintop mining operations ranged from 3 to 54 (Table 5) with a mean
of 19; reference watersheds ranged from 29 to 59 with a mean of 48.
The MBI score, derived from all of the core metrics, ranged from 3 to 30. MBI scores at the reference
sites ranged from 24 to 30 with three of the sites ranking in the "good" category and one site at the
upper limit of the "fair" category (Table 5). All test sites associated with mountaintop mining ranked
in the "poor" category based on the MBI results .
The discriminatory ability of the six core metrics is apparent in the box and whisker plots in Appendix
B. These metrics exhibited no overlap in distributions in test versus reference watersheds, thus
supporting their choice as strong discriminators of impaired and reference conditions and illustrating
the severity of impairment in the benthic macroinvertebrate communities of watersheds associated
with mountain top mining operations.
6.3 Habitat Evaluation
Habitat evaluation scores for watersheds associated with mountaintop mining ranged from 131 to 173
with a mean of 150, while reference sites ranged from 167 to 181 with a mean of 175 (Table 5,
Appendix C). Four of the eight test sites had habitat evaluation scores in the "poor" category based on
the KDOW criteria (Table 4). Habitat degradation, evidenced by the "poor" habitat characterization
at these four test sites, was related to a decrease in the velocity/depth regime (habitat), moderate to
severe embeddedness, and moderate to heavy sediment deposition. These test sites with "poor" habitat
evaluation scores (Stations 4,5,6, and 7) also had MBI rankings in the "poor" category (Table 5).
However, test sites with "good" habitat evaluation scores (Stations 1, 3, and 9) also had MBI rankings
in the "poor" category. This suggests that factors other than habitat degradation may be involved in
impairment of the benthic community at some locations. Habitat evaluation scores at two of the
reference watersheds were in the "excellent" category while two were in the "good" category. In
contrast to the test sites, the reference watersheds had MBI rankings in the "good" category with the
exception of Station 11 which had an MBI ranking at the upper limit (24) of the "fair" category.
6.4 Substrate Size Characterization
Substrate size and composition were measured at eight of the 12 sampling sites. Following the sample
design and analysis employed by EPA Region 3 (Green et al. 2000, Kaufmann et al. 1999, Bain et al.
1985), numeric values (e.g. Class Score, Table 6) were assigned to the substrate size classes. These
class scores are proportional to the logarithm of the midpoint diameter of each size class (Kaufman et
al. 1999).
11
-------
Table 6. Substrate size classes and class scores, Kentucky Mountaintop Mining, May 2000.
Substrate Size Class
Bedrock
Boulder
Cobble
Coarse Gravel
Fine Gravel
Sand
Fines
Size (mm)
>4000
>250 - 4000
>64 - 250
>16-64
>2- 16
>0.06 - 2
<0.06
Class Score
6
5
4
3.5
2.5
2
1
A mean substrate size class score (of the numerically transformed size class) was calculated for the
sampling reach (Table 7). The reach level mean substrate size in millimeters was then calculated using
the substrate size class score (Kaufmann et al. 1999). The median substrate size class or D50 was taken
from cumulative % distribution graphs presented in Appendix D. The reach level percentages of sands
and fines (<2mm diameter) were derived from the frequency of particles in these two size classes
divided by the 55 total particle measurements. For example, if five of the measurements in the reach
were classified as sand or fines, then the % of the substrate less than or equal to 2 mm would be
5/55*100 or approximately 9%.
Table 7. Summary of substrate size and composition data, Kentucky Mountaintop Mining, May 2000.
Substrate Parameter:
Mean substrate size class score and
standard deviation
Calculated mean substrate size (mm)
and substrate classification
Median substrate size class or D50 (mm)
and substrate classification
% substrate size <2 mm (sand and fines)
and standard deviation
Reference (n=3)
3.91
(0.52)
141
(Cobble)
153
(Cobble)
22.4
(6.4)
Mined/Filled (n=5)
2.91
(0.30)
13
(Fine Gravel)
21
(Coarse Gravel)
30.6
(9.1)
12
-------
The substrate size data indicate that the mean substrate size class scores and the mean calculated
substrate particle sizes were smaller in the mined sites than in the unmined sites (Table 7). The median
substrate size class or D50 and the calculated mean substrate size yielded similar results (Tables 7 & 8).
The calculated mean substrate size and D50 of the reference sites included bed surface material that was
generally characterized as cobble. The average percent substrate size <2mm (sands and fines) was
22.4 at reference sites and 30.6 at test sites. Substrate characterization metrics for individual stations
are summarized in Table 8.
Table 8. Summary of substrate characterization metrics at sampling sites. May 2000.
Stream
Long Fork
Laurel Fork
Fugate Branch
Spring Fork/
Quicksand Cr.
demons Fork (ref)
Coles Fork (ref)
Big Double Cr. (ref)
Lick Branch
Station
1
4
5
7
10
11
12
14
Median
substrate size or
D50 (mm)
11
13
30
35
350
60
50
18
Mean
substrate
size class
score
2.57
2.65
3.31
3.04
4.43
3.89
3.40
2.96
Calculated
mean substrate
size (mm)
5
6
26
14
295
96
31
12
% < 2mm
(sands and
fines)
36.4
40.0
21.8
34.6
21.8
29.1
16.3
20.0
The median particle size at reference sites was characterized as large cobble whereas the median
particle size at mined sites was characterized as coarse gravel.
7.0 Associations Between Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metrics and Physical/Chemical
Variables
The physical and chemical conditions of the streams were described using direct measurements of in
situ water quality, physical habitat, and substrate size and composition. Associations between the
benthic metrics and conductivity, total habitat scores, sediment deposition scores, and percent sand and
fines were explored with correlation analyses (Table 9) similar to methods employed by Region 3
(Green et al. 2000).
13
-------
Table 9. Correlations between benthic macroinvertebrate metrics and physical/chemical variables.
Values in bold are statistically significant at the p<0.05 level.
r - correlation
coefficient
(p value)
MBI
Taxa Richness
EPT
BI
% Chironomidae
& Oligocheate
% Ephemeroptera
% Clingers
Conductivity
Conductivity
(|iS/cm)
-0.71
(0.009)
-0.64
(0.024)
-0.72
(0.008)
0.68
(0.016)
0.52
(0.085)
-0.77
(0.003)
-0.38
(0.228)
Habitat Score
0.60
(0.038)
0.38
(0.226)
0.47
(0.121)
-0.63
(0.027)
-0.60
(0.038)
0.65
(0.022)
0.55
(0.063)
-0.48
(0.115)
Sediment
Deposition Score
0.47
(0.121)
0.23
(0.480)
0.38
(0.217)
-0.46
(0.137)
-0.41
(0.184)
0.53
(0.075)
0.35
(0.258)
-0.590
(0.044)
% <2mm
(% sand and
fines)
-0.46
(0.251)
-0.39
(0.337)
-0.52
(0.188)
0.63
(0.091)
0.60
(0.119)
-0.47
(0.233)
-0.17
(0.685)
0.38
(0.354)
n=8 for % < 2mm pairs, n=12 for all other pairs
Generally, the benthic metrics responded as expected to the potential stressors. The MBI, Taxa
richness, EPT, % Ephemeroptera, and % Clingers all decreased with increasing conductivity and
increasing % sands and fines. While the metrics BI and % Chironomidae and Oligochaeta, identifying
a lack of sensitive species and the presence of more tolerant species, was positively correlated with
conductivity and % sands and fines.
The strong negative correlation between conductivity and % Ephemeroptera reaffirms the inverse
relationship shown in Figure 2 (i.e., where conductivity is elevated, there is an absence or paucity of
Ephemeroptera).
14
-------
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
Measureable differences in pH, temperature, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen were observed
between reference and test sites. The most noticeable difference was elevated conductivity observed at
the watersheds associated with mountaintop mining operations. Average conductivity at the test sites
was 21 times higher than at reference sites, suggesting conductivity as either a route by which
impairment occurred in mined areas, or a surrogate for other factors that were not measured. A more
comprehensive evaluation of stream water chemistry may provide information the would better explain
stream impacts.
Habitat scores were correlated to several measures of diversity and dominance of key groups of
macroinvertebrates. Habitat scores were generally lower at sampling locations downstream of test
areas than at reference sites. In particular, active mining sites and recently mined sites received very
poor sediment deposition and embeddedness scores (individual parameters within the RBP habitat
evaluation), indicating increased sedimentation in streams associated with mining activity. Substrate
characterization data also indicated that substrate particle sizes were smaller in the mined sites than in
the unmined sites.
The core metrics used in this study proved to be strong discriminators of impaired and reference
conditions. These metrics illustrated the severity of impairment in the benthic macroinvertebrate
communities of watersheds associated with mountain top mining operations. Of the individual core
metrics, % Ephemeroptera revealed the greatest sensitivity to environmental perturbation. A strong
inverse relationship was apparent between elevated conductivity and absence or paucity of
Ephemeroptera (mayflies) at the test sites. Mayflies were either absent or comprised < 3.0 % of the
benthic community at the test sites. Conversely, reference sites had % Ephemeroptera ranging from
49% to 66%. Other metrics sensitive to perturbations, including EPT Index, Taxa Richness, and %
Clingers, were generally lower at test sites than at reference sites. The biotic index and %
Chironomidae + Oligochaete were higher at test sites, indicating the absence of sensitive species and
the presence of more tolerant benthic organisms. These study results confirm that benthic
macroinvertebrate communities at all the test sites were severely impaired. Specific responses of the
benthic macroinvertebrate communities to mountaintop mining operations are expressed through a
decrease in diversity, a reduction or absence of pollution-sensitive species (especially mayflies), and
an increase in pollution-tolerant species.
Macroinvertebrate, habitat, and in situ water quality data collected during this study document
significant differences between streams located in reference watersheds and streams located in
watersheds with mountaintop mining/valley fill operations (test sites). Mining related sites generally
had higher conductivity, greater sediment deposition, smaller substrate particle sizes, and a decrease in
pollution sensitive macroinvertebrates with an associated decrease in taxa diversity compared to
reference sites.
15
-------
Recognizing that aquatic resources of a stream ecosystem are a reflection of its surrounding landscape
and land uses (Minshall et al 1985), concerns arise when rugged, steep terrains covered by deciduous
forest typical of the Central Appalachians are replaced by gently rolling hills and pastures. Non-
woody organic matter, originating from densely-forested streams has been identified as the major
energy base of aquatic ecosystems (Vannote et al. 1980, Cummins 1980, Merritt et al. 1984).
Deforestation, an environmental liability associated with mountaintop mining operations, would
naturally affect the organic inputs to the energy budgets of aquatic ecosystems. Disruptions in the
biological processes of first- and second-order streams impact not only aquatic life within the stream,
but also the functions that aquatic life contribute to downstream aquatic systems in the form of nutrient
cycling, food web dynamics, and species diversity (Cummins 1980, Merritt et al. 1984).
16
-------
9.0 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.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, and J.S. White. 1996. Development of the Stream Condition Index for
Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Tetra Tech, Inc.
Bain, M.B., J.T. Finn, and H.E. Booke. 1985. Quantifying stream substrate for habitat analysis
studies. North Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 5:499-500.
Cummins, K.W. 1980. The natural stream ecosystem, pp. 7-24. In: J.V. Ward and J.A. Stanford
(eds). The ecology of regulated streams. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Merritt, R.W., K.W. Cummins, T.M. Burton. 1984. The role of aquatic insects in the processing and
cycling of nutrients, pp. 134-163. In: V.H. Resh and D.M. Rosenberg (eds). The ecology of
aquatic insects. Praeger Publishers, New York, NY.
Green, J., M. Passmore, and H. Childers. 2000. A Survey of the condition of streams in the primary
Region of Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Coal Mining. U.S. EPA, Region 3, ESD, Aquatic
Biology Group. Wheeling, West Virginia.
Hilsenhoff. W.L. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes
Entomologist 20:31-39.
Kaufmann, P.R. and E.G. Robison. 1998. Physical Habitat Characterization, pp 77-118 In: J.M.
Lazorchak, D. J. Klemm and D.V. Peck (eds.)). Environmental Monitoring and assessment
Program — Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods Manual for Measuring the
Ecological Condition of Wadeable Streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA/620/R-94/004F.
Kaufmann, P.R., P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. 1999. Quantifying Physical
Habitat in Wadeable Streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
EPA/620/R-99/003.
Minshall, G.W., K.W. Cummins, RC Petersen, C.E. Cushing, D. A. Bruns, J.R. Medell, and R.L.
Vannote. 1985. Developments in stream ecosystem theory. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:
1045-1055.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000).
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(1): 118-125.
Pond, G. and S. McMurray. 2000. Methods for collecting macroinvertebrates for bioassessments of
headwater streams of the Eastern Coalfield Region. Kentucky Division of Water.
(Unpublished report).
17
-------
9.0 LITERATURE CITED (cont )
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. EPA, Office
of Water. Washington, D.C. EPA/440/4-89-001
Pruitt, B.A., L.C. McGrath, M.G. Bowden, A.W. Carroll, M.C. Flexner and W.F. Simpson. 1999.
Field and laboratory standard operation procedures, quality assurance plan, and safety control
plan for conducting sediment and nutrient total maximum daily loads. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Athens, GA and Water
Management Division, Atlanta, GA, and Integrated Laboratory Systems, Athens, GA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000a. Ecological assessment branch laboratory operations
and quality assurance manual. U.S. EPA, Region 4, SESD. Athens, Georgia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000b. Ecological assessment branch standard operating
procedures. U.S. EPA, Region 4, SESD. Athens, Georgia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000c. Hurricane Creek study. U.S. EPA, Region 4, SESD,
Athens, Georgia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Martha Oil Field Field: Water Quality Studies, 1986-
1989. U.S. EPA, Region 4, Surveillance and Analysis Division, Athens, GA. Unpublished
report.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Permitted stream losses due to valley filling in Kentucky,
Pennsylvania, Southwestern Virginia, and West Virginia. 10 pp. Kentucky/Tennessee,
Pennsylvania, Southwestern Virginia, and West Virginia Ecological Services Field Offices.
Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Medell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river
continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130-137.
Wagener, S.M., and J.D. LaPerriere. 1985. Effects of placer mining on the invertebrate communities
of interior Alaska streams. Freshwater Invert. Biology'4: 208-214.
Wallace, J.B., J.W. Grubaugh, and M.R. Whiles. 1996. Biotic indices and stream ecosystem
processes: results from an experimental study. Ecological Applications. 6(1):140-151.
Wolman, M.G. 1954. A Method of Sampling Coarse River-bed Material. Transactions of American
Geophysical Union 35: 951-956.
18
-------
APPENDIX A:
Box and Whisker Plots
-------
APPENDIX B:
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Identifications
-------
APPENDIX C:
Habitat Evaluation Forms
-------
APPENDIX D:
Substrate Characterization Data and
Cumulative Distribution Graphs
-------
Water Body : Long Fork
Date Placed :
Collector : Maudsley, Ackeraian
Identified By: Smitli/Scliultz/Foster
Date Collected
sorted By ^.- :
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
Howard/Be arra^g
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
REPLICATE 2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor : Factor :
Depth : Depth :
Grabs : Grabs : Grabs : 1
sample #: KYM-01R Sample #: Sample #: Bottom:
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
OLIGQCHAETA
EEHEMEROPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTEKA
TRI CHQ P TERA
TRICHOPTERA
ORGANISMS REPLIC l REPLIC 2 RB&LIC s COMPOSITE
Count #MJ> Count #M» Count #M» Count #M=>
Bezjfj.3. SD
11 1
Conchaoalopia sp. 1 1 1 i
Orthocladius ap. 1 1 1 i
CTrieofconu^ iieinccus
Chaetocladius sp.
fajamafcjriocflesitis sp.
1 1 i
11 1
11 -L
3 ^ ^
Boeorus sp. Ill T
Amohiaemnra. sp .
JPC^-2. Cfl t^. " D r "t*O-^TF intntttturc) \
Tsoperla ap. !
JJajjlaperla sp.
• V. jl_( r. • -i _ rr p
OiimBir rr-
^
S S fi
•*• ** D
13 J3 13
11 !
11 !
11 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 o
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACROINVERTEBRATS TOTALS: 3535 0 0 0 0 35 0
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET # OF TAX&: 14 0 0 14
DIVERSITY INDEX: 3.04 0 0 3.04
-------
MACROINVSRTEBRATE StlMM^RY REPORT
Water Body : Long Fork
Date Placed, : Date Collected : 5/2/00
Collector : Maudsley, ACilceJCman Sorted By : Howard/Berrarig
Identified By: Smifch/Schults/Foster Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2
Factor : 1 Factor :
Depth : Depth :
Grabs : l Grabs :
Sample #: KYM-01R Sample #:
CLASS I SPECIES. : 4 28.57%
C1ASS II SPECIES : 0 0%
CLASS III SPECIES: 1 7.14%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 0 0%
CLASS V SPECIES : 9 54,23%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL. INDEX for
SOMBER OF TAXA
E5T INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TJiXOM
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTERA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AMD MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
REPLICATE 3
Factor;
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #'.
CLASS I INDIV. : 4
CLASS II INDIV , ; 0
CLASS III INDIV; 6
CLASS IV INDIV. : 0
CLASS V INDIV. : 25
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE PENINSULA
SCORE
14 3
7 3
37.14 % 1
8 5
17.14 % 3
2.86 % 1
20 % 3
0 % 1
0 1
21
Moderate Impairment
COMPOSITE
Grabs : i
Bottom:
11.43%
0%
17.14%
0%
71.43%
PANHANDLE
SCORE
1
5
1
1
3
1
3
15
Hodeirate Impairment
-------
COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Water Body : Long Fork
Dace Placed ;
Collector : Maudsley, Aakerman
Identified By: Smitb/Sclmltz/Eoster
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
Howard/Berrang'
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: IC2M-01!
PLECOPTERA
StiECOPTERA
QL1GOCHAETA
PLECOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
DIPTERA
DZPTERA
DIPTERA
PLECOPTERA
TRI CHOP'S ERA
TKICHOSTESA
REPLICATE
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs . :
1 sample #:
Total
13
6
3
3
•/
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs ? Grabs ; 1
Sample #: Bottom:
% of Sample
37.14%
17.14%
8.57%
8.57%
2.86%
2.86%
2.86%
2.86%
2.86%
2.86%
2.36^3
2.86%
2.86%
2.36%
EQUZTABILITX" (Diversity due to species composition) : 0.86
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXON: Perlesta sp. (very immature)
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
Unknown 24 68.57%
Shredder 7 20%
Collector Gatherer. 2 S.71%
Predator 1 2.86%
Collector Filterer. 1 • 2.86%
Scraper 0 00%
Piercer 0 00%
13
37.14 %
-------
Water Body : Long Fork
Date Placed :
Collector : Mauds ley/Ac
Identified By: a
Eats' Collected :
Sorted. By' 1
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KVM-Q1M
REPLICATE 2
Factor:
Depth i
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor:
Depth i
Grabs :
Sample I :
COMPOS ITS
GlTELbs :
Bottom:
1
ORGANISMS
RBPLIC 1 REPLIC 2 REPLIC 3 COMPOSITE
Count #M>;- Count #M» Count #M# Count #M»
DIPTEKR
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTI2RA
DIPTERA
DIPT3F.A
•DIPTERA
DIPTSSA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
MSGALOPTEHA
COLEOPTERA
ODONATA
ODONATA
ODONATA
DBCAFQDA
QLIGOCHAETA
QLIGOCHAETA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERR
PLECOPTERA
FLECOPTERA
TRICHOPTERR
TRICHOPTEHA .
TRIC3QPTERA
TRICHOPTSRA
TRICHOPTERA
PiZaria sty.
iarsia SD.
CQ^cJj^o^iopi-a sp.
Parachaetocladius ;sp ,
rvecenia ijavarics
r.an^ /^^
-------
9
MACROINVERTB^KATS STJMMAKY REPORT
Water Body : Long Fork
Date Placed. ; Date Collected : 5/2/00
collector : Maudsley/Ackerman Sorted By : Howard/Berrang
Identified By: Smith/Schultz/Foster Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor: i
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: K7M-Q1K
REPLICATE 2
Factor:
Depth ;
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
COMPOSITE
Girsibs : 1
Boitom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 5 17.24%
CLASS II SPECIES : 2 6.9%
CLASS III SPECIES: 3 10,34%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 1 3.43%
CLASS V SPECIES : 18 62.07%
CLASS I INDIV. : 8 9.09%
CLASS II INDIV.: 2 2.2'7%
CLASS III ISDIV: 39 44.32%
CLASS IV INDIV.: 1 1.14%
CLASS V INDIV. : 38 43.18%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
NUMBER OF TAXA.
EPT INDEX
% COHTRIBUTI03ST OF DOMINANT TAXQN
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTERA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SBREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AMD MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS &NT> MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATIQH
St&BAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
29
9
42.05 %
12
23.86 %
4.55 %
48.86 %
1.14 %
1
Moderate
PENINSULA
SCORE
5
3
1
5
3
3
3
1
1
25
Impairment
PSLHH.MIDLE
SCORE
3
S
I
3
3
1
3
_
19
Moderate Impairment
-------
Water Body i
Date Placed :
Collectox :
Identified By:
Grapevine Creek
Smith/Schultz/Faster
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/4/00
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2 SEPilCATE
Factor: 1 Factor: Factor:
Depth : Depth ; Depth :
Grabs : 1 Grabs = Grabs :
Sample #: KYM-02R Sample #: Sample #:
ORGANISMS
DTPTERA Tipula 3P.
DIPTERA Psychada sp.
DIPTERA . Natarsia SP .
DIPTERA Conciiapelopia. SP.
DIPTERA, Parachaetocladiug SD.
DIPTERA parametriocnenres sp.
DIPTERA Qrti3.ocla.dius, sp.
DIPTERA Or^ecitopiis 3 spp. ?
DIPTERA SuArieffarialla devonica era.
DIPTERA Chiz-onoinuS Sp-
DECAPODR .flstaeidae unid.
MEGALOPTEftA gialid • ap.
OLIGOCHAETA. Liamodralus 5S>-
OLIGOCHAETA Tubificidae sp.
OLIGOCHAETA I/umbi'iculicJaa unid.
OLIGOCHAETA Tsochaeta unidentified
MACROINVERTfiBRATS TOTALS :
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET # OF TAZ&:
DIVERSITY INDEX:
3 COMPOSITE
Grabs J 1
BofctOflU
REPLIC 1 REPLIC 2 REPLIC 3 COMPOSITE
Count #M» Count #M» Count $M» count #M»
1 1 1
2 2 2
11 !
22 2
1 1 i
11 i
(43 43 43
67 67 67
71 71 71
11 1
3 3 3
11 1
11 1
8 S s
4 4 4
2 2 2
4 4 4
0
0
0 }
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 o
213- 213 '00 00 213 0
17 0 0 17
2.44 . 0 0 2.44
-------
STTOMARY REPORT
Date Collected
Water Body : Grapevine Creek
Date Placed :
Collector : Howard/Weldon Sorted By
Identified By: Smith/ScllUltJS/FOSter Sample Mechanism:
5/4/00
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #'. KYM-02R
CLASS I SPECIES :
CLASS II SPECIES ;
CLASS III SPECIES :
CLASS IV SPfiCIBS :
CLASS V SPECIES :
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
1 5.88%
0 0%
3 17.65%
1 5.38%
12 70.59%
IHVERTEB&A.TS BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
NUMBER OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBETION OF
FLORIDA INDEX
% DlPTERA
DOMINANT TAXON
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SRREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND
# CRUSTACEANS AHD
SCORES
EVALUATION
MOLLUSKS
MOLLUSKS
REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs : Grabs : 1
Sample #'. Bottom:
CLASS I INDIV. : 1 .47%
CLASS II INDIV.: 0 0%
CLASS III INDIV: 13 5 . 1%
CLASS IV IHDIV. : 1 .47%
CLASS V INDIV. : 198 32.96%
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE PENINSULA SANHiUTOLE
SCORE SCOR13
17 3 3
Oil
33.33 % 3 1
211
30.61 % 1 1
0 % 1 1
.47 % 1 1
.47 % 1
1 1
13 9
Severe Degradation Severe Degradation
-------
COMMDHITY DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Water Body ; Grapevine Cr
-------
Water Body : Buffalo
Date Placed :
Collector : Maudsley/Aekerman
Identified By: Smith/Scimlts/FOSter
Date Collected^ :
Sorted By . * •_
Sample Mechanism:
5/3/00
Howard/Ben ang
REPLICATE 1 HEPLTCATE 2 REPLICATE
Factor: 1 Factor: Factor:
Depth : Depth : Depth :
Grabs ; 3. Grabs : Grabs ;
Sample #: KTM-03R Sample #: Sample #:
ORGANISMS
DIPTEIIA Ziimnoohila. so.
DIPTERA cfeaetocladiu.3 so.
DIPTEHA JSz-zllia sD .
DIPTERA Djairufsa gp
DIPTERA EllJcieffezriella elajrineraiis ens.
DIPTERA Eukiefferiella brevicalca.
DIPTERA Eukiefferiella devonlea gp.
DIPTERA Jvefcen^a bavarica gp.
nTPTEVRA PaT-aTniqfrT-joenenmS SP.
DIPTERA Criaotoous Jaicinctus
DIPTERA OrtfaocJadaUS SP-
OXPXfifKA ^Q^y^jegJi 7 1TTT? ^^^^^^-^^Iini ffS'QIIV
OLIGOCHAETA Lumbriculus BT3.
COLEOPTERA Optiosexrvus sp.
PLECOPTERA Alloeapnia flD.
PLEf^QPTFIT iSb AJttp2iirt0T7Tii,Tffl flp.
TE.ICHOPTERA Cb^iipi^taos-ycJbe ^p
MACROINVSRTEBRATE TOTALS :
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET # OF T&X&S
DIVERSITY INDEX:
3 COMPOSITE
Grafts : 1
Bottom:
REPLIC 1 SEPLIC 2 REfLIC 3 COMPOSITE
Count #K» Count #M» Count #M» Count #Mji,
3 3 3
11 1
22 9
J 2 2
1 -,
3 3 1
11 i
1 1 i
21 21 21
34 34 34
* 4 4
^3 3
11 i
6 6 6
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
I o
183 183 0 0 00 183 0
13 0 0 18
2-8S o 0 2, 8S
-------
MACROINVERTEBRATE S
REPORT
Water Body : Buffalo Cr.eeJs
Date Placed : Date Collected : 5/3/00
Collector : Maudsley/Acfcsranan Sorted By : Howard/Borrang
Identified By: Smith/Schults/Foster Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: OM-03K.
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 2 11.11%
CLASS IT SPECIES ; 1 5.56%
CLASS III SPECIES: 3 16.57%
CLASS IV SPECIES ; 1 5,55%
CLASS V SPECIES : 11 61.11%
CLASS I IUDIV. : 24 13.11%
CLASS II INDIV.: 1 .35%
CIASS III IHDIV: S8 37.16%
CLASS IV IWDIV, : 2 1.09%
CLASS V INDIV. : 88 48.09%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
NUMBER OF TSXA
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXOH
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTERA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLO5KS
SCORES
EVALUATION
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
18
3
32.24 %
5
61.75 %
.55 %
18.03 %
0 %
0
Moderate
PENINSULA
SCORE
3
1
3
3
1
1
3
3.
1
17
Impairment
PANSftHDLEJ
SCORE
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
11
Severs Degradation
-------
COMMUNITY DISTR
REPORT
Water Body : Buffalo Creelt
Date Placed j
Collector : Maudsley/Ackerman
Identified By: Smith/Schultz/Foster
Date Collected :
Sorted By ;
Sample Mechanism:
5/3/00
Howard/Berrang
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth ;
Grabs : 1
Sample #: STCW-03R
OLIGOCHAETA
DIPTERA
DttPTSRA
DIPTERA
PLSCOPTSRA
PIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIFTERA
COLEOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
PLECOPTERA
B1ETERA.
TRICHOPTERA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
Total
59
37
34
21
6
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Facaor :
Depth :
Grabs : Grabs : 1
Sample #: Bo --torn:
% of Sample
32.24%
20.32%
18.33%
11.48%
3-25%
2.19%
1.64%
1-54%
1.64%
1.64%
1-09%
1.09%
0.55%
0.55%
0.55%
0-55%
0.55%
0.55%
BQUITABILITY (Diversity due to species composition): 0.56
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT ¥AXO1X= Lumbriculus sp.
59
32.24
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
Unknown 79
Collector Gatherer. 67
Shredder 33
Predator 3
Collector Filterer. 1
Scraper 0
piercer 0
43.17%
35.61%
18.03%
1-S4%
0.55%
00%
00%
-------
Water Body : Buffalo Creek
Date Placed :
Collector : Maudsley/Acfceoaan
Identified By: Smith/Schultz/Foster
Date Collected :
Sorted.By ;
Sample Mechanism:
5/3/00
Howard/Berrang-
REPLICATE _1.
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
REPLICATE 2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor: Factor:
Depth : Depth :
Grabs : Grabs : <3raJ?s : 1
Sample #: KYM-03ZS Sample #: Sample #: Bottom:
ORGsgsiSMS REP^IC i REPLIC 2 REPLTC 3 COMPOSITE
Count #M» Count #JM» Count #M» Count #u»
JJIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
OLIGOCHAETA
DECAPODA
ODONATA
ODONATA
EFHEMERO&TERA
PLECOPTERA
TRICHOPTERA
ConcJiapelopia s~o. 11 i
Srillia sp. 14 4 4
Pajramefcjricsciusniiis sp. 20 20 «..
Cjicotonus sp. 4 . .
Orth.ocla.di.us so. 15 15 ,-
— 15
Thienemanniella Jgena
11 !
1 1
Limngyhyes ao. i 1 ±
PnlimnK-H 7uwi f-7-i *-!im ^vnd
11 1
r.F,mJ«-^/.nT-frf»* unVrf 2 2 2
a.cfts^'JrJa* nn-i'rf. |l 1
Boveria SD.
Calooteirvs: so.
J,
11 i
1 1 ^
Eurvloohella s-o. 1 .,
Amphinemura sv.
Chemnafcojiayciie sg.
11 11 11
11 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M&CRQINV^RTEBRATE TOTALS: 66 66 0 0 0 0 '66
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET # OF TAXA: 16 0 0 16
^
DIVERSITY INDEX: 300
0
3
-------
MACROIHVERTSBKATS STJKHARY REPORT
f
Water Body : Buffalo Creek
Date Placed : Date Collected :
^pllecfcor : Maudsley/Ackerman Sorted By :
identified By: Smith/Schulta/Foster Sample Mechanism:
5/3/00
Howard/Bezrang
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth ;
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KTM-OSH
REPLICATE 2
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #'.
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 2 12.5%
CLASS II SPECIES : 2 12.5%
CLASS III SPECIES: 2 12.5%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 0 0%
CLASS V SPECIES : 10 62.5%
CLASS I INDIV. : 2 3.03%
CLASS II IHDIV.: 5 7.58%
CLASS III INDIV: 13 19.7%
CLASS IV INDXV.: 0 0%
CLASS V INDIV. : 46 69.7%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
NUMBER OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXQN
FLORIDA INDEX
% DTPTERA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS A^D MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
STREAMS (IBIS)
VA1UB
16
3
30.3 %
6
72.73 %
1.52 %
30.3 %
1.52 %
1
Moderate
PENINSULA
SCORE
3
1
3
3
1
1
3
1
1
17
Impairment
PAHHMTDLE
SCORE
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
--.„
™ " ™
11
Severe
Degradation
-------
COMMUNIY DISTRIBUTION RESORT
Water Body ; Buffalo Creek
Date Placed :
Collector : JiaudBley/Ackerman
Identified By: Smith/Schultz/Fosteir
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/3/00
Hovrajrd/Berrang
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs ; 1
Sample #: ICXM-03M
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
PLECOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
OLXGOCHASTA
DIPTERA
DXPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DECA&ODA
ODONATA
ODONATA
EPHSMEROPTERA
DIPTERA
THICHQPTE.RA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Deptfe ;
Grabs :
Sample #:
total
20
15
11
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs : drabs ; 1
Sample #: Bottom:
% of Sample
30.3%
22.73%
16.67%
6.06%
6.06%
3.03%
1.52%
1.52%
1.52%
1.52%
1.52%
1.52%
1.52%
1.52%
1,52%
1.52%
EQOTTABILITY (Diversity due to species composition): 0.69
PERCENT COUTRIBT3TION OF DOMINANT TAKOS; Parsmetriocnemus sp.
FTOICTIONAI. FEEDING GROUPS
unknown 38 57-58%
Shredder 20 30.3%
Predator 3 4.55%
Collector Gatherer. 3 4.55%
Scraper 1 1.52%
Collector Filterer. 1 1.52%
Piercer 0 00%
30.3
-------
M
Water Body : Laurel Fork j
Data Placed : *
Collector : Howard/Weldon 1 -
Identified By: Smith/Scliultz/FoQfcer
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/3/00
Howard/BerTaiig
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2 REPLICATE
Factor: 1 Factor: Bactor:
Depth : Depth : Depth :
Girabs 7 1 Grabs : Grabs :
Sample #: KYM-04R Sample #: Sample i:
ORGANISMS
DTPTERA Ticiula sP .
DIPTERA .CUcranofca SP,
DIPTEPJi. HezaerodrQinia. ap.
DIPTERA Paramefcrioenamus so.
DIPTERA Jgufcie££erieIIa devonxca ou.
n^n^cinn 5*11 ITT x=» 4'^f*j~J f*T ~1 59 j^7^9'^'TiHi^AT^i*f^
-------
MACgOINVERTSBHATS STOJMARY REPORT
Water Body : Laurel Fork
Date Placed : Date Collected : 5/3/00
Collector - Howard/Weldon Sorted By : Howard/Barring
Identified By: Smifch/Seimlts/Foster Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYM-04S
CLASS I SPECIES
CLASS XI SPECIES
CLASS III SPECIES
CLASS IV SPECIES
CLASS V SPECTES
REPLICATE 2
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
: 3 20%
: 1 6.67%
: 0 0%
: 2 13.33%
: 9 SQ%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
NtH'SEP, OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTEftA
DOMINANT TAXQN
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS XWD
# CRUSTACEANS AND
SCORES
EVALUATION
MOLLUSKS
HQLLUSKS
REPLIC&XS 3
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
CLASS I INDIV. : 150
CLASS 11 INDIV..; 13
CL^SS 111 INDIV! 0
CLASS IV IHCTV. : 4
CLASS V IKDIV. : 58
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE PENINSULA
SCORE
15 3
4 3
60.89 % 1
7 5
86.67 % 1
11.56 % 5
61,33 % 3
0 % 1
a i
23
Moderate Impairment
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
«5,S7%
5.712%
0%
1.78%
25.78%
PANHANDLE
SCOR15
1
3
1
1
j.
5
3
— ~° ~
15
Moderate Iwp.airment
1(0
-------
I
COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Water Body : Laurel Fock ' -
Date Placed :
Collector : HOward/Weldon
Identified By: Smith/Schulta/Foster
Da-be Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/3/00 '
Howard/Bsrrang
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KTM-Q4K
DIPTERA
DTPTERA
TRICHOPTBRA.
TRICHOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
COLEOPTERA
DIPTERA.
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
DIPTERA
f>IJ>TERA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #;
Total
137
23
13
12
11
10
9
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs : Grabs : 1
Sample #: Bottom;
% of Sample
60.89%
10.224
5.7SS;
5.33%
4.89%
4.44%
4%
1-33%
0.44%
0.4'1%
0.44%
0.44%
0.44%
0.44%
0.44%
EQUITABILITY (Diversity due to species composition) : 0.40
PERCENT CCHSTTRIBIJTION OF DOMINANT T&XQN: Cricotopus bicinctus
FWCTIQNAL FEEDXUG GROUPS
137
60.39
Shredder ...........
Unknown ............
Collector Filterer.
Predator ...........
Scraper ............
Collector Gatherer.
138
49
26
12
0
0
0
61.33%
21-78%
11.56%
5.33%
00%
00%
00%
-------
Water Body :
Date Placed. :
Collector i
Identified By:
Laurel Fork
Howaird/Wel,don
Smith/Selmlta/Foster
Date Collected
Sorted By
Sample
5/3/00
Howard/Berrang
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE
Factor: 1 Factor:
Depth : Depth :
Grabs : 1 Grabs :
Sample #; K1M-Q4M Sample #:
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTSRA
DIPTERA
ODONATA
ODONATA
ODONATA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
COLSGM2RA
COLEOFTERA
OLIGQCHAETA
PLECOPTERA
PLSCQPTEHA
PLECOPTERA
TRICHOPTERA
TRICHOPTEFA
TRICHOPTEFA
TRICHOPTERA
DIPTSR1V
MaCROStfVEfcTSE
BIOLOGY DATA
ORGANISMS
Pz-ocladaus SD.
2 . REPLICATE 3
Factor !
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLIC 1
Count #l?»
ghaetocladlug ap.
Tvetenia bavarica cro.
Cricotaaus sa.
.Pitaenopsecti-a sp
Chironomus ST5
PolvpediJmn illi/fci-it
Janytrar'aus s~f> .
Calopteryjc sg.
Arcria sn.
Hellchus so.
jjuiirapiiia sp.
•Sfcenelfltis ajs.
Jtfacronychus 3P.
Limnodz-i 1 us sis.
Aliocapnia sp-
Jlmflhineinuz-a ^p.
Jsoperla ap.
CiieunjatoosycJie s
Ifydropsyi^iie sp-
iimnapiiilicJee un
. .
CJiis-ojjowidae ^larvae)
ift&TB
SHEET
2
1
3
8
10
2
1
16
3
5
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
2
1
2
3
1
9
3
1
2
_
TOTALS: 87
# OF TAXA: . 26
DIVERSITY INDEX:
1
3
8
10
2
1
16
3
5
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
2
1
2
3
1
9
3
1
2
87
4.12
COMPOSITE
Grabs : i
Bo-ttom:
REPLIC 2 REPLIC 3 COMPOSITE
Count #M* count #M» Cotmt #M»
2
1
3
8
10
2
1
16
3
5
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
2
1
2
3
1
9
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00 00 87 ' 0
0 0 26
0 0 4.12
-------
HACHOINVERTEBRATE
REPORT
water Body : Laurel
Date Placed : Date Collected : 5/3/00
Collector : Howard/Weldon Sorted By : Howard/Bssrrang
Identified By: Smith/Schults/Foster Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: EYM-04M
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #'.
REPLICATE 3
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #'.
COMPOSITE
Grabs :
Bottom;
1
CLASS I SPECIES : 3 11.54%
CLASS II SPECIES : 3 11.54%
CLASS 111 SPECIES: 3 11.54%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 3 11.54%
CLASS V SPECIES : 14 53.35%
CLASS I INDIV. • 5 5.75%
CLASS II IMD2V. : 21 24,14%
CLASS III INDIV: 20 22.49%
CLASS IV IWDIV. : 7 8.03%
CLASS V INDIV. : 34 39.08%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
NUMBER OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT T?AXON
FLORIDA INDEX
% DPPTERA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
26
7
18.39 %
9
SO. 92 %
19.54 %
17.24 %
0 %
0
PENINSULA
SCORE
3
3
3
5
1
5
3
1
1
PAmMTOLE
SCORE
3
5
3
3
1
5
3
~ ~ ~
SCORES
25
Moderate Impairment
23
No Impairment
-------
COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Water Body ; Laurel Fork
Date Placed : Date Collected : 5/3/00
Collector : Howard/Weldon Sorted By : Howard/Bsrraxig
Identified By: Smith/Schultz/Foster Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth ;
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KXM-04M
DIPTERA
DIPTEFA
TRICBOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
COLEOPTERR
DIPTERA
PLECOPTERA
DTPTERA
TH.ICHQPTBRA
ODONATA
COLEOPTERA
DIPTERA
OLIGQCHAETA
PLECOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
ODONATA
PLECOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
ODONATA
TE.ICHD?TBRA
DLPTEFA
DXETERA
TRICHOPTEHA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #'.
Total
16
10
9
8
5
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs : Gr;Lbs : 1
Sample #: Bottom:
% of Sample
18.33%
11.49%
10-34%
9.2%
5.75%
4.5%
3.45%
3.45%
3.45%
3.45%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
1.15%
1.15%
1.15%
1.15%
1.15%
1-15%
1.15%
1.15%
EQUTTABILITY (Diversity due to species composition) : 0.96
pgRC&NT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAKON: ChixonomuB Sp. 16
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
18.39
unknown ............
Collector Gatherer.
Collector Filterer.
Shredder ...........
Piercer
29
20
17
15
6
o
0
33.33%
22.99%
1,9.54%
17 . 24%
6.9%
00%
00%
-------
1
water Body « Fugate Fork
Cats Placed : Date Collected : 5/2/00
Collector :' Howard/Weldon Stated By : Howard/Bfjrranj
Identified By: Smith/Schultz/Foster1 Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor: 1 Factor; Factor:
Depth : Depth : Depth :
Srabs : 1 Grabs : Grabs : Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYM-05R Sample #: Sample #: Bottom:
ORGANISMS REPLiC 1 REPLIC 2 RESLmc 3 COMPOSITE
Count #Ms» Count #Ws Count #M» Count #M»
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIETERA
DIPTERA
DIPTEILR
DIPTSRA
DIPTERA
UIPTEPJV
DIPTEILR
DIPTERA
DISTERA
DIPTSRA.
DIPTE^
MEGALOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
CQLEQPTESA
ODQKATA
ODONATA
EEHEMEROETERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
TRLCHOPTERA
Pics-anota SB.
Lijnnophila sa.
Hesierodrcmia. sv.
ConcAapelopia sp.
^3^"J5d^ ^T"T rtf^n.^WJTC 'C^l
Uiamesa SD.
EuJcleffarlalla alaripennis OTJ
Su^ief^eTAella devonica UD.
Tvetenia iava^iffg UP,
CorvBoaema ap'.
Cricotopus iiciuctus
Cricotopus tz-ifascia
Orthocladins 2 SDD.
FaraJgiaf£eirieIIa sp.
COfydalus sis.
Pse&henus so.
Stenelmis so.
Ontiosarvus so.
gcunphidae unid.
laojiychia fjl).
Leucfcridaa/CaTSniidse I1 immature)
, ^ r
i-'h'J
4
2
2
3
72
2
3
25
1
1
a
6
1
7
(27
2
3
5
1
IS
1
1
1
I
1
MACROINVERTEBRATE TOTALS: 261'
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET # OF TAXA : 28
DIVERSITY INEEXi
1
4
2
2
3
72
2
1
8
25
9
3
6
1
6
1
7
27
1
2
2
1
44
6
5
1
18
261 0 0 0 0
0 . 0
3.52 0 0
1
4 1
2
2
3
72
2
1
a
i
9
3
6
1
6
1
7
27
2
2
I
40
6
5
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o •
0
0
0
261 0
28
3.58
-------
MRCROINVERTEBRJVTE SUMMARY REPORT
Water Body : Fugate Fork
Date Placed : Date Collected
Collector ; HO^ard/Weldon Sorted By
Identified By: Smith/Schultz/FOSter Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: IOM-Q5R
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Boutomi
CLASS I SPECIES : 5 17.86%
CLASS XI SPECIES : 1 3.57%
CLASS 111 SPECIES: 3 10.71%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 2 7.11%
CLASS V SPECIES : 17 60.71%
CLASS I INDIV. : 31 11.88%
CLASS II INDIV.: 5 1.92%
CLASS 111 INDIV: 72 27.33%
CLASS IV IHDIV,: 9 3.454
CLASS V INDIV. : 144 55-17%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE 5ENIHSULA SANHAHDIE
HUMBIJR OF TAXS.
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION Of DOMINANT TAXON
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTERA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEAHS AHD MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS ANP MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
28
7
27
11
53
SCORE
5
3
.59 % 3
S
.64 % 1
9.5S % 5
20
0
0
NO
.31 % 3
% 1
1
27
Impairment
SCORE
3
5
±
3
X
3
3
_ _ -
19
Moderate Impairment
-------
f
COMMONTTY DISTRIBUTION REPORT
: Fug-ate Fork
Water
Date Placed :
Collector : Howard/Weldon
Identified By: Smith/SetmltK/Foster
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYM-05R
DIPTERA
PLECOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
DIPTERA
TEICSOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
COLEOPTERA
DIPTERA
MEGALOPTSRA,
PLECOPTERA
TRICHOET2EA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTSRA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
ODONATA
E5BSEMSROPTERA.
DIPTERA
DI5TESA
COLEOPTERA
PIiECOPTERA
ODONATA
DIPTERA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth J
Grabs :
Sample #:
Total
72
44
27
25
18
9
a
7
6
6
6
5
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPHCAXE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth . :
Grabs : Grabs : 1
Sample #: Bottom:
% of Sample
27.53%
IS. 86%
10.34%
9.58%
6.9%
3.45%
3.07%
2.68%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
1.92%
1.53%
1.13%
1.15%
0.77%
0.77%
0,77%
0.77%
0.77%
0.33%
0.38%
0.38%
0.38%
0.38%
EQTJITABILITY (Diversity due to species Composition.) : 0.61
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXOK: Pajrametriocnemus sp.
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
72
27.5$ %
Shredder
Collector Gatherer .
Collector Filterer.
Scraper
Piercer.
144
53
31
25
8
0
0
55.17%
20.31%
11.88%
9.58%
3,07%
00%
00%
a3
-------
,dter Body : Fugate
Date Placed :
Collector : Howard/Weldon
Identified By: Smith/Scimltz/Foster
Date Collected •t
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
Howaz-d/Barrancr
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2 REPl^CATE 3
Factor: 1 Factor: Factor:
Depth : Depth : Depth ;
Gsabs : I Grabs : Grafas :
Sample #: KYM-05M Sample #: Sample #:
COMPOSITE
Bottom:
ORGANISMS REPLTC 1 SEPTIC 2
Count #M» Coyn,t #M
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
AMPHIPODA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTBRA
ODONATA
ODOSATA
OLIGOCHAETA
OUGOCHAETA
EPHEMERQP TERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PEECOPTERA
TRICHOPTERA
TRICHOPTERA
TRICHOPTERA
TRICHOPTERA
ripula sp. 2
giaml ••• ""i ar>
Kemerodromin sp. i
CHiflOC&FS, Sp- 2
CoaeAapelopla ap> 2
Pajametriocnenms gp. ^
Eukiefferiella. clajripennijs . -, r-
Cj-icotopus bicinctus 3
Orthocladaug ap. i
fiheocricotopus gp. i
Astacidae sp. 2
jfelieJius sp. 1
Jtfacr'enyeJms sp . 2
Du.biirap.hia ap. TJ
Stenelmis sr>- \ 9
Boveria SD . 1
dalopCeiryjc ap. 3
J^HTrHy-j ^T.7 1 1,C?3 ^ W id. 1
Tdiiificidae urzid. 1
Caenis ap. 7
-Saiflfaiiieiiluira djj- '
Xsoperla sp. 57
,,«^rtTlra /^ , • at i 2
CheumatopaycJie sp. 1 1
Kvvlronsvchf so . 1
*\
MACROIKVSRTEBRATE TOTALS: 209
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET # OF TAXA: 32
DIVERSITY IHDEX:
2
1
2
17
1
5
15
3
1
1
2
2
3
9
3
1
3
1
1
2
93
27
1
1
1
1
209 0 0
0
3.2 0
EEPLIC 3 COMPOSITE
» Count #M» Count #M»
2
3
1
2
17
1
5
15
3
1
1
2
2
3
9
3
3
1
1
2
93
27
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 209 0
0 32
0 3.2
-------
HACHOINVERTEBRATE STJMM&RY REPORT
Water Body : Fugate Fork
Date Placed : Date Collected : 5/2/00
Collector : Howard/Weldon sorted. By : Howard/Berrang
Identified By: Smtth/Schultz/Fosfcer Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth ;
Grabs : 1
sample #: K^M-OSM
REPLICATE 2
Factor:
Depth •
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3"
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs ;
Sample #'.
COMPOSITE
Grabs ; 1
Bottom:
CLASS 1 SPECIES T 6 18.75%
CLASS II SPECIES : 1 3.13%
CIiASS Til SPECIES: 6 18.75%
CLASS XV SPECIES : 4 12.5%
CLASS V SPECIES ! 15 46.38%
CLASS I INDIV. : 12 5.74%
CLASS II INDIV.: 1 ,48%
CLASS III INDIV: 102 48.3%
CLASS IV INDIV.: 15 7.13%
CLASS V INDIV. : 79 37.3%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX Sor
NUMBER OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXON
FLORIDA INDH5C
% DJPTERA
% COLLECTOR-FZLTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AND MOXiMJSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
32
5
44.5 %
13
25,84 %
3.35 %
46.89 %
. 96 %
1
Moderate
?EWINSU1A
SCORE
S
3
1
5
3
1
3
1
1
23
Impairment
PANHAiTOLS
SCOK2
5
5
1
3
3
1
3
""""""
21
Moderate . Impairment
35"
-------
Water Body : Simms Fork
Date Placed :
Collector : Howard/Waldorx
Identified By: Sniifch/Sclmlts/Fagter
Date Collected :
Sorted By ' :
Sample Mechanism:
Howard/Berrang
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2 REPLICATE 3
Factor; 1 Factor i Factor:
Depth : Depth t Depth ;
Grabs : 1 GrabS ; Grabs :
Sample #; KXH-06R Sample #: Sample #:
ORGANISMS RBPLIC 1
Count #M»
DIPTERA
DIPTEFA
DIPTERR
DIPTERA
DIPT5R&
DIPTEFA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA.
DIPTERA
DIPTERR
EPHEMEHOPTESA
EPHEMESOPTERA
EFHSH2ROPT2RA
EFHEMEROPTERA
EPHBMEROPTBHA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMSROPTSHA
EPHEMEROPTEFA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
TRIMOPTERA
TRICHOPTSRA
TRICHOPTERA
iineaopfzila sfc 13
Conchanelonia sp. 9
JTelonelopla so. 8
Diamega sp, 1
^P^ ^?_ iaj^[giJ^JJ 1 1 f 1 T ^J 1 /, j^ SP.
jPsrajziGtrioGEGinKS sp. i ^
ParaJcief ferial la so. 1
Tv-etenia sp. 2
Cx-icofcoDus fcjremulus IS
OrtJioeladias ap. 4g
Polvi^ec2illTT", convicfcTim 3.
Tanvtarsus sw 1 1
Baetidae (2 tails/ ^.^
T?T7Ty 7 f^Y^lji* 7 J ^j SP- 3.
DzMueHs SP. 5
JBpeorus so . ^
.
Sfcauoneiaa__S£i. - 1
Cfaenis ap_ 7
JirHiT"riilaticdeir/'Pa5-alanf-enftlnMfi imm 1
x •) 1 ^.—g — .- -, --s 4
JimpiiineiHUi-a 5p
T^inrBrla sp 1
. . 3
MACROINVERTEBRATE TOTALS: 175
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET # OF TAXA : 23
DIVERSITY INDEX:
13
2
S
1
1
i2
2
18
46
1
1
1
11
5
L
1
7
1
4
1
3
1
175
3.86
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
REPLIC 2 REPLIC 3 COKSOSITE
Cerunt #M» Count #M» Count #M»
13
2
S
1
1
12
1
2
18
46
1
1
1
11
5
X
5
6
10
1
7
1
4
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
00 00 175 0
0 0 28
0 Q 3.86
-------
MACROINVERTEBRAT^ SUMMAKY REPORT
water Body : Simms Fork
Date Placed : Date Collected ;
Collector i- Howard/WeIdoa Sorted By : Howard/Bazrrang
Identified By: Smith/Schulti/FOBter Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: RyM-06R
REPLICATE 2
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #;
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 3 10.71%
CLASS II SPECIES : 2 7.14%
CLASS III SPECIES: 2 7.14%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 1 3.57%
CLASS V SPECIES : 20 71.43%
CLASS I INDIV. : 9 5.14%
CLASS'TI IHDIV.: 8 4.5'7%
CIASS 111 INDIV: 18 10.29%
CLASS IV 1HDSV-. : 1 .57%
CLASS V INDIV. : 139 79.43%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGIC&L INDEX for
HUMBER OF TAXA
EPT XrtDSX
% COHTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXON
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTSRA,
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRttSTACfiAWS AND MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
23
15
26.29 %
8
61.14 %
2.86 %
6.29 %
0 %
Q
Moderate '.
PENINSULA
SCORE;
5
3
3
5
1
3.
1
1
1
21
[impairment
PAMBUnJLE
SCORB
3
5
1
1
1
1
1
_ _ -
13
Severe Degradation
5-7-
-------
COMMUNITY &ISTRISUTION REPORT
3
water Body : Sinnns Fork
Date Placed :
Collector : Howard/Weidon
Identified By: Smith/Schultz/Foster
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #; KYM-06S
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
EFHEMEROFTERA
PLECOPTEM
EPHEMERQPTERA
DIPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
E.PHEMHROSTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
PLECOPTERA
TRICHOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DXBTESA
DIPTEM
DIPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMSEOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTEEA
PLECOPTERA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
Total
46
18
13
12
11
11
10
8
7
6
5
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPtlCATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth :
Gra&s : Grabs : 1
sample £; Bottom:
% of Sample
26.29%
10.29%
7.43%
S.8S%
6.29%
6,29%
5.71%
4.57%
4%
3.43%
2.86%
2.86%
2.29%
1.71%
1,14%
1-. 14%
0.57%
0-57%
0.57%
0,57%
0.57%
0.57%
0.57%
0.57%
0.57%
EQUITABILITY (Diversity due to species composition): 0.79
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXQN: Orthocladius sp.
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
Unknown 136 77-71%
Collector Gatherer. 20 11.43%
shredder 11 6.29%
collector Filtered. 5 2.85%
Predator 2 1.14%
Scraper 1 0.57%
Piercer. 0 00%
46 26.29
-------
Water Body : Spring Fk Quicksand
Date Placed : * Date Collected
Collector : HOward/Weldoii . Sorted By :
Identified By: Smith/SclmltS/E'oster Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
Howard/Sarxang
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2
Factor: 1 Factor:
Depth. : Depth :
Grabs : 1 G r a b s t
Sample #: KYM-07R Sample #:
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DECAPGDA
ODONATA
ODONATA
ODONATA
OLIGOCHAETA
OLIGOCHAETA
EPHEMERQETERA.
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
TRICEOPTERA
DIPTERA
ORGANISMS
rj™-^,vsl,^1« av,
Simuliiiai sp-
JTesmeirodraniig sp.
ConchaveloBia sp.
Ss "VX^&d. ^£ yj-| •£/• •) j) ^p4
.PSJtVstHl^*1 'f Jt".3L > Count #M» Count #M»
6
1
7
4
1
25
10
101
3
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
5
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
00 00 187 0
0 0 25
0 D 2,73
-------
-
REPORT
Water Body : Spring Fk Quicksand Cr
Date Placed : Date
Collector : Howard/Weldcal Sorted By :
Identified By: Smith/Schults/Foster . . SampleMechanism:
5/2/00_
Bowaz-d/Berraag
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth ;
Grabs : 1
Sample #s KXM-07S
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #'.
REPLICATE 3
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #'.
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 2 8%
CLASS II SPECIES : 2 8%
CLASS 111 SPECIES: 4 16%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 0 0%
CLASS V SPECIES : 17 68%
CLASS I INDIV. : 3 1.6 °/o
CLASS II INDIV.: 2 1.07%
CLASS III INDIV: 10 5,35%
CLASS IV INDIV.: 0 0%
CLASS V XN»rv. : 172 91.38%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
NUMBER OF TAX&.
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXON
FLORIDA 1MDEX
% DIPTESA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AMD MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
25
6
54.01 %
6
87. 7 %
.53 %
1.6 %
1.07 %
1
Severe De
PENINSULA
SCORE
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
15
:gradation
EAMttaNDLE
SCORIS
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
™ ~ "
11
Severe Degradation.
30
-------
DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Water Body
Date Placed :
Collector :
Identified By:
- Spring Fk Quick'Sand Cr
Date collected
5/2/00
Howard/Weldon
Sffiieb/Schulta/Foster
By
Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth ;
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYM-07R
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTEPA
D1ETERA
OLIGOCHAETA
DIPTEEA
DIPTE&A
DIPTERA
SPHEMEROPTERA
DECASODA
ODONATA
QLIGQCHAETA
PLECOPTEM
PLECOPTERA
ODONATA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEXEROPTERA
DIPTERA
OJJONATA
TRICHOPTERA
DIPTERA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
Total
101
25
10
7
6
5
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs : Grabs : 1
Sample #: Bottom:
% of Sample
54.01%
13.37%
5.35%
3 .74%
3.21%
2. €7%
2.14%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.07%
1.07%
1.07%
1.07%
1.07%
0.53%
0,53%
0.53%
0.53%
0.53%
0.53%
0.53%
0.53%
0.53%
0.53%
EQUITABILITY (Diversity due to species composition): 0.36
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF'DOMIHANT TAXOBi Orthocladius sp.
• FEEDING GROUPS
101
54,.01 %
rTixJciiQWii
P^adabor
Collector Gatherer .
Shredder
Collector Filterer.
157
16
9
3
1
1
0
83.96%
S .56%
4.81%
1 6%
0 53%
0.53%
00%
31
-------
Water Body : Spring FE Quicksand Cr
Date Placed :
Collector : Howard/Weldon
Identified By: Smith/Schulhz/Foster
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor: 1 Factor: Factor:
Depth : Depth : Depth :
Srafcs • 1 Grabs j Grabs : Grabs : 1
sample #: KYM-07ME Sample #'. Sample #: Boctpnu
QIPTEHA.
DIPTSRA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTER&.
DIFTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
OI.IGOCHAETA
OPONATA
I.JEGALOETERA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTEU
EiPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTEEA
EPHEMEROPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
ORGANISMS
Bsssis. SB i
CT.^ 7 A-n -i -*
r)7ii:ri^9T>^ i or) i ^9 ^S£^^
TT 1 I
Parametrfoc!i«m«S sp.
Paz-aJcae^feJ'i'sI.Ia sp.
Cricotopiis bleJBettia
OrtJiocladius sp.
rJiianega"nleJIa jcena type
Tuiificidae iinid.
<3ojnoh-irf«« iini'r?
Slalls ap.
-3ten«awis sp.
Qgtiosennjs sp.
Saettidae (3 ba.±ls_, immature )
Eurvlophella, sp-
CS£,n-ig Sp
Amvhinemura. sp.
Jsoperla sp.
SEP^JtC 1 RSIPLIC 2 REPLIC 3
Count #M» Count #Ms> count #M»
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
7 7
1 1
3 3
16 16
1 1
1 1
1 -1
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
9 9
1 1
MACRQIGNVERTEBBATE TOTALS: 5252 0 0 0 0
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET # OF TAXA: 19 0 0
DIVERSITY INDEX: 3.37 0 0
COMPOSITE
Count #M»
1
1
2
1
1
1
7
1
3
16
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
o \
o i
0
o 1
o J
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
52 0
19
3.37
-------
V
I
MACROIHVERTKBRATE SX3HMARY REPORT
Water Body : Spring Pk Quicksand
Date Placed ;
Collector : Howard/Wel
-------
1
COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Water Body : Spriafg- Fk Quicksand Cr
Date Placed :
Collector : Howard/Weldon
Identified. By: Smith/Selmltz/Foster
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
Howard/Berran.g
REPLICXTE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYM-07H
OLIGOCHAETA
PLECOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIP1IERA
DIPTERA
COLEOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
QDONATA
MEGALOPTSRA
COLEOPTERA
DIPTERA
EPHEMERQPTERA
EPHEMEHQPTERA
EPHEMERQPTEHA
DIPTERA
PMiCOPTSRA
REPLICATE
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
Total
16
9
7
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs : Gr.abs : 1
Sample #: ScjCtom;
% of Sample
30.77%
17.31%
13-46%
5.77%
3.85%
3.85%
1.92%
1.92%
1.32%
I. 92%
1-92%
1-92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.32%
I. 92%
I. 92%
1.92%
1.92%
EQUITABIL1TY (Diversity due to species composition): 0.79
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXON; Tubificidae unid.
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
Collector Gatherer. • 20 38.46%
unknown is 28.85%
Shredder 13 25%
Predator 3 5.77%
scraper I 1.92%
Collector Filtarer. 0 00%
Piercer o 0 o%
16
30.77
34
-------
Water Body
Date Placed
Collector
Identified By
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs : "1
: Lojst Creek
: 3 Date Collected : 5/2/00
: Mav^dsley/Ackannan Sorted By : Bcward/Barrang
: Smifch/Schulta/FOSter Sample Mechanism;
SEPMC&TE 2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor : Factor :
Depth : Depth :
Grabs : Grabs : Grabs : 1
-Sample #: KYM-09R Sample #: Sample #: Bottom:
DIPTERA
OISTBRA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
AMPHIPODA
QLIGOCHAETA
COLEO?T5KA
MEGALOPTERA
ODQNATA
ODONATA
OLIGQCHAETA
TRICEQPTERA
ORGANISMS REPLIC 1 RE2L1C 2 REPLIC 3 COMPOSITE
Count #M» Count #M» Count #Ma Count #«=?>
$±SMHmn sp. 11 i
Cera fco po gem $ p . 11 j_
Baajsia Sp. (2 spp. ) 22
J3"S23SX"OOX"C2imj 3L SP • "? "J o
d!" d.dOC (5^512 i3 ST3 -r -9 e ~» r- ^ i-
ranvtajraus s^> .
_j_i j ^ j j
2 2
i i -
^tnniji'i culidafi iTT?id.
OptioseiTus sp.
Sialis sp.
•PfOcTOIDpJlU S S D .
SftvlOffoiapfeiis Sw,
Iiintnodrilus sp.
chemaatopavcAe ao.
22 2
. x ^
3> *3 1
J »>
11 1
11 1
XX 1
3 3 3
44 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M&CRQINVERTEBRATK TOTALS: us 118 o 0 o o 118 o
BIOLOGY DATA
SHEET # OF TAXA: 16 '0 3 16
DIVERSITY INOEX: 2,27 , 0 0 2.27
-------
MACROINVERTEBRATE SCHKARY REPORT
Water Body : Lost Creek
Date Placed : Date Collected : 5/2/00
Collector : Maud-Sley/Acfcarman Sorted By : Howard,/Be;cxra.n.g
Identified By: Smith/Schulta/Fosfeer Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
FaCton 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYM-09R
CLASS I SPECIES :
CLASS 11 SPECIES ;
CLASS III SPECIES:
CLASS IV SPECIES :
CLASS V SPECIES :
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
sample #:
2 12.5%
2 12.5%
3 18.75%
0 0%
9 56.25%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
NtJMBSB. OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CQHTRtBtJTION OF
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTERA
% COLLECTOR- FILTfiR
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND
# CRUSTACEANS AMD
SCORES
EVALUATION
DOMINANT TAXOW
[£&S
MOLLUSKS
MOLLUSKS
REPLICATE 3
Factors
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
CLASS I 1NDIV. : 2
CLASS II INDIV. : 39
CLASS III INDIV: 8
CLASS IV IMDIV. : 0
CLASS V IKDIV. : 69
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE PENINSULA
SCORE
16 3
1 1
49.15% 1
6 3
86.44 % -L
5.93 % 3
29.66 % 3
.aS % 1
1 1
17
Moderate Impairment
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
1.69%
33.05%
6.7:5%
0%
58.47%
PANHANDLE
SCORE!
3
1
1
-1
1
1
3
11
Severe Degradation
-------
COMMUNITY DPSTRIBUTION REPORT
Water Body - , : Lost Creek
Date Placed :
Collector : Maudsley/Ackerman
Identified By: Smifch/Schultz/Poster
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
REPUCATB i
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: K7JM-09R
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
TMCHQETEKA
COLEOPTERA
OLIGOCHAETA
DISTERA
OLIGOCHASTA
DIPTERA
niPTERA
DIPTEFA
DIPTERA
MEGALOPTSRA
ODOHATA
ODONATA
DIPTERA
AM2HIPODA
REPLICATE
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs ;
Sample #'.
Total
S3
35
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor:
Depth ;
Grabs; Grabs: 1
Sample #'. Boefconi;
% of Sample
49.15%
29.66%
3.39%
2 .S4%
2.54%
1.69%
1.69%
1,SSI%
1.69%
0.85%
0.85%
0,85%
0.83%
0.85%
0.85%
a. 85%
SQUITABILITY (Diversity due to species composition): 0.38
PERCENT CONTRIBT3TION OF DOMINANT T&XOH: ParanatriocnWUS sp.
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
Unknown 64 54.24%
Shredder 35 29.66%
Collector Gatherer. 8 6.78%
Collector Filtarer. 7 5.93%
Predator 4 3.39%
Scraper 0 00%
Piercer 0 00%
58
49.15
37-
-------
Water Body : Lost Creek
Date Placed -
Collector : Maudsley/Ackenaaa
Identified By: Smith/Schultz/Foster
Dare Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/f/OO
REPLICATE 3 REPLICATE 2 REPLICATE
Factor: 1 Factor: Factor:
Depth : Depth : Depth :
Grabs : 1 Grabs : Grabs :
Sample #: KYM-09M Sample #: Sample #:
ORGANISPIS
DIPTERA Tjpula .y n
DIETSRA Dnnosia sp.
DIPTERR HeEierodx'OiaJ.a SO-
DIPTERA ConcJiapelopla sp.
DTPTERA Cr-lcofcootta bicinctus
DIPTERA Orthoelsdiu* tf?
DIPTERA Tvetenia ££>•
ClT.Trtfx'ITT&HTa r.mnhr-iaiilidae unid.
COLEOPTERA liuiiijranhia s**
rOLEOPTERA JtfieTOCvllc"Brujs— tfsu-
COLEOPTERA Jsepiierms .sp.
OLIGOCHAETA Tuiii£icidaa unid.
PLECOPTERR Isopsfli sjt.
MACROINVERTEBRATE TOTALS :
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET # OF TAXA:
DIVERSITY INDEX:
3 CPMPOSXTS
BoEtom:
REPLIC 1 EE9LIC 2 REPLIC 3
Count #K» Count #M» Count #M»
1 1
1 3.
1 1
1 1
23 90
11 11
1 1
1 1
3 3
7 7
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 \
1 1
1 1
3 3
1 ]_
8 s
1 i
69 69 00 00
20 0 0
3.28 0 0
COMPOSITE
count #M»
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
3
7
1
1
1
1
^L
]_
3
1
g
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69 0
20
3.28
-------
MACROINVERTEERATS
HEPoiir
Water Body : Lost Creek
Date Placed : Date Collected ; 5/2/00
Collector : Mauds 1 ay /Ackarman Sorted By : Howard/Bor.rang1
Identified By: Smith/Sohulta/FOSter Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sampla #: KYM-09M
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Gx-aiis :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #1
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 3 15%
CLASS II SPECIES : 2 10%
CLASS III SPECIES: 3 15%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 3 15%
CLASS V SPECIES : 3 45%
CLASS I INDIV. : 19 27.154%
CLASS II INDIV.: 11 15.94%
CLASS III IRDIV: 5 7.25%
CLASS IV INDIV.: 3 4.35%
CLASS V IHDIV. : 31 44«:33%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX fo r
NUMBER OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXON
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIFTERA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SBRUDDEHS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRWSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
20
4
33.33 %
8
59.42 %
11.59 %
17.39 %
0 %
0
Moderate
PENINSULA
SCORE
3
3
3
5
1
5
3
1
1
25
Impairment
PANKUtDLE
SCORE
3
3
1
1
1
5
3
...
- - -
17
Moderate Impairment
-------
COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION gESORT
Water Body : Lost Creek
Date Placed :
Collector : M-audelay/Ackannan
Identified By: Smith/Sclmltz/Foster
Data Collected :
Sorted By ;
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
Howard/B^i
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYM-09M
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
TRICHQPTERA
ODOKTATA
OLIGOCHAETA
EPHEMEROPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
MEGALOPTERA
CQLEOPTERA
COLEQPTERA
COLEOPTERA
OLIGOCEAETA
EPHEMEROPTERA
DIPTERA
PLECOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIETEEA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth, :
Grabs :
Sample #:
Total
23
11
8
7
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs : Grabs : 1
Sample #: Bottom:
% of Sample
33.33%
15.94%
11.59%
10.14%
4.35%
4.35%
1-45%
1.45%
1.45%
1.4.6%
1.45%
1.45%
1.45%
1.45%
1.45%
1.45%
1.45%
1.45%
1.45%
1.45%
EQtrlTABlLlTY (Diversity due to species co»positio»): 0.70
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXON: ParsmetriocneinuB sp.
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
23
33.33 %
unknown..
Shredder
Predator
collector Gatherer.
Collector Filterer.
scraper
Piercer
29
12
10
10
8
0
0
42.03%
17.33%
14.49%
14.49%
12.59%
00%
00%
-------
Water Body : demons Fork
Date Placed :
Collector ; HOward/Weldon
Identified By: Smith/Schults/Foster
I
Date Collected :
Sorted. By n ~ :
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
Howard/Besrrang
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth. :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KXH-
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DlFTERA
DIPTERA
DiPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
ODONATA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTEKA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EBHEMEROSTESA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTESA
EPHEMEROPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PSECOPTERA
TRICHOPTERA
TRICHOPTSPA
TRICHOPTERA
MAcaoiuvns,-rsB
BIOLOGY DATA
REPLICATE • 2
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
-10R Sample #:
ORGANISMS
T-jr'tla g"
REPLICATE 3
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs ;
Sample #:
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
REPUC 1 REPLIC 2 REPLXC 3 COMPOSITE
Count #Mn Count #M» Count #K» Count #M»
3
fseudo.Il3MOphi.la so. 14
-Hfejxratofn^ sp. 2
£initil iuin sp.
Prosijnulium ap.
Helopelopia so.
Evkieffarlalls el
£> en i er"VP t o e.h j, jroii oj
Tajiyeai"s«s sp.
AUC^lVtarsus SD .
Psephenws SP.
ffelicJius sp.
Stenelsiis SD.
Ectooria. so.
s tyl QQ-omphuB SB .
Bseeldae 12 tails
_Bl5j3ejIies,ejia SD<
Survlovhella. sp .
Steuonema SD .
Cinvsmizla as-
Bpfsorus 30.
13
7
5
ajripenxiis ffp. 3
nus SD. 1
1
2
2
1
2
4
IS
81
2
2
4
€
5tenacgoa sp. 2
Hairopiileljiodes/Paraleptaphleijia -1-
Leucfcridae/Capniidae (immature) 1
ADtpJlJLJl&nUX"3 SP .
J^opejrJla sp.
iTelicopsrcriie sp.
Polvceiifcropua sp,
.RhvacopMla sp.
I^eoidosfcoaia sp.
RATH
SHEET
30
7
1
2
1
i
I
TOTALS; 254"
# OF TAXA; 33
DIVERSITY INDEX:
3
14
2
13
7
5
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
2
4
34
16
ai
2
4
6
2
1
1
30
7
1
1
254 3 0
0
3,63 0
3
14
2
13
7
5
1
3
1
2
2
1
2
4
34
16
81
2
2
6
2
1
30
7
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 254 0
o 33
0 3.63
-------
M.ft.CROINVERTEBEATE! S
:Y REPORT
water Body : ClemOiiS Fork
Date Placed s Date Collected : 5/2/00
Collector : Huward/Weldon Sorted By : Howard/Borrang-
Identified By: Smifch/Sch.u.lts/Fosteir Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2
Factor: 1 Factor :
Depth : Depth :
Grabs : 1 Grabs :
Sample #: JCSM-lOR Sample #:
CLASS 1 SPECIES : 4 12.12%
CLASS II SPECIES : 2 6.06%
CLASS III SPECIES: 3 3,09%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 5 15.15%
CUSS V SPECIES : IS 57.58%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
NUMBER OF TAXft.
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMIKAUT TAXOST
FLORIDA INDEX
% PIPTERA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AMD MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
REPLICATE 3
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
CLASS I INDIV. : 21
CLASS II INDIV. i 83
CLASS III INDIV: 34
CLASS IV INDLV. : 8
CLASS V INPIV. : 108
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE PENINSULA
SCORE
33 5
16 3
31.89 % 3
10 5
19.69 % 3
5.51 % 3
13.39 % 3
0 % 1
0 1
27
N o Impairment
COMPOSITE
Grabs ; 1
Bottom:
8.27%
32.68%
13.33%
3.15%
42.32%
PANHANDLE
SCORE
5
5
1
3
3
1
3
-.^
21
Moderate Impairment
-------
Water Body : demons
Date Placed :
collector : Howard/Weldon
Identified By: Smith/Schultz/Foster
Pate Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
Howard/Berrang
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE
Factor : 1 Factor :
Depth I Depth s
Grabs : 1 Grabs :
Sample #: 'KYM-10M Sample #:
DIPTERA
DI&TERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA.
DIPTSRA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DECAPODA
OLIGOCKAETA
COLEOPTERR
COLEOPTSRA
COLEOPTERA
EPHEKEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
S&HSKERQPTERA
E PHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHSKEROPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PiECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
TRICHQPTERft,
DIPTERA
ORGANISMS
TSpiTlf, SP
gjjutilimn sp.
J?elQpalepJ.a an.
Oxthocladiua (E
2 REPLICATE 3
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #'.
COMPOSITE
Grabs : i
Bottom:
REPLIC 1 REPLIC 2 REPLIC 3
Count #M» Count #H» Count #M»
. J twe II
umbra tus
Chironomys SP.
PolvTjedilum avieeus
Astacidae unid.
Iiumbriculidae u
Anchvtai-sus SB.
Helichus gg.
Berosus SB.
_
Saetidse f.2 tails)
Baetidae (3 fcai
Sniemerella so.
Sua-vloDialla SB
ffai>ronlile-&Sa 3P
Asneletus sp.
Jsoperla sp.
?yc»opsyc&e sp-
JEhyaCOSifaila gp.
Sijiiuliidae u^icJ
MACRQINVERTEERATE
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET
led/hied wins nadj
6
3
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
1
11
2
114
21
1
1
51
10
3
2
1
1
TOTALS: 248-
# OR TAXA: 26
DIVERSITY INDEX:
6
3
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
g
1
11
2
114
21
1
1
51
10
3
2
1
1
248 00 00
0 0
2.77 0 0
COMPOSITE
Count #M»
6
3
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
1 1
1
6
1
11
2
114
21
1
1
51
10
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
248
26
0
2.77
43
-------
SUMMARY REPORT
Water Body ; dlemons Fork
Date Placed : Date Collected : 5/2/00
Collector : Howard/Weldon Sorted By : Howaxd/Eerrang
Identified By: SnUth/SChults/Foster Sample mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYM-10M
REPLICATE 2
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
COMPOSITE
Graiba :
Bottom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 1 3.85%
CLASS II SPECIES : 1 3.85%
CLASS III SPECIES: 3 11.54%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 4 IS.38%
CLASS V SPECIES : 17 65.38%
CLASS I INDIV. : 3 1.21%
CLASS 11 INDIV.: 114 45.97%
CLASS III INDIV: 53 21.37%
CLASS IV INOrV. : 14 5.63%
CLASS V INDIV. : 64 2S.B1%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
NUMBER OF T.\£A
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXOS
FLORIDA INDEX
% DZPTSRA
:% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
4 SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALtJATlQN
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
26
11
4S.97 %
3
3,47 %
1.61 %
22.98 %
"."4 %
1
Moderate
PENINSULA
SCORE
3
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
17
Impairment
PANKM'rtiLE
SCORE
3
5
1
1
3
1
3
17
Moderate Impairment
-------
DISTRIBUTION REPORT
water Body : demons Pork
Date Placed :
Collector : Howard/We ld,o»
Identified By: Smith/scliwlts/Foeter
Date Collected :
sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
Soward/B«rrang
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: K^KM-IOM
EPHEHEROPTERA
PLECOPTERA
EPHEtoERQPTERA
EPHEHESQETERA
PLECOPTERA
CQIiEQPTBRA
DIPTERR
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
PLECOPTERA
DIPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA.
TRICHOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
DIPTERA
COLEOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERR
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMERQPTBRA
DIPTEUR
DIPTEUR
DECAPODA
QLIGOCHAETA
TRICHOPTERA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
Total
114
51
21
11
10
6
6
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth ;
Grabs : Grab a : 1
Sample #: Bottom:
% of Sample
45. 97%
20.56%
8-47%
4.44%
4.03%
2.42%
2.42%
1.61%
1.214
1.21%
0.81%
0.81%
0-81%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
EQUITABILITY (Diversity due to spacies composition): 0.35
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMIUABfT TXXON: SpheiCierella sp .
FEEDING GROUPS
114
45.97
Collector Gatherer.
shredder
collector Filte^er.
118
57
41
23
5
4
0
47.58%
22 . 98%
15,53%
9 .27%
2 .02%
1,. 61%
00%
45
-------
Water Body : Colas Pork jj
Date Placed : •?
Collector : Mauclsley/Ackainoiaua. " -
Identified By: Smith/SctmltB/Foster
Data Collected -
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
Sowaird/Benang
REPLICATE 1 REPLPCATE 2 REPLICATE
Factor: 1 Factor: Factor:
Depth : Depth : Depth :
Grabs : 1 Grabs : Grabs :
Sample #: KYM-11R Sample #: Sample #:
DIPTEFA
DIPTEFA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTEFA
DIPTERA
J3KCAJPODA
COLEOPTERR
COLEOPTERA
QLIGQCHAETA
COLEOPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTESA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EFHEMES.OFTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
PLECOPTBRA
PLBCOPTSRA
PLSCOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
TRICHOPTERA
TRICHOJPTERA
DTPTERA
ORGANISMS
T'PTTTB— a»—
Paeudoliosiovhila, st>.
Cryptolabis sp.
^ ~i w^i _7 jy' Tjmy SO-,
Prosimulimn sD.
Hemerodromia so.
Helovelovia sp.
Parametriocnemus sp.
Lope3cladi.ua sp.
Polyp^dilusa sp.
Astacidae va±d.
Helichus sp.
Optiosei-vus so.
r.iTTnh? — i IT?T 7 j rla a tmit"Z.
^C^&~r~i ^P-
Baetidae (2 tails)
Baetidae (3 tailed/bind wiag1 pad)
Hnh*m»ireiia so
ZJrunella ap.
B»->O±-US as-
Cinygmu J a S p .
ieuCtridae/Capniidae (inunafcu.re,)
Allocapnia gp.
Jscperla so.
yugns sp .
Besnenus SP .
Jiplecfcrona SD.
gftyacopfaila gp.
Potthastia sp.
MACROINVERTEBRATE TOTALS :
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET # OF TSJCA :
DIVERSITY INDEX:
3
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
REPLIC 1 REPLIC 2 REPLIC 3
Count #&&> Count #M» Count #M»
1
28
1
1
1
2
11
1*
43
(10
46
3
22
1
32
17
1
|1
u
11
249
32
1
4
3
28
1
1
1
3
1
4
1
4
43
10
46
19
2
3
22
1
33
7
1
1
2
249 00 00
0 0
3.71 0 0
COMPOSITE
Count #M»
1 1
4
3
28
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
43
10
46
19
2
3
22
1
32
7
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
249 0
32
3.71
-------
sipi
MACEjjINVSRTSBRATS SUMMARY REPORT
•f
Hater Body : Coles Fork
Date Placed : Date Collected : 5/2/00
Collector : Wauds'ley/Ackennan Sorted By : Howard/Barrang
Identified By: Smitli/Seliultz/Faster Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor; 1
Depth :
Grabs ; 1
Sample #: KYM-11R
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor:
Depth ;
Grabs :
Sample #;
COMPOSITE
Grabs :
Bottom:
1
CLASS I SPECIES : 2 6.25%
CLASS II SPECIES : 1 3.13%
CLASS III SPECPES: 3 9.33%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 2 6.25%
CLASS V SPECIES : 24 75%
CLASS I INDIV. : 30 , 12.05%
CLASS TI INDIV.: 46 18,47%
CLASS III INDIV: 37 14,36%
CLASS IV IHDIV.j 3 .8%
CLASS V INDIV. : 134 53.32%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL IHDSX £or STREAMS (IBIS)
VA1TJE PENINSULA PAHHMTOLE
NUMBER OF TAXA,
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXOH
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTSRA
% COLLECTOR-FIIiTER.EH.S
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AMU MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
32
14
18.47 %
5
19.28 %
11.65 %
13.25 %
-4 %
1
SCORE
5
3
3
3
3
5
3
1
1
27
No Impairment
SCORE
5
5
3
1
3
5
3
~ " ~
•25
No Impairment
-------
Water Body : Coles Fork /
Date Placed : f
Collector : Mauds1ay/Aekonnan
Identified By: Smitli/Scliults/FOSter
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
Howard/B&rrang
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2 REPLICATE
Factor : 1 Factor : Factor :
Depth : Depth : Depth ;
Grabs : 1 Grabs : Grabs :
Sample #: KYM-llM Sample #: Sample #:
ORGANISMS
nTPTEVRA T'l'i-HTTj gn
DIPTERA Phseno§ra pimctipes era.
DIPTEFA Tri-faelos "?aeuntJum
DIETESft Polyisediliim £allax
ODONATX Saveria SD.
COLEOPTERA P^^rh^nu" **p
COLEOPTERA Helichus so.
MOT.T.TT
-------
/
Water Body : Coles Fork
Date Placed :
Collector1 : Mauds ley /Ackerman
Identified By: Smifefa/Scliultz/Foater
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2
Factor: 1 Factor:
Depth : Depth :
Grabs : 1 Grabs :
Sample #: KXM-llM Sample #:
CLASS I SPECIES ; 1 5.2(3%
CLASS 11 SPECIES : 1 5.2S%
CLASS III SPECIES: 3 15.79%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 3 15.79%
CLASS V SPECIES : 11 57.99%
Date Collected :
Sorted By . .
Sample Hechanism:
REPLICATE 3
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #;
CLASS I INDIV. :
CLASS 11 INDIV. :
CLASS III INDIV;
CLASS IV INDIV. :
CLASS V INDIV. :
5/2/00"
Howar d./ B & rx ang
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
1 1.12%
15 16.85%
12 13.48%
9 10.11%
52 58.43%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEK for STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE PENINSULA PANHANDLE
MtJUBER OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBTJTIOH OF DQKINANT TAXOH
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTSRA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
SCORE
19 3
8 3
' 42,7 % l
3 1
10.11 % 3
1.12 % 1
16.85 % 3
1.12 % 1
1 1
SCORE
3
5
1
1
3
1
3
~ " -
17 17
Moderate Impairment Moderate Impairment
Hft
-------
COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION REPORT
water Body : Coles-
Date Placed :
Collector
Identified By: Smlfch/Schults/Foster
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/2/00
REPLICATE I
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KTtM-Hl
EFSEMEJ&OPTESA
EPHEMESOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
DIPTERA
COLEOPTERA
EPHfiMEROPTEHA
COLEOPTERA
DIPTERR
PLECOPTERA
HOLLUSCA
OLIGOCHAETA
ODONATA
EPHEHEROPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERR
EPPEMEROPTERA
DIPTERA
COLEOPTERA
PLECOPTESA
REPLICATE
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
t Sample #'.
Total
38
15
10
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs : Grabs : 1
Sample #: Bottom :
% of Sample
42.7%
16.85%
11.24%
4. -19%
3.31%
3.37%
2.25%
2.25%
2.25%
1.12%
1.12%
1.12%
1.12%
1.12%
1.12%
1.12%
1.12%
1.12%
1.12%
EQTTITABILITY (Diversity due to species composition): 0.58
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXOH: Eurylophella sp.
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
scraper 38 42.1%
collector Gatherer. 19 21.35%
Unknown 15 16.85%
Shredder 15 16. 85%
Predator 1 1.12%
Collector Filtei-er. 1 1.12%
Piercer 0 00%
38
42.7 %
-------
Water Body : Big) Double
Date Placed :
collector : Maiid,gley/Ackerman
Identified By: Smith/SChUltz/Foster
Date Gollsctad :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
S/3/oo
Howard/Biarrang
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYM-12M
REPMCATS
Factor:
Depth ;
Grabs:
Sample #:
REPLICATE
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs ;
Sample #:
CQJUPQSITE
Gir-abs :
Bottom:
ORGANISMS
REPLIC 1 REPLIC 2 REPLIC 3 COMPOSITE
DIPTERA TJpula so.
DIPTERA Conchapelopia SP-
DIPTERA Tvetenia bavarica ens. '
DIPTERA Farasiatrioenemus sp.
DJPTERA PoZypsdilum fallax 1
PKCAPODA Aataeidae uold.
COLEOPTERA PSSjyheuUS SP.
COLEOPTERA Helichus sp.
COLEOPTERA Optioser"vris su.
HPHKMT-lfiOPTERA Baetidae (2 tails)
EPHEMEROfTSRA Waetidac naid. (3 ta iJ.s fhiadwiacr)
EPHEMEROETERA -SpJiemerella gP-
SPSEMEROPTERA Surylopiella sp.
EPHEKBRQPTSRA Isonvcilia sp.
EPHEKEROPtfiRA AraelstWi? fi
-------
HaCRQINVERTEBRATE SUMMARY REPORT
Water Body : Big Double
Date Placed : Date Collected : 5/3/00
Collector : Maudsley/Aekannan Sorted By : Howard/Berrang
Identified By: Smith/Schulta/FOSter Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs ; 1
Sample #: KXM-12M
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor :
Depth :
Grains ;
Sample #:
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 3 12%
CLASS II SPECIES : 2 8%
CLASS III SPECIES: 3 12%
CLASS IV SPECIES ; 2 8%
CLASS V SPECIES : 15 60%
CLASS I INDIV. : 9 4.11%
CLASS II INDIV. : 22 10.05%
CLASS III IHDIV: 27 12.33%
CLASS IV IHDIV.; 3 1.37%
CLASS V INDIV. : 158 72.15%
INVERT SB RATS BIOLOGICAL IHTSX for
NUMBER OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DQKXNANT TAXON
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTSRA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
25
15
34.25 %
8
7.31 %
0 %
13.24 %
,31 %
1
Moderate
PENINSULA
SCORE
3
3
3
5
3
1
3
1
1
23
Impairment
PANHANDLE
SCORE
3
5
1
1
3
1
3
..-
• • •
17
Moderate Impairment
-------
1
COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Water Body'. : Big Double
Date Placed :
Collector : Maudsley/Acfcerman
Identified By: Smith/Sehultz/Foster
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/3/00
Howard/Barrang
SHPIiICATS 1
Factor ; 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYM-12M
EPHEMERQFTSPA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EFSHMEROPTERA
BPHEMEROPTERA
PLECOPTERA
EPHEMEROFTESA
PLECOPTERA
COLEOPTEILA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
PLgCOPTSRA.
TRIOTOPTERA.
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DECAPODA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
COLEOPTERR
EPHEMEROPTERA
PLECOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
TRXCHQPTERA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #;
Total
75
23
23
21
20
10
8
6
6
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs : Grabs : 1
Sample #: Bottom:
% of Sample
34.25%
10.5%
10.51
9.59%
9 -13%
4.57%
3.65%
2.74%
2.74%
1.83%
1.37%
1.37%
0.91%
0.91%
0.91%
0.91%
0.46%
0.46%
0.46%
0.46%
0.46%
0.46%
0 .46%
Q.46%
0.46%
EQtrlTABIIjlTY (Diversity due to species composition) : 0.60
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXON; Eu:eyl°plwalla sp.
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
75
34.25 %
Scraper
Collector Gatherer .
shredder
Predator
Collector Filteireir-
80
76
30
29
4
0
0
36.53%
34.7%
13.7%
13 .24%
1.83%
00%
00%
53
-------
|Water Body : Big Double
jf" Data Placed :
i Collector : Mauds ley/Ack«rwian
Identified By: Smifch/Schultss/FOSt$r
Date Collected :
Sorted By '
-Mechanism:
5/3/00
Howard/B«rrang
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs ; 1
Sample #: KKJ4
DIPTEFA
DIPTERA
DIPTEFA
DIPTEFA
DIPTERA
DTPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DECAEODA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
OLIGOCHAETA
EEHEMERQPTERA
EPHEWEROPTERA
EPBEMEROPTERA
EPHEMBROPTERA
EPHEHEROETERA
EPHEMSROPTSRA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTEFA
PLECOPTERA
TSICHOPTERA
TR2CHOPTEFA
TRICHOPTERA
TRICHOPTERA
REPLICATE 2 REPLICATE
Factor: Factor:
Depth i Depth :
Grabs : Grabs ;
•12R Sample #: Sample #:
ORGANISMS
tfexatoma sp.
SintuliUfli sp.
tfelopelopxa 3p-
SufciaJf jferie 11 a sp .
Chaefcocladaus sp.
TVeteaia bavarica ffp.
nt-ff hfifr 7 ji^Jius SE>i
Polyp*dilum failaK
Astaaida* unid.
W^AS SP,
11
SurvloohaiJa sp.
flrunella sp.
gpeorus gp.
rr ,' ;_. ^ ^ T T ^ _^ aft
» IT
'rartrt,^h , i en
H^ hr-nph 7 ~h 7 nri*> ^ /Pa« 7 ap^nph 7 ahV a
, /r ... , , ,
p ,• | „ ,. T a «„
ni'pJ=,-l-^rtn3 an
a^artfi^IT» «rt
a^v-acophila 3D.
^,0^-1 f~i/^ i^1"^ -=i "v Sp
MACROIHVERTEBHA.'re TOTALS :
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET # OF TAX3.J
DIVERSITY INDEX:
3
REPLIC 1
Count #M»
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
36
25
14
2
7
14
5
5
5
37
46
3
7
8
2
1
I2
258
32
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
36
25
14
2
7
14
5
6
5
37
46
3
7
3
3
1
1
2
258
3.94
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
REPLIC 2 REPLIC 3 COMPOSITE
Count #M» Count #M» Count #M»
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
36
25
14
2
7
14
56
6 I
5
37 1
46 1
3
7
3
3
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00 00 258 0
0 0 32
0 0 3.94
-------
MAdROINVKRTEBRATS SOMH&RY REPORT
II
Water Body : Big Double
Date Placed : Date Collected : 5/3/00
collector : Maudsley/Acksnuan Sorted By : Howard/Barrang
Identified By: Smith/Schulta/FOSter Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs j 3.
Sample #: KYM-12R
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 3 9.38%
CLASS II SPECIES : 3 3-38%
CLASS III SPECIES: 3 9.38%
CLASS TV SPECIES : 1 3.13%
CLASS V SPECIES : 22 68.75%
CLASS I INDIV. : 16 6.2%
CLASS II INDIV.: 21 3.14%
CLASS III IljffilV: 51 19.77%
CLASS IV INPIV.: 2 -7S%
CLASS V INDIV, : 1SS 5
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
NOMBEH OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% 'CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXON
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTERA
% COLLECTOR- FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AMD MOLLUSKS
t CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
32
20
17.83 %
9
3.49 %
.78 %
18.22 %
.78 %
1
Moderate :
PENINSULA
SCORE
5
3
3
s
3
1
3
1
1
25
Impairment
PANHANDLE
SCORE
5
5
3
3
3
1
3
-,-,-.
23
55
-------
\Vater Body : Sugar Creek
Date Placed :
Collector : Maudsley/Ackerman
Identified By:
Date Collected :
Sortad By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/3/00
'? rrang
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KXJA-
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTBRA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
COLEOPTERA
DECAPQDA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
EPHEHERQPTERA
EPHEMERQPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMERQPTERA
EPHSKERQPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMER.OPTERA
EPHEKERQPTERA
EPSSMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PtECOPTERA
TRICHOPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
REPLICATE 2 REPLICATE 3
Factor: Factor;
Depth : Depth :
Grabs : Grabs :
3-3R Sample #; sample #;
ORGANISMS
fjnula dp.
Hexskoms sn.
C? _' _rt,^ 7 4 ***m /-. •*
Z5-F-*-t ril -I Tim 7 ^ »»W» C1T-X
^ ( ,_ ,.^
P^S^S^S t ^"^ OCQ £JHLI E 313
Sukie££eri el la so.
Paly&edilwi illinoanse type
Paephenus s&.
/-,^f-^ „,*,*, ^-«H. — AVK
Baetidae T2 tails')
Raetidae (3 Kailed/hind wino- pad')
Sriinaila so.
. . /ifftti *• ^ i
L '-^•i?hl*Mid3ia "c/
3 m,ci 7 «a j- i 7 g gT-i
_ _ i f , , \
Ajn hir^,m,,rf
J5 eyn dp.TTTjg .*g ^1 .
r.,'o?/nrt=C7a_ar,
f ^ ,
.a ff a r^ <<» fm .-3 erp
f?nhjd3m>a r/a 7 7 .q SP ,
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
REPLIC 1 REPLIC 2 REPLIC 3
count #M» count #M» Count #M»
L 3
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
5
41
3
47
1
1
16
26
1
2
1 5
1
21
23
1
1
1
2
5
6
MACRO INVERTEBRATE TOTALS: 228
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET # OF TAXA: 32
DIVERSITY INDEX:
3
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
5
41
3
47
1
1
16
26
1
2'
5
a.
21
23
1
1
1
2
S
6
228 00 00
0 0
3.72 0 0
COMPOSITE
count #M*
3
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
5
41
3
47
1 1
1
16
26
1
2
5
1
21
23
1
1
3,
2
5
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228 0
32
3-72
-------
SUMMARY REPORT
Water Body : Sugar Creek
Date Placed : Date Collected : 5/3/00
Collector : Maudsley/Ackennan Sorted By : Howard/Berrang
Identified By: Smith/Sehultz/Foater Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 3
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYM-13R
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs j
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 3 9,38%
CLASS II SPECIES : 1 3.13%
CLASS 111 SPECIES: 3 9.38%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 2 6.25%
CLASS V SPECIES : 23 71.88%
GLASS I IHDIV. : 20 8.77%
CLASS II INDIV.: 6 2.63%
CLASS III INBIV: 23 12.72%
CLASS IV INDIV. : 4 1.75%
CLASS V IWPIV. : 169 74.12%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for STREAMS (IBIS)
NUMBER OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXOS
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTBRA
% CQiLSCTOfc-FILTSRERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
SCOPES
EVALUATION
32
19
20. SI %
7
7.02 %
.88 %
12- 2 8 %
.44 %
1
Moderate
SCORE
5
3
3
5
3
1
1
1
1
23
Impairment
SCORE
5
S
1
1
3
1
3
....
---
19
Wodcrate Impairment
-5"?-
-------
Water Body : Sugar Creek
Date Placed :
Collector : Maudsley/Ackarniaa
Identified By: Smifch/Schultz/Poafcar
Date Collected
Sorted By
Sample
5/3/00
Howard/Berrancj
REPLICATE'1
Factor: i
Depth ;
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYM-13M
REPLICATE 2
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
COMPOSITE
Grabs :
Bottom:
ORGANISMS
DIPTERA.
DIPTEFA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTEFA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA'
ODONATA
DECAPODA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
DIPTERA
BPHEMERQPfERA
ESHEMEROPTERS,
EPHEMEROPTERS,
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMERQPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEWEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERR
PLECOPTERA
TRICHOPTERA
TSICHGPTERA
TRICHOPTERA
Simuliuai gp.
Prosimnliuia
Ormosia ao.
ap.
Tvetenia bay-arica gc
gelloclatiius ap.
CJVOtOcJiir'Qnonius ap.
Tanvtarsus so.
Caloptei-yjc eo.
Astacldae
sD.
aniden tl/i e
-------
MACRQXNVSRTEBRATE SUMMARY REPORT
water Body : Sugar Cfeek
Date Placed : Date -Collected : 5/3/00
collector : Maudsley/Ackerman Sorted By ; Howard/Barrang
Identified By: Smith/Sclmltz/Faster Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYH-13M
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs ;
Sample &:
COMPOSITE
Grabs ; 1
Sottom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 6 18.18%
CLASS II SPECIES : 3 9.09%
CLASS III SPECIES: 3 9.09%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 2 6.06%
CLASS V SPECIES : 19 57,53%
CLASS I IND1V. : 25 16.67%
CLASS II THDIV.: 12 8%
CLASS III 1NDIV: 38 25.33%
CLASS IV 1MDIV.? 2 1.33%
CLASS V 1HDXV. : 73 48.67%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
NUMBER OS1 TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF PQMINSST TAXON
FLORIDA INDEX
% DXPTERA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AMD MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
STREAMS (IBIS1
VALUE
33
18
24 %
15
21.33 %
9.33 %
25.33 %
.67 %
1
2EJJINSUI4
SCORE
5
3
3
5
3
5
3
1
1
29
No Impairment
i. PANHANDLE
SCORE
5
5
1
3
3
3
3
Ti"
23
No Impairment
-------
Water Body : Sugar Creek, Clay County, KY
uate Placed. : Date collected
collector : Mauds lay/ Ack
-------
MSLCROINVERTEBRATfi SUMMARY REPORT
Water Body : Sugar Creek, Clay County, KY
Date placed : Date Collected : 5/3/00
Collector j Mauds ley/Acfcennan Sorted By : Howard/Berrang
Identified By: Smith/Sehultz/Foeter Sample Wechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
sample #: KYH-13R-D
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bcttom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 4 12.9%
CLASS 11 SPECIES : 2 6.45%
CLASS III SPECIES: 3 9.63%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 3 S.68%
CLASS V SPECIES : 19 61.29%
CLASS I INDIV. : 91 13.62%
CLASS II INDIV.: 24 3.59%
CLASS 111 INDIV: 70 10.48%
CLASS IV IHDI-tf. : 4 .6%
CLASS V INDIV. : 479 71,71%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
HWBSR OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CONTRlBtJTlOS OP DOUCOiMJT TAXQN
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTEEA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AMD MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AHD MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
3 1
18
27.28 %
1 0
43.11 %
3.74 %
9.73 %
0 %
0
Moderate
PENINSULA
SCORE
5
3
1
5
1
3
1
1
1
21
Impairment
PANHANDLE
SCORE
S
s
1
3
1
1
3
_.-
- - -
19
Moderate Impairment
-------
Water Body : Sugar creek
Date ?laced ;
collector : M-audsley
Identified By: Smith/Schults/FOfa tar
REPLICATE I
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs ; 1
REPLICAIS 2
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #: KYM-13M-D Sample #:
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 3
Factor:
Depth :
Gratos :
.g.&mpla #:
5/3/OC/
COMPOSITE
Grabs :
Bottom:
ORGANISMS
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
D1PTSRA
DIPTERA
PIPTERA
DIPTERA
DECAPODA
MOLLnSGA
ODONATA
ODONATA
COLEOPTERA
COLEOPTERA
CQLEOPTSRA
EPHSMPH.OPTERA
EPHEBEH.OPTERA
EPHEMERQSTERA
fiPHEHEROFTERA
B ? HEKEK 0 P T £ R&
EPHSKBR.QPTERA
PLECOPT2RA
PKECOFTERA
PLECOPTERA
TRICHOPTSRA
TRICHOPTEJIA
•* mr* ? 7 :
Prosijnulium flP.
Ueliua SD.
SD.
SD.
i lllneenae
Jf it s c u 1 i um a &.
Caloofcej-va: an.
Libellulidae Uflid.
Pseohsnus STS,
Kelichus 3D.
a sp,
Baetidae C2 ta i I s ^
Boh&merella, so.
Burylopheila ap.
PnjBelZa SD.
Ameietus
SD.
r3oparia sp.
gelfcoperla sp-
Jvanopsvche ao.
Z/aoldosfcoma aa.
REPLIC 1 REPLIC 2 RBPLIC 3 COMPOSITE
Count #M» Count #M» Count #M» Count #M»
|4
|7
|1
12
]2
|2
|1
|4
il
|1
|1
Jl
12
3
28
21
1
1
1
2
4
7
1
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
|3 3
|5 5
'8 8
3
28
21
1
1
1
2
4
7
2
2
3
5
8
1
3
28
21
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET
TOTALS;
§ OF TAXA:
DIVERSITY 1NCEX:
104 104
25
3.65
104 0
25
3.65
-------
M&CROINVERTEBRATE SUMMARY REPORT
Water Body : Sugar Creek
Date placed : Date Collected : 5/3/00
Collector : Maudsley/Ackennail Sorted By : Hcward/Barrang
Identified By: Sraith/Schultz/Foster Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs : i
Sample #: KTM-13M-D
REPLICATE 2
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #=
REPLICATE 3
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 3 12%
CLASS II SPECIES : 1 4%
CLASS HI SPECIES: 4 16%
CLASS IV SPECIES : 2 8%
CLASS V SPECIES : 15 60%
CLASS I XNTDIV. : 7 S.73%
CLASS II INDIV.: 5 4.81%
CLASS III INDIV: 24 23.08%
CLASS IV INDIV,: 3 2.88%
CIASS V INDIV. : 65 62 5%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
NUMBER OF TAXA.
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXQW
FLORIDA INDEX
% DIPTSKA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
25
11
26.92 %
7
17.33. %
4.81 %
22.12 %
4.81 %
2
moderate
PENINSULA
SCORE
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
1
1
25
Impairment
PAtraftHPX'5
SCOHE
3
5
j.
1
3
1
3
17
Moceyate Impairment
-------
DISTRIBUTION HEPOg
Water Body. : Sugar Creek
Date Placed :
Collector : Maudpley/Ac
Identified By: smith/Schulez/Foster
Date Collected
Sorted By
Sample
5/3/00
Howard/Berrang
REPLICATE .1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
sample #: KYH-13M-D
EPHEHEKOPTERA
PLECOPTESA
EPHEHEKOPTERA.
DIPTERA
SPHEKSHOPTE&a.
DECAEODA
DIPTERA
EEHEMSROPTERA
EPHEMEROPTERA
COLEOPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
TRIOBOPTERA
ODONATA
COLEOPTERA
BIPTSHA
EPHEMEROFTEKA
KQLtnSCA
HEHIPTERA
ODONATA
PLECOPTERA
PLECOPTERA
TRICHOPTERA,
COLEOPTERA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
Total
28
21
8
7
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs : Grabs : 1
Sample #: Bcttom:
% of sample
26.92%
20,19%
7. 69%
6.73%
4.31%
3.35%
3.85%
2.83%
2.38%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
1.92%
0.96%
0.96%
0.96%
0.96%
0.96%
0.96%
0,36%
0.96%
0.96%
0.96%
0.96%
SQUITABILITY (Diversity due to species composition) : 0.72
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXQtf: AmeletUS SJ>. 28
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
26.92
Unknown
shredder
Scraper
Predator
Collector Gatherer.
Collector B'ilearer.
Piercer* » * «
52
23
9
8
7
5
0
50%
22.12%
S-65%
7.69%
6.73%
4.81%
00%
-------
Water Body 2 Lick Branch
Date Placed :
Collector : Howard/Weldon
Identified By: SfflitA/Schultu/S'oster
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2
Factor : 1 Factor :
Depth : Depth ;
Grabs ; 1 Grabs :
Sample #-r KYM-14R Sample #:
ORGANISMS
DIPTERA wledemajinAa SD,
DIPTSHA Orthocl ag±us SD.
DIPTSP7^- sutei e£ jforiC ^ J.2. ( ^ gjcp
DIPTER \ ,M*fcr.iGciic^iwH .furred. y?&y
nijirjnr'^AETA inrnhrioul idio mid
ODON \T \ S t T ^1 f? ^grnphu11? £• p
COLSOPTSRA 5&ojnolinij oD
MEGJJlLOrTEP'"1 i4ftHf**ii* * i ffiffl i
T'Ti^fOPTET?^ ^»»J**ja oiDLj^a s Di
TRirHOPTER_\ |rtheiuna^rtT?s^"^ii'ei c"
TPXC^SOPTEEA IfvrfT-nnf-1' 7l — B ^7Tirm4f"l
TRICHOPTERA unknown pupa
LEPIDOPTERA lepidepterH imid
M5.CHO INVERTEBRATE
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET
DIV
1
Date Collected ^
sorted By ? ^ Howard/Bf5rrang
Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth :
GJraiis : (Sr,aba : l
sample #: Bottom;
KEPLIC 1 RSPLIC 2 KEPL1C 3
count #M» count #K» count #M»
17 IT
I7 317
1 1
49 49
2 2
_)_ 22
tff 11
15 15
1 1
I1 1
|1 1
I 64 64
20 20
1 1
1 1
9 $
1 1
2 2
1 1
1
1
1
-.. TOTALS: • 201 201 0 0 0 0
# OF TAXA: 20 0 0
ERSITY INDEX: 2.97 0 0
COMPOSITE
count #M»
3
]_
49
•j
2
]_
15
1
1
1
64
20
1
9
9
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
201 0
20
2-97
4-5"
-------
REPORT
Water Body ; Lick Branch
Date Placed T Date Collected :
Collector : Howard/Weldon Sorted By : Howard/Berrang
Identified By: Smith./Schultz/Poster Sample mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
nepth :
Grabs : 1
sample #- KYM-14R
REPLICATE 2
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
REPLICATE 3
Factor :
Depth :
GrabS :
sample #:
COMPOSITE
crabs : i
Bottom:
CLASS I SPECIES : 2 10%
CWSS TI SPECIES : 1 5%
CLASS III SPECIES : 2 lOfti
CLASS IV SPECIES : 1 5%
CLASS V SPECIES : 14 70%.
CLASS I INDZV. ; 29 14.43%
CLASS II IUD1V.: 1 .5%
CLASS III IHDIV: 79 39.3%
CLASS IV IMOIV.: 1 .5?:
CIASS V INDIV. : 91 45.27%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL IH1DSX for
HOMBER OF TAXA.
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXOH
FLORIDA INDEX
% DISTBRA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SJHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS A«D MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
20
7
31.84 %
5
38-31 %
75.42 %
32.34 %
0 %
0
Moderate
PENINSULA
SCORE
3
3
3
3
1
S
3
1
1
23
Impairment
PMfllANDLS
SCORE
3
5
1
1
1
5
3
19
Moderate . Impairment
-------
COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Water Body
Date Placed
Collector ;
Identified By:
: Lick Branch
Howard/Weldon
smith/schults/Foster
Date Collected
Sorted By
Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYH-14.R
PLECOPTERA
DIPTERA
TRXCEOPTERA
DIFTERA
OLIGOCHAETA
TRlCflOSTERA
TRICHOPTERA
DIFTfiRA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
ODOMATA
DIPTSRA
TftXCHOPTERA
TRICHOPTER&.
COLEGPTERA
DIPTERA
TRICHOPTERS.
MEGALOPTERA
LfiPlDOPTERA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
Total
64
49
20
17
15
9
9
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs : Grabs : 1
Sample #: Bottom:
% of Sanple
31.84%
24.38%
9.95%
8.46%
7.46%
4.48%
4.48%
1 .49%
1%
1%
1%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.3%
0.5%
0.5%
0,5%
0.5%
0.5%
EQOTTABILZTY (Diversity due to species composition) : 0.55
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXOM: Amphinemura SJ>»
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
64
31.84
Shredder ...........
Collector Filterar.
Predator ...........
Collector Gatherer.
Scraper ............
Fiercer ............
71
65
31
19
15
0
0
35.32%
32.34%
15.423;
9 . 45%
7.46%
00%
00%
-------
Water Body ; Lick Branch i*
Data Placed : Date Collected : 5/4/00
collector : Howard/Wei don. Sotted" By : Howard/ Bfjrirang
Identified By: Smith/Scbults/Fostar Sample Mechanism;
RBPLICATfi 1 REPLICATE 2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE!
Factor: 1 Factor: Factor:
Depth : Depth : Depth :
Grabs : 1 Grabs : Grabs : Grabs : 1
Sample #: KYM-14M Sample #: Sample #: Bottom:
ORGANISMS REPtIC 1 REPLIC 2 REPLIC 3
count #M» count #M» count #M?>
, , , /or 13.
DI5TERA CoacJiapeloaj.a SD. 1 1
DTPTERA iferOB^ionia 3O. 11
DIPTERA Crlcotepus so, 1 1
DIPTERA Osthocladius art* (2 «pp_ ? } 3 8
DIPTERA Tanvtarsus sp. 11
HETJROPTERA Sialis gp. ji 1
•OL1GOCHAETA -^ijinodz-jlufl sD. 1 1
OLIGOCHAETA Tuisificidaa «nid. 1 1
PLECOPTERR. ^ClDilillemura SP. 3 3
TR1CHOPTERA JfvdroDtila so, ( 1 -? n
TR1CHOPTEEA Tjiaeaodes gp. 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MACRO INVERTEBRATE TOTALS: 33 33 (10 00
SIOLOGY DATA SHEET # OF TAXA: 1.2 0 0
DIVERSITY INDEX: 2.72 0 0
COMPOSITE
count #M*
1
1
1 1
1 |
S
1
1
! 1
3
13
1
0 1
0
0
0
0 1
0
o !
0
0
0
0 1
0
0 1
0
0
0
0 1
Q
0
0 1
0
0 1
0
o !
0
o ]
0
0
0
33 0
12
2.72
-------
MACROlNVfiRTEEE4TE SUMMARY REPORT
tf
Water Body ; Lick Branch
Date Placed : Date Collected : 5/4/00
collector : Howard/Weldon sorted By ; Howard/Borrang
Identified By: SHlith/SchultZ/Foster Sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE I
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : I
Sample #: KYM-14M
CLASS I SPECIES :
CLASS II SPECIES ;
CLASS I El SPECIES:
CLASS IV SPECIES :
CLASS V SPECIES :
REPLICATE 2
Factor :
Depth :
Grab6 :
Sample #:
1 8.33%
1 8.33%
3 25%
a 0%
7 58.33%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL iNDEX for
1TOKBER OF TAXA
EPT IHDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF
FLORIDA 1MDEX
% DIPTSRA
DOMINANT TAXON
% COLLECTOK-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND
# CRUSTACEANS AND
SCORES
EVALUATION
MOLLUSKS
MOLLUSKS
REPLICATE 3
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
CLASS I INDIV. : 13
CLASS II INDIV. : 1
CLASS III INDIV: 5
CLASS IV INDIV. : 0
CLASS V TNDIV. : 14
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE PEHINSUIA
SCORE
12 1
3 1
39.39 % 1
3 1
39-39 % 1
3.03 % i
15.15 % 3
0 % 1
0 ±
11
Severe Degradation
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom :
39,39%
3.03%
15.15%
0%
42.42%
PAH1IMJDLE
SCORE
1
1
_L
1
1
1
3
„--
_-._
9 .
Severe Degradation
-------
COMMDNI
DISTRIBUTION REPORT
: Lick Branch
Water Body
Date Placed :
Collector : Howayd/Weldou
Identified By: Smith/Sehulta/Foster
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/4/00
Howard/Berrang
SEPliICATS 1
Factor: 1
Depth :
Grabs : a
Sample I: KYM-14M
TRXC90PTERA.
DIPPERS,
PLECOPTERA
DTPTERA
DIPTERA
DIPTERA
NEXJROfTERA '
QLIGQCHAETA
OJjJGQCHAETA
DIPTERA .
DIPTERA
0?RICHOPT5RA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth ;
Grabs :
Sample #:
Total
13
8
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
i
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs : Grab6 : 1
Sample #; Bottom:
% o£ Sample
39.39%
24.24%
9.09%
3.03%
3.03%
3.03%
3.03%
3.03%
3.03%
3-03%
3.03%
3.03%
(Diversity due to species composition) : 0.75
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXOH: Hydroptila sp - 13
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
39.39 %
Piercer ............
unknown
Shredder:: .........
Collector Gatherer.
Collector Filteerer-
Scraper
13
11
5
2
1
1
0
39-39%
33 . 33%
15.15%
6.06%
3.03%
3-03%
00%
-------
Water Body :
Date Placed :
Collector :
Identified By:
Lick Branch ?
/
Howard/Weidon
Smith/Sclmltn/Foster
Date Collected :
Sorted By :
Sample Mechanism:
5/4/00
Howard/Berrang
REPLICATE 1 „ - REPLICATE 2 SHPL2CATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor: 1 Factor: Factor:
Depth J Depth : Depth ;
Grabs : 1 Grabs : Grabs : Grafts : 1
sample #: KYM-14R-D Sample #: Sample #: Bottom:
ORGANISMS
DIPTERA JSiSaztfirodi-cania so.
DIPTERA Wi.edenlcl23J3.i.a 5p
DIPTERA UiidefcexBiined
DIPTERA Laffipia sp.
DIPTERA COH
-------
I
HACROjCNfVERTEBRATE SUMMARY REPORT
Water Body : Lick Branch
Date. Placed ' : Date Collected : 5/4/00
Collector : Howard/Weldoa Sorted By : Howard/Berrang
Identified By: Smith/Schultz/Foster Sample mechanism:
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2
Factors 1 Factor:
Depth : Depth :
Grabs : 1 Grabs:
Sample #: KtM-14R-D Sample #:
REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs : Grabs ; l
Sample #: Bet torn:
CLASS I SPECIES : 3 16.67%
CLASS II SPECIES : 1 5.56%
CLASS III SPECIES: 3 1.6.67%
CLASS IV SPECIES ; 1 5,56%
CLASS V SPECIES : 10 55.56%
CLASS I IHDIV. : 82 39,
CLASS II INDIV.: 63 30.43%
CLASS III INDIV: 30 14.494
CLASS IV INDIV.: 1 .48%
CLASS V INDIV. : 31. 14.98%
IHVERTEBRATS BIOLOGICAL INDEX for
MEMBER OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TAXON
FLORIDA INDEX
% PIPTERA
% COLLECTOR-FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND MOLLUSKS
# CRUSTACEANS K*$D MOLLUSKS
SCORES
EVALUATION
STREAMS (IBIS)
VALUE
18
5
37,2 %
7
44-44 %
2-42 %
35.27 %
,48 %
1
Moderate
PENINSULA
SCORE
3
3
1
5
1
1
3
1
1
19
Impairment:
PANHANDLE
SCORE
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
" ™ ~
13
Severe Degradation
-------
DISTRIBUTION REPORT
: LicJc Branch
Water Body
Date Placed :
Collector : Howard/Weidon
Identified By: Smith/Schultz/Fostet
Date Collected :
Sorted By i
Sample Mechanism:
5/4/00
Howard,/B erirang
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs : 1
Sample #: K2M-14R-D
TRICHOPTER&
DIPTBRA
OLIEOCHAETA
DIPTERA
PLSCQPTSR&.
DTPTERA
TRICBQFTSRA
DIPTERA
PtPTERA
DIPTERA
MOLUJSCA
IfEtTROPTERa
COLEOPTERA
DIPTERA
THXCHOPTEHA.
DIPTERA.
PIFTERA
PL0COPTERA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs :
Sample #:
Total
71
63
19
12
10
10
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COWPOSTTE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs : Grabs ; 1
Sample #: Bottom;
% of Sample
37.2%
30.43%
9.18%
5.8%
4.33%
4.33%
1 .93%
0.37%
0.48%
0.48%
0.48%
0.48%
0.48%
0.48%
0.48%
0.48%
0.48%
0.48%
EQUITABILITY (Diversity due to species composition) : 0.44
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMIHANT TAXQN: Eydroptila sp . 77
37.2 %
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
Piercer
Shredder
Collector Gatherer.
Predator ...........
Collector Filterer.
Scraper ............
77
73
20
19
12
5
1
37.2%
35 . 27%
3.66%
9-18%
5.8%
2.42%
0 .48%
-------
water Body ; Lick Br
Date Placed : .
Collector
Identified By: Smith/SchultS/Foster
Date collected :
sorted BY :
sample Mechanism:
5/4/QO
Howard/Barrang
REPLICATE 1 REPLICATE 2
Factor: 1 Factor:
Depth : Depth :
Gratis : 1 Grabs :•
Sample #: KXM-14H-D Sample #:
REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth. :
Grabs : Grabs : 1
Sample #: Bottom:
ORGANISMS
HEMIPTEKA
DIPTEEA
DIPTERA
D1PTESA
DECAPODA
OLIGOCHAETA
OLIGOCHAETA
PLECOPTEKA
TfilCHQPTSRA
Microvelia
SD.
Cr-icofcopua
REPLIC 1 REPLIC Z REPLIC 3 COMPOSITE
Count SM» Count #M» Count #M» Count
11 1
6
Astaeidae
f. T TTin
SD
e uflid.
sp.
gvdropfcila ap.
1 .
1
3
7
1
1
1
3
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MACROINVERTEBSATE
BIOLOGY DATA SHEET
TOTALS:32 • 220
f OP TAXA: 9 0
DIVERSITY INDEX: 2 . 64
22
9
2.64
7Y
-------
jaCROINVERTEBRATE STMHAKY REPORT
Water Body : Lick Branch
Date Placed : Date Collected : 5/4/00
Collector : Howard/Weidoa Sorted By : Haward/Berrang
Identified By: Smith/Schultz/Foater sample Mechanism:
REPLICATE 1
Factor : i
Depth :
Grabs : 1
REPLICATE 2
Factor:
Depth :
Grabs :
sample #: KYU-14M-P sample #:
CLASS I SPECIES :
CLASS 11 SPECIES !
CLASS III SPECIES:
CtASS IV SPECIES :
CLASS V SPECIES ;
1 11.11%
0 0%
4 44.44%
1 11.11%
3 33.33%
INVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL IHDEX for
NUMBER OF TAXA
EPT INDEX
% CQSTRIBUTXOH OF
FLORIDA INDEX
4 DIPTERA
DOMINANT TAXQN
% COLLECTOR -FILTERERS
% SHREDDERS
% CRUSTACEANS AND
# CRUSTACEANS AND
SCORES
EVALUATION
MOLLUSKS
MOLLUSKS
REPLICATE 3
Factor :
Depth. :
Grabs :
Sample #'.
CLASS I IHDIV. : 7
CLASS 11 IHDTV. : 0
CLASS III XOTIV: 6
CLASS IV IHDIV- : 1
CLASS V IHDIV. : 8
STSEAMS (IBIS)
VAitJE PENINSULA
SCORE
9 1
2 1
31.82 % 3
2 1
36.36 % 1
0 % 1
13.64 % 3
4.55 % 1'
1 1
13
Severe Degradation
COMPOSITE
Grabs : 1
Bottom:
31.82%
0%
21.27%
4.85%
36. 36%
BANSAHDLE
SCORE
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
•" ™ *
11
Severe Degradation
7s
-------
COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION REPORT
Water Body. ; Iiick, Branch
Date Placed :
Collector : Howard/Weldon
Identified By: Smifch/Sclrultz/Foster
Date Collected
Sorted By
Sample
5/4/00
Howard/Berrang
REPLICATE 1
Factor : 1
Depth :
Grabs ; 1
Sample #: XYM-
TRICHOPTERA
DI&TERA.
PtiECOPTERA
DISTERA
PSCAPODA
OLIGOCHAKTA
QLIGOCH&ETA
DIETERA
HEMIPTESA
REPLICATE
Factor :
Depth. :
Grabs :
14M-D Sample #:
Total
7
6
3
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
2 REPLICATE 3 COMPOSITE
Factor :
Depth :
Grabs : ei-abs : i
Sample #: Bottom:
% of Sample
31.82%
27.21%
13.64%
4.55%
4.55%
4.55%
4.55%
4.55%
4.55%
EQtflT&BlLlTY (Diversity due to species composition): 1.00
PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF DOMINANT TMCQN: Hydsroptila. sp.
FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUPS
31.82 %
Piareer ............
Predator ...........
Shredder
Collector Gatherer.
Scraper ............
Collector Filterer .
7
7
3
3
2
0
0
31.82%
31.823s
13 . 64%
13 . 64%
9.09%
00%
00%
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (FRONT)
STREAM NAME £eh4 fart.
STATIONS
LAT
RJVERMJLE
LONG
STORET*
INVESTIGATORS Ift ^.Or^ $tO
FORM COMPLETED BY
1 l/\
vU
LOCATION ft Rusrf
STREAM CLASS
I*/* rr. &J
RIVER BASM
AGENCY
TIME CM fpw)
^^
REASON FOR SURVEY
1
U
i_
Bfl
9
*]
c
3
u
2
3
&-
0.5m.)
.20. : I?" IS;>(jfF) 16.
Little or no enlargement
of islands orpointbars
and less than 5% of the
bottom aifected by
sediment deposition.
'20? .vi9. .-is.. i,r id
Water reaches base of
both lower banks , and
minimal amount of
channel substrate is
exposed.
"2Qv:;'I.9=--':.(:fe:]i-,.L7r. 16
Suboptimal
40-70% mix of stable
habitai; well-suited for
fHil ee}en>99ii9n
potential; adequate
habitat for maintenance
of populations: presence
of additional substrate in
ihe form of newt'all, but
not yet prepared for
colonization (may rare at
high end of scale).
IS 14. 13 12: 11
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles are 25-
50%suiTQundeci by fine
sediment.
15' 14 13 12. 11.
Only 3 of the i regimes
present (if fast-shallow i
r lissing, score lower
than if missing other
regimes).
. is; .14 13 12.. n.
Some new increase in
bar formation, mostly
from gravel, sand or fine
sediment; 5-30% Of the
bottom affected; slight
deposition in pools.
•^
• ^5J 14. 13 12 11
Water fills >7 5% of the
available channel: or
<25% of Channel
substrate is exposed.
;• i'5r 14 .--is a n:
Marginal
20-40% mix of stable
habitat; hafciiac
availability less than
denrabie^ iaSstnr.e
frequently disturbed or
removed.
10 9 8 76
0Fayel. tobble, and
boulder panicles arc 50-
75% surrounded by fine
iedimant.
10 9' &,, T 6-
Only 2 of the 4 habitat
regimes present (if fast-
shallow or slow-shallow
are missing, score low);
10 .9.- 'S..-...7; '_,6~.
Moderate deposition of
new gravel, sand or fine
sediment on old and new
bans; 30-5C%ot'tfie
bottom affected;
sediment deposits ai
obstructions,
constrictions, and bends;
moderate deposition of
pools prevalent.
10 5 S; . T. • &
Water Ells 25-7 5% of
the available channel.
and/or riffle substrates
are mostly exposed.
;iO 9-. -'SV 7 .'6-
Poor
Less than 20% stable
habitat: laclt Of habitat is
obvious; substrate
unstable or lacking.
f- 4. 3 1 I 0'-
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles are
more than 75%
surrounded by fine
Sediment,
'; 5- 4. 3. 2: !. . ».
Dominated by 1
velocity/ d*pth regime
(usually slow~deep).
t's-....*- 3%: -2. v 'Q~
Heavy deposits of Gne
material, increased bar
development; more than
50% ot the bottom
changing frequently:
pools almost absent due
to substantial sediment ;
deposition.
57 4- 3i 2- L • 0-.
Very litiic water in
channel and mostly
present as standing
pools.
;$•• ;*;..,. 3: ;:z:,,/i ;.o>::
-------
iJ
3
u
L,
sfl
&
•St
a
1«
4
73
P
.3
3
4otc; determine left
>r right Side by
.'acing do^wistrearti.
SCORE 0 (LB)
SCORE & CRS)
9. Vegetative
Protection (score
each bank)
^
SCORE _i(LB)
SCORE Q, (R9)
Id. Riparian
Vegetative Zane
Width (score each
bank riparian zone)
SCORE _J_(LB)
SCORE 0(RB)
Condition Category
Optimal
-hannelization Or
verging absent Of
minimal; sirsam with
ormal pattern.
MD 19 llSy1 17 15
Occurrence of riffles
elaiively frequent: ratio
if distance between
iffles divided by widrh
r iihe stream <1\ I
generally 5:o 7);
/ariery oi'hsbitst is key.
n Streams where riffles
ire continuous,
jlaccmcnt Qif boulders or
ichar large, natural
nbsrrucdon is imponanr.
20 /19) 13 17 16
Banks STabte1, evidence
pi erosion of bank
Failure absent or
minimal; lirtle pocennal
for future problems.
<5% of bank affected.
Left Bank 10- 9
Right Bank 1Q 9
More rhan 90% of cha
strcambank surt'aces and
immediate riparian zone
covered by native
vegetation, including
trees, uwitrttOTy shrubs,
ornonwoody
matrophytej; vegetative
disrupnon through
grazing or mowing
minimal ornoc evidenr:
almost ail plants allowed
to grow riacuyally-
Lift Bank 10 (^
-RighcBank. LO' f^"
Width of riparian 30ne
adtSviliEtEi^: chujnaaking
lots, roadbeds, clear-
CUB. lawns. Or crops)
have not impacted zone.
Left-Bank: 1.0- 9*
Right Banki 10" 9-
Suboptimal
Some channelization
present, usually in AT*«
of bridge abutments;
evidence oipast
channelization, i.e.,
dredging, (greater than
past 20 yr) may be
present, bur recent
Channelization is not
present.
15 14 13 12 11
Occurrence of riffles
infrequent; distance
between riffles dividsd
by the width of the
stream is berween Ira
15.
15 14 13 12 11
Moderately sable:
infrequent, small, areSS of
erosion mostly haled
over. 5-30% oibank in
reach has areas oi
erosion.
*s
(8) 7 6
1 7 6
70-90% of the ,
screairibank surfaces
covered by native
vegeiatiori, but one class
of plants is not well-
rcpresenred; disruption
evidenr but no! affecting
full plant growth
potential tq any great
extent: more rhan one-
haif of the potendal plant
srubble height
remaining.
876
876.
Width of riparian lone
liclii'taretoiKe H«»pac te d
zone only mirtirnally.
IS) 7 6
VV
•: TO 7 . e
Channelijation may be
extensive-, embankments
or shoring struciures
present on borh banks;
and 40 to 80% of stream
reach channelized and
disrupted.
10 9 3 76
Occasional riffle or
bend; bortorn contours
-provide some habitat;
distance between riffles
divided by rhe width o i
the stream is between IS
to 25,
10 9 3 76
Moderately unsuible; 30-
60% of bank in reach has
areas ot erosion; high
erosion potential during
Hoods.
543
5 2 3
50-70% of (he
srrearnbank surfaces
covered by vegetation;
disruption obvious;
parches oibarc soil or
closely cropped
vegetation common: less
than one-half of rhe
potential plant stubble
height remaining.
543
543
Width of riparian zone
dm & 'irnetehrauvbtirnpiac te d
ties have impacted
zone a great dea;.
5 4, 3
5 4- 3
Poor
Banks ihored with
gabion or cement; over
S0% of the stream reach
channelized and
disrupted. Insrresm
habirar greatly iltered or
removed entirely.
543210
Generally all flat water
or shallow riffles; poor
habitat; distance b/ewesn
riffles divided by the
width of rhe sweam is a
ratio Ql'>25
5432 JO
Unstable: many eroded
areas; "raw" areas
frequent along straight
sections and bends;
obvious bank sloughing;
60-100% a f bank has
erosional scars.
2 I 0
2 1 0
Less than 50% of the
sn-eambwk surfaces
covered by vegetation;
disruption ol'sn-eambanl
vegetation is very high;
vegetation has been
removed to
5 centimeters or less in
average stubble height.
2. I 0
Z 1. 0
Width of riparian zone
flfKnriettrasifsitQii ntae
riparian vegetation due
to hutftflB activities.
2 1 0
Z 1 0
Total Score
-------
STREAM NAME / nnA jy/V
STATION # I -RlVERMlLfi
LAT
LONG
StORET*
INVESTIGATORS Ui
FORM COMPLETED BY
LOCATION f(^) Q#f]/llt/Y\ W fa/
STREAM CtASS
RIVER BASIN
AGMCY
Jj.ttt j.T/4- W
l&
DAXE — REASON FOR SURVEY
TE LOCATION/MAP
HABITAT TYPES
STREAM
CHARACTERlZATlOri
Draw a map 0f the site and iodicxcc [be irtu Jimplcd
p\(ff\6 & T (]y) t]UY\.
tadktte Ac j>erc«an«r of Mcb habiiai [rp* prncnt
affSbbie 7^ % &Sl5ip ^O % QiiBtfacut Banlu 1*6 % O-SifiJf .^" %
Sutpifiiem CImiBeadaB
fi*Pctenniat Q Intcnrumsni QTidnl
Stream Type
Q ColchvaLer QjUtfmwatB
-------
jf
^iTjiiifilnmt SdrrfiQiidiiig L^ndiiM
frfprea 3 Corpmertial
3 Field/Pasture
3 A jncultural 3 Orher^
Q Residential
Ueai Wmersbcd NF$ Pgllndon
3 No evidence B-SSme pgtcnaai sources
Q Obvious sources
Loo! Witer Ergjjcm
3 None a-Moderate a Heavy
fjrimiicd stream Wldttt £?^ r
EafinHKd Strewn Depth
ly open
Hif ta W»«r Marfc
QShaded
D»m
ION
katj (he dgmitmnt type »nd rrcart ',kf dooilm
ftxs Q Shmbs Q Grasses
ipe«i«3 present
OtN
;hc dommim type and record :he daminjm 3?jer;c3 preMnt
3 RdOfitd nnergcnt Q Rooted suttinergcni 3 Rooted floating 3 Frtc floating
C^ Flouting AJg34 Q Acachai Algae
dominant
reseh widl v«jrtaEiv* eovtr £)_ V
SEDIMt? 256 nan (100
sticks, wood, coarse plant
roatenals (CPOM)
Cobble
Mudt-Mud
black, vety fine organic (f POM)
Gravel
Sand
_£_
Mart
Jtey,
l ftagmencs
Silt
0.004-0.06 mm
day
o.OO* mm (slide)
PHYSICAL CHAHACTFHlj'^TTONAVATRR OlfALfTY FlF.r.O DATA 5HPPT fHJ<"Kl
-------
STREAM NAM£ f^ff^-f^ tijz*J 1 &*-*. Ck—
1 AT LONG
STORET *
FORM COMPLETED BY
LOCATION fJoUis*. C-^—^Cs^ ~f~~Llis-6. **^ "?( ) fi ^
STREAM CLASS
EUVER, SASIN y
AOENCY l£\ FT (\
,
DATE- 5" '^' ^^U,
rC.u 0 ifuj
HABITAtTVPES
STREAM
*w a. «ap af the lite »nd iiuMcaie (be i"« sanded
f
Indteati the percentage of ea«ll limMat type prescal
_% QSand_
) .
Stream Type
till Q tniermiona
-------
_tMjvg)j33tts viva ami Airwnb YaxvM/NOLL
90"0-»QO"0
C?/
d" PI"
tiop)
JW°a *>n!jVv O
SUS C
IBB Jl) XjjpjtjJIiJ_
AJJ7V/lb SSJLV*
A D
p Jot
WS6*,
'"^
jtt) jo
acBrV Swioy (^
SanBQp pzosy Q noSttaijjns paMOg £} MSfiDDB pa»0]} C
inisajli Mtsioc jmtnUB&p »qg pjoxu pot sdA julfniinop »q
SSSSttQCj
niniuop *t(i fuaxu pttfc ad<] jniniuiop jqfJ
°N C
tonaptu
isaoj c
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (FRONT)
STREAMNAME £n. fl^Us C^AJL(~
STATION* 3 RJVERMILP.
LAT LONP
STORET#
/IA.,*^ I
FORM COMPLETED BY 1
LOCATION rf7( kh-r REASON FOR SURVEY
TIME / ?rtm AM O»M}
j
Habitat
Parameter
1. Epifaunal
Substrate/
Available Cover
SCORE
1. Embeddedness
SCORE
3- Velocity/Depth
SCORE
4, Sediment
Reposition
SCORE
5. Channel Flow
Status
SCORE
Condition Category
Optimal
Ofeater than 70% of
subsuatc; 1'avorable far
epifaunai colonization
and fish cover; mix of
snags, submerged logs.
undercut banks, cobble
or other stable habim
and at stage 10 allow full
colonisation potential
(i.e., logs/snags that ore
new fall and not
transient]^
•20;.-^19V Jg 'IT 16'
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder panicles are 0-
25% surrounded by fine •
ZG.^1.9 )lS 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 in.)
,ZO,;>,'iy- .IS".. .IT. .16.
Linle or no enlargement
of islands or point bars
and !«s than 5% of the
bottom affected by
sediment deposition.
.20-' :Tp. (isV 17 1.6.
Water reaches base of
both lower banks, and
minitnal amount of
channel substrate is
exposed.
-2oca:ay:^i7-i6
Suboptimal
40-70% mix of stable
habitat; well-suited for
full colonization
potential; adequate
habitat for maintenance
of populations: presence
of additional su&stnite in
the form of ncwfall, bur
not yet prepared for
colonization (may rsie at
high end of scale).
15 14- 13 12: U
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder panicles are 25-
50% surrounded by fine 1
15 14 13 12 11..
CriLy 3 of the 4 regimes
present (if fast-shallow i,1
missing, score lower
rhnn ifmissing other
regimes)-
, I'5r.,l4- ,13 12 11.,
Some new increase in
bar formation, mostly
from gravel, sand or fine
sediment; 5-30% ofthe
bottom affected: slight
deposition in pools,
; 15 14- 13 12 11
Water fills >7S% of the
available channel; or
<25% of channel
subsume is exposed.
M:5-. 14 13 u -n;
Marginal
Q^M}% mix of stable
labitat: habitat
availability less than
•esirable; jubSTrate
requemiy disturbed or
emoved.
10 9 8 76
jrovel, cobble, and
moulder panicles are SO-
75%siirrou.nded by fine
sediment.
10 ..9 .' ; 8,'. .7T :;,,.,£•.
Only 2 of the 4 habitat
regimes present (if fast-
shallow or slow-shallow
are missing, score low).
(iQ}-.9:-. -^:;,,T^;-S
Moderate deposition of
new grave!, sand or fine
sediment on old and new
bars; 30-50% of the
bottom affected;
sediment deposits at
obstructions,
constrictions, and bends;
moderate deposition of
pools prevalent.
10 • ? •&.•. 7" ;6
Water tlHs 25-75% of
the available channel.
ind/or rifrle substrates
are mostly exposed,
••10- 9- -8-;. T"."-"G.
Poor
Less than 20% Stabie
habitat; lack of habitat is
obvious: substrate
unstable or lacking.
5 4- 3 Z 1 ••d::
travel, cobble, and
moulder particles are
more than 75%
surrounded by fine
scdiment-
1- JL 7 ?' 1: •' (Y-.
•J. r. . *T" J. •&-, ' 1 i.. '-U' ..
Dominated by 1
velocity/ depth regime
(usually slow-deep).
;:>,., A ii;,i r-;:os
Heavy deposits of fine
material, increased bar
development; more than
50% ot the bottom
changing frequently,
pools almost absent due
to substantial sediment
deposition.
'..sr 4-; 3.-; 2. -.c; .0*-
Very little water in
channel and mostly
present as standing
pools.
':.Sl 4,V!;':^::l:'U»i
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—fflGH GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
a
t
1
1
f
t
)
I
-,
a
j
B
2
Lj
J
a
s
^
L
<4
Parameter
6. Channel
alteration
SCORE
7, Frequency of
Riffles (or bends)
SCORE
8. Bank Stability
(score each bank)
Note: determine left
or right side by
facing downstream.
SCORE (LB)
SCORE (FS)
9. Vegetative
Protection (score
Qnch bank)
SCORE (LB)
SCORE (RJB)
10. Riparian
Vegetative Zone
Width (score each
bank riparian zone)
SCOR£ (LB)
SCORE (RB)
Condition Category
Optimal
Channelization or
dredging absent or
minimal: stream with
normal panem,
20 19 18 17 16
Occurrence of riffles
relatively frequent; ratio
of distance beween
rifflesdividcd by width
oirhe stream <7: L
(generally 5 to 7);
variety of habitat is key.
In streams where riffles
are continuous.
placement of'DoulderS of
orhcr large, natural
obstrucuon is important.
20 (\$ ) IS 17 16
Banks stable; evidence
of erosion or bank
failure absent or
minimal; little potential
for future problemS-
18 meters; human
acrivities (i.e., parking
lots, roadbeds, clear-
cuts, lawns, or crops)
have not impacted zop«^
left-Bank. 10 9-
Right Bank. 10' 9"
Sutio primal
Some channelization
present, usually in areas
of bridge abutments;
cvidencu 01 past
channelization, i.e.,
dredging, (greater than
pasi 20 yr) may be
present, bur recent
channelization is not
present, sJ=?->
IS 14( 13"J12 11
Occurrence of riffles
infrequent; dismncE
beween nffles divided
by the width of ihe
stream is ber.veen 7 10
15.
15 14 U 12 U
Moderately stable;
infrequent, small areas of
erosion rrtcstiy hauled
over. 5-30% oibank in
reach has areas of
erosion.
S 1 6
8 7 *
70-90% of the
streambarsk suriacer
covered by native
vegetation, but one class
of plants is not well-
represented; disnmtion
evident bur nor affecting
full plant growth
potential to any great
exrenr: mare than one-
half of the potential planl
stubble height
remaining.
CO 7 6
(TO 7 6
Width of riparian zone
12-18rnetsr5; human
activities have impacted
zone only minimally.
8- 7 6
•,.8.7 6
Marginal
Channelisation maybe
iMensive; embankment
or shoring structures
present on both banks;
and 40:io 80%ot'sirearn
reacrl. channelized ind
disrupted.
10 9 S 7 6
ceasional riffle or
end: bottom contours
rovide some habitat;
isiance between nfflrs
ividcd by the width o i
10 9 S 7 6
Moderately unstable; 30-
(iO% afbank in reach has
;ir«3i ot'irftij'ort; hjgfc
i;rosioa potential during
loods.
5 4 3
5 4. 3
50-70% of ihe
itreambank surfaces
tovered by vcgeunon;
disruption obvious;
patches oibare soil or
ciosely cropped
vegetation common; less
rhan one-half of the
potential plant siubblc
heighr remaining.
5 4 3
543
Width of riparian zone
6-12 meters; hlnnan
activities have impacted
zone a great deal.
3
Poor
3snks shored with
'abion or cemenr: over
80% of the stream reach
channelized and
disrupted. Insirearri
habiui greatly a,Uered or
removed entirely.
543210
Generally ail flat water
r shallow riffles; poor
labitat; distance bauween
riffles divided by rhe
vidlh oithe Siream. is a
S 4 3 2 1 0
Jnstable: many eroded
ireas; "raw" areas
iVequent along straight
sections and bends:
obvious bank sloughing;
60-100% of bank has
erosions! scars.
2 I 0
2 I 0
Less than 50% of the
streimbsnk surfaces
covered by vegesation;
disruption of streambank
vegetation is very high;
vegetation has been
removed to
5 centimeters or less in
average smbblc height.
2. \ 0
2 l: 0
Width of riparian zone
<5 meters: little or no
riparian vegetation due
to human activities.
210.
~o raScore
-------
STREAM NAM?
LOCATION
/Of &
STATION* !? R1VERMILE
STREAM CLASS
LAT
AGENCY
INVESTIGATORS
FORM COMPLETED BY
^
AM
R£A5ON FOR SURVEY
SITE LOUTIONMAP
m«p of the site mod indieste tttt inn sampled
HABIT AT TYPES
STREAM
CHARACTERIZATtOt*
Indinacr ttt pw
Q Inttrminem QTiditi
Stmm Type
Q CaUMWUW
-------
MPAOIAN ZONE/
ENSTREAM FEATURES
3/Jgnciiltural
'
!S Industrial
3 Other
Local Waicniwfl NFS Pollution
3 No evidence JSSarae potential Sources
ui&s C^"
2 None ^Modern: Q Heavy
9&ffl*_,Z, m Q Run_i3=r?n
Canopy Cover
Q Party apen
Q Stunted
atrr M»rk
JJtYes Q No
Dim Present a Yes iS^Na
ftlF.-VRlAN VEGETATION
18 meitr Suffer)
Qtnaa
mrord
iit: jpccica
AQUATIC VEGETATION
Indicate tlt« domiitaDt type tnd retard ike ijomtaiai specie
Q Rooted sajofeia Q Rooted sutenergait a RoaJed fle»wif C3 Frro Floatag
Q Floating Aigae a Aftachial Aiga*
Panioa of tbe rtaei
S£D IMKNT/ SUBSTRATE
Oflors
B Neml Q Ser*age
Q Che-Tucii 2 Amecob
Q Otter ........
Q Mane
Q Sludge
3 Rriia shells
DPiperfifeer QSand
Q Qaig
Oils
Q Slight 3 Moderate Q Profuse
Looking xi noaca wtaict art DI»C deeply
embctWed.ire tie undeoiito blmekin c
Q Yea S(NQ
WATER QCJAllTT
Specifle C
Turbidity ^^___
WQ I wtrBHK*c Used
Wtter O4on
Q NOTOml/Nonc
Q Patolcum Q Chnnicil
Q Fishy
Wafer Stirfaee Oifa
a Slick QShesa QGIote Qflesss
Q Hone a Qiner
Q Clor 3 51 ighOy twba Q T uibid
QOpaqu* Q Wits- osfar 3 Other_
INORGANIC SUBSTRATE COMPONENTS
(!ho«ld .dd up m 100%)
ORGANIC SUBSTRATE COMPON1TNTS
(docs nar ueccaMrily idd up ca
Type
Diameter
% CatnfKmnon in Sampling
Area
Bedrock
Detnots
Soulder
> 236 nun (101
sndu, woo
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (FRONT)
STREAM NAME /-- O-isire,? fzift-
STATIONS *f RIVERMILE
LAT LONG
5TOR£T#
LOCATION (fy Uf?/fL*^, L-&<*lf-&J( f-Qyr ^ (&/
STREAM CLASS
RIVER SASIN
AGENCY cS-^A
INVESTIGATORS
FORM COMPLETED 3V -
DATE £hl*>*> .^_
TIME 0^7^ JA^ PM
REASON FOR SURVEY
n sampling reach
1 r crs lo be evaluated 1
Habitat
Parameter
., Epifaunal
Substrate/
Available Cover
SCORE
2. Embeddedncss
SCORE
3. Velocity/Depth
Regime
4- Sediment
Deposition
SCORE
5. Channel Flow
Sfaras
SCORE
Condition Category
Optimal
Greater than 70% of
substrate favorable for
epifaunal colonization
ajjifjsh cover, mix of
jjoagg^ submerged Jpgs,
or other stable habitar
and at sta^e to allow full
colonization potential
[i.e., logs/snags thai are
no_t new fall and not
transient).
2Q:;_1.9. IS. IT 16
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles are 0-
25% surrounded by fine •
sediment. Layering of
cobble provides diversity
of niche space.
20.' ' 19:' 1.8- 17 16
Alt four velocity/depth
regimes present (slpw-
^Stow iS^l) J m/s, deep
is > 0.5 in-)
Little or no enlargement
of islands or point bars
and less than 5% of the
bottom affected by
sediment deposition.
.20. :i'3v 'is. u v<5
Water reaches base of
both lower banks, and
minimal amount a i
channel substrate is
exposed.
Suboptiroal
40-70% mix of stable
habitat well-Suited for
full colonization
potential; adequate
habiut for maintenance
of populations; presence
Of additional substrate in
the form of newfali, but
not yet prepared for
colonization (may rate at
high end of scale).
15 14 13 12.(^Tl)
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles are 25-
50% surrounded by tine
sediment. '
15' 14 13 12. 11.
Only 3 of the 4 regimes
present (if fast-shallow is
missing, score lower
ihan if missing other
regimes).
Some new increase in
bar formation, mostly
from gravel, sand or line
sediment; 5-30% ofthc
bottom affected; slight
deposition in pools.
15' 14 13 12 11
Water fills >7S% uithe
available channel: or
<25% of channel
substrate is exposed.
•20.::',. isr.-. ,-i8" :U" .ie,j'.'-.Z 11 ' p1-
Very little water in
channel and mostly
present as standing
pools.
".s. -4,..3:,:±.. K-, ;:,<*•;
II
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT HELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
£
V
7i
»
w
5)
7L
n
a
^
v
™
Q
J5
3
«
!B
^
^J
U
,3
a
at
^
ij
v
f5
31
Parameter
5. Channel
Alteration
SCORE
7. Frequency of
Riffles (or bends)
SCORE
8. Bank Stability
(score each bank)
Note; determine left
or right side by
facing downstream,
SCORE (LS)
SCQRE^^CRS)
9. Vegetative
Prorecrion (score
each bank)
1
SCORE (LB)
SCORE (RB)
1 10. Riparian
Vegetative Zone
Width (score each
bank riparian zone)
SCORE (LB)
SCORE (RB)
Optimal
Channelization or
redging absent or
minimal: stream with
ormal pattern,
~^\
Occurrence ol riffles
relatively frequent; ratio
of distance between
riffles divided by width
airhcstream<7:l
(generally 5 to 7);
variety o ["habitat is key.
In streams where riffles
are continuous,
placement of "Boulders or
3ther large, natural
obstruction is important.
20 19 13 /f?) 16
Banks stable: evidence
of erosion or bank
failure absent or
minimal: little potential
for future problems,
<5% of bank affected.
Left Bank 10 9
Right Bank 10 9
Mare than 90%ofrhe
siT6amba.Tik surfaces and
immediate riparian zone
covered by native
vese taiiqn .in eluding ,
rreis, undcVftbry shrflbs.
or nonwoociy
macrophyres: vegetative
disruption through
grazing or mowing
minimal or not cvidenr:
almost all pians allowed
CQ grow naturally. — ^
Left Bank 10 (jj
Right Bank LO 9
Width of riparian smne
>!S meters; human
activities (i.e., parking
lots, roadbeds, eieat-
cuts, lawns, or CTOps^
have not impacted zone.
Left-Bank (JJV 9
Right Bank. 10- 9-
Condkia
Suboptimal
Same channEiizarion
present, usuaiiy in arsM
of bridge abutTncnls;
evidence ofpasi
channelization, i.e.,
dredging, (greater than
past 20 yr) may be
present, but recent
channelization is not
present.
)ccurrence Of riffles
nfrequent; distance
etv/ecn riffles divided
y the width Ofthe
tresm is between 7 to
5.
IS H 13 12 11
vfoderaiely stable;
nfrequenr. small areas of
:rosion mostly hejxled
iver, 5-30% of bank m
•each has areM of
:rosion.
QJ 7 6
a i rt)
70-90% of the
strcambank surfaces
covered by native
vegetation, bur one clas
of plants is not well-
rcpresenced: disruption
evident but nor at'fgctin
full pianr growth
potential to any great
extent: mar? than on?-
half of the potential plant
stubble hei^hi
remaining.
3 7 f^\
W?dth Of ripstl^n 7-nnc
12-18 meters; human
aciiviriss ha^c impacted
zone only minimally.
876.
: (% T &
Category
Marginal
lhannelizatioo mj,y be
:xiensive, embankments
3r shoririg structures
jresent on both banks;
ind 40 to S0% of stream
-each channelized and , ,
Jismptcd.
109 3 7 6
Occasional riffle or
bend: bottom contours
provide some habitat;
distance between riffles
divided by the widrh of
the stream is between 15
to IS,
10 9 R 7 6
Moderately unstable; 30-
60% of bank in reach has
areas of erosion; high
erosion potential during
floods.
5 4
533
50-70% o i the
Streambank surfaces
covered by vegetation;
disruption obvious:
patches ot'bare <,oil or
1 closely cropped
vegetation common; ies:
than one-half of the
potential plant stubble
height remaining.
543
Width of rinsn'r.n Tnnr
6- 1 2 meters; human
activities have impacted
zone a grtatde:il-
543
543
Poor
Banks shored with
gabion or cement; over
30% of the stream reach
:hanneiized and
jisrupted. insrrenm
labitai greatly altered or
•amoved entiieiy.
543210
Generally all flat water
or shallow riffles; poor
habitat; distance b«tv/;en
ri files divided by the
width of the stream is a
ratio of >25-
5 4 3 7. 1 0
Unstable; many eroded
areas; "raw" areas
frequent along straight
sections and bends;
Obvious bank sloughing;
60-100% of bank has
erosions! scar?.
2 1 0
2 1 0
Less than 50% of the
streambank surfaces
covered by vegetation;
disruption o istreambank
vegetation is very high;
vegetation has been
removed to
5 centimeters or less in
average stubble height.
2 1 0
Widrh of riparian 7;one
<5 meters: little or no
riparian vegetation due
to human activities,
J
2 I 0
Z i 0
Total Score
/£!
-------
STREAM NAME
LOCATION
STATION d
RIVSIMILE
STREAM CLASS
LAT
LONG
RIVER. BASIN
AGENCY
INVESTIGATORS
FORM COMFIETED BY
43 7 /S
REASON FOR SURVEY
TE LQCATIO!S/>1AP Iraw » map of ttw site and indicate ttte ire« samgicd
HABITAT TYPES
STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
tddicatE t&c perrciib£4 oCcmcli tiMbitftf type pr^MiiE
Q Cabbie % QSnufl! % Q UndnCat Banks %
Q ^nhnn»rgt
-------
tUPAlUAN WUti
fEATta.es
Reid/Pware
Q industrial
Q Otta"__,
3 Mattes U
Croawted Stream WMtft
Esiiauteti Strtiuti tMtnh
'
ON<3(»visBaet EhiffiSs poteanal SSiaes
C! ObtWUI KRIKW
• Q Pirty sijxsi
High W
QStodsd
Hcwili Lssiflti ) Qt? m
Q yes 2l9e
ftKjta« ** d««B««B< iype iad newrt tlw dtMBi
3ifTOisS
() J£*-
,<~~J
AQUATIC VEGETATION )| lnaio.cc rfw ctooMSitiit type and rtwrri SB* doainaat spudes prewaT
Q Roofed oner«at 3 Roeoa sutesaqjeat Q Roses flsssSnf Q ? «e Boaon^
3 fteatias Algae G Amcsed Algae
dooiim.ai 3(x-c:t
Portion of tfc* ncaeii wirtt'
SEDIMENT/ SimnUTE 1 Otfort.
a C5seni«»»t 3 Aca«3bie Q None
d caster
CKfe g
Looking M i«oa«s n*i«;fc are ao«
> -»re b» -jud< rjidri hlicx in color?
3 No
?l'' C
tect»at< j ^ J v^
_ T*Sy
Q W
Q F
Qfisoy
Turti
I W
Typs
B«to«
Iwildef
Cab*
•Oravd
"5*od.
Sill
Clay
Oh^ter
S-Z34 wndO"^
«*-lSfiami(2-5'.W«)
1-64 am «U--aj5")
«.0e>2aanigriity)
0.00443,®$ mm
« 0,004 mm fsltt)
5»mpiin« Rexcil
^c>
^J>
^€>_ ,
jfc€> i$ ~&f
to
actete a»to.
Tart Wlrf (if aoc 9W*sur<«$)
QC«saf si Sli^itly fttroto dTurSal
Q Ofsaque Q * Her
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (FRONT)
STREAM NAME p^t^^ T&^X-
STATION # g&'<~~ RIVERMILE
LAT LONG
STORJET # ;
INVESTIGATORS l<^Ti^fi>^~ / L^-f ^J^^ /
FORM COMPLETED BY
uOCATION f-L^,a,k_ 3^r£~ l^_
STREAM CLASS '
RJVER BASIN
AGENCY Q:fPr {/l£2&U)
^*~ J' / f '
DATE "b /-L/VO - REASON FOR SURVEY
TIME fafi^" AM t"*j i,/ ' f .^f- „.* /, //**"
| 1
an
=
G
i
15
"5
J3
a
u
E
a
a.
Habitat
Parameter
i.Epifaunal
Substrate/
Available Cover
•••••••••••I
H^^^^yivi^
2. Embeddedness
SCORE
3- Velocity/Depth
Regime
SCORE
m^^m^^^^m
4. Sediment
Deposition
SCORE
5- Channel Flow
Status
SCORE
^^^^^^^•^•1
Condition Category
Optimal
Greater than 70% of
substrate favorable for
epifaunal colonization
and Ash cover, mix of
£nsgs, submerged logs,
undexcjjl-hanks, cobble
or other stable habitat
and at stage to allow full
colonization potential
(i.e., logs/snags that are
no; new fall and no;
transient). — .
20..; 19-. 18- 17 16
Gravel, cobble, and
is > 0.5 m.)
.20.''.-,!.^ MSv . IT 16.
Little or no enlargement
of islands or point bars
and less than 5% of the
bottom affected by
sediment deposition.
'.20: • 19- " IX- 1.7'- 1.6
Water reaches base of
both lower banks, and
minimal amount of
channel substrate is
• 20,;' .IS-: MS" ,'IT 16
Suboptimal
40-70% mix of stable
habitat; well-suited for
fuil colonization
potential; adequate
nabiiai fSr maintenance
of population^', presence
of additional substrate in
the formofnewfall.bur
not yet prepared for
colpnizadon (may rate at
high end of scale).
15 14.. 13 12; 11
Gravel, cobble, and
regimes).
(Vi^.ii 13 iz n-
Some new increase in
bar formation, mostly
from gravel, sand or fine
sediment; 5-30% of the
bottom affected; slight
deposirion in pools-
•V5 14- 13 12 11
Water fills >75% of the
available channel; or
<25% ofchannel
substrate is exposed.
;• IS- 14- 13. ^L2^)ll.
Marginal
20-40% mix of stable
habitat; habitat
availability less than
desirable; substrate
frequently disturbed or
removed.
10 9 3 7 6
Gravel, cobble, and
-- " -"
10 -ft-; .: &'•:,;. T::-..~&
Moderate deposition Of
new grave!, sand or fine
sediment on old and new
bars; 30-50% of the
bottom affected;
sediment deposits at
obstructions,
constrictions/and bends;
moderate deposition of
pools prevalent.
10.- 9. 8.- • T..(^§
Water Fills 25-75% of
the available channel,
and/or riffle substrates
arc mostly exposed.
•10,. £>"•• .;•»;; ,T',,,;;6-
Poor
Less rhan 20% stable
habitat: lack of habitat is
obvious: substrate
unstable or lacking.
5' 4- 3 2. I •';&•
Gravel, cobble, and
-;5!;, +- .3; .x. -r... pt
Heavy deposits of fine
material, increased bar
development; more than
;0% of the bottom
changing frequently;
pools almost absent due
to substantial sediment
deposirion.
^5~- 4- 3.. 2. .17.' O/,
Very little water in
channel and mostly
present as standing
pools.
5' 4|i "3 " ' ?T' '-1-'T ' Q
-------
1
Habnat
Parameter
6. Channel
Alteration
SCORE
7. Frequency of
Rimes (or bends)
S- Bank Stability
(score each bank)
Note: determine left
orrigh[ side by
lacing downstream.
SCORE £&B)
SCORE CKB]
9. Vegeiatiye
Prorecrion (SC«M«
each bank)
SCORE ,(LB)
SCORE (RB)
10. Riparian
Vegetative Zone
Width (score each
bank riparian zone)
SCORE .(LB)
SCORE (KB)
Condition Category
Optimal
Channelization or
dredging absent or
minimal; stream wirh
lorrnal pattern -
Suboprim^i
Some channelization (
present, usually in areas t
oibridge abutments;
cvidenca of past
channelization, i.e.,
dredging, (greater rhan
past 20 yr) maybe
present, but recent
channelization is not
present.
20 19 ('IS J 17 16/15 14 13 12 11
Occurrence of riffles
relatively frequent; ratio
of distance between
riffles divided by width
I'rhe stream <7:1
generally 5 to 7);
arisry of habitat is key.
7 streams where riffles
re continuous.
(acemenl ofbouiders or
iher large, natural
•bstrucnon is important.
10 19 (\S_J \1 16
Janks stable; evidence
if erosion or bank
'allure absent or
nmi'msl; liale poiemisl
or future problems.
:5% of bank, affected.
left Bank 10 9
fcghlBank 10 (j>J
More than 90% of the
itre^rnbanfc surfaces and
immediate riparian zone
covered by native
vegetation, including
trees, undernory shrubs.
or nonwoocy
macrophytes; vegetative
disruption through
grazing ormowitig
minimal or not evident;
almost ail plans ailowec
to grow naturally-
Left Bank 10 9
Right Bank 10 ($
Widrh ofrroarian zone
>i8 meters'; human
activities (i.e., parking
lots, roadbeds, clear-
cuts, lawns, or crops)
have not irn-pacted tone.
Left-Bank: 10 9-
RfgiitBankJO 9
Occurrence of riffles
nirequent; disonea
jerwean riffles _divided
fty the width of the
stream is between 7 to
15.
15 14 13 12 II
Moderately stable:
nftcqueni, small areas oi
rrosion mostly healed
>ver. 5-30%oibank in
•each has areas or'
rdsion.
Marginal
rhanneiization may be
^tensive; embankments
or shoring structures
jresent an boch'ba:iks;
ind 40 to S0% of stream
each channelized and
disrupted.
10 9 8 7 6
Occasional riffle or
bend; bottom coniours
provide some habitat;
distance between riffles
divided by the width of
the stream is berwesn 15
10 25,
10 9 S 7 6
Moderately unstable-, 30-
00% oibank in r;a.ch has
areas of erosion; high
erosion potential during
floods.
3 [ 7J 6 | 5 4 3
70-90% of thtj
szreambank svrfeees
covered by native
vegetation, but one class
of plants is not well-
represented; disruption
potenrial to any great
extent; more rhan one.
half of the potential plant
sruijbfa height
remaining.
376
„
Width of riparian zone
12-18 meters; human
activities have impacted
zone only minimally.
8" 7 6
• S . O) 6-
Poor
ianks shored with
gabion or cement; over
10% of the sneam reach
channelized and
disrupted, instrcam
habitat crreaUy altered or
removed entirely.
543210
Generally all flat water
or shallow riffles; poor
habitat; distance between
riffles divided by the
width of the stream is a
ratio of >25.
541210
Unstable; many eroded
areas; "raw" areas
irequent along straight
sections and bends;
obvious bank sloughing:
60-100% of bank has
erosional scars.
2 1 0
5Q-7Q°/q of the
sZrcarnbank surfaces
covered by vcgeution;
disruption obvious;
parches of bare -;oil or
closely cropped
potential plant stubbie
height remaining.
5 4 3
-
Width of riparian sons
6-12 meters; human
activities have impacted
zone a great deal.
54-3
S 4- 3
Less than 50% of the
sireambank surfaces
covered by vegetation;
disruprion of stj-=arfibank
vegetation is very high;
vegetation has been
average Stubble height.
1
Width of riparian zone
<6 meters: little or no
riparian vegetation dus
to human activities.
(_ 2 ! 1. 0.
^ — '
2- 1 0
Total Score
-------
SITE LOCATtON/MAf
t)r«w * ««p «f ** sit*
HABITAT TVTfiS
Iniiintt the ptrrrnttgt t)f tpeh h*MHt tyfK
___% IfSaagj _
STREAM
QTiSal
S*w»ii| Type
O Coictwaitr
-------
RIPARIAN ZOSB
tN5TR£AM FEATURES
3 Fare*
Q twfassai
UeiiW*«
a Haas
3 Heavy
idth 'V^|||| ig-
UWWw potestmi
*3 Obvious KwnsiB
,y«j»i
Hifft Wsusr Ms
Q f ts ^
GGraBSS
Q Hcewasmus
AQUATIC VEGETATION
ladhm tfc«
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (FRONT)
STREAM NAME
LOCATION
STATION ff
RIVERMJLE^
STREAM CLASS
LAT
LONG
RIVER BASIN
STORET #
AGENCY
INVESTIGATORS
FORM COMPLETED BY
DATE
TIME
REASON FOR SURVEY
i sampling rest
•3
V
(Slow 13^ 0.3 m/s, deep
is > 0.5 m-)
20V.,. LSt-f ,'ISr, .,17" • IS
Little or no enlargement
and less than 5% of the
bottom affected by
sediment deposition.
•20: .W. .-'18.- IT- 16
Water reaches bass of
both lower banks, and
minima! amount of
thannel subsuaie is
exposed. ""^
"so;. .;i:a--'/.;:ig-' (ij/. :is
Suboptimal
40-70% mix of stable
habitat; well-Suited tor
till colonization
lotenrial; adequate
rabitat for maintenance
of populations; presence
of additional aubsirare in
he form of newfall, but
not yet prepared for
colonization (may rate at
ligh end of scale).
15 14- 13 12 11
Gravel, cobble, and
moulder particles arc 25-
50% surrounded by fine
sediment.
15' 14 QP 12. IV
Only 3 of the 4 regimes
presenr (if fast-shallow is
missing, score lower
than if missing other
regimes).
• IS. . 1* 13 12- It
Some new increase in
from gravel, sand or fine
sediment: 5-30% of the
bottom affected: slight
deposition in pools.
IS" 14 13 12 ff)
Water fills >75% of the
available channel; or
<25% of channel
substrate: is exposcd-
', T£. U- • 13- ,12. 11
Marginal
20-40% mix of stable
habiun; habitat
vailability less than
lesirablc; substrate
rcquenily disturbed or
emoved.
10 9 S 7 6
Grave], cobble, and
moulder particles arc 50-
75% surrounded by tine
sediment.
10 9 S-- T •::.-. &.
Only 2 of the 4 habitat
regimes present; (if fast-
•shailow or slow-shallow
arc missing, score; low).
10 .9- ' ",&-.•• T.'..: S-
Moderate deposition of
new gravel, sand or fine
sediment on old and new
bars: 30-50% of the
bottom affected;
sediment deposits at
obstructions,
constrictions, and bends;
moderate deposition of
pools prevalent.
10. 9'. :»:•,. T' .6'
Water fills 25-75% of
the available channel,
and/or riffle substrates
are mostly exposed.
' 10. ' 9; • . Sv. 7- '/'6
Poor
Less than 20% siable
habitat; lack of habitat is
obvious; substrate
unstable or lacking.
5 4. 3 2. 1 Qi;
jravel, cobble, and
moulder particles are
more than 75%
surrounded by tine
secHmertt.
.Sr. 4- .3,. 2: P.,^0h
Dominated by 1
velocity/ deprh regime
(usually slow-deep).
^::>. 3=. ,2,, I:..'; ft?
Heavy deposits of fine
material, increased bar
development; more than
50% at ine bottom
changing frequently;
pools almost absent due
to substantial sediment
deposition
. 5- -4-. 3r Z ', Ii, .0;'.
Very little water in
channel and mostly
present as standing
pools.
•:."5r 4-. J11!"r.:.;.V-^
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
Condition Category
•H
?*
.5
v»
n
ra
qi
,5
u
u
Q
-
ftaDuac
Parameter
6. Channel
Alteration
7. Frequency of
Riffles (or bends)
SCORE
8. Bank Stability
(score each bank)
Note; determine left
or right Side by
hcing dovTistrtam.
SCOR£ CLB)
SCORE (RB)
9. Vegetative
Protettion (score
each bank)
SCORE (LB)
SCORE (RBT
10- Riparian
Vegetative Zone
Width (score each
bank riparian zone
SCORE (LB)
SCORE (RB)
Optimal
Channelization or
dredging absent or
minimal; stream with
normal panem.
2Q 1.9 IS (\1) 16
Occurrence of riffles
relatively frequent; ratio
of distance beween
riffles divided by width
a/ the stream <7:1
(generally 5 to 7);
variety or habitat is key.
In streams where riffles
arc continuous,
placement ofbauiders or
cither large, natural
obstruction is important^
20 19 13 17 (\$,
3anks Stable; evidence
if erosion or bank
failure absent or
•nimmal; lirtlc potential
for future problems.
«5% of bank affected.
Lift Bank 10 {§)
Right Bank JO 9
More than 90%_of the
streambank surfaces and
immediate riparian zone
covered by narivc
vegetation, including
trees, understory shrubs,
or nonwoody
macrophytes; vegetative
disruption through
grazing or mowing
minimal or nor evident;
almost all plants allowed
to grow naturally..
Left Bank 10 9
Right Sank. 10 9
Width gj' riparian sonc
>SS meters; human
activities (i.e., parking
lotsT roadbeds, clear-
cuts, lawns, or crops)
have not Impacted zone^
LefrBank It). _^_
Right Bant 10 9
Suboptimai
Some channelization
jresent, usually in areas
}f bridge abutments;
evidence of past
channelization, i.e.,
dredging, (greater than
past 20 yr) may be
presenr. but recent
channelization is not
present.
15 14 13 12 11
Occurrence of riffles
infrequent: disrancc
beween riffles divided
by the width of the
Stream is between 7 to
15.
15 14 13 12 U
tvloderasely stable;
infrequent, small ares oi
erosion mostly healed
over. 5-30% uibank in
reach has areas o i
erosion.
S 7 6
& 7 6
70-90% Of the
Strearnbank surfaces
covered by nanve
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 pUnt
stubble height
remaining.
& 7 6
/V 7 6
Width of riparian ZQflt
12-1 S meters; human
activities nave impacted
zone oniy minimally.
5 3 7 6
8 /I? 6
Marginal
Channelization may be
extensive; embankments
orshonngstrvsuires
present on both banks;
and 40 to 80% af sTaam
reach channelized and
disrupted.
10 9 3 7 6
Occasional riffle or
bend; bonom contours
provide some habitat;
distance between riffles
divided by the width of
the stream is between 15
it) 25.
10 9 3 76
/loderately unstable; 30-
iO% of bank in reach has
ireos oierosion: high
irosion potential during
loods.
•5 a 3
543
50-70% of the
streambank surfaces
covered by vegetation:
disruption obvious;
patches of bare soil or
closely cropped
vegetation common; less
than one-hnlfaf ihe
pcxential plant stubble
height remaining.
543
543
Width of riparian zanc
6-12 meters; human
activities have impacted
zone a great deai.
543
^ 5 ^
Poor
Banks shored with
fabion or cement: over
0% of the so-aam reach
channelized And
disrupted. Insircam
labitai greatly altered or
remove: entirely.
543210
Generally all flat water
Or shallow riffles; poor
habitat; distance between
riffles divided by the
width of the stream is a
ratio of >25.
513210
Unstable; many eroded
areas; "raw" sreas
frequent along srraig hi
sections and bends:
Obvious bank sloughing;
60-100% of bank has
erosional scars.
2 I 0
2 I 0
Less than 50% of the
sireambank; surfaces
covered by vegetation;
disruption of sueambank
vegetation is very high:
vegetation has been
removed to
5 centimeters or less in
average stubble height.
210
210
Widrh of riparian sOrie
<<5 meters; lirsie or no
riparian vegetation due
to humm activities.
2 1 0.
2. I 0
Total Score / Tt
-------
PHYSICAL CMAfiACTERlZATIOW/WAiKKyuAJuii i
UAIA
STREAM
LOCATION
/$>
STATION »
RIVgRMitE
5TRSAM CLASS
LAT
RIVER. BASIN
STQR£T*
AGENCY
/ /C.g{el)£ / J ~— ^flf * Q
jj / j£ £,. '(J**^^ y
STREAM
CHARACTERKATIOP
Inditite tlw penrenojt of «ch habitat type present.
^_^_ JS
QtSbbte /W % QSaaaa % Q Undstcat Banks_
_% , Zreand_
)
Q (noeinuBart Q Tidal
Stream Type
Q Colilvraier
-------
'runt StHTDimdm;', Ltndiiflc
3 Cownsssial
Q Industrial,
.ttert« j2f<
Local w«w
3Ni»s
Potation
jdonee 3 Sawc pwwriai soiinas
iopy Cowar
SflEtV OQC3
Hif tt Water Mark
EateltftMtti Stn«im Width
a gJfflg_fa^°« ^ 3 Ras_J.
7
mms
Channciiaiitl QYs 3 No
0»i» frtjsnt Q Vw
RIPARIAN VEGSTATIOH
(18 "
QShnsiss
Q Craws
3Mt*taawMS
AQUATIC VWJtTAnON
IlKficiie ttic liocQiJUnC type iml r«;ord
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (FRONT)
STOEAM NAME
WvSRMI
LOCATION
STATION #
L£
STREAM CLASS
LAT '
LONG
RIVER BASIN
STORET ?
AGENCY
INVESTIGATORS
FORM COMPLETED BY
DATE
TIME
PM
REASON FOR SURVEY
3
J
d
Habitat
Parameter
|. EpiTaunal
Substrate/
Available Cover
SCORE
2. Embt-'ddedness
SCORE
3. Velocity/Depth
Regime
SCORE
4, Sediment
Deposition
SCORE
5. Channel Flow
Status
SCORE
Optimal
Grenrer than 70% of
Substrate favorable for
epit'aunal colonization
and fish cover: mix of
snag, submerged logs,
undercut banks, cobble
or other stable habitat
and at stage Id allow full
colonization potential
(i.e.. logs/snags that are
not new fall and not
transient).
20.. 1.9 18 IT \t
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder panicles are 0-
2£% surrounded by fine
sediment. Layering of
cobble provides diversity
of niche space.
20 19 18 17 If
All four velocity/depth
regimes present (slow-
deep, slow-shallow, fast
deep, fasi-shalluw).
(Slow is < 0,3 m/S, deep
is> 0,5 m-)
20 . 1,9'- IS, .IT 1
Little or no enlargement
of isiands or point bars
snd less than 5% afrhe
bottom affected by
sediment deposition.
20. '19 18 17 16
Warer reaches base o i
both lower banks, and
minimal amount of
channel substrate is
exposed. ^
20,,. 1.9- 13 /ITJ 16
Conditio
Suboptimal
40-70% mix or stsbls
habitat; well-sviwij for
full coloniiition
polentml; adequate
habitat for maintenance
Ol' populations: presence
Ot' additional substrata in
the form of newtall, bur
not yet prepared tor
colonization (may rare ai
high end of scale).
15 14/19 12 11
jravel, cobble, and
soulder parades are 25-
50% surrouhded by tine
sediment.
IS 14 /&) 12. (ll)
Only 3 of the 4 regimes
present (if fast-shallow is
missing, score lower
than if missing Other
regimes).
IS 14 13 11 11
Some new increase in
bar formation, mostly
' from gravel, sand or fine
sediment; 5-30% of the
bortom affected; slight
deposition in pools.
15 14 13 12 11
Water fills >7S% of the
available channel: or
<2$% of channel
subserare is exposed.
15' 14 13 12 11
Category
Marginal
20-»0% mix of siable
habitat; habirnr
availability less than
desirable; substrate
frequently disturbed or
removed.
10 9 3 76
Grave!, 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 ^ S- T 6-
Moderace deposition of
new gravel, sand or fine
sediment on old and new
bars; 30-50% Ot' the
bottom affected:
sediment deposits at
obstructions,
CQn$rrictions, and bends:
moderate deposition of
pools prevalent.
10. 9 ($; T &'•
Water rills 25-75% ot'
ihe available chmncl,
and/or riffle substrates
are mostly exposed.
•10 9 & 7 6
Poor
Less than 20% stable •
habitat; lack of habitat is
obvious; substrate
unstable or lacking
5' 4 3 2 L 0:
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles are
more chan 75%
surrounded by fine
sediment.
5.' 4 3. .2 1 0
Dorrnnaied by L
velocity/ depth regime
(usually slowdeep).
5 4- 3' 2 1 0
Heavy deposits Ot' fine
material, increased bar
dcveiopmenr: more than
50% of the bortom
changing frequently;
pools alrtlQS! abscnr due
to substantial sediment
deposition.
1- 5 4 3' 2, l: . 0--
Very little water in
channel and mostly
present as standing
pOoSs,
5 4, 3- Z i: - .Of;
23
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
u
fn
V
L.
u
31
•J3
fl
k*
CJ
•^
a
0
•_
.a
•3
u
«
f3
>
Right Bank 10 9
Width oinpar.an zone
>13 me tew, ".uman
ac'.ivines ..e., 3ark>r>£
lots, roacbeas, :i=ar-
CUB. lawns, or crops)
have nor impacred zone.
Left Bank 10 9-
Right Bank 10 9
^^Sib^ptimal
Some channelization
present, usually in areas
of bridge abutments;
evidence oipast
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
nfrcquent; distant
jew/een riffles divided
>y the width of the
stream is bfcrween 7 to
"• 1
15 14 13 12 11
Moderately stable;
infrequenr. small areas of
erosion mostly healed
Ovej. 5-30% of bank in
reach has areis of
erosion.
0,
8 "(l) 6
8 7^6
70-90% of the*
streambank 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-
Tieif of the potential plan
smtobla height
remaining. _^
8V. 7 (SJ
ft) 7 6
Width of riparian zone
12-18 meters; hurrran
activities have impacted
±one only minimafry.
3- I 6 .
a T 6
Marginal
Channelization may be
xierisive; ernbankments
r shoringsmjci.uras
resins on both banks:
nd40 to 30% of stream
each channelized and
isruplcd,
10 9 3 7 6
^)5Qasional riffls or
lend; bottom contours
irovide some habitat;
li stance between riffles
livided by the width oi
he Stream is between 1 5
015-
10 9 3 7 6
Moderately unstable; 30-
50% ofbank in reach has
ireas o<" erosion; high
erosion potential during
Hoods.
5 4 3
543
50-70% oithe
streambank surfaces
covered by vegetation;
disruption obvious;
parches oibare soil or
closely cropped
vegetation common; less
thin one-half ol'ihe
potential plant siubb la
height remaining.
543
543
Width of riparian zone
6- 12 meters; human
activities have impacred
sons a grear d'sal,
5 4- 3
(T) 4 3
Poor
Banks shored with
abion or cement; over
0% of the stream reach
hanneiizcd and
isrupted, Instream
labiiat greatly altered or
emoved entirely.
543210
Generally all flat warer
or shallow riffles; poor
labitat; disrancc between
riffles divided by the
width of the Stream is a
atio of ^25,
533210
Unstable; many eroded
areas; "raw" areas
frequent along Straight
sections and bends:
obvious bank sloughing:
(50-100% oi bank has
erosional scars-
2 1 0
2 1 0
Less rhan 50% of the
streambank surfaces
covered by vegetation;
disruption o isrraambank,
vegetation is v e y high:
vegetation has been
removed to
5 centimeters or less in
average stubble height.
2 1 0
2 1 0
Width o f riparian zone
<6 meiers: little or no
riparian vegetation due
to human activities,
(_2/ 1 0
2. 1 0
Total Score
-------
PHYSICAL CJ
, I, ruc.J-JJ
STREAM NAME-5^,v» fl<. / ' fy '^ftMS'^Jl
STATION # ~~> ' .. gRlVEkMJLE.
LAT LONG
STORET # ,
LOCATION /^y C~_ efv-fl * fajf44^ ms&h&S <^^__
STREAM CLA!S" '
RIVER BASIN /
AGENCY ^J^A" /f^S/T?4UJ
INVESTIGATORS j^fctfl,,^-/ txJ* tJ?f»J £eUf
FORMCQMFI-ETEDBY
/£/*&<£-«£• /Us-t^^r——
DATE 5'/t-/ w
RJEASON FOR 5UR,V£Y
/^TTV/i^
SITE LOCATION/MAP
HABITAT TYPES
STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
[Ira"/ a map of tbc site and indicate line arcu aunpted
px 2,3
Indic»« tbc percentage of c»c& h*bit»t type present
Q Cobble % QSnap % Q Undercut BanJa % OSaml %
DSabm«ie
-------
RIPARIAN ZONE/
nvSTREAM FEATURES
Field/Posture
^-» V
Q Industrial * /_
^ other raH/ /£J£—
Q Residential
Loral W»tenoed IVPS PoHutioo
QNosiidenGC Q Some potential sources
<3O6vious sources
Lacil W«er Eryiraa
3 NM?
. Estimated Str
Estimated Stream Dcpcb ,
Q Rj'fflg ^ J ^ gff ^D Rita ^ g^
ilyopen Q-Partly-shaded
High Wi«r Mark r] m
Q Shaded
Vtloeity
AQUATIC VEGETATION II Indicate the dorainaat type »ad r«Qrd tne dominant specks 1
Q flcoted emcargent Q Rooted subrtefgeat Q Rooted floating Q Free Floating
Q Floating Alga* Q Attached Algat
dominant 3pcti«
Portion Of the reach witt vcgeftqv* cover.
SEDIMENT/ SUBSTRATE
Q None
Q Sludge Q S-iwdusi Q paper fiber Q Sand
3 Rdia shells 3 Other ^__
QQther__
Oil)
O Moderate
it stonei "filch are aor deeply
. an; the iindenida blick in color?
iTY=s a No
WATER QUALITY
Q Sewage
Q Petroleum Q Chemicai
Q Fishy Q Othef _
Wiwr Surface Oils
QSJJE* Q Sheen a Globs Q Flecks
30ther
Turbidity (if
Q Clear eraighay turbid "ITufbtd
Q Opaque Q Water color Q O0\er
[NORGANTC SVBSTRAT1E COMPONENTS
(should idd up to 104%)
ORGANIC SUBSTRATE COMPONENTS
(dots not n«c3ttrily add up ro 100%)
Substrate
Type
Oicmcter
Syfacnu
Typt
Characsc riatic
% Composiooa in Sampling
Are^
Detntua
Boulder
sricfci wood, coarse plant
materials (CPOM)
Cobble
64-256
Muck-Mud
black, very Sue Ofganic (.FPOM1
Gravel
, very Sue
If.eA
/o
Sand
Marl
grey, shdl
sat
0.004-0.06 ram
[clay 1 < Q.004 nlffl (slick]
PHYSICAL CHARACTER12ATIOISAVATER QUALITY FIELD DATA SHEET (BACK)
-------
STREAM NAME / p^j- f f&B/l,
STATION # 9 RIVERMILE
HAT LONG
STORJET*
INVESTIGATORS Lfl JfH.vTtt, ^CiJ
FORM COMPLETED BY
L-Ul
i
LOCATION £) /M!^t6>
STREAM CLASS
RIVERS AS !N
AGENCY
DATE 5 -51-00
TIME l£Jfl_
XI REASON FOR SURVEY
AM *M i)
~ (
0!
U
.E
d
E
tu
.s
4
£
U
s
b,
41
C.
Parameter
1. Epifaunal
Substrate;
Available Cover
SCORE I /
2, Embeddedness
SCORE
3. Velocity/Depth
Regime
SCORE I S
4. Sediment
Deposition
,i
SCORE I ^f
5. Channel Flow
Status
A
SCORE YO
Optimal
Greater than 70% of
substrate ta.vora.ble 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 tall and not
transient).
20 19 18 (i?) 16
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles arc 0-
25% surrounded by tine •
sediment. Layering of
cobble provides diversity
of niche space.
.20 .19 IS' (Yj> 16
All four vdocicy/ijepih
regimes presenr fslow^_
deep slqw^JjaHow, fast-
deep: iasjSwfcllow),
(Slow is < 0.3 m/s, deep
is > 0,5 m.)
2.- IS- IT 1-ti
Water reaches base of
both lower banks, and
minimal amount of
channel substrate is
exposed.
,20,:;'l9v ^) IT is
Conditioi
Suboptimal
40-70% mix of stable
habitat; well-suited for
full colonization
potential; adequate
habirai tor maintenance
of populations: presence
of additional subsmic in
the form Of new/fall, but
not yet prepared lor
colonization (may rate at
high end of scale).
15 14 13 12 11
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles arc 25-
50% surrounded by tine
sediment.
15 14 13 12 11.
Only 3 oirhe 4 regimes
present (if fast-shallow i:
missing, scofe iowcr
than if missing other
regimes).
-*~» _
(J£)l4. 13 12, II
Some new increase in
bar formation, mostly
from gravel, sand or fine
sediment; 5-30% of the
bottom aifected; slight
deposition in pools.
15 Ciy* i3 iz u
Water fills >754/» of the
available channel; or
<25% of channel
substrate is exposed.
;, is" r4 13- 12. n:
Tancgory
Marginal
20-40% mix of stable
habitat; habitat
availability less than
desirable; substrate
frequently disturbed or
removed.
in Q R 7 A
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles are 50-
75% surrounded by tine
Sediment.
10 9 Sr 7- 6
Only 2 of Jie 4 habitat
regimes pissent (if fast-
shallow or slow-shallow
are missing, score low):
Ty 9 5f / 4^
Moderate deposition o f
new gravel, sand or fine
sedirnCnt on old QndnSv
bars; 30-50% oirhe
bottom aft'ecwd;
sediment deposits at
obstructions,
consmctions, and bends
moderate decosition of
, pools prevalent.
10 9 8- 1;.. o
'Water fills 25-75% of
the available channel,
anoVor riffle substrates
are mosfly exposed.
;io.. 9- -&'_. .r.'- '.-:_&
Poor
Less than 20% stable
habitat; lack of habitat is
obvious: substrate
unstable or lacking.
4- 3 2' 1. 0-
Gravel, cobbie, and
boulder particles are
more than 15%
surrounded by fins
sediment.
,..--•• - . ...
Dominated by I
velocity/ depth regime
(usually slow-deep).
,;S''.4- 3; .2- ' ..I . Os.
Heavy deposits of fine
material, increased bar
development; more than
50% o i the bottom
changing frequently:
pools almost absent due
to substantial sediment
deposition.
5" '4 3; .,2.' 11... 0;'
Very little water in
channel and mostly
present as standing
pools.
•5-. 4-r,..'^...r :-..i-: ^
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
Habnat
Parameter
<
& Channel
Alteration
,rt
7. Frequency of
Riffles (or bends)
SCORE / ))
8. Bank Stability
(score each bank)
Note: determine left
or right side by
facing downstream.
SCORE 9 (LB)
SCOR£jO(RB)
9. Vegetative
Protection (score
each bank)
SCORE 1 (LB)
SCQR£ Lb (RB)
10. Riparian
Vegetasiv? Zone
Width (score each
bank riparian zone)
SCQRJEJQ(LB)
SCORJE \j(RB)
Condition Category
Optimal
Ihannelizaiien or
dredging absent or
•ninimal; sireim wirh
lormsl pattern.
Occurrence Of riffles .
relatively frequent: ratio
of distance 'between
riffles divided by width
Itfie stream 18 meters; human
activities (i.e., parking
lots, roadbeds, clear-
cuts, lawns, or crops)
have not irrtDicted zone.
Left-Bank: 10. 9-
.RightBanJolO- 9
Suboptimal
same channelization
sresent, usually in areas t
if bridge abutments;
svidcnccof past
channelization, i.e.,
dredging, (greater than
[rasr 20 yr) may be
arcscnr, but recent
channelization is nor
sresent.
Occurrence Of riffles
infrequent: distance
between riffles divided
by the widrh of the
stream is between 7 to
li.
}5 14 13 12 11
Moderately stable;
infrequent, small ireas of
erosion mostly, he'fllec!
uver. 5-30% of bank in
reach has anas of
erosion,
fij) 7 6
70-90% of die
streambank surfaces
covered by native
vegeiarion, but one class
of plants is not well-
represented; disruption
evident but not affecting
full plant growth
potcnrial 10 any great
extern; more man one-
half of the poismial plant
stubble hcighr
remaining.
S 7 G
876
Width of riparian zone
12-18meiers; human
activities have impacted
zone only minimally.
3- 7 6.
.8 7 fa)
Marginal
^hannelization may be 1
intensive; embankments
ar shering structures
Dresenton both tanks;
and 40 to 30% of stream
reach channelized and
disrupted.
Occasional riffle jr
bend; bottomconiours
provide SQffle habitat;
disrance between riffles
divided by the widrh of
the STieam isljacv/een \>
to 25.
10 9 8 7 6
Moderately unstable; jO-
60% of bank in reach has
areas oierosion: high
erosion potential during
tloods.
543
50-70% of the
Sireambank surfaces
covered by vegetation;
disruption obviou$;
parches uibare soil or
closely cropped
vegetarion comrnOti; less
than one*half of ihe
poieniial plant stubble
height remaining.
5 3 3
543'
Widrh of riparian lone
6-12 meters; hutnan
Activities have impacted
zone agreatdeil.
5 4 J
^
Poor
Banks shored with
|abkm Or cement; over
50% of the sirsam reach
:hanneiized and
disrupted. Insn-eam
labitai greatly lliered or
removea entirely.
Generally all flai water
or shallow riffles; poor
habitat; disrance berwesn
riffles divided by the
width of the stream is a
ratio yf >25-
543210
Unstable; many eroded
areas; "raw" ire^S
frequent along straight
sections and bends:
obvious bank sloughing:
60-100% of bank has
2 1 0
Less than 50% of rhr
streambank surfaces
covered by vggeianon;
disruption of streajnbank
vegetation is very high:
vegetation has been
removed to
5 centimeters or less in
average stubble height.
2 1 0
2 1 0
Width of riparian zone
<6 meters: little or rtO
riparian vegeiarion due
to human acrivities.
2 1. 0
Total Score.
51?
-------
STREAM NAME / a^ /-/#£'.£
STATIC <3 R1VERMILE
LAT LONG
STORET*
LOCATTON f($ K H &>
STR£AMCU\SS
RIVER BA5IN
AGENCY
INVESTIGATORS U0 ,3*^(7$ ^fr*
FORM COMPLETED 8Y"
- M0
DATE , ._
5^3- 'OO >IM frw
REASON FOR SURVEY
SITE LOCATION/MAP vr * m»P of ** ii(e ifld indione the zrna aampleii
HABITAT TYPES
STREAM
CHAaACTEHIZATIOi>
percnitacc of ttth h*tiitit type prtseot
Q Otter (
Q tn(=rmin=m
Slr«*m Type
24
-------
RIPARIAN ZONE/
CS5TR£AM FEATURES
RIPARIAN VEGETATION
,8 meusr bailer)
AQUATIC VEGETATION
SEDIMENT; SUBSTRATE
WATER QUALITY
Pnjkfounajit Sarninadidg Lindnae
Q Field/?15Curc ^htndustnal
Q Agnc-jIRwal Cl Other
S-ftesidcnlifll
Local Watershed NPS Pqlluttoo
Q No evidence Q Same potential soure
Q^Ujvious sauresa
CanqjB-v Cover
CjM'Srtly open Q Partly-shaded
High Wawr Mark *J-- m
Ueal Wt«r Erosion
O None GM<3h &_
ladiexte [he dominanl type iDd^neord tt» danumm ipeciej present
3 Rooted elTJtt^ent ^^»ted suijniergenl Q RooECd 4oaai2^ 3 Free Floatmg
Q FloatinJ -AJgac STAmcilfii Algae
domm»nt 3ucci« orornt
Port.
, of the reach wMvqn^..
^r -7(3%
Od«rt% Dtpoaita
SfNormai Q Sewage Q Petroleum Q Sludge Q Sawdust 3 Piper Efaer Q Sand
QCll=nicai 3 Anaerobic QNone U Relict shells U Other
Q Other
oaK
Q^hsent Q Slight Q Moderwc
Tcoin
Spceif
Turbi
WQ 1
•rarare " C
e Caadnclanec
dity
aicrnmeiK Uwd
INORGANIC SUBSTRATE COMPONENTS
(should add up to 104%)
Substrate
Type
Bedrock
Boulder
Cobble
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
OiaiUeicr
> 126 mm (101
6±156 nm(ir-iar)
1-64, mm CQ.1'4.5"]
0.06-2flun (grnty)
0.004-0.0(5 mm
< 0 004 ram f s iok}
% CampoaitioB id Sab
SimpUnif Reach T
ID Maci
7.-T
(^ Mari
.
Looking « itoc es which ire not deeply
embedded, «re the undersides bl»ck io color?
Q ?tonJS5 a Y« 3-MiT
SlNoniS4l/Nc*W' Q Scvragc
Q ?!SrOl«am Q Chemical
Q Fistty Q Ottier
' Water Siirlii;i! Oils
QSUcfc QStiesa
'stflqoe 3 OUier
Turbidity (if aoc me
SKlear Q Slight!}
U Opaque Q waiere
Q QlQhs Q R«tt
laanrd)
twbid 3 Turijtd
jjlof a Other
ORGANIC SUBSTRATE COMPONEJTTS
(do« not a«ejnniy add up to LOO'/.»
ype
us sncki, wood, ccctret plant
maicriais tCPOM)
.-Mud Ijlack, very Site organic (F'OM)
grey, shdi iragmcnts
% Compasicfan in Sampling
Area
l£>&
!
PHYSICAL CHARACTERI2ATIONAVATER QUALITY FIELD DATA SHEET (.BACK)
30
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (FRONT)
STREAMNAME ^^14^^ 'fsr^-
STATIONS /O RIVERMILE
LAT LONG
STORET*
INVESTIGATORS
FORM COMPLETED BY
LOCATION ^5.^ " t^
STREAM CLASS
RIVER BASM
AGENCY {£P AT / /^-^^ff^J
HATF ^tli^lao
, ff~^\
TIME f*\y& AM fev
E1EA5ON FOR SURVEY
ritlUHIL'ltlMlr IJC CV Hill (Jit LI I [milglvu^i
Parameter
I. Epifaunal
Substrate/
Available Cover
SCORE
2. EmbiMidedness
SCORE
3. Velocity/Depth
Regime
SCORE
4, Sediment
Deposition
SCORE
5. Channel Flow
Status
SCORE
Condition Category
Optimal
Greater than 70% of.
substrate favorable tor
epifauna! colonization
amLJish caver; mix of
OretKiflttSle habitat
and at srage to allow full
colonization potential
(i.e., logs/snags that are
nnr new fall and not
transienj^
20,.-(T^! Is. IT 16'
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles arc 0-
25% surrounded by tine •
sediment. Layering of
cobble provides diversity
of niche space.
ZQ 19 IS- /I?7") 16
All four veiocityldepth
regirnesHr_fiacrit (sl°w~
(Slow [s< u. j m/s, deep
is> 0,5 m.)
:,io :i:9T.is;..ir ic
Linle or no enlargement
of islands or point bars
and less than 5% ofthe
bottom, affected by
sediment deposition.
.20-'-. 19. "IS. IT .16-
Water reaches base of
both lower banks, and
minimal amount o i
channel substrate is
exposed, ^
Subopnima,!
40-70% mix of stable
habitat: well-suited for
full colonization
potential; adequate
habitat for maintenance
of population! j preSBnce
of additional substrate in
the form of newt all, but
not yet prepared for
colonization (may rate at
high end of scale,).
15 14 13 12. 11
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder panicles are 25-
50% surrounded by tme
sediment.
15' 14 13 12. 11,
Only 3 ofthe 4 regimes
present (if fast-shallow is
regimes).
(lS^J'4- U U VI.-
Some new increase in
bar formation, mostly
from graveK sand or line
sediment: 5-30% ofthe
bonorn affected; slight
deposition in pools.
(\5) 1'4. 13 12 11
Water fills >75% of the
available channel; or
<25% of channel
substrase is exposed,
1
',20.,: '1:9- .VIS" ;. I7'(j£\:. 15'; 14-. 13- 12 11.,
Margin!
0-40% mix of Stable
labitat: habitat
vailabilirv less than
esirable; substrate
requently disturbed or
removed.
10 9. S 7 6
Gravel, cobble, and
jouider particles are 50-
75% surrounded by fine
sediment.
10 9 8;.. . T .. 6
Only 2 ofthe 4 habitat
regimes present (iffast-
10 -9.- '. .3' : • ; T:- ,.,. (.
Moderate ccposition of
new gravel, sand or fine
sediment on old and neu
bars; 30-5C% of the
bOKom affected;
sediment d-eposits at
obstructions,
constrictions, and bends
moderate deposition of
10 9! &.....-T-- &••
Water fills 25-75% Of
the mailable channel,
and/or riffle substrates
arc mostly exposed,
.10. 9'1 ..Si*. ...T. :£ti?
Poor
Less than 20% stable
habitat; lack of habitat is
obvious; substrate
unstable or lacking.
54-321 "-'b:
GraveL cobble, and
boulder panicles are
more than 75%
surrounded by Gne
sediment.
5.-1. --4; .3,. 2, r-.-of;
Dominated by 1
velocity/ depth regime
(usually slow-deep).
:•'£•, 4; 3;,. 2- 1 :"0
Heavy deposits of fine
material, increased bar
development; more than
50% of the bottom
changing frequently;
pools almost absent due
co substantial sediment
deposition.
"~ $: -4- 3-: .2 t Of
Very little waier in
channel and mostly
present as standing
pools.
•'••'5,T.. '*• 3:' '.'-2;-' '•' lv''".0":.
31
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
1
4
5
iJ
3
B
3
E
^
^
rz
>
u
u
3
3
«1
^
cj
^
H
Habitat
Parameter
Channel
, .Iteration
SCORE
7. Frequency of
Riffles tor bends)
SCORE
t Bank Stability
(scare each bank)
Note: deisrmine left
ijr right side by
facing downstream.
SCORE OB)
SCORE (RB)
9. Vegetative
Protection (score
each bank)
SCORE (LB)
SCORE (RB)
LO- Riparian
Vegetative Zone
Width (score each
bank riparian zone)
SCORE (LB)
SCORE (RB)
Condition Category
Optimal
Channelization or
dredging absent or
minimal; srream with
normal pattern.
20 /14J IS 17 16
Occurrence of riffles
relatively frequent; ratio
of distance between
riffles divided by width
01" the stream <7: 1
(generally 5 to 7);
variety oi'habitai is key-
In streams where riffles
are continuous,
placement of boulders or
other large, natural
obstruction is important.
20 19 (\^ 17 16
Ranks stable;, evidence
of erosion Of bank
failure absent or
minimal; litile potential
for future problems.
<5% of bank affected.
Left Bank 10 (j9J
Right Bank 10 9
Marc than 90% of the
Streambank surfaces and
immediate riparian zone
covered by native
vegetation, including
trees, understory shrubs,
or non woody
macTDphytcs; vegetative
disruption through
grazing or mowing
minimal or not evident;
almost all plants allowed
10 grow naturally. ^_\
Left Bank 10 ( 9/
.RighrBanlc 10 9
Width of riparian zone
>1S meters; human
activities (i.e., parking
lots, roadbeds, clear-
cuts, lawns, or crops)
have not irnnacted 20nc,
LeftBank^ 1^ ' 9'
Right Banlc. 1 0 f>-
Sufaoptimal
Some channelization
jresent, usually in aiEas
sf bridge abutments;
:vidcnce of past
:hannfi))7ariofi, i.e.,
iredging, (greater than
jast 20 yt) may be
Drtsent, but recent
ihanneiizadon is nor
present.
15 14 13 12 11
Occurrence of riffles
infrequent; distance
between riffles divided
by the width of (he
szream is between 7 to
15.
15 14 13 12 U
Moderately stable;
infrequent, small areas of
erosion mostly healed
over. 5-30% of Wank in
rcnch has areas or'
erosion
376
8 ^7) 6
70-90% of the _
sueambank 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 pianc
stubble height
remaining.
876
/f; 7 6
Width of riparian son*
12-18 meters; human
activities have impacted
zone only minimally.
3' 7 6.
a • T s
Marginal
Ihannelizatian may be
xtensive; embankments
sr sharing structures
jresem on borh bunks;
ind 40 to goo/oor'.jiresm
each channelized and
iisrupied.
10 9 S I 6
Occasional nffle ur
bend; bottom contours
provide some habuat;
distance between riffles
divided by the width o i
the stream is between 1 5
to 15.
10 9 S 76
[Moderately unsiiLbla; 30-
60% of bank in reach has
areas of erosion; high
erosion potential during
Hoods,
5 4 3
543
SQ-70% ot'the
srreambank surfaces
covered by vcg^ialion;
disruption obvious;
patches of hare :;oil or
ciosely cropped
vegetation common: less
than one-half of the
potential plant stubbie
height remaining.
5 4 3
543'
Width of riparian zone
6-12 meters; human
activities have impacted
zone a great deil.
/-\ *' 3
• r?- j * 3
Poor
Banks shored with
pbion or cement: over
80% of rhe stream reach
channelized and
disrupted. Insffeam
riabitat greatly altered or
removed entirely.
543210
Generally all flat water
or shallow riffles; poor
habitat; distance between
riffles divided by ihe
width of the stream is a
ratio of >25,
541110
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
210
Less than 50% of the
strcarnbank surfaces
covered by vegetation;
disruption QtsffeaTOhanlc
vegetation is ven/ high:
vegetation has been
removed to
5 cenrimeters or less in
average stubble height.
2. 1 0
2 1 0
Width of riparian zone
<;6 meters; little or no
riparian vegetation due
to human activities.
2 1 0.
2, 1 0
Total Score
-------
STREAM NAME
LOCATION
STATION »
R1VERMILE
STS£AM CLASS
LONG
R1VBR BASIN
STDR.ET *
INViSTIOATSRS^
AM
SJtASON FOR SURVEY
TE LOCATION/MAP II Draw a map of the site »ad indicate the areia Jaoipjed
HABITAT TYPES
Indicate tfte p*r«ent*se of «ch iHbitit typt present
gf^bble % asSi _% &tJnd«cui Banks.
0 Submerged
.% d<3tto( 1&A.J
%
v*
STREAM
Sdtwntcn
Q-ptrennija Qlnierminent O Tidal
Scre»ni Type
QColdwatef
-------
s 1
RJPAftlAN VEGETATION
(13 merer buffer)
AQUATIC VEGETATION
/V///V
SEDIMENT/ SUBSTRATE
WATER QUAUTY
Kr^ftffiiiint Snrroas a Rnn_/_X-(Vv
Q Pool.££3_» -P41" — 7^
Velocity {•3'f OIUK fp^/^^.
tirimifni Reach Lca^ih 1 & Q m .
Cianaeiiwd Q Yw &«o'
Dam ProscUl 3 Yes 3^^3""
I«li£*Mi'l£e dominant type »ud retard rtw dominant 3p*«« present
cfTreei Q Shrubs Q Grasses 3 H«rt«cecu5
dofluainc 3peei« prracdl
ladiealc ;be iominint type and record litt domioinl ipccita prtJent
3 Rooted enyr^eat 3 Rooced subrcwsnzt Q Rooted Scanng Q Frcr Ficanng
3 Floating ^g1* ^ ABactted AJgac
1 domiiuiai Jtm:ica orwnc
I Partioo of tl» fTKi *^di ve^t titiv* COVM-
1 !±t?^jiil QSevogc UPtapicro
1 dChcanicil 3 An*4«t)ic aWoo*
1 QOtticr
1 frrfscat QSligfai QModeiaw 3Prt)fiisc
Tcapenitiire XT' */ J C
1 Speeiifc Condacmieg fe J J tf
_%
Ocp<»itj
O Sludge Q Sawdust 3 Paper Sber 3 Sand
3 Relict shells Q Oihsr
Looking xt Jtoa« wtakii irr not deeply
embedded, w^tfat undersides black in sDlor?
QY« P'No
Wuri^OdDn
jyNormaL'Mon* 3 Sewage
Q Pesroieum Q Chamical
Q Fistar Q Ofllcr
Diaaaftved Oiygea
Water S*T&i=e
PH 2
1 Turbii
WQ [,
• cff
litv
utmtUpni Used '"TT/ «
'
fNORGAi-HtC SUBSTRATE COMPONENTS
(should add up to l(W*/.)
SubatraK
Type
Bedrodt
Cobble
"Grsvei
"Sand
Silt
Clay
Diameter
>lS6am(l
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—BIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (FRONT)
STREAM NAME Cd K5> fcr^
STATION # / / - d RJVERMILE
LAT LONG
STORE! #
INVESTIGATORS tO d"W| T& , ^^
FORM COMPLETED BY
bfc9
LOCATION <$ $UJ$W1
^ c/. U
STREAM CLASS
RIVER BASIN
AGENCY
DATE ^-X-df) ^^
TIME / AM ) PM
^ — '
REASON FOR SURVEY
x
0.5 m.\
.,20.':- 1:?- -is- '.IT (^i^
and less than 5% ofihc
bottom aifcctcd by
•jetStment deposition.
•'.2V: -'19 18'. I?:. 18
Water reaches fease of
both lower banks, and
rainirnal amount of
channel substrate is
exposed. ^
;20i-l^.-.;ia-' ^- IS
Condition;
SuboprimaJ
40-70% mix of stable
habitar, well-suiied for
full colonization
potential; adequate
habitat for maintenance
of populations; presence
of additional substrate in
the form of newfai), but
not yet prepared for
colonization (may rate at
high etui of scale).
15 14- 13 12 H
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles ar? 25-
50% surrounded by tine
sediment.
15' 14 13 12. U.
Only 3 of the 4 regimes
present (if fast-shallow is
missing, scare lower
than if missing Other
regimes).
• 1.5 14- 13 12.' U.
from gravel, sand or line
sedimcnr: 5-30% of the
bottom affecled; slight
deposition in pools.
15^ 14- 13' 12 11
Water fills >75% ofthe
available channel; or
<25% of channel
substrate is exposed.
:,rc 1:4'. 13-. 12" tl:
Catc-or-
~«"~tJ«-.7
Marginal
20-40% mix ot' stable
labitat; habitat
availability Jess rhan
desirable: substrate
requemly disturbed or
c moved
10 9 S 7 6
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder paricies are 50-
75% surrounded by fine
sediment.
10 9 s,, . ?:•. .s;
Only 2 ofthe 4 habitat
regimes present (if fast-
shallow or dow-shallow
arc missing, Score low);
10 .9,' ;8v. - ;T, .. &'
sediment 0:^1 old and new
bars: 30-50% ofrhe
bocrom affected;
sediment deposits n
obsrmctions,
consirictioiis, and bends;
moderate cJeposition of
pools prevalent.
10. 9, ,8:-;;. . -r 6
Water fills 25-75% of
the available channel,
and/or riffle substrates
are mostly exposed.
10; ' ,9'-. £::.'. ,T ' ~6
Poor
.ess than 20% stable
labiiat; lack of habitat is
obvious; substrate
unstable or lacking.
S' 4 3 Z- 1. -.0-
3ravel. cobble, and
wulder particles are
more than 75%
Surrounded by fine
sediment.
5--. 4; .3.. 2, 1 0V.
Dominated by 1
velocity/ depth regime
(usually slow-deep).
-.5,. ,4- .3;- -2. r. Qir
Heavy deposits o f fine
material, increased bar
development: more than
50% ot thebonom
changing frequently,
pools almost absent du?
» substantial Sediment
deposition.
5" 4- 3 .2- E.' 0
Very little water in
channel and mostly
present as siding
pools.
I S 4.:, :3-.\2i. 1C- Oi:
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
H.1K3J fllHllflllltS 1
0
4
I
u
a
3
Aabimt
Parameter
6. Channel
Alteration
Condition Category
Optimal
Channelization or
dredging absent or.
minimal; stream wirh
lormal pattern.
SCORE '-^ "20\ 19 18 17 16
7, Frequency of
Riffles (or bends)
\fy
SCORE I j
8. Bank Stability
(score each bank)
Note: determine left
or right side by
facing do^srream,
SCORE 5 (LB)
SCORE _^_ (RB)
9. Vegetative
Protection (score
each bank)
SCORE l- (LB)
§g§Rg_2,t&®»
[SCORE A(RB)
10. Riparian
Vegetative Zone
Width (score each
bank ripanan zone)
SCORED (LB)
SCORE ^ (RB)
relatively frequent; ratio
f distance between
files divided by width
ithe stream <7:1
generally 5 IQ 7);
variety ofhaljitat is key.
li streams where riffles
are conrinuous,
p lacement of boulders or
other large, natural
obstruction is important.
20 © 18 17 16
Banks liable; evidence
of erosion or bank
failure absent or
minimal; little potential
tor future problcmS-
<:S% of bank iffecied.
Lift Bank 10 9'
i
More than 90% of the
Streambank surfaces and
immediate npanan zone
:ovcred by nsmve
vegetation, including
trees, understory shrubs,
ornonwoody
macrophytes; vegetative
disruption through
grazing or mowing
minimal or not evident;
almost all plants allowed
to grow naturally.
Lift Bank I Or [9)
Right BanVr 10- It)
Width of riparian zone
>1 8 meters; human
activities (i.e., parking
tots, roadbeds, clear-
cuts, lawns, or crops)
hnvp! nnr Tirmacieri 7.nnc.
LefrBank. (L&)_ 9-
Right Banfc. 101 • 9
Suboptimal Marginal Poor
Some channelization Channelization may be Banks shored with
srssant, usually in areas extensive; embankments gabion or cement; over
jf bridge abutments; or shoring structures 80% of the Stream reach
evidence of past present on both banks; channelized and
channelization, i.e., and 40 to 80% Of stream disrupted. Instrcam
dredging, (greater than reach channelized and habitat greatly altered or
past 20 yrj may be disrupted. removed entirely.
present, but recent
channelization is nor
presenr.
15 14 13 12 H
C
ifrequent; distance
etween riiflcs divided
•y the widrh of the
tream is between 7 to
5.
15 14 13 12 11
Moderately stable;
nfrequeni, small areas of
irosion mostly- healed
jvef. 5-30% oibank in
•each has areas o i
srosion.
Fs) 7 6
' (D 7
70-90% of the
itreambank surt'acES
covered by nariva
vegetation, but one class
of plants is not well-
represenred: disruption
evident bur nor affecting
full plant growth
potential to any great
extent; mare than one-
half of the potential plani
stubble height
remaining.
376
Width of riparian zone
12-18 meters; human
activities have impacted
zone only minimally.
876
.--,. en. i
09 s 7 6543210
Jccasionai riffle or (
end; bonom contours <
rovide some habiiat;
istancs berween rifles
ivided by the widrh w'
ne stream is berween 15
325,
10 9 S 7 6
vioderately unstable; 50-
:jQ% oibank in reach has
ireas of erosion; high
irosion potential curing
;1oods.
543
50-70% of the
strcambank surfacis
covered by vegetation;
disruption obvious;
parches of bare soil or
closely cropped
vegetation common: less
than one-half of the
potential plant stubble
height remaining.
543
Width of riparian zone
6-11 meters; human
activities have impacted
zone 9 great deal,
543
jenerally all flat water
>r shallow riiflcs; poor
nabiwt: distance between
riffles divided by the
width of the 3 warn is a
5 * 3 2 I 0
Jnstabla; many eroded
ireas: "raw" areas
requeue along straight
.ections and bends:
sbvious bank sloughing;
50-100% oibank has
:rosional scars.
2 1 0
Less than 50% of the
itrcambank surfaces
covered by vegetation;
disruption of streambank
vagearion is very high;
vegetation has been
removed to
5 centimeters or less in
average stubble height.
2. I °
Width of riparian zone
<6 meters; little or no
ripanan vegerarion due
to human acriviries.
2 I 0.
Total Score
-------
STREAM NAME p . _ . t
STATION it 1 1 ' K RIVERMILE
LAT LONG
STORE!* 1
INVESTIGATORS {Jf) ^fajffi* ^I/ J
FORM COMPLETED BV '
A !/*>
LOCATION A R/jryl^Ai
STREAM CL^S
RIVER BASIN
AGMCY
DATE ,* A, REASON
_JLr. /6L
FOR SURVEY
FE LOCATIOSV/iMAP raw * map of ;h* sit* and initicate the area* sampled
X
HABITAT TYPCS
ladjexiE cbe percenngc of emh habint type proem
^ £*&*<* I 'I*
STREAM
Ufnierminem Q Tidal
Scrttm Type
Q Coidwaisr
-------
*LPAIUAN ZONE/
O'STREAM FEATURES
PmJ/iminaiit Surrounding
Ofgrcsf J Connnncial
Q Ficid/Fmsturt Q (ndiranal
Q Agricultural Q Other
3 Residential
Locxi Wmter .
3 None a-Stoaeratc 3 Heavy
Estimated Stream 'Vidth
Local Wtwrcaed NPSJ'oilurion
Q No evidence 3-SCme potential sources
Q Ofcrvio«3 sgurca
cpt^X
/gUun , 5 _
Canopy Cover
Q Panty open
inly-shaded
QShaded
er Mark
__ x m/sec
Reich l.cngltt /06
Q YsS
0*01 Present Q Yes
VEGETATION]! Induatc the dominant type andsrcord the dominant species praeat
[13 meter buffer) I 3*Traa ' a^hmiM QQcasses
dominaiM apeeiea preaeat l9tt\Jfij}flf
AQUATIC VEGETATION
; the dQminiat type and ntard the domiiuacipeeici prraeat
£j-KSoftai anenjeal Q Rooml submc^Bit Q Rooted iloadng
3 Floating Algae 3 Ansctiol Algae
Free Fl
damiaut species prncnc
Pprdon Of th* mcll wilt vegttHive caver ? %
SEDIMENT/SUBSTRATE I
Q Paroleam
QNone
QOttrt^
Oils
Q Sludge QSavniua
3 RciicJ shells Q Other
QSand
QSUgJtt QModaate QPiqfiisc
Looldni; itstoaa wflich ire not deeply
cmbeiidcd, an: rjj»
-------
STREAMNAME Dflc/bfcl
STATION # /XL -£, RIVERMILE
LAT LONG
STOB£T#
INVESTIGATORS L,D , Ufa , J)3 , &W
FORM COMPLETED BY
id
n sampling reaiui
Paramelers lo beevaluaied i
Habitat
Parameter
1. Epifaunal
Substrate/
Available Cover
SCORE
2. Embeddedness
SCORE
3. Velocity/Depth
Regime
SCORE
4. Sediment
Deposition
SCORE
5. Channel Flow
Status
SCORE
LOCATION 1J) £QI
STREAM CLASS
RIVER BASIN ~~
AGENCY
DATE 5-3-.^^ REASON FOR SURVEY
TIME /JW.5 AM PM
Optimal
Greater than 70% of
substrate ta.vor3.ble 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 'r§) 18 IT 16
Gravel, cobble, and
Boulder particles are 0-
sediment. Layering of
cobble provides diversity
ofnictie.space.
,20: (l9J IS- 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.. ...i?- is; .IT \e
Little or no enlargement
of islands or point bars
arid less than 5'/4 of the
bottom affected by
sediment deposition.
..2.Q: :\9-. (is) 4.7 16'
Water reaches base of
both lower banks, and
minimal amount of
channel substrate is
exposed. ^^
"20;: ,1.9~|l8^) IT- :.'16~
Condition Category
Suboptimal
40-70% mix of stable
habitat; well-suited tor
full colonization
potential; adequate
habitat for maintenance
of populations; presence
of additional substrate in
the form of newtall, but
not yet prepared For
colonisation (may rate at
high end of scale).
15 14 13 12 11
Boulder particles arc 25 •
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- J3 12, I'L
Some new increase in
bar formation, mostly
from gravel, sand Or fine
sediment; 5-30% of the
bottom affected; siight
deposition in pools.
\5 14 13' 12 11
Water fills >75% of the
available channel; or
<25% of channel
substrate is exposed.
..is:: 14 13 12. rt:
Marginal
2(MO%mix af stable
habitat; habitat
availability less than
desirable; substrate
frequently disturbed or
removed.
10 9 8 7 6
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder panicles are 50-
75% surrounded by tine
sediment,
10 9' ..&: . 77 . . .&-.
Only 2 of the 4 habitat
regimes present (if fasi-
shailow or slow-shallow
arc missing, scon low).
10 ...9,"'. '£... ?,;-, 6/
Moderate deposition of
new gravel , :sand or fine
sediment on old and new
bars; 30-50% of the
barton affected:
sediment deposits at
obstructions
Constrictions, and bends;
moderate deposition of
pools prevalent.
10 9. 3:- 1. . -S;
Water fills 25-75% of
rhe available channel,
and/or riffle substrates
are mostly exposed.
;'10 91, '-»•'/ r •;>•&-
Poor
Less than 20% stable
habitat; lack ofliabitar ;s
obvious; subsume
unstable or lacking.
5: 4- 3 2. 1. '--OS
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder pam'cles are
more than 75%
surrounded by fine
sediment
.,.5:,-.. -4- 3,. 2; 1 •„,.<»;.
Dominated by 1
velocity/ depth regime
(usually slow-deep)-
'-"5-.;.. "4^ , 3?. -2: r/Jte
Heavy deposits of fine
material, increased bar
development: more than
50% ot the bortom
changing frequently;
pools almost absent due
to substantial sediment
deposition.
5 4 -3-' ,2.' ,1L'.,.0?
Very littie water in
channel and mostly
present as standing
pools.
;;-5f 4:..">..:2:';i-..v;J3r-;
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
0
^
LJ
5
3
Parameter
Channel
Iteration
CORE
. Frequency of
liffles (or bends)
iCORE
I Bank Stability
scare each bank)
Mote; determine left
3r right side by
acing downstream,
SCORE (LB)
JCOR£ (RB)
~), Vegetative
Protection (score
:ach bank)
SCORJE (LB)
SCORE (KJ3)
10. Riparian
Vegetative Zone
Width (score each
bank riparian zone)
SCORE (LB)
SCORE (RB)
Optimal
Channelisation Or
dredging absent or
minimal; stream wirh
normal pattern.
:0 fl9) 18 17 16
Recurrence of riffles
elativeiy frequent; ratio
if distance between
iffles divided by width
if the stream C7:l
(generally 5 to 7);
variety of habitat is key.
In streams where riffles
are continuous.
placeman of boulders or
other large, natural
Obstruction is important.
20 19 /I?) 17 16
Banks Stable; evidence
of erosion or bank
failure absent or
minimal; little potential
for future problems.
<5% of bank affected.
Left Bank 10 (?)
RjghrBanlt 10 (9,
More than 9046 of the
Stresrnt'ank; surfaces and
immediate riparian zone
covered by native
vegetation, including
rrses, undcrstory shrubs.
or nonwoody
macrophytcs, vegetative
disruption through
grazing or mowing
minimal or not evident:
almost all plants allowed
to grow naturally. -
Left Bank 10 (9)
Eight Bank 10
Width of riparian zone
>I8merers: human
activities (i.e., parking
lots, roadbeds, clear-
cuts, lawns, or crops)
have not imE^wcd^sonc,
.LaitBank^*25.
543210
Unstable: many eroded
areas; "raw" areas
irequenr along straight
sections and bends;
obvious bank sloughing;
60-! 00% of bank has
erosional scars.
2 1 0
2 1 0
Less than 50% of the
streambank surfaces
covered by vegetation:
disruption of streambank
vegetation is very high:
vegetation has been
rcmovrd to
S centimeters or less in
average stubble height.
3. 1 0
Width of riparian zone
<6 meters: little ornO
riparian vegetation due
10 human activities.
2 1 0.
2- L 0
Total Score IS\
-------
STREAM NAME ^ ,' ft f)f)cjfif{.
STAUON*J^-ȣ_ RIVERMILE
LAT LONR
LOCATION 5) /5^ f
STREAM CUNSS
SJVER BASIN
STORET* L AGENCY
INVESTIGATORS { $ JM ..T& J^t)
FORM COMPLETED BY
DA1l±i^) AM
z-\ I REASON FOR. SURVEY
HABITAT TYPES
STREAM
f-HARACTEftlZATTON
«w i map of the site mad indicate the ire*a lamplctl
'v
5fe-fd •jS^ '-i (|P
0 Ite^'i "it^ /3 0(& CAJ V^
IndienK th* perrcmagc of ««h h*t)itit type prncnl
arMbble ~l/&V
-------
PARIAN ZONE/
STREAM FEATURES
T
•Fores.
3 Commercial
Q Industrial
Q Other
Local Water Erosion
3 None
3 Heavy
Residential
oca) Watershed iSEfr Pollution
, No evidence Sraame poientiii sources
I Obvious souteci
£sdm«ed S(r™n width
Estimated Stream Depth
Q RiSo .
Q Pool
fParrty open Q Psniy-shn
-------
STREAM NAME
STATION* 13 -A
LAT
STORE! # {.tf,\
*>wtf £r
~ 'RIVIRMILE
LONG
r^Jw iu
INVESTIGATORS
FORM COMPLETED BY
(M?
LOCATION Q) £*($blfdL
STREAM CLASS
RIVER BASM
•AGENCY
DATE 5-3 -&d_ ^ REASON FOR SURVEY
TIME / iifsr^ /AMJ PM
| Parameters to be evaluated in sampling reach
Parameter
. Eptfaunal
Substrate,'
Available Cover
SCORE L 1
1. Embedflkd&ess
itf
SCORE 1 0
3. Velocity/Depth
Regime
SCORE ( /
4, Sediment
Deposition
S
SCORE \ S
5, Channel Flow
Status
SCORE \ f
Condition Category
Optimal
Greater than 70% of
substrate favorable for
epifaunal colonisation
and fish cover: mix of
snags, submerged logs,
undercut banks, cobble
or other stable habiu.1
and at stage 10 allow full
colonization potential
(i.e., logs/Snags that are
not new fall and not
transient.
2ft;' dy ' 18 17 16
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder panicles are 0-
25% surrounded by fine •
sediment. Layering of
cobble provides diversity
of niche space,
.ZQi .19 Qj 1.7 16
All four velocity/depth
regimes present (gloW-
deep, slow-shallow, fast-
deep, fast-shallow).
(Slow is < 0.3 m/s, deep
is > 0-5 m.)
.20.*-:. ,i:9.' .18: ,'4j) 16
Little or no enlargement
of islands or point bars
and less than 5% of the
bottom affected by
sediment deposition.
',20':."I9 ,18' 'VT'~ 16.
Water reaches base of
3 n A banKS,
minimal amount of
channel substrate is
exposed. -__,
'20;:. -.t9- '/Iff1 .(•!•$•• ..Iff
SubQptimal
40-70% mix of stable
labitat; well-suited ibr
"ull colonization
jotemiai; adequate
labitat for maintenance
of populations; presence
of additional substrate in
the form of newfail, but
not yet prepared for
:oionization (may rate at
high end of scale).
15 14 13 12 11
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles arc 25-
50% surrounded by fine
sedimem.
15' 14 13 12. 11.
Only 3 of the 4 regimes
present (if fast-shallow is
missing, score lower
than if missing -other
regimes).
1ST. 14- 13 12- 11.
Some new increase in
bar formation, mostly
from gravel, sand or fine
sediment; 5-30% of the
bottom affected; slight
deposition in pools.
(\5) 14-13 ^^ 11
Water fills >75% of the
<25% of channel
substrate is exposed.
•;iS: 1:4. 13 12.- Vt.
Marginal
2010% mix of stable
habiwt; habitat
availability kss thin
desirable; substrate
frequently disturbed or
removed.
lu y u / o
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles are 50-
75% surrounded by fine
sediment.
10 .9- i.. T ....£.
Only 2 Of tht; 4 habitat
regimes present (if fast-
shallow or slaw-shallow
arc missing, score low).
10 ,.9.;' ..' Si,.;..; -T,.::_ &
Moderate deposition of
new gravel, sand or tine
sediment on old and new
bars; 3 0-50% of the
bottom affected;
sediment deposits at
Obstructions',
constriction:;, and bends:
moderate deposition of
pools prevalent.
10 9;. 8--.... 7T -6:
Water tills 25-75% of
[he avaiiabi: channel,
and/or riffle substrates
are mostly « xposed.
•;io: -'9>- -.jr..; T;-;:vff
Poor
Less than 20% stable
liabitat; lack of habitat 13
obvious; substrite
unstable or lacking.
5 4- 3 2, 1 O;.'
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles are
more than 75%
surrounded by fine
sediment.
..-|:.> jjj- "4-: • ;.j:
ifii'iF
»>.•:,.;*. .31 ,-L, i. .m.
Heavy deposits «f fme
material, increased bar
development; more than
50% oithe bottom
chmgingfrequenrly:
pools almost absent due
to substantial sediment
deposition.
: 57 -4- 3' Z U. ff'.
Very little water in
channel and mosily
present 15 standing
pools.
. (-'5- .^.,4=.. :^-^ .. •l':---W
43
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
u
fli
u
^
M
3
V)
s
5
a
3
u
rt
Parameters la liccva
Parameter
. Channel
Alteration
11
SCOR£
'. Frequency of
Riffles (or bends)
SCORE I /
3. Bank Stability
(score each bank)
Note: determine left
or right side by
feeing downstream.
SCORE ( (LSI
SCOR£_3_(RB)
9. Vegetative
Protection (score
each bank)
SCORE __. (LB)
SCORE /« (RB)
10. Riparian
Vegetative Zone
Width (score each
bank riparian zone)
SCORE JjtLB)
SCORE _l}(KB)
Condition Category
Optimal
Channelisation or
dredging absent or
minimal; stream wirh
normal pattern.
20 (19^ 18 17 16
Occurrence of riffles
relatively frequent: ratio
of distance be ween
riffles divided by width
of the stream <7; I
generally 5 to 7);
variety of habitat is key.
in streams where riffles
are continuous,
placemen* oftoulders or
other large, natural
obstruction is important.
20 ffi IS 17 16
Bank stable; evidence
of erosion or bank
failure absent or
minimal; little potential
for future proa (ems.
<5% of bank affected.
Left Bank 1 0 (5T
Right Bank 10 (<*)
More than 90% of the
Streambank surfaces and
immediate riparian zone
covered by native
vegetation, including
trees, understory shrubs,
or noii.wOQdy
macTophyws; vegetative
disrupt) on through
grazing or mowing
minimal or nor evident;
ilmosr all plants allowed
to grow nawjsTjy-
LeftBsmk (m; 9
•RightBankf'Toj V
Width of riparian zone
>1S meters; human
activities (i.e., parking
lots, roadbeds, clear-
cuts, lawns, or crops)
have not imputed zone.
left-Bank- '([Q) Q
Right Bank. 10- (g
Saboptimal
arae channelization
iressnt, usually in areas
st'bridge abutments;
vi dense of past
hannelization, i.e.,
ridging, (greater than
3sst 20 yr) may be
iresenr. bur recent
:hanneUzaiion is not
iresent.
15 14 13 12 11
Occurrence of riffles
nfrequenr: distance
;etween riffles divided
>y the width of the
rream is'oerween 7 to
5-
15 14 13 12 11
vloderately stable;
nfrcqucnt, small .ircas of
erosion mostly heJalcd
aver. S.-3Q%aebank in
reach has areas oi
erosion.
S 7 fi
8 7-6
70-90% of the
streambank surfaces
covered by native
vegetation, bur one class
of plants is nor well-
rapresented; disruption
evident but not affecting
full plant growth
potential to any great
extenr: more than one-
half of rhc potential plant
stubble height
remaining.
376
f 1 6
Width ofriparisn zone
12- 18 meters: human
activities havi impacted
zone Only minimally.
. , 7 6
• • .8 .7 6
iMarginal
Channelization may be
extensive; embantemenis
or shoring structures
present on both banks:
ind 40io 80% of s a-eam
reach channelized ind
disrupied.
10 ? S :r 6
Occasional riffle or
bend: bottom contours
provide some habitat;
Cistance between riffles
divided by the width of
the stream is between 15
to 15.
10 9 S 7 fi
Moderately unstable; jQ-
60% of bank in reach has
SrcaS of erosion; high
irosion potential during
floods.
5 4 3
5 4- 3
50-70% oithc
sa-eambank surfaqies
covered by ve^etririon;
disruption obvious;
patches of bare scil or
closely cropped
vegetation common; less
than one-half of toe
potential plant stubble
height remaining.
5 a 3
343
Width of riparian zone
6-12 meters; human
activities have impacred
jane 3. great deal.
5 4. 3
543
Poor
Banks shored with
abion or cement: over
0% of the stream reach
hsnnelized and
isruptcd. Instream
aljiiat greatly altered or
emoved enrirely.
5 4 3 2 I 0
Generally ail flat water
f shallow riffles; poor
abitat; distance between
riffles divided by the
width o i the siraam is a
ratio of >25.
5 4 3 Z J 0
Unstable; many eroded
areas: "raw" areas
requeue along straight
sections and bends:
obvious bank sloughing;
60-100% of bank has
erosional scars.
2 I 0
2 1 0
Less than 50% of the
Streambank surfaces
covered by vegetation:
disruption of streambank
vegetation isveyhigh:
vegetation has been
removed to
5 centimeters or less in
average stubble hcighr.
2. I 0
2. V 0
Width of riparian zone
<6 meters: little or no
riparian vegetation due
to human activities.
1 I 0
2 I 0
Total Score-
-------
STttAWMAME <{,gffr £f .
STATION » |3-/t_ R1VEKMLE
LAT LONG
STORFT*
LOCATION ^ j^l//?'rO/ ""
STREAM CLASS " ""
SiveR BASIN
AOENCY .
tNvdrncATORs ^Q -fd 3^ fl r^y
FORM COMPLETED SY . rf^
DAIS ,_
R£ASON FOE SURVEY
Draw % auufk «f tht sttt Jimt tadicate dw arc»s samylfil
HABITAT tvipes
TDdieJ.ni die percE*tt$«
Sntajanni Osuaitiaiiwii
QTMirt
Swam Type
-------
RJTAKUMZOME/
DNSTRJ5AM f£ATt;SJES
?r«jtfrfniC!iDt S
3
Q Residential
3 C
. SMn
' 3 Othsr
LM*I Water posint
3 None iroiedeti»
"3 Qtwowi xisxzcs
Ci4
Q Opwps Q WaW WK* Q OBio»
5NORG<*«IC SUBSTRATE COMW3NEN15
C»to«ld lad »f to t,00t(i>
ORGAMC SUBSTRATE COMPOH1KT5
fdo^i jot acoassrii? add up w
Type
Oesims
too
CciAfe
htaA. v^ty 6a« otgasiis (FPOM)
UtA
Sift
9,004-0.06 mm
•s 0,00* fmn fsiiek)
PHYSICAL CHARACTiaiZATION/WATEa QUALITY FIELD DATA SHEET (BACK)
-------
STREAM NAME ^^tf/ C'"
STATTON#_|3-£-/Xn» RJVERM1LE
LAT LONG
$TOB£T#
LOCATION £) /ck/ii/^
STREAM CLASS
RIVER BASIN
AGENCY
1 Paramtlcrs lo be evaluated In sampling reac
Habitat
Parameter
. Epifaunal
Substrate/
Available Cover
1
SCORE
3. Embeddedness
SCORE 1^
3. Velocity/Depth
Regime
SCORE / j»
4. Sediment
Deposition
SCORE l^>
5. Channel Flow
Status
SCORE / 0
Condition Category
Optimal
Greater than 70% of
substrate favorable for
epifaunsl colonization
and fish cover: mix of
snags, submerged logs.
undercut banks, cobble
or other Stable habitat
nnd at siage to allow full
colonization potential
i.e., logs/snags that ire
not new fall swd not
transient).
20;:-.. jta) IS. '17 16
Grave!, cobble, aad
boulder particles ate 0-
25% surrounded by fine -
sediment. Layering of
gebblg Bfevite diversity
ofnid3E,Spaee.
20 L9J 18 17 16
All Four velocity/depth
regimes present (slow-
deep, slow-shallow. Fast-
deep, fast-shallow).
(Slow is < 0-3 m/s, deep
is > 0-5 m.) _/ , — ,
2Q'.r'l.7<: •t$CJ^.(lff
Little or no enlargement
of islands or point bars
and less than 5% of the
bottom affected by
sediment deposition.
•'.2O: '. '1? • '18'- 1T: .16
Water reaches base of
both lower banks, and
minimal amount of
channel substrate is
exposed- __
''2Q,: ,l.Sf" TS)' :'1.7r.,t6~
Subontimai
40-70% mix of stable
habitat: well-suited for
full colonization
potential; adequate
habitat for m&inwnatice
oi_popuiations: presence
ot additional subsirate in
rhe form oi'newfall, but
nor yet prepared for
colonizarion (may rate at
high end of scale),
15 14- 13 U' 11
Gravel, cobble, m.d
boulder particles arc 23-
50% surrounded by fine
sediment.
15 14 13 12 1.1
Only 3 of the 4 regimes
present (if fast-shallow is
missing, score lower
than if missing other
regimes).
* 1ST. ,14- . 13- 11. 11.
Some new increase in
bar formation, mostly
from gravel, sa.nd or fine
sediment; 5=30% of the
bottom affected; slight
deposition in pools.
fl5JK 13' 12- 11
Water fills >75% ofthe
available channei; or
<2S% of channel
substrare is exposed.
1 fcS. 1:4 13 12 -11
iVlarginal
0-40% mix of stable
labiiat; habitat
vailabHiry less than
esirable; substrate
requenrly disturbed or
emoved.
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder panicles are 50-
75% Surrounded by fine
sediment.
10 9 S; T &.
Or.iy 2 of 'J:e 4 habitat
regimes present ;if fast-
shallow or :;low-snailow
are misivng, score low).
10 9- ','•£•;. ~,--T, . &
Moderate deposition o f
new gravel, sand or tine
sediment on old nnd new
bars; 3 0-50% of the
bottom affected;
sediment deposits at
obsiTucrions,
constrictions, and bends:
moderate deposition of
pools prevalent.
10- 9 .?:,. .77 ,(5
Wacer fills 25-75% of
the available channel,
and/or riffle substrates
arc mostly exposed.
,10 : 9- .St.. . 7/"-:-fi
Poor
Less than 20% stabie
habitat; lack ofhabitat is
obvious; subsume
unstable or lacking.
5 4 . 3 2. I 0
"ravel, cobble, and
>oulder panicles are
more than 75%
surrounded by fine
sediment.
5 4 3 2 1 0 -
Dominated by 1
velocity/ depth regime
(usually slow-deep).
;,5:,;:4- 3;: z r <&
Heavy deposits of fine
material, increased bar
development; more than
50% ot the bottom
changing frcquenrly:
pools almost absent due
to substantial sediment
deposinon
'• 5~. '4- -3---..2.1 X 0--
Very little water in
channel and mostly
present as standing
pools.
; s;,--4-, 3;;,:,2:. i %
43
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
Ld
3
s*
^s
•Jl
5
u.
V
(3
a
_5
—
tj
n
=
J'arjHMclcrsla hetva,
Parameter
.Channei
.Iteration
/f
SCORE ( |
7. Frequency of
Uffles for bends)
SCORE I |
3. Bank Stability
;score each bank)
Nate: determine left
or right side by
facing downstream.
1 8 meters; human
activities (i.e., parking
lots, roadbeds, clear-
cuts, lawns, or crops)
have not impacted lone.
LeftrBanic. 1.0 9:
Right -Banfcjftp $
Suboptimal
ume channelization
iresent. usually in areas
>f bridge abutments;
vidence of past
hannelizsiun, i.e,,
redging, (greater (han
ast 20 yr) may be
iresent, but recent
barmelizarion is nor
srsseru.
15 14 13 12 11
Occurrence of riffles
nfrequenr, distance
jcfwccn riiflcs divided
jy the width o F the
trcam is between 1to
5.
15 14 13 12 11
Vlodcratcly Stable;
nfrequenc, small areas Of
erosion mostly healed
over. 5-30% at" bank in
reach has areas of
erosion.
876
816
70-90% Ofrhe
streambank surfaces
covered by native
vegetation, bur one class
of plants is not well-
represenred: disruption
evident bur nor affecting
full plant growth
potential ?o iny great
extent; more Lhsn one-
half of the potential pian
stubble hcighr
remaining.
Marginal
Channelization may be
xtensive; embankments
or shonng jirJCIUrSii
present on both banks:
and 40 toSOVoof sTeam
each channelized ;ind
disrupted.
10 9 8 7 6
Occasional riffle or
jcnd; bottom concurs
jrovidc some haljiiat;
distance between riffles
divided by the widih oi
the sirearTi isberwsien 15
to 25.
10 9 S 7 6
Moderately unstable; 30-
60% of bank in reach has
areas of erosion; high
erosion potential during
Hoods.
543
543
50-70% of the
streambank surfaces
covered by vegeu>(ion;
disruption obvious:
patches oibarcsoil or
closely cropped
vegetation common; less
lhan one-half of the
potential plant stubble
height remaining.
876 543
876
Width at' riparian Zone
12-18 meters; human
activities have impacted
zone only minimally.
(*) 1 6
'. fi). 7 6
543
Width of riparian zone
6-12 meters; human
activities have impacted
zone a great deal
3 4 3
543
Poor
anks shored with
;abion or cement: aver
0% of the stream reach
liannelized and
isrupted. Inscream
labitai greatly altered or
emoved entirely.
543210
Generally all flat water
r shallow riffles; poor
labitat; distance between
riffles divided by the
widih of the stream is a
acio of >25.
543210
Jnstable; many eroded
areas; "raw" artss
"requent along straight
sections and bends;
obvious bank sloughing;
60- 100% of bank has
erosional scars.
2 I 0
2 I 0
Less than 50% of the
stresmbank surfaces
covered by vegetation;
disruption oi streambank
vegetation is very high:
vegetation has been
removed to
5 centimeters or less in
average stubble height.
2. I 0
2 1 0
Width of riparian zone
<& meters: little orirt
npanun vegetation due
to human activities.
2 I 0.
2- I 0
Total Score
-------
STREAM NAME
LOCATION
STATION Ui~I
RIYERMILE.
STREAM CUSS
LAt
LONG.
RIVER BASIN
AGENCY
INVESTIGATORS L0 , Jft. Tffl -
FORM COMPLETED BY
DATE
R£A5ON FOR. SURVEY
TE LOCATION/MAP
BABITAf TYPES
STREAM
CHAKACTERI^ATtON
!nw a mip oCtln site tad Indicste the areas sampled
f MI $ n
tnditthfe rtje peranlagc of t*ch habitat type present
Slgobble OP W Q^nagi 5 -% QWndo«ut Sinka
Q Submerged Macrophytti % Q Other (
%
(3-S^d
%
Sn
litti QlntCitnirKm Q Tidal
Stream Type
Q Coldwarcr
-------
..£3
hjafixnii
SfForcsr.
3 Agricultural
Q Residential.
3 OUief
Lacsi Watershed iSR5 Pollution
Q No evidence S-Some potmiiai sounas
a sourers
LaoU W«Bi
3 None S-KtodeaiE Q Heavy
.Estimated Stream Width £> n
Estimated S
Q Riffle
a Pool '
Canopy Cover-
Q Party open Q Partly-shaded
Hisft Wafer Mark _m
Velocity
iMu Strtsm 3^oi(s
e >3- m Q Run_
• '/ m ,
QShaocd
Q Yes
D«m Present Q Yss
3TfJo
RiR^AiAN VICETATION
13 meter buffer)
tadilid; the dominant type ind rrcard (He dominant species present
3Tr«3 QShruiw Q Grasses
a Herbaceous
AQUATIC VEGETATION
IndicKi! tbc dominint type JUd rrcard rhc domirunt specicd preicnc
3 Rnoted owr^cai Q Rgoual subttiergcai il Rooted floaong a Fns Ftoanng
Q floating Algae Q^rachoi Algae
(UMnmimt ipetjts present
Pomoct of the r*«e!i with v«g
e co*«r J
SEDIMENT/ SUBSTRATE
Q Sewags Q Pamlcuin
Q Chemical 3 Anaerobic Q None
QOdKJ
QSIigiit 3Mdd up to
Su hairs te
Typ«
Diameter
S»nipUng Re»256mrrt(tO"1
socks, wood, couss plant
ntMsriaJa (CPOM)
(06
Mudc-Mud
biaefc very fine orgaaic (FPtJNf)
Oravci
Ji.
0,06-2mm tgrircy)
Mmi
y, sndl
Silt
Clay
PHYSICAL CHAHAnT.ni7.ATIONAVATEa OUA1JTY
r»*TA 5HEFT
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SHEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (FRONT)
STREAM NAME /, / £/t$~ $/~
STATIONtf /<-/ R1VERM1LE
LAT LONG
STORET #•
LOCATION (Q tLy/9t^v$ AffiA-X /*^d(
STRHAM CLASS
RIVER BASIN f
AGENCY ^T/^/^ f Kfpist^
INVESTIGATORS /J^t^^—^l / ^(j ^,U^s^ / ^A^/ f
FORM COMPLETED BY
DATE dYtf/sJiO
REASON FOR SURVEY
f\ ty rift r"/M. A/T^
ci
Oi
}-.
tus
c
^.
c
en
t*»
e
T3
«
en
^5
>
^
u
__
O
ift
L.
4*
<«.
!
CB
ft.
Habirnt
Parameter
L Epifaunai
Substrate/
Available Cover
SCORE
2, Embeddcdness
SCORE
3. Velocity/Depth
Regime
SCORE
4. Sediment
Deposition
SCORE
5. Channel Flow
Status
SCORE
Optimal
Greater than 70% of
subsn-ate favorable for
•epifaunal colonization
and fish CQ v en mix or'
snags, submerged logs,
undercut bank, cgtoblc
or other stable habitat
and at stag* to allow full
colonization potential
(i.e,, logs/snags tfiat are
not niw foil and no.;
transient). _^
20.',, 19-. ^S—)lT 16'
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder panicles are 0-
25% surrounded by fine •
sediment. Layering of
cobble provides diversity
of niche space.
20 L? IS- -1.7 16-.
All fourveiocity/depth
regimes present ($kr^-
deep, sjcaafeshailgw, Ssi-]
d^gpSSm^ha.llgj5^. ^~^
(Slow is^QTrS/s, deep
is > 0,5 m.)
..2Q...~-lff-, : IS, ".IT 16,
Little or no enlargement
of islands or point bars
and less than 5% of the
bonom affected by
sediment deposition.
'2Q. '-19- ' IS- -17." Vfr
Water reaches DISC of
both lower banks, and
minimal amount oi
channel substrate is
exposed. J_-
20,, ...i.9-.,f:ij^:ar; .ie:
Condition Category
Suboptimal
40-70% mix of stable
habitat; well-suited for
full coloniSAtion
potential; adequate
habitat for maintenance
of populations; presence
of' additional substrate in
the form o inewl'all, but
nor yet prepared tor
colonization (may rate at
high end ot scale).
15 14- 13 12. It
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles are 25-
50% surrounded by tine
sediment.
. 15 14 13 12. U
Only 3 of the 4 regimes
present (if fast-shallow is
missing, score lov^er
than if missing other
re§vmes).
. \s:(\£) 13- 12. i-i
Same new increase in
bar formation, mostly
fromgrtvel, sand or fine
sediment: 5-30% of the
bottom affected: slight
deposition in pools.
15" I* 13' 1Z 11
Water fills >75% 01 the
available channel; or
<25l>/a of channel
substrate Is exposed.
M5; . 14.. J'3 12. It:
Marginal
20-40% mix of stable
habitat; habitat
availability less than
desirable; subsume
irequently disturbed or
removed.
'10 9 8 7 6
Grave!, cobble, t,nd
boulder panicles are 50-
75% surrounded by fine
sediment.
10 9: g.. .p..:;::-.;&'.
Only 2 of the J ' '--•--
regimes present jffasi-
shallow or
are missing, score low);
.10 .pi-.' K, ';; :7£V"$:
Moderate deposition of
new gravel, sand or fine
sedimenr on old nnd new
bars; 30-50% of the
bonom affected;
sediment de-posit; a;
obstructions,
consiriciions, and bends;
moderate deposition of
pools prevalent.
TO $f ' »-. /rjl • s
Water tills 25-75% of
rhe available channel.
and/or riffle substrates
are mosrly exposed.
,:io:. ;• o? ;. &.; ..r". '.;.;e..
Poor
Less than 20% stable
habiwt; lack ofhabitat 13
obvious: substraiij
unstable or lacking.
54-311.' 0:.-'
Gravel, cobble, and
bouider particles are
mare ihan 75%
Surrounded by fine
sedimenr.
t.S^.J/' .1, Z-. -1;. ',.•'&
Dominaied by 1
velocity/ depth regime
(usually slow-deep).
i.fe:,*- .31,1, r- -"OS;
Heavy deposits of fine
rnaierial, increased bar
development; more than
J0*/o of rhe bonom
changing ffea,ucntly;
pools almost absent due
to substantial sediment
deposition.
'•: S 4-. 3' Z- •E'v..O:-.
Very little water in
channel and mostly
present as standing
pools.
;> .'.4- '3u:Z-,-K:'W.
-------
HABITAT ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA SBEET—HIGH GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK)
Q
a
rt
••J
3
!V
^
Habitat ~
Parameter
Channel
Iteration
CORE 1
. Frequency of
;jffles (or bends)
SCORE
8 Bank Stability
{score Mch bank)
Note; determine left
or right side by
ficing downstrearn-
SCORE (LB)
SCOR£ (RB)
9. Vegetative
Protection (scars
each bank)
SCOR£ (LB)
SCORE (RB)
10. Riparian
yeaeptive Zone
Wrath (score each
bank riparian zone)
SCQR£ (LB)
SCORE (KB)
Torai Score '
Conditiqr
Optimal
Channelization or
dredging absent or
minimal: stream with
normal pattern,
-T^v
20 /L9 )18 17 16
Occurrence of riffles
elativcly frequent; ratio
of distance be'rween
riffles divided by width
0? the stream <7: 1
generally 5 13 7):
variety oi'habiiat is key.
n streams where riffles
are continuous.
obstruction is .important.
20 19 CUL^l? 16
Banks stable; evidence
of erosion or bank
failure absent or
minimal; little potential
for future problems.
<5% of bank affected.
Left Bank IJ^ 9
Right Ban!{jb ) 9
More than 90% of the
sireambank surfaces and
immediate riparian zone
covered by native
vegetation, including
trees, understory shrubs.
ornonwoody
maerophytes; vegetative
disruption through
grazing or mowing
minimal or nor evident;
almost all slants allowed
to STOW naturally.
Left Bank 10 9
.Right-Bank: (Co) 9'
Width of riparian zone
activities (i.e., parking
lots, roadbeds, clear-
m3T£;ite«*iispOT'Waf5S)=
>1S meters; human
activities (i.e., parking
lots, roadbeds, ciear-
cuts, lawns, orsrops)
have not impacted zone.
LcftBanfc I.CT 9-
-" ~
Subontimal
iome channelization
present, usually m areas
)f bridge abutments;
ivjdence of past
:hanneii2aiion, i e,
iredging, (greater rhan
3as^ 20 yr) nay be
resent, bur recsn!
:hanneiizanan is nor
3rss«ns,
15 14 13 12 11
Occurrence ol' riffles
infrequent; disrance
between riffles divided
by the width of the
Stream is between 7 to
15.
15 14 U 12 11
Moderately stable:
Infrequent, small arcss of
erosion mostly healed
over. 5-30% of bank in
rsacri has areas of
erosion.
S /?' ) 6
376
70-90% of the
srreambanfc surfaces
covered by native
vegsiasion, but cnc class
ofplants is nor well-
reprcscmerj; disruption
evident bur nor affecting
full plant growth
potential 10 any great
extent; more rhan one-
half of the potential clan(
srubble height
. remaininc. -
8 ^7) 6
S 7 6.
Width of riparian zona
activities have imDacied
zone only minimally.
\i/;.M*-f
12- IS meters: human
;zqn25.
543210
Unstable: many eroded
areas; "raw" areas
frequent along straight
sections and bends:
obvious bank sloughing;
60- 1 00% of bank has
crosional scars.
2 I 0
2 1 0
Less than 50% of (he
iircambank surfaces
covered by vegetation:
disruption ofsireambank
vegetation is very high:
vegetarian has been
removed to
5 centimcrers or less in
average stubble height.
2. I 0
2 1 0
Width of riparian zone
<6 meters: lirtle or no
riparian vegetation due
!0 liLirnan acrivities.
1
2. 1 0
0.
-------
ut\M,.,
STREAM NAME f~/ 6 £ 5
LOCATION fa)
STATION » /'
LAT
WVERMILE
STREAM CLASS
LONG
RIVER BASIN
~^7
STORFT *
AGSNCY
.INVESTIGATORS
FORMtfOMPLETEDB
DATE
REASON FOR SURVEY
srre LOCATION/MAP
)r«w a map of the lice and indicate (fit areM 3*mpjrd
.,
/2^»
HABrf AT TYPES
: percentage »f *Kft huliitu type pratac
Solihle % OSnac .. % CJuodwjutSanfcs_
% QSand
STREAM
CHAJRACTEHIZATtON
Q InarmiBeift QTidnl
SCTT*HI Type
QCoJdwasa'
-------
(XDVB) xiaHs VXVQ emeu
(3f3l|SJ UJIU Mfl'O >
X7
a/
(..01 ) "™ 9EZ <
ins(d ssitsaa TXXJW "Spits
("/oOO"; 01 An ppi AiLl»*S333n joo s»ep)
(%601 « di pp* Pfnoirs)
' pHft JBMIItiWII C>*
""SSQ
«l)0
Un»|Ql»J
334 j t
_ |BOU £
inaaacuqns 909003 (j maiixa* tajDCfH D
lamimnp «p fuoaj pat >iUj jominiop »m ai*>|pnj || NOliViSDlA ^HlVflOV
sqiuqj Q
nrnnnop a||] pjaiu put »di) mniuiOp sqi^Eft
»A D
55A D
^TTr
'Eys-AjiSd-Q
~l«d
'S*Jfeamca JWjtiasod Singj^; aocapiu oj^ Q
' •/ UOOniiOJ Crfh! IWH"'!1;*! I«J01
ipPWii
sa°^Si B saraoivaj jwniissa
-------
FINAL REPORT
A Survey of the Water Quality of Streams in the Primary Region of
Mountaintop / Valley Fill Coal Mining
October 1999 to January 2001
April 8, 2002
Mountaintop Mining / Valley Fill
Programmatic Environmental Impact Assessment
Prepared by:
Gary Bryant
Scott McPhilliamy
USEPA Region III
Wheeling, WV
and
Hope Childers
Signal Corporation
Wheeling, WV
-------
Acknowledgments
This report would not have been possible without the excellent support and cooperation of many
people. Three key persons deserve special recognition for their role guiding, supporting and
resolving problems. Those persons are:
Project Officer - William Hoffman
Quality Assurance Officer - Joseph Slayton
Contract Oversight - Jeffery Alper
The sampling of the streams was conducted by staff of the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, Office of Mining & Reclamation. Special thanks is due to those
persons who are listed below:
John Ailes (Office Chief)
David Vande Linde
Joe Parker, Deputy Chief (oversee mine inspectors who collect samples)
Bill Simmons, Logan Office, (oversees mine inspectors who collect samples)
Dan Bays, Inspector (sites MT01, 02, 03, 13, 14, 15, 18, 23, 24)
Ray Horricks, Inspector (sites MT39, 40 42, 45, 48, 32, 25B, 34B)
Darryl O'Brien, Inspector (sites MT49, 51, 52, 57B, 60, 55)
Joe Lockery, Inspector (sites MT78, 79, 81)
Tom Woods, Inspector (sites MT62, 64, 69, 75)
Bill Little, Inspector (sites MT86, 87, 91, 95)
Pat Lewis, Inspector (sites MT98, 103, 104)
-------
Report Outline
1. Summary
1.1. Background
1.2. Evaluation of Results
2. Study Objectives
3. The Project Plan
3.1. Monitoring Sites Description
3.2. Monitoring Frequency
3.3. Monitoring Parameters and Sampling Methods
3.3.a Stream Water Quality Criteria
3.3 .b Mining Permit Monitoring
3.3.c Laboratory Parameters
3.3.d Field Parameters
3.4. Stream Sample Collection and Shipping
3.5. Methods and Detection Limits for Water Quality Criteria Parameters
4. Data Quality Requirements and Assessments
4.1. Field Work
4.1.a Field Work Completeness Assessment
4.1 .b Field Work Sampling Errors Assessment
4.1.c Field Duplicates
4.1.d Blanks
4.1.e Field Work Completeness Evaluation
4.2. Laboratory Work
4.2.a Data Submission
4.2.b Data Qualifiers or Flags
4.2.c Laboratory Data Completeness Evaluation
4.3. Corrective Actions
4.4. Database of the Results
5. Evaluation and Discussion of Results
5.1. Parameters Likely To Be Impacted By MTM/VF Mining
5.1.a Filled Sites vs Unmined Sites
5.2. SulfateData
5.2.a Sulfate Concentration in Stream Samples
5.2.b QA Samples for Sulfate
5.2.c Sulfate Yield
5.3. Calcium Data
5.4. Magnesium Data
5.5. Total Hardness Data
5.5.a Hardness Concentration in Stream Samples
5.5 b QA Samples for Hardness
5.5.c Hardness Yield
5.6. Total Dissolved Solids Data
5.6.a Dissolved Solids Concentration in Stream Samples
11
-------
5.6 b QA Samples for Dissolved Solids
5.6.c Dissolved Solids Yield
5.7. Manganese, Total and Dissolved Data
5.8. Specific Conductance Data
5.9. Selenium Data
5.10. Alkalinity Data
5.10.a Alkalinity Concentration in Stream Samples
S.lO.b QA Samples for Alkalinity
S.lO.c Alkalinity Yield
5.11. Potassium Data
5.11.a Potassium Concentration in Stream Samples
5.11 .b QA Samples for Potassium
S.ll.c Potassium Yield
5.12. Sodium Data
5.12.a Sodium Concentration in Stream Samples
5.12.b QA Samples for Sodium
5.12.C Sodium Yield
5.13. Chloride Data
5.14. Acidity Data
5.15. Nitrate and Nitrite Data
5.15.a Nitrate-Nitrite Concentration in Stream Samples
5.16. Parameters Present in Low Concentrations
5.16.a Total Phosphorous
5.16.b Total Copper, Lead, and Nickel
5.17. Other Parameters Detected in Measurable Concentrations
5.17.a Total Barium
5.17.b Total Zinc
5.17.C Total Organic Carbon and Dissolved Organic Carbon
5.17.C Total Suspended Solids
6. Comparison with Applicable Stream Water Quality Criteria
6.1. Total Aluminum
6.1.a Aluminum Concentration in Stream Samples
6.1.b Aluminum Yield
6.1.c Dissolved Aluminum
6.2. Total Beryllium
6.3. Chloride
6.4. Dissolved Oxygen
6.5. Total Iron
6.5.a Iron Concentration in Stream Samples
6.5.b Iron Yield
6.5.c Dissolved Iron
6.6. Total Mercury
6.7. pH
6.8. Total Selenium
in
-------
6.8.a Selenium Concentration in Stream Samples
6.8.b Selenium Yield
6.8.c Distribution of Sites Violating the Stream Criterion - Lab 2 Only
6.9. Total Silver
6.10. Temperature
7. Other Evaluations
7.1. Parameters With Concentrations Below Detection Limits
7.1.a Hot Acidity
7.1.b Total Arsenic, Antimony, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Vanadium, and
Thallium
7.2. Flow Rate Data
8. References Cited
Attachments
1 - West Virginia Water Quality Criteria Discussion
2 - Field Sheet Forms
3 - Information on Parameters Monitored
4 - Electronic Spreadsheet of Results of the Study
IV
-------
List of Tables
Table 1 - Monitoring Site Attributes
Table 2 - Water Quality Criteria and Method Detection Limits
Table 3 - Contamination Detected in Blanks
Table 4 - Field Work Data Summary
Table 5 - Percent Completeness for Analytical Results by Laboratory
Table 6 - Median Values at All Filled vs All Unmined Sites - Lab 2 Only
Table SO4 -1. Number of Samples Exceeding the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level of
250 mg/1 for Sulfate
Table SO4 -2. RPD for Field Duplicates for Sulfate
Table DO-1. Samples Not Meeting Aquatic Life Minimum Criterion of 5.0 mg/L for Dissolved
Oxygen
Table pH -. Samples Not Meeting pH Criteria - 6.0 to 9.0
v
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1 Map of Stream Sampling Site Locations
Figure 2 Organization of Database
Figure SO4-1 Sulfate Concentration for All Sites vs Date
Figure SO4-2 Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Sulfate Concentrations
Figure SO4-3 Sulfate Yield for All Sites vs Date
Figure Ca-1 Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Calcium
Figure Mg-1 Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Magnesium
Figure H-l Hardness Concentration for All Sites vs Date
Figure H-2 Hardness Yield for All Sites vs Date
Figure DS-1 Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations for All Sites vs Date
Figure DS-2 Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Total Dissolved Solids
Figure DS-3 Total Dissolved Solids Yield for All Sites vs Date
Figure Mn-1 Concentration of Total Manganese for All Sites vs Date - Lab 2 Only
Figure Mn-2 Comparison of Duplicates - Total Manganese
Figure Mn-3 Comparison of Duplicates - Dissolved Manganese - Lab 2 Only
Figure Cond-1 Field Conductivity of All Sites vs Date
Figure Cond-2 Field Conductivity vs. Instantaneous Flow/Watershed Area
Figure Alk-1 Alkalinity Concentration for All Sites vs Date
Figure Alk-2 Concentration of Duplicate Samples for Alkalinity
Figure Alk-3 Alkalinity Yield for All Sites vs Date
Figure K-l Potassium Concentration for All Sites vs Date
Figure K-2 Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Potassium
Figure K-3 Potassium Yield for All Sites vs Date
Figure Na-1 Sodium Concentration at All Sites vs Date
Figure Na-2 Sodium Concentration of Duplicate Samples
Figure Na-3 Sodium Yield for All Sites vs Date
Figure Ba-1 Concentration of Barium for All Sites vs Date - Lab 2 Only
Figure Ba-2 Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Barium - Lab 2 Only
VI
-------
Figure Zn-1 Concentration of Zinc for All Sites vs Date - Lab 2 Only
Figure Zn-2 Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Zinc - Lab 2 Only
Figure TOC-1 Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Total Organic Carbon - Lab 2 Only
Figure DOC-1 Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Dissolved Organic Carbon - Lab 2 Only
Figure Al-1 Total Aluminum Concentration for All Sites vs Date - Lab 2 Only
Figure Al-2 Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Total Aluminum - Lab 2 Only
Figure Al-3 Aluminum Yield for All Sites vs Date - Lab 2 Only
Figure Fe-1 Total Iron Concentrations for All Sites vs Date - Lab 2 Only
Figure Fe-2 Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Total Iron - Lab 2 Only
Figure Fe-3 Iron Yield for All Sites vs Date - Lab 2 Only
Figure Se-1 Selenium Concentrations at All Sites vs Date - Lab 2 Only
Figure Se-2 Comparison of Duplicate Samples for Total Selenium - Lab 2 Only
Figure Se-3 Selenium Yield for All Sites vs Date - Lab 2 Only
Figure Se-4 Mean Selenium Concentrations for USEPA Stream Sampling Stations within the
Region of Major Mountaintop Removal Mining Activity in West Virginia
Figure Se-5 Mean Selenium Concentration for USEPA Stream Sampling Stations within the
Upper Mud River Watershed, West Virginia
Figure Se-6 Mean Selenium Concentration for USEPA Stream Sampling Stations within the
Island Creek Watershed, West Virginia
Figure Se-7 Mean Selenium Concentration for USEPA Stream Sampling Stations within the
Spruce Fork Watershed, West Virginia
Figure Se-8 Mean Selenium Concentration for USEPA Stream Sampling Stations within the
Clear Fork Watershed, West Virginia
Figure Se-9 Mean Selenium Concentration for USEPA Stream Sampling Stations within the
Twentymile Creek Watershed, West Virginia
Figure Flow-1. Normalized Flow Rate vs Date
Figure Flow-2. Field Conductivity vs Log (Instantaneous Flow / Watershed Area)
vn
-------
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Background
The Project Plan was designed to characterize and compare impacts to stream chemistry from
mountaintop mines and associated valley fills (MTM/VF). This study used the same 37 stream
monitoring sites used in the aquatic biology study of this same region. Most sites were visited,
sampled, and had flow rate measured 13 times between October 1999 and February 2001 by
field crews who are Mine Inspectors for the state of West Virginia. Four field parameters and 37
laboratory parameters were selected to be monitored at each site. Ten of those parameters had
stream water quality criteria limits which were used to set measurement detection limits. One set
of duplicate samples and two blank samples were to be collected each day by each field crew to
enable assessment of sampling errors and sampling precision. The field work exceeded the goal
of 90% completeness for site visits, steam sampling, flow measurements, and duplicate samples,
but only 83 % of the number of blank samples were collected.
The contract for chemistry analyses was changed to a second laboratory in July 2000. EPA
Region III chemists provided a QA/QC review of the laboratory data. Only 83 % of the values
reported by the first laboratory passed the QA/QC review. The second laboratory had 98% of
their data pass the QA/QC review. Corrective actions were implemented during the study to
resolve problems in the field and laboratory. The data from this study is stored in a relational
database which is part of this report.
1.2 Evaluation of Results
The results were evaluated and are presented under three lines of reasoning: 1) parameters
altered by MTM/VF mining; 2) parameters violating stream water quality standards; 3)
parameters not detected in any sample. Parameters likely to be impacted by MTM/VF mining
were identified and used as an outline for evaluating the entire database from all categories of
sites. Variations in data quality were assessed using the results of the duplicate samples and
blank samples. Additional characterization of the categories of sites is provided by calculation
of "Yield"rates, an idea taken from a USGS publication.
The data indicate that MTM/VF mining activities increase concentrations of the several
parameters in streams. Sites in the category Filled had increased concentrations of the following
parameters: sulfate, total calcium, total magnesium, hardness, total dissolved solids, total
manganese, dissolved manganese, specific conductance, total selenium, alkalinity, total
potassium, acidity, and nitrate/nitrite. There were increased levels of sodium at sites in the
category Filled/Residences which may be caused by road salt and/or sodium hydroxide treatment
of mine discharges.
The data were inconclusive for several other parameters which were detected in only a few
-------
samples or at very low concentrations. Those parameters: total phosphorous, total copper, total
lead, total nickel, total barium, total zinc, total organic carbon, dissolved organic carbon, and
total suspended solids. Other parameters were detected but there was no clear indication of
stream impacts resulting from MTM/VF mining operations. Those parameters are: chloride,
total aluminum, dissolved aluminum, total iron, dissolved iron, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
and pH. Data from the second laboratory indicated that only three samples for total aluminum
exceeded the stream criterion and all were collected August 9, 2000at sites with fills upstream.
Dissolved aluminum was detected in only five samples and all were near the detection limit of
100 ug/L. There were no samples for total iron exceeding the stream criterion but several
samples in the category Filled approached the limit in the fall of 2000. Dissolved iron was
detected at a few sites in the category Filled at levels slightly higher than other sites. MTM/VF
mining operations can increase iron concentrations in streams but there is no clear evidence that
this occurred during the study. Temperature, pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen were
measured in the field. The only field parameter clearly impacted by MTM/VF mining was
conductivity which was noticeably increased at sites in the category Filled.
Parameters which were not detected in any sample analyzed at the second laboratory were: total
arsenic, total antimony, total cadmium, total chromium, total cobalt, total vanadium, total
thallium, total beryllium, total mercury, and total silver. Hot acidity was analyzed for a few
samples and none was detected.
Only the data from the second half of the study was used to evaluate compliance with stream
limits due to problems with contamination in blanks, excessive holding times and less precision
which occurred during the first part of this study. The latter data indicate that MTM/VF mining
is associated with violations of the stream water quality criteria for total selenium. Selenium
violations were detected in each of the five study watersheds and all were at sites in the category
Filled, downstream of MTM/VF operations. No other site categories had violations of the
selenium limit. There were no violations of the limits for total beryllium, chloride, total
mercury, total silver, temperature. The data do not support a conclusion regarding stream water
quality violations for aluminum, dissolved oxygen, iron and pH which can be impacted by
MTM/VF mining activities.
While outside the scope of this report, there would be value in having experts evaluate the flow
rate data from this study to identify impacts attributable to mining. Base flows of streams with
valley fills are reported to be 6 to 7 times greater than the base flows of unmined areas. During
base flow conditions, the more highly mineralized water from fills becomes a larger portion of
stream flow, altering the stream water chemistry.
-------
2. STUDY OBJECTIVES
The final Project Plan for this study listed two objectives:
• Characterize and compare conditions in three categories of streams:
1) streams that are not mined;
2) streams in mined areas with valley fills; and
3) streams in mined areas without valley fills.
• Characterize conditions and describe any cumulative impacts that can be detected in
streams downstream of multiple fills.
This study was designed to supplement other studies of stream water quality impacts resulting
from mountaintop mining and valley fill (MTM/VF) coal mining operations. This study
compliments the aquatic biology study for this same region by gathering chemistry data on the
same stream sites used by USEPA Biologists in their evaluation of MTM/VF impacts to aquatic
organisms. The aquatic biology study report by Green, Passmore, and Childers is titled A Survey
of the Condition of Streams in the Primary Region of Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Coal
Mining. A separate report is being prepared to evaluate the relationships between the chemical
data and biological data.
3. THE PROJECT PLAN
A Project Plan was drafted for this study in the summer of 1999 under the direction of the
Environmental Impact Statement Steering Committee. The plan was posted on EPA Region Ill's
web site. The plan was revised several times as the study progressed in response to comments
and problems encountered during the study.
3.1 Monitoring Sites Description
The thirty seven (37) stream monitoring sites are exactly the same sites used by the USEPA
Biologists in their study of MTM/VF. They provide a synoptic survey of stream conditions in
five watersheds across the primary MTM/VF region in West Virginia. These watersheds are
Twentymile Creek, Clear Fork, Island Creek, upper Mud River and Spruce Fork. The locations
of the sites are shown in Figure 1. They are spread across the region of mountaintop mining in
West Virginia. The sites were selected with the experienced assistance of WVDEP Mine
Inspectors familiar with mining activities in the region and with the cooperation of coal
companies in the area.
-------
SAMPLING WITHIN THE REGION OF MAJOR MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING ACTIVITY IN WEST VIRGINIA
* SAMPLING STATIONS
| | HUC- 11 BOUNDARY
| | MTM/VF REGION
| | W COUNTIES
Are* of
Interest
Due toftie stile of this map and the scde of the
hydrogrtphy coverage, itmaybe difficultto
detenu he the location ctf some sampling stations
from this map. Please reftrto ttu MTM EE
EBbgKalMoniLcmgStations Attribute Table
formore sutionbcit
Dita S ouic es:
Sampling Stations: US EPA
MTM/VFRegcn: WV GSESimrey
I^dregraphyandHUC-ll: USEPA oxdUSe
EPAE3 GTS TEAM PROTECT SIG541 H. CHILD ERS n-J/l:' ,0' '--:-.-\- iO'j
-------
FIGURE 1. Map of Stream Sampling Site Locations
The distribution of sites within the three categories identified in the study objectives are:
1) streams that are not mined - Unmined - 9 sites
2) streams in mined areas with valley fills - 21 sites
(Filled 15sites + Filled/Residences 6 sites)
3) streams in mined areas without valley fills - 6 sites
(Mined 4 sites + Mined/Residences 2 sites)
Flow diversion ditch at a valley fill - 1 site
TOTAL 37 sites
The site numbers and descriptions are listed in Table 1. The station numbers are not sequential
since the 37 biological sampling sites were chosen from 127 possible sampling sites. The sizes
of the drainage areas upstream of the sites vary from 125 acres to 27,742 acres. Only three of the
37 sites have watersheds larger than 3,200 acres.
-------
TABLE 1
Monitoring Site Attributes
Site
Identification
MT-01
MT-02
MT-03
MT-13
MT-14
MT-15
MT-18
MT-23
MT-24
MT-25B
MT-32
MT-34B
MT-39
MT-40
MT-42
MT-45
MT-48
MT-50
MT-51
MT-52
MT-55
MT-57B
MT-60
MT-62
MT-64
MT-69
MT-75
MT-78
MT-79
MT-81
MT-86
MT-87
EIS Class
Mined/Residence
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled/Residence
Ditch
Filled
Filled
Filled
Unmined
Filled/Residence
Unmined
Mined
Filled/Residence
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled/Residence
Filled
Filled
Filled/Residence
Filled
Mined/Residence
Filled/Residence
Mined
Mined
Mined
Filled
Filled
Watershed
upper Mud River
upper Mud River
upper Mud River
upper Mud River
upper Mud River
upper Mud River
upper Mud River
upper Mud River
upper Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Area
(acres)
1,897
511
717
335
1,527
1,114
479
10,618
N/A
997
2,878
1,677
669
11,955
447
1,111
27,742
563
1,172
316
3,167
125
790
3,193
758
708
876
524
448
1258
2,201
752
No. of
Fills
8
6
2
26
1
1
5
10
22
1
5
1
2
11
5
5
3
3
Comment/
Permit Date
Past Logging
Past Logging
Past Logging
Past Logging
'85,' 88, '89
'88,'89,'91,'92'95
'92, "95
'85,'88,'89,'91'92,'95
,'96
'88, '91
'86
'86,'88,'89,'91
'85, '86
7 VF + 3 refuse
'87 strip @ head
4 communities
gas well
underground entry &
fill/ '84
'86,'88,"89, '93, '94,
'98
'88
'88, '93
'89,'91,'92
'92, '93
pre- '65
'89, '92
pre- '65
NaOH / pre '65
NaOH/ '90,'93
NaOH/'90,'93
No. of
Visits
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
No. of
Samples
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
13
13
12
13
14
14
14
14
2
14
14
14
14
No. of
Flowrates
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
12
10
13
12
11
12
14
14
14
14
2
14
14
14
14
-------
MT-91
MT-95
MT-98
MT-103
MT-104
Totals
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
37 sites
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
1,302
968
1,208
1,027
2,455
8
6
8
haul road
logging?
'77,'82,'90
'77,'82,'90
'77,'82,'90
14
14
14
14
14
494
14
14
14
14
14
479
14
14
14
13
14
466
3.2 Monitoring Frequency
Stream samples were collected during the period of October 1999 thru February 2001. The sites
were to be sampled monthly but the scheduling of when samples were taken was determined by
availability of the field crews. The stream sampling effort was stopped in May 2000 due to
problems with timely delivery of chemistry laboratory data. A contract was completed with a
different laboratory and monthly sampling resumed in August 2000 and continued through
February 2001. Most sites were visited 13 times for sampling. One field crew took an
additional set of samples from the seven sites in Twentymile Creek in November 1999 and
another crew took an additional set of sample from the seven sites in Clear Fork in June of 2000.
A few times, some of the sites had no flow to sample. The field crew found stream flow on only
two occasions at site MT-78. There were 479 stream samples collected in this survey, not
counting the duplicates and other QA samples. Flow measurements were also made during
sampling but there were several occasions when flows were not measured. This was especially
true during winter months when the stream was frozen over. There were 467 flow measurements
for this study. Table 1 lists this information for each sample site.
3.3 Monitoring Parameters and Sampling Methods
The parameters to be monitored were discussed by numerous groups and experts. The list of
parameters finally selected was shaped by constraints of holding times, detection limits,
difficulty in sampling and other factors. The discussion on what parameters to monitor began
with a review the stream water quality parameters for the streams in the study area.
3.3.a Stream Water Quality Criteria
There are limits set on the concentrations of chemicals allowed in streams across the nation.
Each State has established these stream water quality criteria for the surface waters of their State.
West Virginia has three categories of stream water quality criteria set to protect specific water
uses. Those categories of water uses are: 1) Aquatic Life, 2) Human Health, and 3) All Other
Uses. The Aquatic Life Criteria are the limits most applicable to this study because those are
designed to protect aquatic life in the stream. There can be separate limits for warm water and
cold water (trout) streams. Sometimes there are also separate limits for acute and chronic
exposure. Acute exposures would be those experienced during a short time period such as a
spill. Chronic limits are usually lower than Acute limits since the organisms are exposed for a
7
-------
longer time period. Water quality criteria also vary with sample methods. Some criteria specify
"Not to exceed" which is a grab sample of the stream. These criteria are applicable to the
sampling methods used in this study. There are also some criteria set for a "one-hour average"
which are not strictly applicable to the single grab sample results of this study, but they are still
valuable in evaluating if there are concerns about the concentrations of chemicals identified in
this study. The West Virginia Water Quality Criteria limits are discussed in Attachment 1.
3.3. b Mining Permit Monitoring
Coal companies seeking permits must monitor streams above and below their proposed mining
sites as part of the process for getting a mining permit. It was agreed that the list of parameters
being monitored for permits would be expanded to include the parameters being monitored in
this study. Discussions with coal companies were held to invite their comments on the list of
parameters. This list of "interim protocol" parameters was adopted for coal companies seeking
permits in West Virginia. They were asked to monitor for the list of "interim protocol"
parameters as part of their pre-mining data gathering effort. The data gathered by the coal
companies and their consultants could also be used to in evaluating the impacts of mining but
that data has not been included in this report. A separate report is being prepared using coal
company data for this EIS effort.
3.3.c Laboratory Parameters
After much discussion and evaluation, the 37 chemical parameters listed below were selected for
laboratory analyses. The samples were to be collected and preserved and analyzed following
procedures consistent with 40 CFR Part 136.
Water Quality (10)
Acidity Nitrate + Nitrite Total Organic Carbon
Alkalinity Sulfate Dissolved Organic Carbon
Chloride Total Suspended Solids
Hardness Total Dissolved Solids
Total Metals (27)
Aluminum Cobalt Nickel
Dissolved Aluminum Copper Potassium
Antimony Iron Phosphorous
Arsenic Dissolved Iron Selenium
Barium Lead Silver
Beryllium Magnesium Sodium
Cadmium Manganese Thallium
Calcium Dissolved Manganese Vanadium
Chromium Mercury Zinc
Hot acidity was also analyzed for a brief period by the second laboratory by mistake.
-------
3.3.d Field Parameters
Field crews were WVDEP Mine Inspectors. They were briefed in the standard monitoring
procedures at the start of this study. The briefing included instructions in measuring Dissolved
Oxygen, Specific Conductivity, Temperature, and pH in situ using calibrated electrometric field
meters. The field chemistry measurements taken at each sampling site were consistent with 40
CFR Part 136. The field crew recorded measurements and other sample site information on field
sheets which were sent to the lab with the samples. They also measured flow rate at the time of
sampling using methods suitable for effluent discharge monitoring under the NPDES program.
EPA office staff used a computer program to calculate stream flows from the field stream gaging
data. A copy of the blank field sheets used in this study is included as ATTACHMENT 2.
3.4 Stream Sample Collection and Shipping
The laboratory provided sample containers, chemical preservatives, lab-pure water, labels, and
shipping containers. They were shipped to the WVDEP field offices. The sampling procedures
used were consistent with the 40 CFR Part 136 and samples were collected as grab samples in
mid-stream. The samples were preserved and stored on ice in the shipping containers until they
were ready to ship to the lab following chain-of-custody procedures. A separate field sheet for
each sample, as shown in Attachment 2, was to be placed in the shipping containers.
3.5 Methods and Detection Limits for Water Quality Criteria Parameters
Ten of the parameters monitored during this study have an applicable stream water quality
criteria. These criteria were used to select methods of analysis and detection limits for the
laboratory analyses. The concern was that values reported by the laboratory as exceeding the
stream criteria would be measured precisely enough to confidently say that stream criteria were
exceeded. Therefore the detection limit or lowest measurable concentration reported by the
laboratory was arbitrarily designated to be no greater than one third of the lowest applicable
water quality criterion. The detection limit for this study was set after discussions with chemists
as to what detection limits are achievable following excellent laboratory practices. The method
selected and the detection limit for each parameter with a criterion are included in Table 2.
-------
TABLE 2
Water Quality Criteria and Method Detection Limits
Water Quality
Parameter Criterion Method Detection Limit
Total Aluminum 750 ug/L EPA 200.7 lOOug/L
Total Beryllium 130 ug/L EPA 200.7 1 ug/L
Chloride 230 mg/L EPA 300.0 5.0 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen* 5.0 mg/L Field Meter 0.1 mg/L
Total Iron 1.5 mg/L EPA 200.7 0.10 mg/L
Total Mercury 2.4 ug/L EPA 245.1 0.2 ug/L
pH* 6.0 to 9.0 Field Meter 0.1 pH unit
Total Selenium 5 ug/L EPA 200.8 3 ug/L**
Total Silver 1 to 43 ug/L EPA 200.7 10 ug/L
Temperature* 73° or 87° F Field Meter +/-2°F
* Field meter required to measure these parameters.
** The estimated instrument detection limit for selenium in water using Method 200.8
(Inductively Coupled Plasma - Mass Spectrometry) is around 5 ug/L according to the 1983 EPA
Methods Manual.
4. DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS
4.1 Field Work
The field work was conducted by personnel from the West Virginia Division of Environmental
Protection, Office of Mining & Reclamation and reviewed by the EPA staff.
4.1. a Field Work Completeness Assessment
The project plan requires a monthly visit to each site, a sample from each site when there is flow,
and a flow measurement. The field data are recorded on field sheets for each sample. The field
crews sent copies of their field sheets to the EPA as well as to the contract labs with the samples.
The EPA monitored the progress of the field work by reviewing and evaluating these field
sheets. Some crews also reported problems and progress through telephone conversations with
the EPA.
The data and notes from the field sheets was transferred to the electronic database by the EPA
staff. All flow rates were calculated from the field readings by laboratory personnel or EPA staff
using the same computer program. The electronic records were then completely checked for data
entry errors. These records were then used to cross check the records and data received from the
laboratories and the QA/QC review. The calibration records for field meters were not included
in the electronic database of data for this study, but the comments from the field sheets are
included.
10
-------
4.1. b Field Work Sampling Errors Assessment
The Project Plan specified three types of QA samples be collected by each crew each day of
sampling. Field Duplicate Samples were collected as two identical sets of stream samples from
a stream monitoring site. The second set was labeled as a Duplicate Sample. The concentrations
of each parameter in these pairs of Duplicate Samples should be nearly identical. Blank
Samples were collected in a set of sample containers using lab-pure water from the laboratory
and preserving them just like the stream samples, including filtering. These samples were called
Blanks and the concentration of all parameters in each sample should be at or near the detection
limit. The third type of QA sample used in this survey was a Trip Blank Sample. This was a set
of sample containers filled with lab-pure water in the laboratory and sent to the field crews with
the other sample containers and preservatives. This Trip Blank was opened in the field at the
sample site and preserved as the stream samples, except there was no water filtered in the field in
the Trip Blank. Any measurable concentrations parameters in these blank samples would
indicate concerns with sample handling or contaminated sampling equipment. QA samples were
tested in the laboratory for the same parameters as the stream samples. Although the QA
samples were collected to evaluate problems with sample collection and handling in the field,
they can also be used to detect errors in measurement which occur in the laboratory.
4.1.c Field Duplicates
Field Duplicate data can be used to calculate an estimate the precision of sampling methods. This
estimate of precision includes error associated with field collections at the site, error in sample
handling, and error associated with laboratory activities as well as true variation in the water
being sampled. Since it is not possible to separate the variation caused by sampling error or
sample handling error from the variation caused by measurement error, the differences between
sets of duplicate samples can only give an estimation of precision in sampling. The estimate of
precision in this study is based on laboratory results of Field Duplicate samples. Field Duplicate
samples were to be collected at 10% of the sites on each sampling occasion (one Field Duplicate
per sampling crew per day). Only the first of the two sets of sample results was used in
calculating and evaluating the monitoring trends and statistics for a site.
Precision estimates were calculated from the data for Field Duplicate samples using Relative
Percent Difference (RPD). RPD is calculated using the following equation:
RPD = ((d - C2)xlOO)- ((d +d)/2)
where: Cj = the larger of the two values and
C2 = the smaller of the two values.
Often the smaller of the two values was below the minimum concentration the laboratory could
detect (called the Detection Limit or DL). In calculating statistics on the concentration at a site,
every time a reported value was below the DL, a value of one half the DL was assigned as the
11
-------
smaller value (C2), rather than zero. The RPD varies with each parameter and for each set of
duplicates. There are tables of RPD results for selected parameters in this report under the
section Evaluation and Discussion of Results. As the concentrations in the duplicate samples
approach the detection limit, the RPD values are not as meaningful an estimate of precision.
There is a trend in the data from this study for the RPD to improve (get much lower) with later
samples. This may be due to improvements in sample collection and handling in the field and
laboratory or due to differences between the laboratories.
There is also a trend in the results from this study for the concentrations to be lower in the
second half of the study. This may be due to lingering effects of the drought conditions
experienced just before the beginning of the sampling in 1999. It could also result from
improvements in sample collection and handling in the field and laboratory as the study
progressed. It could also be due to differences between the two laboratories. There were
detectable concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, silver and thallium in results
from the first laboratory but the second laboratory found no detectable concentrations of these
metals in any samples. The first laboratory also reported generally higher concentrations of
antimony and nickel than the second laboratory.
Another way to evaluate precision is to plot concentration of duplicate samples. The X-axis is
the concentration of the first sample and the Y-axis is the concentration of second sample A
point is plotted for each set of duplicate samples. If the values for all sets of duplicate samples
are equal, they will make a straight line from the detection limit to the maximum value detected.
This approach can be used on duplicate samples of stream samples as well as the duplicate sets
of blank samples.
It is recognized that even the best laboratories can not "hit a bulls eye" every time with analytical
tests so the study plan allows for a general "precision limit" of plus or minus 25%. The
precision limits can also be plotted on the graph of duplicate sample results to illustrate when
values of duplicate samples are "out of control" or beyond the precision limit. Graphs of
duplicate sample results have been plotted for various parameters using a unique symbol for each
laboratory. Errors in sample collection or handling in the field may cause duplicate samples to
be "out of control," but the problem may also be in the laboratory. The plots of duplicate sample
results also indicate the precision of the sampling at the second laboratory was much better than
the first. This may be due to improvements with experience in collecting and handling samples
in the field or it may be related to the laboratory. The end result is that there is more confidence
in the precision of sample data from the later portion of the study. There were twice as many
duplicate samples analyzed at the second laboratory and the sites were more varied with fewer
Unmined sites. As a result the range of concentrations in duplicates is generally wider than at
the first laboratory.
12
-------
4.1.d Blanks
Field crews were to collect two blanks each day they sampled. Not all field crews were equally
diligent in collecting and identifying Blank Samples. Problems were identified with each crew
not always having the supply of lab pure water and adequate sample containers when they
needed them. There were also other communication problems. There were intermittent problems
with unacceptable concentrations of contaminants in the blank samples. Some problems were
thought to have been caused by field errors such as putting the acid preservatives in the wrong
bottle, but this was not confirmed. There was also an intermittent problem with inadequate
supplies of lab pure water for blanks and at least one crew noted they purchased distilled water
on two occasions to use in the blanks. The quality of the blank water was sometimes questioned
by chemists running the samples. The data for all Field Blank samples has been evaluated as a
group to identify variability among the parameters. The number of Field Blank samples with
detectable concentrations of contamination for each laboratory are listed by parameter in Table
3.
Within the group of blank samples there were 28 pairs of duplicate blanks. These were
duplicates for all parameters except those which were filtered in the field. The graph plots of
these "duplicate blanks" for selected parameters are included in this report under the section
Evaluation and Discussion of Results. The precision and amount of contamination revealed in
these graphs indicates that the contamination of blanks decreased in data from the second
laboratory. This could be due to improvements in sample handling in the field or in the
laboratory. The end result is that there is less contamination of blank samples during the later
portion of the study, and there are several parameters which have unreliable results from the first
laboratory. The parameters with unreliable results from the first half of this study included
acidity, alkalinity, antimony, arsenic, lead, phosphorous, potassium, selenium, thallium, and
most critically both suspended and dissolved solids.
The Project Plan calls for sample results from a site to be "flagged" when the concentration of a
parameter in the blank (field or laboratory blank) exceeds 1/1 Oth of the value reported in the
stream sample. The electronic spreadsheet of the data included as ATTACFDVIENT 3 has a
column identifying all "flagged" data. The code letter "B" identifies results with problems with
the excessive contamination in the blank samples.
-------
TABLE 3
Contamination Detected in Blanks
PARAMETER
ACIDITY
ACIDITY HOT
ALKALINITY
ALUMINUM, DISSOLVED
ALUMINUM, TOTAL
ANTIMONY, TOTAL
ARSENIC, TOTAL
BARIUM, TOTAL
BERYLLIUM, TOTAL
CADMIUM, TOTAL
CALCIUM, TOTAL
CHLORIDE
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
COBALT, TOTAL
COPPER, TOTAL
DISSOLVED, ORGANIC CARBON
IRON, DISSOLVED
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIUM, TOTAL
MANGANESE, DISSOLVED
MANGANESE, TOTAL
MERCURY, TOTAL
NICKEL, TOTAL
NITRATE
NITRITE
NITRATE+NITRITE
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL
POTASSIUM, TOTAL
SELENIUM, TOTAL
SILVER, TOTAL
SODIUM, TOTAL
SULFATE
THALLIUM, TOTAL
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
VANADIUM, TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
LABI
Number From 30
Samples Greater Than
Detection Limit
28
28
4
3
24
25
0
0
13
5
8
3
3
1
4
24
8
1
3
0
12
5*
0*
0*
22
28
21
0
15
1
20
27
3
26
11
LAB 2
Number From 50
Samples Greater Than
Detection Limit
0
0*
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0*
0*
0*
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
9
* The number of Blank samples for these parameters is less than for other parameters.
14
-------
4.1.e Field Work Completeness Evaluation
Completeness is a quality assurance/quality control term and is defined as the measure of the
amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system compared to the amount that was
expected to be obtained under normal conditions. Completeness was measured by calculating
what percentage of samples were collected and analyzed with valid results. The goal for this
project was 90% completeness. Completeness is calculated according to the following equation.
C = 100x(V/N)
where: C = percent completeness
V = number of measurements judged valid
N = total number of measurements.
The percent completeness was calculated for the field work and is presented in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Field Work Data Summary
Factor Being Measured
Attempted Visits to Sites
Actual Visits to Sites
Number of Times Sites Dry @ Visit
Number of Samples at Sites
Number of Flow Measurements
Number of Duplicate Sample Sets
Number of Blank Samples
Numbers (V and N)
495 of 495
494 of 495 Attempts
15
479* of 494 Visits
466 of 479 Samples
44 of 479 Samples
80 of 479 Samples
Percent Completeness
100
99.8
N/A
97.0
97.3
9.18% / 10% Goal = 91.8%
16. 7% 720% Goal = 83. 5%
*Excluding the Duplicate and Blank samples.
The field work was especially complete in this study. There was only one occasion during this
entire survey when a field crew could not reach a site. A tree had fallen and blocked the road to
site MT-57B on September 28, 2000. The percent completeness is 494 visits out of 495 attempts
or 99.8 %. This was excellent and greatly exceeded the goal of 90% completeness.
Samples were collected at all sites on every visit unless the streams were dry. Site MT-78 was
dry!2 times in this study. In the entire study, there were only 15 site visits which found no
stream flow. There were 479 stream samples collected in this survey, not counting duplicates
and other QA samples. The percent completeness is 479 samples out of 494 visits or 97.0 %.
This was excellent.
15
-------
Flow rate was to be measured on each sampling occasion. The crews were generally able to
measure flows with each round of sampling. However, when they made the sample runs in
January of 2001 they found 12 stream sites were covered with ice and stream flows were not
measured. The total number of missed flow measurements in this study was only 13. The
percent completeness is 466 flows out of 479 samples or 97.3 %. This was also an excellent
effort from the field crews.
The goal for field duplicate samples listed in the project plan was to have duplicate analyses
performed on 10% of the sites on each sampling occasion. Field crews did not collect any
duplicate samples until March 2000 due to several problems with supplying an adequate number
of sample containers as well as confusion. From March 2000 on, the crews sampled duplicates
as in the work plan. There were 44 duplicates for 479 samples so overall the study performed
duplicate analyses on 9.18 % of the sites sampled.
The work plan did not list a numeric goal for the collection of blank samples but the ideal
number of blanks should have been 20% of the number of samples. Field crews did not all
collect blank samples the same way nor on each sampling day for several reasons. There was an
intermittent problem with inadequate supplies of extra sample bottles and lab pure water. There
were also communication problems which continued until the end of the study. Some crews
collected two sets of blank samples each sampling day calling one set the Field Blank and the
other set the Trip Blank. There were 28 pairs of blank samples (56 samples) collected during this
study. There were 23 solitary blank samples collected and one day when three blank samples
were collected by one crew. There were a total of 80 blank samples collected during the study
for 479 samples for a percentage ratio of 16.7%. This falls short of the goal. Although the
number of blank samples was high, they were not collected as planned and the differences
between crews did not get resolved during the study.
4.2 Laboratory Work
The chemistry analyses of the samples were performed by contractor laboratories. The first lab
appeared to be unable to keep up with the work load. Samples were not analyzed within
allowable holding times and there were unacceptable delays in submitting laboratory reports and
records. In July 2000, a second contract laboratory took over the chemistry analytical work and
continued to the end of the study.
EPA Region Ill's Office of Analytical Services and Quality Assurance (OASQA) developed the
plans for doing the QA/QC review of the laboratory data. The data validation process was
consistent with those listed in the "Innovative Approaches for Validation of Organic and
Inorganic Data-SOPs", June 1995, Section IM-1, entitled: "Validation of Target Analyte List
Metals and Cyanide Data, Manual Approach IM-1" The review process was designed using
experience from the QA/QC procedures that EPA uses in overseeing the Contract Laboratory
Program (CLP). The plan was modified when the contract was developed for the second
laboratory to focus on a thorough review of 10% of the data. All data from sites MT-03, MT-15,
MT-24, and MT32 for the following ten analytes were recalculated by EPA chemists: Sulfate,
16
-------
(NO2+NO3)-N, TOC, DOC, Total Iron, Total Aluminum, Total Manganese, Dissolved Iron,
Dissolved Aluminum, Dissolved Manganese. They continued to review the reports to confirm
that good laboratory practices were being followed with regard to lab methods, detection limits,
spiked samples, etc.
Both laboratories evaluated accuracy by preparing and analyzing duplicate spiked samples. The
matrix spiked and matrix spiked duplicate (MS/MSD) results were included in the QA/QC
review. The parameters which had MS/MSD evaluations were sulfate, chloride, nitrate-nitrite,
total phosphorous, total metals, dissolved metals, total organic carbon, and dissolved organic
carbon.
4.2.a Data Submission
The data reports from the laboratory were sent to the EPA QA/QC staff. The following
additional items were included in each laboratory report: Name and location of laboratory;
signature of the Laboratory Director (approval signature); project name; report date; stations;
date and time of sampling; laboratory sample ID; listing of all problematic quality control items
(for that set of samples) and supporting documentation of the necessary corrective action/s;
analytical methods used for each parameter; date of analysis for each analyte; units; analytical
results; results for laboratory and field blanks (field blanks are identified by samplers to the lab);
sequential page number with total number of pages indicated; fully defined header information
with tables of QC results; QC acceptance limits for each QC result; results of preservations
checks; MDLs for each analyte and referenced procedure; the QC results summary in each data
package is to be limited to that associated with the samples in a months data package; the date
and time or position in the analysis sequence of the analysis of QC sample (included in each QC
sample result summary for each month); quantitation limits and a reference to method for
establishing the QL (e.g. >3*MDL); and all calibration, analysis run logs, and sample "raw data"
(instrument readings) for the key sites and parameters monitored, to allow the reconstruction of
the analytical results, as part of data validation for this project. Additional supporting analytical
data was requested if problems were encountered in performing the data validation. The report
included the analytical results for the sample set, any QA/QC problems encountered during the
analyses; changes in the QAPP; and data quality assessment in terms of precision, accuracy,
representativeness, completeness, and comparability.
EPA chemists developed checklists and codes for different QA/QC issues or concerns they might
find. They used these checklists in their review of the laboratory reports for compliance with
QA/QC requirements. They made notes on the laboratory reports using the codes and guidelines
they had developed. Those are described in this report in the section Data Qualifiers or Flags.
Once the QA/QC review of the reports was completed, the original laboratory records were
placed in storage. Copies of the lab reports with the handwritten codes were sent to the Project
Officer and report writers.
The laboratories provided an electronic record of the chemistry results for most of the samples.
The transfer of these data into the electronic database for this study is described in this report in
17
-------
the section Database of Results.
4.2.b Data Qualifiers or Flags
EPA Region III Chemists performed the quality review of the analytical data evaluating
methods, holding times, preservatives, minimum detection limits (MDL), back calculation of
results from lab bench sheets, and compliance with good laboratory practices. Based on this
review they assigned "Qualifiers" or "flags" to the data. In general the qualifiers were either
Estimates or Rejects.
Estimate codes were assigned in the following categories:
B No filter blank for DOC or Dissolved Metals, or the blank results exceed 1/10 the sample results.
C Calibration not performed or documented, or the results vary from the standard concentration by more than
20%.
D Minimum Detection Limit exceeds QAPP specifications.
H Holding Times not documented or beyond specification in 40 CFR Part 136.
M Method not specified or not complying with 40 CFR Part 136.
P Proper preservative not used or not documented.
Q Matrix spikes outside of specifications for recovery limits (either lab limits or +/- 25%) or RPD of duplicate
spikes beyond precision limits (either lab limits or < 20% RPD). 10 % of samples for selected parameters
were to include a matrix spike.
? Other (e.g. N.D. = no raw data to support result for critical stations and parameters).
Reject codes were assigned for the following categories:
R(H) Holding time two days or more beyond the required holding time.
R(B) Sample value did not exceed the level in the laboratory blank or field blank.
R(?) Reject for other specified reason.
These flagging codes were hand written on the lab reports during the QA/QC review by the
Chemists. EPA staff reviewed the coded lab reports and identified all the data flagged as
Rejected. Some additional data was rejected after further evaluation by the report writers after
reviewing field and lab notes. These "flags" were entered in the electronic spreadsheet for this
study and cross checked for data entry errors. No rejected data has been included in any
statistical evaluations of stream quality for this study.
Significant amounts of data from the first lab were rejected in the QA/QC review. Roughly 60
% of the values were rejected for Total Suspended Solids, Total Dissolved Solids, Total
Phosphorous, and Total Mercury. Overall about 20% of the entire data set from the first
laboratory rejected. The data quality from the second laboratory was much better. The second
laboratory had fewer problems with excessive holding times and very little contamination of
blanks. The same codes for data qualifiers or flags were used by the EPA Chemists reviewing
the data. Again codes were manually written on a lab report form and EPA staff reviewed the
coded lab reports and identified all the data flagged as Rejected. They entered these "flags" in
the electronic spreadsheet for this study and cross checked this entire data entry effort. No
rejected data has been included in any statistical evaluations of stream water quality for
18
-------
this study.
4.2.c Laboratory Data Completeness Evaluation
Completeness of the entire data set varies with each parameter and with each laboratory.
Completeness is calculated according to the following equation:
C = ((N-R)-N)x(100)
where: C = percent completeness
N = total number of values
R = number of values flagged as Rejected
The percent completeness of each parameter is included in Table 5. The percent completeness
for the entire dataset is 89.7 %, just missing the goal of 90%. The first laboratory achieved 82.77
% while the second laboratory achieved 97.88 %. The most common cause of rejection was
when the first laboratory failed to perform the analyses within the holding times specified in the
Method. This was especially true for sulfate, chloride, total suspended solids, total dissolved
solids, mercury, nitrate, and nitrite. Even though the second laboratory achieved 100 %
completeness for sulfate, chloride, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, and total
phosphorous, the overall percent completeness for those parameters fell short of the goal of 90%.
The second laboratory analyzed for (NO2+NO3)-N instead of nitrate and nitrite so the percent
completeness values for those each of those parameters is from only one laboratory. The data in
Table 5 indicate that several other parameters were analyzed at only one laboratory. Several
parameters were reported at the second laboratory only due to automated procedures which
include groups of parameters, beyond what was tested at the first laboratory.
The changes to levels of organic nutrients in the stream was a concern which initiated the
monitoring for total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC). The values
found in this study were consistently near the limits of measurability and there appeared to be
something leach from the filter which interfered in the analysis causing the dissolved
concentration to be higher than the total concentration. For this reason many of the values for
TOC and DOC were rejected, resulting in the very low percent completeness for those two
parameters. Several values for total and dissolved metals were also rejected in the QA review
when the dissolved value exceeded the total value. This resulted in the lower percent
completeness values for aluminum, iron and manganese.
19
-------
TABLE 5
Percent Completeness for Analytical Results by Laboratory
ANALYTE
ACIDITY
ALKALINITY
ALUMINUM, DISSOLVED
ALUMINUM, TOTAL
ANTIMONY, TOTAL
ARSENIC, TOTAL
BARIUM, TOTAL
BERYLLIUM, TOTAL
CADMIUM, TOTAL
CALCIUM, TOTAL
CHLORIDE
CHROMIUM, TOTAL
COBALT TOTAL
COPPER, TOTAL
DISSOLVED, ORGANIC CARBON
HARDNESS, TOTAL
IRON, DISSOLVED
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIUM, TOTAL
MANGANESE, DISSOLVED
MANGANESE, TOTAL
MERCURY, TOTAL
NICKEL, TOTAL
NITRATE+NITRITE (N)
NITRATE
NITRITE
PHOSPHORUS, TOTAL
POTASSIUM, TOTAL
SELENIUM, TOTAL
SILVER, TOTAL
SODIUM, TOTAL
SULFATE
THALLIUM, TOTAL
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
VANADIUM, TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
TOTALS FOR EACH LAB
OVERALL % COMPLETENESS
UNITS
mg/1
mg/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
mg/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
mg/1
ug/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/1
ug/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/1
ug/1
LAB 1 - #
SAMPLES
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
266
9310
LAB 1 - #
SAMPLES
NOT
REJECTED
208
265
234
221
251
264
257
266
264
161
245
255
208
222
208
255
266
228
218
129
239
144
175
106
264
259
266
265
171
250
116
206
115
244
7706
LAB 1 - %
COMPLETE
78.20
99.62
87.97
83.08
94.36
99.25
96.62
100.00
99.25
60.53
92.11
95.86
78.20
83.46
78.20
95.86
100.00
85.71
81.95
48.50
89.85
54.14
65.79
39.85
99.25
97.37
100.00
99.62
64.29
93.98
43.61
77.44
43.23
91.73
82.77
LAB 2- #
SAMPLES
191
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
212
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
212
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
7857
LAB 2- #
SAMPLES
NOT
REJECTED
191
213
213
212
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
211
170
212
208
205
213
213
210
210
174
213
199
213
213
210
213
213
213
213
213
180
213
213
199
7690
LAB 2- %
COMPLETE
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.53
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.06
79.81
100.00
97.65
96.24
100.00
100.00
98.59
98.59
81.69
100.00
93.87
100.00
100.00
98.59
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
84.51
100.00
100.00
93.43
97.88044
89.70
20
-------
4.3 Corrective Actions
There was a problem early in the study with the field crews not collecting the proper number of
Field Duplicate samples. None were collected during the first four rounds of samples. The
problem was resolved through increased communication and coordination with the laboratory
and field crews. From March through the end of the study, the crews usually collected one
duplicate sample every day they were sampling. Field Duplicates made up more than 10% of the
samples being collected after March of 2000.
There was also a problem early in the study with the field crews not collecting Blank Samples
each day which were to be processed and analyzed just like the stream samples. There was
continuing confusion regarding collection and preservation of Blank Samples. Some field crews
collected two sets of Blank Samples each day calling one set a Trip Blank and the other set a
Field Blank. There was also an intermittent problem with some crews not having adequate
supplies of sample containers and lab pure water for the blanks. There was a meeting to improve
coordination with the field crews and the laboratory prior to the start of work with the second
laboratory, but the Blanks continued to be called different names by different crews.
There were problems with the quality of laboratory data and supporting information during this
study forcing a change of laboratories performing the analyses. Timely submission of the
laboratory data for QA review by EPA staff was a problem throughout the study. Corrective
actions taken included requiring submission of corrections to laboratory reports and submission
of additional records. The improvement in percentage completeness between the two
laboratories indicates success of the corrective actions.
4.4 Database of the Results
The evaluation of the large amount of data collected during this study has been facilitated by
compiling it in an electronic database. Much of the results of analyses from both laboratories
were provided to EPA in an electronic format. These data were merged into a single database.
This process included standardizing field names, chemical parameter names, and units of
measurement. The mountaintop mining chemistry database was established using the Microsoft
Access97® relational database. It is included in this report as APPENDIX 3. The database is
compatible with most other database software. It can be linked to other applications such as
Arc View®, Arclnfo®, or USEPA's STORET. Figure 2 illustrates how the database is
organized. The chemistry database contains a collection of four tables that are linked by one or
more fields in order to facilitate data analysis. Information regarding each sampling site is listed
in the table 01-Stations. Information about each sample is in the table 02-ChemSamps.
Laboratory results for each sample are stored in the table 03-ChemValues. Information about the
chemical parameters is in the table 04-ChemParameters This vast amount of information was
separated into four tables to reduce repetition within the database.
At least one field in each of the tables is the primary key for the table which functions as a
21
-------
unique identifier for the information stored in that table. Primary keys are used to link the tables
to one another using one-to-many relationships. For example, the field StationID is the primary
key for table 01 - Stations and is used to link to table 02 - ChemSamps. StationID is not
duplicated in table 01 - Stations, but it is duplicated in table 02-ChemSamps because stations
were sampled multiple times in this study.
Figure 2.
Organization of Database
Not all the chemical analyses were provided in electronic form from the laboratories. Four
'*%. Microsoft Access - [Relationships]
File Edit View Relationships lools Window Help
no nor ' x^
n ngj /v
StationID
Basin
StreamNarne
Location
EIS Class
EIS Class 2
Agency
Reason for Survey
Indicator
Order
Order-Type
Mining Activity
Fills
Year of Permit
Permits
Quad
County
State
Ecoregion Code
Latitude
Longitude
Source
Area (m2)
Watershed Acreage
Elevation (ft)
Access
Comments
AddDate
SATFIE*
Blank
StationID
Duplicate
SAMPLE DATE
SAMPLE TIME
Comments
FLOW (GPM)
LAB
COLLECTORS
File
DELIVERY GROUP
LOCID
ChernSamp3_ID
Ready
EnterDate
ChemVduelD
SAMPLE*
ChennParanneterlD
VALUE
BelowDet
QA_QC
Comments
PREP DATE
ANALYSIS DATE
ANALYSIS TIME
BLANK BATCH
ANALYTE
REPORTING LEVEL
METHOD
REPORT_ORDER
ID
NUM
months of lab chemistry data and field chemical parameters for all of the samples were only
available in paper form. This data was entered into the database by EPA staff using a set of data
entry forms they created to simplify and standardize the data entry process. Staff at the Wheeling
office completed an independent check of 100% of the data entry performed at Wheeling and
also checked the remainder of the values in the database against the paper copies of laboratory
reports and field sheets. Additional checks on the quality of the data and data entry were made
22
-------
using queries of the database. A request to retrieve or manipulate data from the database is
called a query. Queries can filter and summarize data from one or more of the database tables by
setting specific criteria and then displaying the results in tabular form. For example, queries can
select specific data such as finding all of the samples where a particular value is greater than a
specified water quality criteria. They can also perform functions such as calculating hardness
from total calcium and total magnesium values. Range checks were performed using queries
for each parameter. They provided an extra indication of the accuracy of the data entry since
outliers were again verified using the original lab reports. The range checks were useful because
they indicated a group of samples where the values for dissolved aluminum, iron and manganese
were reported by the laboratory using incorrect units. This problem was then resolved with a
letter from the laboratory correcting the errors. An examination of the range of the data also
highlighted the importance of considering the values reported for blank samples and highlighted
temporal and/or laboratory differences for several chemical parameters.
As a result of QA/QC verification and validation procedures, additional information was added
to the original database preserving the original data, but allowing for a record of QA/QC
evaluations. The 03-ChemValues table contains a QAjQC field for recording data "flags". A
"R" was placed in the QA field for chemistry values that were rejected in the QA/QC data
review. Likewise a "5 " was added to the QA field when the laboratory results for blanks was
greater than or equal to 10% of the sample results. A "RWHL" was entered in the QA QC field
where the report writers identified problems with the data such as when the value for dissolved
organic carbon was greater than the value for total organic carbon or when a note from the
chemist indicated acid appeared to have been added to the wrong sample container. Some other
values were rejected based on the field sheet notes of problems encountered at the time of
sampling. For example, the field sheet for one sample noted they only acidified bottles 2 & 6.
These field sampling problems were flagged "RWHL " and the appropriate values were rejected
from the data evaluation.
23
-------
5. EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Several methods of evaluating the data were undertaken in seeking to characterize and compare
conditions in streams below mountaintop removal / valley fill mining operations. This
evaluation was made more complicated by several factors including variations in the quality of
the data. The precision of sampling results varied with each parameter as well as with laboratory
over the duration of the study. The results of the duplicate samples and blank samples are used
to assess the precision of sample results and better evaluate the true impact. This evaluation was
facilitated by storing the data in an electronic database which is described first in this evaluation
and discussion.
The initial evaluation seeks to identify parameters likely to be impacted by MTM/VF mining.
The average water quality at all Filled sites is compared to the water quality at all Unmined sites
sampled during this study. The parameters most altered are then examined for all categories of
sites for the entire data set to evaluate mining impacts on each parameter. Variations in data
quality are evaluated using the duplicate sample results. Additional insight is provided through
calculation of a value called " Yield,"an idea taken from a USGS publication (Sams & Beer 2000,
page 10). Yield rates are calculated by dividing loading values by the drainage area.
The second approach in this evaluation is to identify the samples and sites which exceeded West
Virginia's stream water quality criteria. Sites which have multiple violations are described
and characterized.
Finally, the eight parameters which had little or no detectable concentrations in any samples
are listed and briefly discussed.
5.1 Parameters Likely To Be Impacted By MTM/VF Mining
5.1. a Filled Sites vs Unmined Sites
The median concentration from all Filled sites was compared to the median concentration from
all Unmined sites to identify which parameters were most likely to be impacted by MTM/VF
mining. The ratio of Mined to Unmined was used to prioritize the discussion and evaluation of
the data from all categories of sites. Only data from the second laboratory was used in this
comparison since there were data quality differences between the two laboratories. Table 6 lists
the median values for all Filled site data and all Unmined site data as well as the ratios for each
parameter. There are 16 parameters with a ratio greater than 1.0 and each will be discussed
individually beginning with sulfate. The 25 remaining parameters will also be discussed but
they may be discussed in groups of parameters or in later sections of this report.
24
-------
Table 6. Median Values at All Filled vs All Unmined Sites - Lab 2 Only
Parameter
Siilfate
Calcium
Magnesium
Hardness
Solids. Dissolved
Manganese. Total
Conductivity. Field AiS/cml
Selenium
Alkalinitv
Potassium
Sodium
Manganese. Dissolved
Chloride
Aciditv
Nitrate/Nitrite (N\
pHr Field fstd^
Aciditv. Hot
Aluminum. Dissolved
Antimonv
Arsenic
Bervllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercurv
Nickel
Organic Carbon. Total
Phosphorous
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Barium
Dissolved Oxvgen. Field
Organic Carbon. Dissolved
Solids. Suspended
Iron. Total
Iron. Dissolved
Zinc
Aluminum Total
Median Unmined11
12.55
4.875
4.095
29.05
50.5
0.005
66.4
0.0015
20
1.58
1.43
0.005
2.5
2.5
0.81
6.78
2.5
0.050
0.0025
0.001
0.0005
0.0005
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.001
0.0001
0.010
1.35
0.05
0.005
0.001
0.005
0.02885
13.6
2.45
5.75
0.417
0.220
0.006
0 147
Median Filled*
523.5
104
86.7
617
847
0.04395
585
0.01168
149.5
8.07
4.46
0.01035
4.5
4.25
0.95
7.77
2.5
0.050
0.0025
0.001
0.0005
0.0005
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.001
0.0001
0.010
1.4
0.05
0.005
0.001
0.005
0.02465
1 1 .045
1.95
4.25
0.1935
0.096
0.0025
0050
Ratio Filled/Unmined
41.7
21.3
21.2
21.2
16.8
8.8
8.8
7.8
7.5
5.1
3.1
2.1
1.8
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
03
Det. Limit @ Lab 2"
5
0.1
0.5
3.31
5
0.01
N/A
0.003
5
0.75
0.5
0.01
5
2
0.1
N/A
5
0.1
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.0002
0.02
1
0.1
0.01
0.002
0.01
0.02
N/A
1
5
0.1
0.1
0.005
0 1
* Concentrations are in mg/L unless noted.
25
-------
5.2 SulfateData
Although there is no stream criterion for sulfate in West Virginia to protect aquatic life, several
groups have looked at the impacts of sulfate on other water uses. The adverse effects of high
concentrations of aluminum in water supplies were noted in EPA's "Blue Book 1972." Their
recommendation was:
On the basis of taste and laxative effects and because the defined treatment process does
not remove sulfates, it is recommended that sulfate in public water sources not exceed
250 mg/1 where sources with lower sulfate concentrations are or can be made available.
(Rolichetal 1972, page 89)
This recommendation was set to protect human health at water supplies using surface waters as a
source. Additional research should be conducted to investigate the effects of sulfates on aquatic
life. Regarding the impact on aquatic life, the California State Water Resources Control Board
publication Water Quality Criteria 1963 edition states:
In U.S. waters that support good game fish, 5 percent of the waters contain less than 11
mg/1 of sulfates, 50 percent less than 32 mg/1, and 95 percent less than 90 mg/1.
Experience indicates that water containing less than 0.5 mg/1 sulfate will not support
growth of algae. (McKee et al 1963, page 276)
MTM/VF permit writers in West Virginia recognize sulfates as a significant indicator of mining
activity. Their Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment (CHIA) report for the Twentymile
Creek watershed states:
The data indicate that the sulfate concentrations are increased with mining. Sulfates are
endemic to mining areas and are indicators of mining in a watershed. A rule of thumb
can be observed from the water quality data researched for this CHIA. This rule is (A)
below 20 mg/1 there is no mining in the watershed (B) between 20 and 30 mg/1 there has
been very little or no impact from mining in a watershed (C) from 30 to 100 mg/1 there
has been some impact from mining (D) above 100 mg/1 there has been certain impact
from mining. (West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, CHIA for
Twentymile Creek, pages not numbered)
5.2.a Sulfate Concentration in Stream Samples
The concentration of sulfate at each site varied with time during this study. The values for each
sample from all sites have been plotted against time in Figure SO4-1. Each category of site has
been plotted with a different symbol so the variation of concentrations classes of sites can be
evaluated. The detection limit was 10 mg/L at the first laboratory and 5 mg/L at the second
laboratory.
26
-------
The sulfate concentrations at the Unmined sites fit the rule of thumb for unmined watersheds set
by the CHIA report writers and were well below the recommended drinking water criterion of
250 mg/1. The median concentration for all Unmined sites was only 14.25 mg/L. The US
Geological Survey report Water Quality in the Allegheny and Monongahela River Basins,
Circular 1202", published in 2000 indicates the regional background concentration of sulfate in
unmined watersheds in the northern portion of the Appalachian coal field averages about 21 mg/1
(Anderson et al 2000, page 20), which is similar to the concentrations at Unmined sites in this
study.
Many samples from the categories Filled and Mined had sulfate values exceeding the
recommended drinking water standard of 250 mg/L. Especially noteworthy are the values for
the samples from site MT-24, a yellow diamond symbol in Figure SO4-1. The concentrations
ranged from 800 to 2,300 mg/L and are consistently higher than the concentration at all other
types of sites. This site is not a stream but a flow diversion ditch at an MTM/VF mine.
Obviously the site is a source of sulfate to the stream below. The sites in the category Filled
comprise the majority of the higher concentrations.
2500
Figure 804-!. Sulfate Concentrations for All Sites vs. Date
• Filled m
Q Mined
A Unmined
H Filled/Residential
© Mined/Residential
O Sediment Control Structure
0
0 0
0
•
^ i- .!.s ••
•Q © i Q n •
•1 i ^ . I °!.
jft h / ^ ^ Q
o o
o
0
o o
•
• •
• •
• •
H 3 [7]
° H ^1 • • ^
s I ' • S ,5 .
! R . "a .^*- n 3"
8 |B». B • H ; H • I,
9* y» * yf •• • S ^
oT a4rA A*i A 51 1 * » &»k
2250 -
2000 -
1750 -
1500 -
on
J, 1250 -
I
"3 1000 -
750 -
500 -
:250
10/1/99 12/1/99 2/1/00 4/1/00 6/1/00 8/1/00 10/1/00 12/1/00 2/1/01
*USEPA secondary maximum contaminant level Date
27
-------
Table SO4-1 lists a summary of the 172 samples which exceed the Secondary Maximum
Contaminant Level of 250 mg/L for Sulfate. Roughly 45 % of the samples which passed the
QA/QC review exceeded the sulfate criterion but none came from sites in the category Unmined.
There are 110 samples from the category Filled, and another 37 samples from the category
Filled/Residences. There are 4 samples at Mined sites and another 10 from the category
Mined/Residences. There were 11 samples from the diversion ditch exceeding the criterion.
The sites where the sulfate concentration was high were scattered across the study area in areas
where coal mining has occurred.
Table SO4-1. Number of Samples Exceeding the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
of 250 mg/L for Sulfate
Station ID
MT-14
MT-15
MT-18
MT-25B
MT-32
MT/34B
MT-52
MT-57B
MT-64
MT-87
MT-98
MT-103
MT-104
MT-23
MT-48
MT-55
MT-62
MT-75
MT-79
MT-69
MT-7.4
EIS Class
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled/Residences
Filled/residences
Filled/Residences
Filled/Residences
Filled/Residences
Mined
Mined/Residences
MTM/VF Diversion Ditch
No. Samples > 250 mg/L
10 of 11
10 of 10
1 1 of 1 1
7 of 10
4 of 10
10 of 10
3 of 8
6 of 7
1 1 of 1 1
3 of 13
13 of 13
12 of 13
10 of 13
10 of 11
3 of 10
2 of 8
1 1 of 1 1
1 1 of 1 1
4 of 11
10 of 11
11 of 1 1
5.2.b QA Samples for Sulfate
Evaluation of the results of duplicate samples indicate the values for sulfate are generally
precise. The QA/QC review of the data checked for accuracy. The sulfate data remaining are
suitable for evaluating the impacts to stream chemistry resulting from MTM/VF mining. The
Relative Percent Difference (RPD) values for the 44 sets of field duplicate samples are listed in
Table SO4-2.
28
-------
Table SO4-2. RPD for Field Duplicates for Sulfate
Station ID
MT104
MT62
MT86
MT02
MT02
MT75
MT25B
MT104
MT52
MT62
MT24
MT98
MT75
MT24
MT48
MT51
MT79
MT95
MT57B
MT25B
MT15
MT87
MT24
MT81
MT40
MT50
MT79
MT91
MT55
MT34B
MT01
MT64
MT86
MT02
MT32
MT55
Sample Date
3/8/00
3/8/00
3/8/00
4/19/00
5/10/00
6/13/00
8/8/00
8/9/00
8/9/00
8/9/00
8/30/00
9/5/00
9/6/00
9/19/00
9/27/00
9/28/00
10/3/00
10/11/00
10/24/00
10/25/00
10/31/00
11/16/00
11/28/00
11/28/00
11/30/00
11/30/00
12/11/00
12/19/00
1/3/01
1/4/01
1/10/01
1/16/01
1/17/01
2/6/01
2/9/01
2/14/01
Laboratory
LAB 1
LAB 1
LAB 1
LAB 1
LAB 1
LAB 1
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
LAB 2
RPD
194
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
5
1
4
1
1
1
11
0
1
1
3
1
1
1
4
1
2
2
4
0
2
5
1
o
3
0
i
i
2
29
-------
The highest RPD for the duplicates was 11 and many values were 1. This indicates the data for
sulfate was generally precise throughout the study. The results of duplicate samples are also
presented in Figure SO4-2, Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Sulfate Concentration. In this
graph, duplicate sets of sample results are plotted with one value being plotted on the x-axis and
the other plotted on the y-axis. If a set of duplicate samples had exactly the same concentration
value, the point would fall on a line from zero/zero to 3000/3000. A general limit on precision
of plus or minus 25% was used in this study. This precision limit is also shown on the Figure to
illustrate if a set of duplicate samples are out of normal precision limits or "out of control." In
addition, the values from the two laboratories are plotted with different symbols to determine if
there is a difference in precision between the data from the two parts of the study. There were
nine sets of duplicate samples rejected in the QA/QC review of laboratory results, and all were
during the early part of the study at laboratory 1. No duplicates were rejected in data from the
second laboratory.
Figure SO^-2. Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Sulfate Concentrations
3000
2700 -
2400 -
f 2100 H
w
2; 1800 -
^ 1500 -
w
a 1200 -
Q 900 -
600 -
300 -
0 -
O LAB 1
( n = 6 duplicate pairs)
A LAB 2
( n = 30 duplicate pairs)
H/- 25% Precision Limits
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000
DUPLICATE 1 - SULFALE (mg/L)
The agreement in results for each set of duplicates is evident. Duplicate samples run at the
second laboratory had a wider range of concentrations but were still quite precise.
30
-------
The concentration of sulfates in the 80 blank samples should have been below the detection
limit. There was only one sample with a detectable concentration of sulfate and it was at the first
laboratory. Of the 80 blank samples, there were 28 pairs of duplicate blank samples and all were
below the detection limit in the laboratory indicating no detectable contamination occurred from
sample handling in the field or the laboratory. The quality of the data for sulfate is good.
5.2.c Sulfate Yield
Sulfate has long been considered a good indicator of the presence of coal mine drainage in
streams in Appalachia. The relationship between coal mining and sulfate in streams is the focus
of the US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4208 (Sams & Beer,
2000). The report notes that sulfate is an excellent indicator of mine drainage because the sulfate
ion is very soluble and chemically stable at the pH levels normally encountered in streams, and
the treatment of mine drainage to remove metals and neutralize acidity has little or no effect on
sulfate concentration. The authors calculated the annual discharge of sulfate at selected stream
monitoring points and divided that loading by the drainage area above the monitoring point to
determine "Sulfate Yield" in tons per year per square mile. They used these Sulfate Yield rates
to rank stream degradation attributable to mining. A similar approach has been used in this
report to evaluate the impacts of mining on the streams.
Sulfate Yield was calculated for each sampling event at each site. The first step was to calculate
the instantaneous sulfate load for each sample event by multiplying the sulfate concentration
(mg/L) times the instantaneous flow rate (cubic feet per second) times the conversion factor
(5.39) to get a load in pounds per day. The Sulfate Yield was then determined by dividing the
instantaneous sulfate load by the drainage area above that site. The Sulfate Yield in this report is
measured in pounds of sulfate per day per acre. These Sulfate Yield values vary at each site with
each sampling event. They also vary with the categories of sites being evaluated in this study -
Unmined, Mined, Filled, Filled with Residences, and Mined with Residences. No Sulfate Yield
values were calculated for site MT- 24 since there is no accurate data on the area now draining to
the site. Mountaintop mining has changed the original drainage patterns and there is no accurate
map of the new watershed boundary. The variations in Sulfate Yield can be plotted against time
to compare categories of sites. Figure SO4-3 is a graph of Sulfate Yield rates for all sites vs date.
The production of sulfate per acre at sites in the "Filled" category is much higher than at
"Unmined" sites. The highest yields are consistently from "Filled" sites and range from 0 to
over 14 pounds per acre per day. Sulfate Yield rates at Unmined sites are consistently less than
one pound per acre per day. There are two samples collected in December 1999 at Unmined
sites with yield rates greater than 2 pounds per day per acre. Those samples are from sites MT-
50 and MT-51. The field sheet includes the note "Heavy precipitation in the last 24 hours,"
which would explain the higher yield rate values for these Unmined sites.
31
-------
20
Figure SO4-3. Sulfate Yield for All Sites vs. Date
18 -
16 -
14 -
g
"!, 12 H
S 10 H
o 8 -
W
T3
I 6H
• Filled
• Mined
A Unmined
H Filled/Residential
© Mined/Residential
a
A® It
a a i
©
S
5
4
0
1 .
Q Q
i
10/1/99 12/1/99 2/1/00
4/1/00 6/1/00 8/1/00 10/1/00
Date
12/1/00 2/1/01
The Sulfate Yield rates described in the US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 99-4208 (Sams & Beer, 2000) were measured in tons per year per square mile. The Yield
rate for two unmined watersheds in this USGS study was calculated to be 24 tons in one
watershed and 25 tons per year per square mile in another. (Sams et al 2000, page 9) This is
equivalent to about 0.2 pounds per day per acre. Mined watersheds produced up to 580 tons per
year per square mile (about 5 pounds per day per acre). These sulfate yield rates are for drainage
areas that are many miles away from the region of mountaintop mining and have different
geology. The Allegheny and Monongahela River watersheds are dominated by high sulfur coals
while low sulfur coals dominate the geology of the region of mountaintop mining. Even so, the
values for Sulfate Yield in the northern high sulfur region are similar to those in the study area.
Unmined watersheds produce less than a pound of sulfate per day per acre and heavily mined
watersheds can produce 5 pounds per day per acre or more. Sulfate is an excellent indicator of
coal mining activity throughout the northern Appalachian coal field. MTM/VF mining
operations increase the concentration of sulfate in streams draining the mining sites.
32
-------
5.3 Calcium Data
Calcium is a significant part of hardness, but like magnesium, it does not have water quality
limits. According to the California State Water Resources Control Board's Water Quality
Criteria, calcium salts and calcium ions are among the most commonly encountered substances
in water. They result from the leaching of soil and other natural sources. Calcium is an essential
element for plants and animals. Concerning the impacts to fish and other aquatic life, the report
notes:
Calcium in water reduces the toxicity of many chemical compounds to fish and other
aquatic fauna According to a reference cited by Hart et al., of the U.S. water
supporting a good mix offish fauna, ordinarily about 5 percent have less than 15 mg/1 of
calcium; 50 percent have less than 28 mg/1; and 95 percent have less than 52 mg/1.
Figure Ca-1. Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Calcium
600000
500000 -
400000 -
o
ci 300000 -
(N
w
H
O
O LAB 1
( n = 14 duplicate pairs)
A LAB 2
( n = 30 duplicate pairs)
^^— +/- 25% Precision Limits
200000 -
Q
100000 -
100000 200000 300000
DUPLICATE 1 - CALCIUM (UG/L)
400000
500000
The results of duplicate samples for calcium are shown in Figure Ca-1. The detection limit was
100 ug/L. The precision was good for both laboratories, and again there were higher values from
the second laboratory. There were 13 blank samples of the 80 collected which had detectable
concentrations of calcium. All were collected in the first half of this study and analyzed at the
first laboratory. Further discussion of the calcium concentrations from this study will focus on
the significant contribution of calcium to hardness.
33
-------
5.4 Magnesium Data
According to the California State Water Resources Control Board's Water Quality Criteria,
magnesium constitutes about 2.1 % of the crust of the earth being widely distributed in ores and
minerals. The salts of magnesium are very soluble. Magnesium is an essential element for
plants and animals. Magnesium is considered relatively non-toxic to humans and not a health
hazard because, before toxic concentrations are reached in water, the taste becomes quite
unpleasant. Concerning the impacts to fish and other aquatic life, the report notes:
Hart et al. cite a report that among U.S. waters supporting a good fish fauna, ordinarily 5
percent have less than 3.5 mg/L of magnesium; 50 percent have less than 7 mg/L; and 95
percent have less than 14 mg/L.
The results of duplicate samples are plotted in Figure Mg-1. The detection limit was 100 ug/L.
None of the laboratory values for magnesium in this study were rejected in the data quality
Figure Mg-1. Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Magnesium
500000
revi
ews.
400000 -
I
O LAB 1
( n = 14 duplicate pairs)
A LAB 2
( n = 30 duplicate pairs)
^^— +/- 25% Precision Limits
DL = 100 ug/L
VI
O
<
u
I
Q
300000 -
200000 -
100000 -
100000 200000 300000 400000
DUPLICATE 1 - MAGNESIUM (UG/L)
500000
34
-------
The results of duplicate samples are very precise across a wide range of concentrations. The
values at the second laboratory were higher than those at the first. Ten percent of the eighty
blank samples had detectable concentrations of magnesium. All of these contaminated blank
samples were collected in the first half of the study. The detection limit for magnesium is 100
ug/L which is 3% of the median value detected at Unmined sites so the increase is well above the
minimum detectable values. Further discussion of the magnesium concentrations from this study
will focus on the significant contribution of magnesium to hardness.
5.5 Total Hardness Data
According to the California State Water Resources Control Board's Water Quality Criteria, the
term "Hardness" refers to the soap-neutralizing power of water. Any substance that will form an
insoluble curd with soap causes hardness. Hardness is attributable principally to calcium and
magnesium ions but other metals can increase hardness. Indeed the standard method (Method
2340 B) for calculating hardness is determined using only the concentrations of calcium and
magnesium. The equation is:
Hardness in mg/L = 2.497 (Calcium in mg/L) + 4.118 (Magnesium in mg/L)
The hardness values were calculated for each sample and used in this evaluation of hardness
concentration. Acceptable levels of hardness in drinking waters vary with consumer preference
and "good drinking water" can have a maximum hardness from 140 mg/1 to 270 mg/1.
Regarding the impact of hardness on aquatic life, this reference states, "Soft water solutions
increase the sensitivity offish to toxic metals; in hard waters toxic metals may be less
dangerous."
Several stream water quality criteria for toxic metals have been established with a limit that
varies with the hardness in the stream. The harder the water the more of the toxic metal can be
present without causing toxicity. West Virginia has set water quality limits on toxic metals to
protect aquatic life in streams in this study area. These limits are calculated from equations
which use the hardness concentration to calculate the maximum allowable concentration of the
metal. Limits have been set for the following dissolved metals: cadmium, copper, lead, nickel,
silver, and zinc. Hardness is an acceptable contaminant for most water uses in low
concentrations.
5.5.a Hardness Concentration in Stream Samples
The concentration of hardness at each site varied with time during this study. The values for
each sample from all sites have been calculated and plotted against time in Figure H-l. Each
category of site has been plotted with a different symbol so the variations between categories can
be evaluated. Unmined sites consistently have the lowest concentration of hardness while the
Sediment Control Structure (MT-24) has the highest concentrations. All types of sites which
have mining activity upstream also have elevated concentrations of hardness, with the Filled
category sites generally being higher.
35
-------
o
T3
Figure H-l. Hardness Concentration for All Sites vs. Date
3500 -i
3000 -
2500 -
2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
0 -
• Filled
O Mined
A Unmined
El Filled/Residential
© Mined/Residential
O Sediment Control Structure
0
o
o
0
O
o
0
0
S i
A
H
0
"
0
8 I a;2 • £•! B.
k-l
EH
10/1/99 12/1/99
i ' i • i
2/1/00 4/1/00 6/1/00
Date
8/1/00 10/1/00 12/1/00 2/1/01
5.5. b QA Samples for Hardness
Hardness values were calculated from the concentration of calcium and magnesium. The QA
samples for those parameters have been presented so there is no need for additional discussion.
5.5.c Hardness Yield
The Yield of hardness in pounds per day per acre for each sample is presented in Figure H-2.
The Yield for Unmined sites is generally less than one pound per day per acre while the Yield
for Filled sites is generally above two pounds per day per acre with some values nearly 25
pounds per day per acre. Higher Yields are also evident at Filled/Residential and
Mined/Residential sites. There appear to be higher Yield values in the second half of the study.
There are also two samples collected in December 1999 at two Unmined sites with yield rates
above 2 pounds per day per acre. A note on the field sheet states "Heavy rainfall for the
previous 24 hours," which would account for these higher yield rates. The data from both
laboratories indicate Filled sites have elevated values for Hardness Yield.
36
-------
Figure H-2. Hardness Yield for All Sites vs. Date
25 -
^20
^S
"3
13
015
o
I
o
PH
10 -
• Filled
0 Mined
A Unmined
H Filled/Residential
© Mined/Residential
• H
5 -
0 -
10/1/99 12/1/99 2/1/00 4/1/00 6/1/00
Date
8/1/00
10/1/00 12/1/00 2/1/01
5.6 Total Dissolved Solids Data
In natural waters the dissolved solids are various minerals in their ionic form including
carbonates, bicarbonates, chlorides, sulfates, phosphates, and nitrates of various metals. Since
dissolved solids are often a diverse mix of various salts, the effect on use of the water can be
equally diverse. For drinking water, the U.S. Public Health Service in 1962 recommended that
the total dissolved solids should not exceed 500 mg/1 if more suitable supplies are or can be
made available. Regarding protection offish and aquatic life, the California State Water
Resources Control Board's Water Quality Criteria states:
It has been reported that among inland waters in the United States supporting a good
mixed fish fauna, about 5 percent have a dissolved solids concentration under 72 mg/L;
about 50 percent under 169 mg/L; and about 95 percent under 400 mg/L.
37
-------
5.6.a Dissolved Solids Concentration in Stream Samples
Figure DS-1 presents all the data that passed the QA review for concentration of dissolved solids
for all sites. The detection limit was 5 mg/L. A separate symbol represents each category of site
to allow trends to be more easily observed.
Figure DS-1. Total Dissolved Solids Concentration for All Sites vs. Date - Lab 2 Only
^-v
h-1
~£b
1
"o
W
Q
W
W
Q
'B
^2
T^vyvyvy
3500 -
3000 -
2500 -
2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
0 -
J Fllled DL = 5mg/L
• Mined ° Q
A Unmined
Q Filled/Residential ^ xx
© Mined/Residential
O Sediment Control Structure
o
^ 0
o •
• • "
f m
m
m Q
Q Q
[-71 sy. © |T|
Q • • @ • :im m
c 1 E • * _•
• " B ^ 1 "
m " ^ (P •
9 0 lg • B^BE1. Q
i 2?ai*1^2 I S? • i J § € at A
i i i i i i
8/1/00 9/1/00 10/1/00 11/1/00 12/1/00 1/1/01 2/1/01 3/1/
Date
The QA review of data rejected 57 % of the values for dissolved solids at the first laboratory
while 100 % of the values at the second laboratory passed the review. The values for all
dissolved solids samples from the first laboratory were near zero while the values at the second
laboratory range up to over 3,700 mg/L. There should have been high concentrations of
dissolved solids during the first half of the study since sulfate and hardness were high. The data
from the first lab was therefore not used in this evaluation.
38
-------
5.6. b QA Samples for Dissolved Solids
A major reason for rejection of data at the first laboratory was excessive holding time before
analysis. As for the blank samples, 27 of the 30 blanks at the first laboratory had detectable
levels of dissolved solids. Only one of the 50 blanks tested at the second laboratory had
measurable levels of dissolved solids. All 30 duplicate samples run at the second laboratory
passed the QA/QC review. The results of duplicate samples are shown in Figure DS-2.
Figure DS-2. Comparison of Duplicate Samples-Total Dissolved Solids-Lab 2 Only
1400
Q
W
H
O
-------
5.6.c Dissolved Solids Yield
Figure DS-3. Total Dissolved Solids Yield for All Sites vs. Date - Lab 2 Only
^>~>
30 -
t 25 '
VI
"o
^ 20 -
»>
"o
3 15 -
13
"o
E-i
10 -
5 -
0 -
• Filled
• Minec
A Unmir
B [3 Filled/
© Minec
•
s
•
• •
Q 0 •
B 1
| •
fit * "
* B D • S '
• " a" B
• • •
& D0S"H ' 1
1 * " It I i lit ( t
ed
Residential
/Residential
•
0
Qm •
•I"
i i i i i i
8/1/00 9/1/00 10/1/00 11/1/00 12/1/00 1/1/01 2/1/01 3/1/
Date
Figure DS-3 plots the Yield of dissolved solids for all sites. Yield rates for the second half of the
study indicate Filled sites have elevated values of dissolved solids, up to 30 pounds per day per
acre. Yield rates at Unmined sites are less than 2 pounds per day per acre.
40
-------
5.7 Manganese, Total and Dissolved Data
There are discharge limits on total manganese for active mines set forth in the Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Part 434. The limits are 4.0 mg/L (4000 ug/L) maximum for any one day
and 2.0 mg/L (2000 ug/L) maximum for thirty consecutive days. Although none of the
monitoring points in this study is a discharge monitoring point for a permit, the limits serve as a
reference when evaluating the concentrations in the streams. Manganese laden overburden is a
concern for MTM/VF operations requiring special handling during the mining. The goal is to
minimize leaching of manganese from the site in quantities that exceed the permit limit. There
are reclaimed MTM/VF mines that continue to require chemical treatment of the discharges in
order to comply with permit effluent limits (WVDEP CHIA for Twentymile Creek).
Data from the first lab lacked precision and was not included in this evaluation. Total manganese
was detected in 70 % of the 210 samples analyzed at the second laboratory. The detection limit
was 10 ug/L. It was found in all categories of sites and in all five watersheds studied. The
maximum concentration of total manganese identified was 518 ug/L (site MT-23, category
Filled/Residences, date - 1 1/28/00). This is about 12 % of the daily maximum effluent limit for
coal mines. The maximum value detected at any Unmined site was 145 ug/L (MT-13, date -
08/30/00). Manganese concentration data is presented in Figure Mn-1. The higher values are
generally at sites in the category "Filled", but the values are not consistent for specific sites.
700 -,
Figure Mn-1. Concentration of Total Manganese for All Sites vs. Date - Lab 2 Only
600 -
500 -
60
•a
300-
200 -
100 -
0 -
El
©
Filled
Mined
Unmined
Filled/Residential
Mined/Residential
Sediment Control Structure
DL = 10 ug/L
o
O
g
«
s
8/1/00
9/1/00
10/1/00
11/1/00
Date
41
12/1/00
1/1/01
2/1/01
-------
An example is range of concentrations for the Sediment Control Structure (MT-24) which go
from less than 100 ug/L to more than 400 ug/L. The highest values were at site MT-23, which is
the Mud River near the town of Mud. The manganese values at sites throughout the Mud River
watershed are the higher values in this figure. Site MT-13, the mouth of Spring Branch in the
Mud River watershed, is an Unmined site which had manganese values of 145 ug/L on 8/30/00
and 137 ug/L on 9/19/00. These higher values were associated with low flows (13 gpm and 0.5
gpm respectively) as the concentration at this site dropped below the detection limit when the
flow rose to 150 gpm in February.
Figure Mn-2 plots the concentration of duplicate samples. The precision is only fair at the second
lab. The values range up to about 25 times the detection limit.
Figure Mn-2. Comparison of Duplicates - Total Manganese - Lab 2 Only
300
280 -
260 -
^ 240 -
^
g 220 -
| 200 -
S
ei 18° H
3 160 -
-------
Dissolved manganese was also measured in this study. Results of duplicate samples for dissolved
manganese are plotted in Figure Mn-3. Precision is better than that for total manganese, but the
range of concentration is smaller, being only about 8 times the detection limit.
Figure Mn-3. Comparison of Duplicates - Dissolved Manganese - Lab 2 Only
300
280 -
260 -
§240-
220 -
O
w
o
200 -
180 -
160 -
140 -
120 -
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 -
LAB 2
( n = 29 duplicate pairs)
+/- 25% Precision Limits
(DL=10ug/L)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
DUPLICATE 1 - DISSOLVED MANGANESE (UG/L)
The data for manganese indicate it occurs across the study area. MTM/VF mining can increase
the concentration of manganese in streams and require long term chemical treatment of
discharges. Careful analysis and special handling of mine overburden is required to minimize the
concentration of manganese in permitted wastewater discharges from MTM/VF mines.
Yield rates for manganese are presented in Figure Mn-4 for the second laboratory only. Yield
rates are all less than 0.003 pounds per acre per day and the higher values are from most
categories of sites. This indicates that higher manganese values in streams are not closely related
to mining activities and that mines are complying with permit limits on manganese.
43
-------
0.005 -i
Figure Mn-4. Total Manganese Yield vs. Date - Lab 2 Only
0.004 -
0.003 -
an
o 0.002 H
H
o
VI
0.001 -
o.ooo -
A
Q
©
Filled
Mined
Unmined
Filled/Residential
Mined/Residential
m
2
H
m §
2
8/1/00
9/1/00
10/1/00
11/1/00
Date
12/1/00
1/1/01
2/1/01
5.8 Specific Conductance Data
Specific conductance or conductivity is a quick method of measuring the ion concentration of
water. The 18th Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
states:
Conductivity is the measure of the ability of an aqueous solution to carry an electric
current. This ability depends on the presence of ions: on their total concentration,
mobility, and valence: and on the temperature of measurement. Solutions of most
inorganic compounds are relatively good conductors. Conversely, molecules of organic
compounds that do not dissociate in aqueous solution conduct a current very poorly, if at
all.
The unit of measure is micromhos per centimeter or in the International System of Units,
millisiemens per meter. Specific conductance is measured in the field using a calibrated meter.
The median conductance value of samples from site MT-24 was 2,856 while the median
conductance of all samples at Unmined sites was 62.6 micromho/cm, indicating higher
44
-------
concentrations of ions came from the area upstream of MT-24 site.
Although there is no stream criterion for conductivity in West Virginia, it is commonly measured
as part of streams surveys. Regarding the impact of conductivity on fish and aquatic life, the
California State Water Resources Control Board's Water Quality Criteria states:
.... Hart et al. have reported that among United States waters supporting a good fish fauna
about 5 % have a specific conductivity under 50xlO"6mhos [50 micromhos/cm] at 25°C;
about 50percent under 270x 10~6mhos [ 270 micromhos/cm]; and about 95percent under
1100xlO-6mhos [1100 micromhos/cm].
The conductivity of the streams during the sampling event has been included in Figure Cond-1.
A different symbol has been used for each category of site so evaluation of trends is more evident.
Conductivity at Filled sites can be 100 times greater than that at Unmined sites. The highest
values are consistently at the Sediment Control Structure (MT-24) which is on a reclaimed
MTM/VF mine.
45
-------
It is no surprise that MTM/VF operations increase the conductance of streams draining the
disturbed areas. Figure Cond-2 plots the conductivity vs the normalized flow rate (the flow rate
measured at the time of sampling divided by the drainage area for that site)for two categories of
sites - Filled and Unmined. Unmined sites have a consistently low conductivity no matter what
the flow. Filled sites have a broad range of conductivity much higher than Unmined sites
indicating that MTM/VF mining increases specific conductance in streams. In larger drainage
area sites it is common to have lower flows associated with higher conductivity. This is discussed
at the end of this report under the topic Flow Rate Data.
Figure Cond-1. Field Conductivity of All Sites vs. Date
4000 -i
o
~5i
O
JZ
o
T3
O
O
"
• Filled
• Mined
A Unmined
H Filled/Residential
© Mined/Residential
O Sediment Control Structure
3000 -
o
O
o
o
O
o
0
2000 -
1000 -
H
•
a
a
o
O
©
m
El
El
Q
I
!=t
§• S
1 • m
23* I 2ifi
©
10/1/99 12/1/99 2/1/00 4/1/00
6/1/00
Date
8/1/00 10/1/00 12/1/00
2/1/01
46
-------
5.9 Selenium Data
The selenium data indicate numerous violations of the West Virginia stream water quality
criterion related to MTM/VF mining. Further discussion of selenium results is located in the
Figure Cond-2. Field Conductivity vs. Instantaneous Flow / Watershed Area
3000
o
43
B
2500 -
2000 -
1500 -
_! iooo H
o
O
3 500 -
0 -
Filled
Unmined
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
log (Instantaneous Flow (GPM) / Watershed Area (Acres))
section of this report describing compliance with stream water quality criteria.
5.10 Alkalinity Data
100
47
-------
According to the 18th Edition of Standard Methods, alkalinity of a water is its acid-neutralizing
capacity and is primarily a function of carbonate, bicarbonate, and hydroxide content. Alkalinity
is not a specific substance but rather combination of substances. Regarding the impact of
alkalinity on aquatic life, the California State Water Resources Control Board's Water Quality
Criteria states:
It is generally recognized that the best waters for support of diversified aquatic life are
those with pH values between 7 and 8, having a total alkalinity of 100 to 120 mg/L or
more. This alkalinity serves as a buffer to help prevent any sudden change in pH value,
which might cause death to fish or other aquatic life.
5.10. a Alkalinity Concentration in Stream Samples
The concentration of alkalinity in samples from all sites vs date are plotted in Figure Alk-1.
The detection limit was 4 mg/L. Values for many Filled sites are several times higher than the
Unmined sites. Twelve of the thirteen highest values are from site MT-34B and those
concentrations are even higher than the values at the Sediment Control Structure which is on a
reclaimed MTM/VF mine. The increase in alkalinity at a MTM/VF mine site is sometimes
augmented by liming of areas being reclaimed to improve vegetation growth or by addition of
alkaline materials during the mining process to line ditches to neutralize acidic materials. There
are also some chemical treatment facilities upstream of some sites. These facilities usually add
excess alkalinity as they neutralize acid mine drainage or remove manganese to comply with
700 -i
Figure Alk-1. Alkalinity Concentration for All Sites vs. Date
^
600 -
500 -
• Filled
• Mined
A Unmined
0 Filled/Residential
© Mined/Residential
O Sediment Control Structure
DL = 5 ug/L
so
400-
< 300 -
200 -
100 -
o
m
O
I
El
I
•9. p
••
| 4"
I 0 •
lt
•©
y
01
0
10/1/99 12/1/99 2/1/00 4/1/00 6/1/00 8/1/00 10/1/00 12/1/00 2/1/01
Date
48
-------
permit limits on discharges. These factors also influence other parameters like specific
conductance, dissolved solids, and hardness.
5.10. b QA Samples for Alkalinity
Figure Alk-2 presents a plot of the concentration of duplicate samples. Data from both
laboratories is precise over a range from the detection limit of 5 ug/L to a maximum of 600 mg/L
Figure Alk-2. Concentration of Duplicate Samples for Alkalinity
800
H
H
o
Q
700 -
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
O LAB 1
( n = 14 duplicate pairs)
A LAB 2
( n = 30 duplicate pairs)
^^^— +/- 25% Precision Limits
DL = 5 mg/L
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
DUPLICATE 1 - TOTAL ALKALINITY (MG/L)
S.lO.c
Alkalinit
y Yield
Figure
Alk-3
800 plots the
Yield of
alkalinity
49
-------
10 n
Figure Alk-3. Alkalinity Yield for All Sites vs. Date
l/l
"
-------
Potassium is a component of many fertilizers which are sometimes applied to mined areas to
stimulate vegetation growth. This practice could be augmenting the increase of potassium in
streams below mine sites being reclaimed.
5.11.a Potassium Concentration in Stream Samples
Figure K-l shows the concentration of potassium in samples from all sites vs date. The detection
limit was 0.1 mg/L for Laboratory 1 and 0.75 mg/L for Laboratory 2. The potassium data from
both laboratories passed the QA review with only two samples being rejected and those were at
Laboratory 1.
The higher concentrations are consistently at sites in the Filled category indicating that MTM/VF
35 -i
Figure K-l. Concentration of Potassium for All Sites vs. Date
I
I
30 -
25 -
20 -
f2 15
10 -
5 -
0 -
• Filled
• Mined
A Unmined
H Filled/Residential
© Mined/Residential
O Sediment Control Structure
Lab 1 DL = 0.1 mg/L
Lab 2 DL = 0.75 mg/L
O
o o
O
I "
O
O
O
10/1/99 12/1/99
2/1/00 4/1/00 6/1/00 8/1/00 10/1/00 12/1/00
Date
2/1/01
51
-------
mining operations increase the concentration of potassium in streams. There are 40 values above
10 mg/L and 29 of those are in the Mud River, 10 in the Spruce Fork, and one in the Clear Fork
watersheds. All sites in the Unmined category have low concentrations of potassium.
5.11. b QA Samples for Potassium
Figure K-2 plots the concentration of potassium in all duplicate samples collected during this
study. The plot indicates the data are more precise at the second laboratory over the range of
concentrations from the detection limit to about 30 mg/L.
Figure K-2. Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Potassium
50
40 -
B
30 -
5
w 20
<
a
10 -
o -
O LAB 1 - DL = 0.1 mg/L
( n = 14 duplicate pairs)
A LAB 2 - DL = 0.75 mg/L
( n = 30 duplicate pairs)
^^— +/- 25% Precision Limits
\
0
I
10
20
i
30
i
40
50
DUPLICATE 1 -POTASSIUM (UG/L)
S.ll.c Potassium Yield
52
-------
Figure K-3 plots the Yield of potassium for samples from all sites vs date. The data would
indicate that potassium Yield rates are generally below 1 pound per day per acre, but the higher
values are usually from sites in the Filled category. The three higher yield values for samples
collected in December 1999 are all in the same watershed. They are sites MT-50, 51, and 52. The
yield rates are believed to elevated on this occasion due to recent rains. The note on the field sheet
states "Heavy precipitation in the last 24 hours." None of the higher concentrations for the
December 1999 samples were from these three sites so the increase in flow rates resulted in higher
yield rates.
5.12 Sodium Data
1.0 -i
0.9 -
0.8 -
o
H °-7"
I 0.6 -
«2 0.5 -
Figure K-3. Potassium Yield for All Sites vs. Date
O
PH
• Filled
• Mined
A Unmined
Q Filled/Residential
© Mined/Residential
0.4 -
0.3 -
0.2 -
0.1 -
0.0 -
i 'r
10/1/99 12/1/99 2/1/00 4/1/00 6/1/00
Date
8/1/00 10/1/00 12/1/00 2/1/01
The California State Water Resources Control Board's Water Quality Criteria states:
This very active metal does not occur free in nature, but sodium compounds constitute 2.83
percent of the crust of the earth. Owing to the fact that most sodium salts are extremely
soluble in water, any sodium that is leached from soil or discharged by industrial wastes
will remain in solution.
53
-------
Regarding the impact on fish and aquatic life, the report states:
Of the United States waters supporting good fish fauna, ordinarily the concentration of
sodium plus potassium is less than 6 mg/L in about 5 percent; less than 10 mg/L in about
50 percent; and less than 85 mg/L in about 95 percent.
5.12.a Sodium Concentration in Stream Samples
Sodium concentrations for all sites are plotted in Figure Na-1. The detection limit was 1 mg/L
The highest values are for sites in the category Filled/Residences and occurred in the Spruce Fork
watershed at sites MT-40 and MT-48. MT-40 is downstream of 7 MTM/VF mine permits and 3
refuse piles while MT-48 is below four communities. Possible sources of sodium would be mine
drainage treatment facilities using sodium hydroxide and winter time salting of highways.
5.72 c QA Samples for Sodium
The results of duplicate samples are plotted in Figure Na-2. The detection limit was 1 mg/L. The
250
Figure Na-1. Sodium Concentration at All Sites vs. Date
225 -
200 -
175 -
150 -
:125 -
T3
W100 -
75 -
50 -
25 -
0 -
• Filled
• Mined
A Unmined
El Filled/Res (Other Stressors)
© Mined/Res (Other Stressors)
O Sediment Control Structure
El
El
8 • I
El 13
El
El
10/1/99
12/1/99
2/1/00
4/1/00
6/1/00
8/1/00
10/1/00
12/1/00
2/1/01
Date
54
-------
data are very precise with multiple values below about 60 mg/L. The one value at slightly over
200 mg/L also is very precise. Both laboratories have good precision for this parameter.
Figure Na-2. Sodium Concentration of Duplicate Samples
250
200 -
O
S 15°
5
Q
O
PH
100 -
50 -
O LAB 1
(n = 14 duplicate pairs)
A LAB 2
(n = 30 duplicate pairs)
— +/- 25% Precision Limits
DL = 1 mg/L
5.12.C
Sodium
Yield
50
100 150
DUPLICATE 1 -SODIUM (UG/L)
200
250
Yield rates
for sodium
are plotted
0 -J^ in Figure
Na-3. Most
values are
less than
0.25
pounds per day per acre. The higher values at the Filled/Residence sties were noted in Figure Na-1
also and are possible related to use of road salt or the use of sodium hydroxide in chemical
treatment facilities at mine discharges. There are higher values on two sample occasions -
December 1999 and September 2000. The three values near 0.75 pounds per day per acre in
December 1999 were at MT-50, 51, and 52. The field sheet not for those samples noted "Heavy
precipitation in the last 24 hours." The higher yield rates for the Filled/ Residential sites is for
MT-40 and MT-48, which correspond to the higher concentrations listed earlier in Figure Na-1
showing concentrations vs date. The highest yield of 1.5 pounds per day per acre is at site MT-60.
The flow rate for that sample was the highest recorded for that site during this study while the
55
-------
1.75
Figure Na-3. Sodium Yield for All Sites vs. Date
1.50 -
1.25 -
CD
O
CO
CO
T3
•§0.75
O
T3
C
O
Q_
O.50 -
0.25 -
0.00 -
• Filled
• Mined
A Unmined
H Filled/Residential
© Mined/Residential
I
H
H
m
m H
H H
H
m
m
H
•! -r^ "• " "
i
10/1/99
12/1/99
i
2/1/00
I
4/1/00
6/1/00 8/1/00
Date
I
10/1/00
I
12/1/00
I
2/1/01
concentration was 21.1 mg/L, below the average for that site (30.5 mg/L). There were no
comments on the field sheet indicating anything unusual.
5.13 Chloride Data
Chloride is one of the parameters limited by WVDEP water quality criteria and is discussed later
in the report under that topic.
5.14 Acidity Data
Acidity, like alkalinity is not a specific chemical but instead is a measure of the effects of a
combination of substances and conditions in the water. Waters can have both acidity and
alkalinity values at the same time. Acidity may be present from natural causes and from human
activity. Acid waters are sometimes formed as a result of mining activity, especially in sulfur
bearing formations. Regulations have sought to address concerns with excess acidity resulting
56
-------
from mining activities through the permitting processes. There are elaborate regulations which
focus on determining and minimizing the potential for forming acid waters. There are also effluent
limits on the pH (discussed later in this report) of discharges.
Acidity was detected in 20 % of the 399 samples that passed the QA/QC review. The second
laboratory found acidity in 31 samples above the detection limit of 2 mg/L. Twenty of these
detected values came from sites in the Filled category. The site with the highest concentrations of
acidity was MT-34B, a site in the Filled category with an active mine upstream. Five of the 31
values came from this site and they ranged from 29 mg/L to 40 mg/L. However, there were no
violations of the stream limits on pH at this site. The only violations of the stream criteria for pH
detected were at Unmined sites.
Acidity in streams can be increased by MTM/VF mining but mine permitting activities address
this potential problem.
5.15 Nitrate and Nitrite Data
The Water Quality Criteria, 1972 "Blue Book" discusses Nitrate-Nitrite in water supplies and
notes that chlorination converts the nitrite to nitrate. They make the following recommendation
concerning nitrate in water:
On the basis of adverse physiological effects on infants and because the defined treatment
process has no effect on the removal of nitrate, it is recommended that the nitrate-nitrogen
concentration in public water supply sources not exceed 10 mg/L. On the basis of its high
toxicity and more pronounced effect than nitrate, it is recommended that the nitrite-
nitrogen concentration in public water supply sources not exceed 1 mg/L.
The California State Water Resources Control Board's Water Quality Criteria also discusses
nitrate and nitrite and notes that nitrites are often formed in streams by the natural degradation of
ammonia and organic nitrogen. Since they are usually quickly oxidized to nitrates, they are
seldom present in surface waters in significant concentrations. The presence of nitrates and nitrites
usually indicates an organic loading source such as sewage or fertilizer. Regarding the impact on
fish and other aquatic life, the report states:
High nitrate concentrations in effluents and water stimulate the growth of plankton and
aquatic weeds. By increasing plankton growth and the development offish food
organisms, nitrates indirectly foster increased fish production. Hart et al. report references
to the effect that United States waters supporting a good fish life ordinarily 5 percent have
less than 0.2 mg/L of nitrates; 50 percent have less than 0.9 mg/L; and 95 percent have less
than 4.2 mg/L.
5.15. a Nitrate-Nitrite Concentration in Stream Samples
57
-------
The laboratory data for nitrate and nitrite is somewhat confusing and of mixed quality, partly due
to changes in what parameters were being measured. The first laboratory began this survey
analyzing for nitrates and nitrites separately but it was soon evident that the 48 hour holding time
was difficult to meet. The parameter was switched to nitrate - nitrite (nitrogen) which has a 28 day
holding time for the contract with the second laboratory. The data from the first laboratory was
often rejected for holding time violations and only 54 % of the nitrate samples and 66% of the
nitrite samples passed the QA review. The second laboratory began testing for nitrate and nitrite
separately but soon switched to nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen. The first samples at the second
laboratory were manually converted to nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen values and entered into the
database. Overall 94 % of the data from the second laboratory for nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen
passed the QA/QC review. The detection limit was 0.1 mg/L. The highest value detected at the
second laboratory was 23.4 mg/L at site MT-18, a site in the Filled category, on 01/10/00. Some
high values might be caused by careless handling of the nitrogen compound explosives used at
surface mines or when nitrogen containing fertilizers are spread on surface mines to encourage
growth of vegetative cover during reclamation, but it is not known if this might be part of the
cause for this elevated value. Many samples had no detectable concentrations and they were in all
categories of sites. The Unmined site with the most detectable concentrations and the highest
values (second lab data only) was MT-95 in the Twentymile Creek watershed. Nitrate plus nitrite
as nitrogen values ranged from 0.73 mg/L to 1.1 mg/L in each of the six samples from the site.
MTM/VF mining operations can increase the concentration of nitrate plus nitrite as nitrogen in
streams.
5.16 Parameters Present in Low Concentrations
5.16. a Total Phosphorous
Phosphorous was detected in only one of 213 samples at the second laboratory. The concentration
was 0.12 mg/L. No samples were rejected in the QA/QC review. Since the detection limit was
0.10 mg/L, this would indicate that stream concentrations of phosphorous are not being
measurably impacted by MTM/VF mining.
5.16. b Total Copper, Lead and Nickel
Copper, lead, and nickel were usually below the detection limit for all samples tested at the second
laboratory but several samples had detectable concentrations as listed below. The only obvious
pattern observed in the data is that many of the detections were in the Mud River watershed (MT-
01 through MT-24). Site MT-24, a site on a reclaimed MTM/VF mine, had three measurable
values of copper, all near the detection limit, no nickel values, and six of the eight detections for
nickel. There is no clear indication that MTM/VF mining caused any changes in these metal
concentrations in streams.
Site ID
MT-01
Category
Min/Res
Date
01/10/01
Copper
(DL = 5 ug/L)
10.3
Lead
(DL = 2 ug/L)
ND
Nickel
(DL= 20 ug/L)
ND
58
-------
MT-13
MT-14
MT-18
MT-23
MT-24
MT-39
MT-50
MT-57B
MT-62
MT-64
MT-69
MT-79
MT-81
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Fill/Res
Sediment
Control
Structure
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Fill/Res
Filled
Min/Res
Mined
Mined
11/28/00
08/30/00
08/30/00
08/30/00
11/28/00
08/30/00
09/19/00
10/31/00
11/28/00
01/10/01
02/06/01
11/29/00
08/09/00
08/09/00
09/06/00
09/06/00
11/28/00
11/28/00
01/16/01
11/28/00
14.8
7.64
7.41
20.4
5.6
8.15
ND
6.56
5.83
ND
ND
5.23
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.72
8.01
5.23
ND
3.76
2.14
ND
2.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.4
4.48
16.2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
13.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
35.5
36.8
71.8
63.4
115
80.4
ND
ND
ND
37.6
39.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.17 Other Parameters Detected in Measurable Concentrations
5.17. a Total Barium
Barium was detected in 96 % of the 213 samples analyzed at the second laboratory. The detection
limit was 20 ug/L. Concentrations are plotted in Figure Ba-1. They range to 250 ug/L but most
values are below 75 ug/L. There were higher values on 9/27/00 and 11/28/00. The three samples
in September were from MT-39 (138 ug/L), MT-40 (145 ug/L) and MT-42 (214 ug/L), all in the
Spruce Fork watershed. Each concentration was two to three times the average for each site and
flows were higher than average as well. A note on the field sheets for that day stated, " Recent
heavy rains have changed the stream bottom ..." Sites MT-39 and 42 are both Unmined. The
data would indicate there was a temporary release of barium in these two tributary watersheds and
in fact the decreasing concentration of barium at downstream site MT-48 (47.8 ug/L) would also
fit that theory. Barium muds are used in drilling for oil and gas. The highest concentration at any
site was detected 11/28/00 at site MT-01 (214 ug/L) in the headwaters of the Mud River. The next
site downstream on the Mud, MT-23 also had a higher than normal concentration of barium area.
(107ug/L). This appears to be another instance of a temporary release of barium in a headwater
area.
59
-------
Figure Ba-1. Concentration of Barium for All Sites vs. Date - Lab 2 Only
250 -
200 -
00
| 150 -
c3
ffl
100 -
50 -
0 -
m
A
El
ml!"
i i
| S A
I
O
• Filled
0 Mined
A Unmined
El Filled/Residential
© Mined/Residential
^ Sediment Control Structure
S@B .
Vi |-
• A
8/1/00
9/1/00 10/1/00
11/1/00 12/1/00
Date
1/1/01
2/1/01 3/1/01
The only field note the crew made for that set of samples was for site MT-23 where they
stated,"Beaverdam constructed downstream affecting depth and velocity flow measurements."
The mix of categories of sites across the range of concentrations and over the study period have no
obvious patterns. Some Unmined sites have an elevated barium concentration while the sediment
control structure and some Filled sites consistently have low concentrations of barium.
Duplicate sample results are presented in Figure Ba-2. The data indicate excellent precision to
roughly 100 ug/L (five times the detection limit).
There is no clear indication that MTM/VF mining changes the concentration of barium in streams.
60
-------
Figure Ba-2. Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Barium - Lab 2 Only
100
2
<
m
w
o
3
80 -
60 -
40 -
LAB 2
(n = 30 duplicate pairs)
+/- 25% Precision Limits
20 40 60 80
DUPLICATE 1 - BARIUM (UG/L)
100
5.77.6 Total Zinc
Zinc was detected in 51 % of the 199 samples that passed the QA/QC review and were analyzed in
the second laboratory. The detection limit was 10 ug/L. The values are presented in Figure Zn-1.
Most values are below 20 ug/L where there was less precision in laboratory results. Zinc
concentrations were elevated at MT-24, the Sediment Control Structure indicating that MTM/VF
mining could cause elevated levels of zinc in streams, however there are also high values for zinc
at four different Unmined sites (MT-50 on 8/9/00, MT-95 on 9/5/00, MT-13 on 11/28/00 and MT-
39 on 11/29/00).
61
-------
Duplicate sample results are presented in Figure Zn-2. The data indicate there were precision
problems below a concentration of roughly 25 ug/L. Duplicate sample values range to roughly 45
ug/L which is 4.5 times the detection limit. Since most of the values from sites were below 25
120 -i
Figure Zn-1. Concentration of Zinc for All Sites vs. Date - Lab 2 Only
100 -
80 -
Ofl
60 H
40 -
20 -
0 -
IS
• Filled
• Mined
A Unmined
El Filled/Residential
© Mined/Residential
O Sediment Control Structure
DL = 5 ug/L
O
o
?
0
IB 0
y •
ED 0
I
O e
01
gi
8/1/00 9/1/00 10/1/00 11/1/00 12/1/00 1/1/01
Date
2/1/01 3/1/01
ug/L where there was less precision, there is no clear indication that MTM/VF mining changes the
concentration of zinc in streams.
62
-------
Figure Zn-2. Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Zinc - Lab 2 Only
( n = 28 duplicate pairs)
+/- 25% Precision Limits
DUPLICATE 1 -ZINC (UG/L)
5.17. c Total Organic Carbon & Dissolved Organic Carbon
TOC and DOC results were generally very low near the detection limit of 1 mg/L. There was a
confounding factor with the DOC test in that something appeared to be leaching from the filter used
to remove the suspended matter in the field. The field crews used 45micron cellulose acetate
membrane disposable sterile syringe filters. Whatever this interfering material was, it would create
an organic value of up to 2 mg/L in some samples resulting in QA/QC flags on data. Of the 213
samples collected, 180 TOC values passed the QA/QC review and 170 DOC samples passed. TOC
was detected in 77 % of the samples and DOC was detected in 86 % of the samples passing QA/QC
review.
Figure TOC-1 plots the results of duplicate samples for TOC at the second laboratory. It illustrates
the lack of precision in concentrations below about 2.5 mg/L. The range of duplicate sample values
went to 3 mg/L. The maximum concentration of TOC recorded at the second laboratory was 4.4
mg/L. Only 14 (10%) of the 138 values detected were above 2.5 mg/L. Four of the 14 were at
Unmined sites.
63
-------
Figure TOC-1. Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Total Organic Carbon - Lab 2 Only
1234
DUPLICATE 1 - TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (MG/L)
Figure DOC-1. Comparison of Duplicates - Dissolved Organic Carbon - Lab 2 Only
c3
I
2
o
Q
A
LAB
(n=22
+/- 25°/
2
duplicate p
airs)
Precision Limits
1234
DUPLICATE 1 - DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON (MG/L)
64
-------
Figure DOC-1 plots the results of duplicate samples for DOC at the second laboratory. It also
illustrates the lack of precision in concentrations for the range of values which went to about 4
mg/L. There is no clear indication that MTM/VF mining changes the concentration of TOC or
DOC in streams.
5.17. d Total Suspended Solids
Coal mines have specially designed and constructed ditches and sedimentation ponds to reduce
erosion and minimize the amount of suspended solids carried from a mine site in surface runoff.
Large surface mine operations have elaborate systems required as part of their mining permits.
Mine operators regularly monitor and maintain these facilities to capture sediment being washed
from their mine site.
There were 213 samples for total suspended solids (TSS) analyzed at the second laboratory and
none were rejected in the QA/QC review. A total of 69 of those samples (32 %) had
concentrations at or above the detection limit of 5 mg/L. The values were low and this could be
due to several factors including: dry fall weather; staff who chose not to sample on rainy days;
because the sediment ponds below mined areas were working well; or other unknown causes.
Whatever the cause, only 28 samples had a concentration above 10 mg/L. These values were from
all categories of sites and are listed below. The data indicate that the concentration of TSS in the
streams in the study area was usually below 5 mg/L during the study period.
Site Identification
MT-02
MT-13
MT-24
MT-34B
MT-42
MT-45
MT-48
MT-52
MT-55
MT-57B
MT-60
MT-62
MT-64
MT-69
MT-75
MT-79
MT-86
MT-91
Category
Unmined
Unmined
Sediment Control Ditch
Filled
Unmined
Mined
Filled/Residences
Filled
Filled/Residences
Filled
Filled
Filled/Residences
Mined/Residences
Mined/Residences
Filled/Residences
Mined
Filled
Unmined
Concentration (mg/L)
19
24
21,15, 14, 11
11
65, 12
25
20
53
51
11
60, 25, 14
20, 16
32, 13, 12
18
19, 15
14
27
21
65
-------
66
-------
6. COMPARISON WITH APPLICABLE STREAM WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA
The grab samples collected in this study are compared to the "not to exceed" limits set to protect
aquatic life. A detailed description of West Virginia's stream water quality criteria is included in
Attachment 1. There are ten applicable parameters that have stream limits set to protect aquatic
life and have a maximum or minimum limit. They will be discussed in alphabetical order.
Only the results from the second laboratory are included in this comparison Laboratory
results for metals were more precise at the second laboratory than at the first according to the
data from duplicate samples. There were fewer instances of contaminated blank samples in the
data from the second laboratory (see Table 3). There were far fewer laboratory results rejected
in the QA/QC review at the second laboratory than at the first (see Table 5).
6.1 Total Aluminum - Maximum 750 ug/L
There were 213 samples for total aluminum sent to the second laboratory and one result was
rejected in the QA/QC review resulting in 99.53 % completeness. The detection limit was 100
ug/L.
6.La Aluminum Concentration in Stream Samples
Aluminum was found in samples from all classes of sites and from sites spread across the study
area but generally at concentrations below 250 ug/L. There were no sample results from the
second laboratory that exceeded the stream criterion for aluminum Six samples collected 8/9/00
had higher concentrations of aluminum but they were flagged as estimates due to contamination
of the blank The three values above 750 ug/L on that date are not considered as violations of
the stream criterion since they were flagged as estimates.
Figure Al-1 plots the concentration of aluminum for samples tested at the second laboratory.
Most values are below 250 ug/L where there was less precision in duplicate sample results.
65
-------
Figure AM. Total Aluminum Concentrations for All Site Categories vs. Date - Lab 2 Only
2000 -i
1750 -
1500 -
| 1250
-3
£ 1000
750
500 -
250 -
0 -
• Filled
9 Mined
A Unmined
• Filled/Residential
• Mined/Residential
O Sediment Control Structure
DL = 100 ug/L
H
g
A
G
•
O
A tk
o c
A a
ED a
o
CD
ta
O*Q
8/1/00 9/1/00
* aquatic life criterion
10/1/00 11/1/00 12/1/00
Date
1/1/01
2/1/01
3/1/01
Duplicate sample results (29 pairs) are presented in Figure Al- 2. It is obvious from the Figure
that the precision wavers a bit as the concentrations approach the detection limit. Forty-eight
blank samples were tested and three were found to have detectable concentrations of aluminum.
Two of those were near the detection limit. The high aluminum in one blank sample lead to
having the data flagged as an estimate for that blank sample as well as the stream samples
collected by that crew that day.
66
-------
Figure Al-2. Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Total Aluminum - Lab 2 Only
600
5~ 550 -
~ 500 -
1 450 -
< 400 -
° 350 -
CM
LU 300 -
Q_
Z>
Q
A LAB 2
( n = 29 duplicate pairs)
+/- 25% Precision Limits
200 -
150 -
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
DUPLICATE 1 - TOTAL ALUMINUM (UG/L)
6.1. b Aluminum Yield
The Yield values for total aluminum have been plotted vs date and are presented in Figure Al-3.
Most yield rates are below 0.01 pounds per day per acre and there is no obvious pattern in the
results. MTM/VF mining does not appear to produce a great difference in the Yield of
aluminum within the study area.
67
-------
0.050 -.
0.045 -
§ 0.040 -
CS
3? 0.035 -
g
| 0.030 -
T3 0.025 -
+j
o
H
"o 0.020 -
a
| 0-015 -
0.010 -
0.005 -
0.000 -
Figure Al-3. Aluminum Yield for All Site Categories vs. Date - Lab 2 Only
9
B»
H e 8 • nue
Ba e
e •
8/1/00 9/1/00 10/1/00 11/1/00 12/1/00
Date
1/1/01
2/1/01
3/1/01
6.1.c Dissolved Aluminum
Field crews filtered samples to check for dissolved aluminum. The second laboratory detected it
in only five (2 %) of 213 samples with the maximum value being 129 ug/L. The values are
listed below. Dissolved aluminum was detected in only one set of duplicate samples at the
second laboratory at the detection limit of 100 ug/L. There is no clear indication that MTM/VF
mining changes the concentration of dissolved aluminum in streams.
Site
MT-39
MT-45
MT-69
MT-75
MT-79
Category
Unmined
Mined
Mined/Residences
Filled/Residences
Mined
Dissolved Aluminum (ug/L)
121
110
100
105
129
68
-------
6.2 Total Beryllium - Maximum 130 ug/L
The second laboratory analyzed 213 samples for beryllium in this study. The QA/QC review
rejected none of those values resulting in 100 % completeness. Beryllium was not detected in
any samples analyzed at the second laboratory. There was no detectable concentration of
beryllium in any duplicate sample nor in any blank sample. There is no indication that MTM/VF
mining changed the concentration of beryllium in streams in the study area.
6.3 Chloride - Maximum 230 mg/L
There were 213 samples analyzed for chloride by the second laboratory during this study. None
were rejected in the QA/QC review resulting in 100 % completeness for the data set. The
maximum concentration of chloride was 37.6 mg/L. The detection limit was 5 mg/L. None of
the blank samples had detectable levels of chloride. There is no indication that MTM/VF mining
caused any violation of WVDEP's stream water quality criterion for chloride during this study.
6.4 Dissolved Oxygen - Minimum 5.0 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen is a field reading. There were 475 field readings for Dissolved Oxygen and
12 were rejected in the QA/QC review.The percent completeness in 97.47 %. Only 9 of the
values were less than the minimum stream criterion of 5 mg/L, and they are listed below in Table
DO-1. The minimum value recorded was 3.77 mg/L but all other values were in the 4 mg/L
range. They were measured in June, August, or October. One was at an Unmined site, five were
in Mined sites, and one each in Filled, Filled/Residence, and Mined/Residence.
TABLE DO-1
Samples Not Meeting Aquatic Life Minimum Criterion of 5.0 mg/L for Dissolved Oxygen
Station ID
MT13
MT79
MT79
MT78
MT81
MT81
MT75
MT69
MT64
EIS CLASS
Unmined
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined
Filled/Residences
Mined/Residences
Filled
SAMPLE DATE
10/26/99
06/13/00
08/09/00
08/09/00
06/13/00
08/09/00
06/13/00
06/13/00
06/13/00
VALUE (mg/L)
3.77
4.09
4.12
4.25
4.37
4.38
4.47
4.66
4.88
69
-------
WVDEP's stream criterion for Dissolved Oxygen was violated in only 2% of the samples in this
study and those were in the seasons of summer and fall. There is no indication that MTM/VF
mining caused violations of dissolved oxygen criteria in the study area.
6.5 Total Iron - Maximum 1,500 ug/L
There were 213 samples analyzed for iron at the second laboratory and eight were rejected in the
QA/QC review resulting in 96.24 % completeness. The detection limit was 100 ug/L.
6.5.a Iron Concentration in Stream Samples
The iron concentration of each stream sample analyzed at the second laboratory during this study
is presented in Figure Fe-1. The stream criterion of 1500 ug/L is indicated on the figure.
There were no violations of the criterion for iron, but several samples from sites in the category
Filled approached the limit during the fall of 2000. There is no clear indication that MTM/VF
mining caused violations of the iron limit in streams in the study area.
o
Figure Fe-1. Total Iron Concentrations for All Sites vs. Date - Lab 2 Only
2000
1750 -
1500
> 1250 -
13 1000 -
750 -
500 -
250 -
A
m
• Filled
• Mined
A Unmined
El Filled/Residential
© Mined/Residential
O Sediment Control Structure
DL = 100 ug/L
a
ED
ea B
8/1/00 9/1/00 10/1/00 11/1/00
* aquatic life criterion Date
12/1/00
1/1/01
2/1/01
3/1/01
-------
The results of duplicate samples are plotted in Figure Fe-2. The results are precise in the higher
concentrations but waver as the concentration approached the detection limit. Only one of the
47 blank samples had a detectable concentration of iron.
Figure Fe-2. Comparison of Duplicate Samples - Total Iron - Lab 2 Only
1600
LAB 2
( n = 29 duplicate pairs)
200
400 600 800 1000 1200
DUPLICATE 1 - TOTAL IRON (UG/L)
1400 1600
6.5.b Iron Yield
The Yield values for iron have been plotted vs date and are presented in Figure Fe-3. Although
there are a couple higher values at Filled sites, most are values are below 0.01 pounds per day
per acre. Variations in Yield rates for total iron could have several causes including changing
amounts of suspended sediment that contains iron. The amount of suspended sediment in a
stream is impacted by rainfall, ponds and vegetation cover on mine sites. The actual cause of the
variation observed here is not known. There is no clear indication that MTM/VF mining
changes Iron Yield in the study area.
71
-------
o
CO
"d
Figure Fe-3. Iron Yield for All Sites vs. Date - Lab 2 Only
0.250
0.225 -
0.200 -
-I 0.175 H
&
"d
^0.150 H
oQ.125 H
H
M 0.100 -
0.075 -
0.050 -
0.025 -
0.000 -
• Filled
• Mined
A Unmined
Q Filled/Residential
O Mined/Residential
E]
m
A Ei o
CD B
ffl
G • GJ
nr
8/1/00
9/1/00
10/1/00
11/1/00 12/1/00
Date
1/1/01
2/1/01
3/1/01
6.5.c Dissolved Iron
Dissolved iron was filtered in the field and 208 samples analyzed at the second laboratory passed
the QA/QC review. A total of 33 samples (16 %) had values above the detection limit of 100
ug/L. Four of those samples came from two sites in the "Unmined" category while twenty-one
of the samples came from nine sites in the "Filled" category. The "Filled" site MT-18 had
dissolved iron on each sampling occasion ranging from a low of 200 ug/L to a high of 490 ug/L.
The adjacent "Filled" site MT-14 had five detectable values from 110 ug/L to 483 ug/L. The
other seven "Filled" sites had detectable concentrations of dissolved iron on only one or two
occasions. Some "Filled" sites have persistent dissolved iron up to 480 ug/L and some
"Unmined" sites have intermittent dissolved iron up to 390 ug/L.
72
-------
6.6 Total Mercury - Maximum 2.4 ug/L
There were 213 samples analyzed for mercury at the second laboratory and 174 values passed
the QA/QC review. The percent completeness is 81.69 %. None of the samples had a detectable
concentration of mercury. The detection limit was 0.2 ug/L. No stream samples results
exceeded the stream criterion of 2.4 ug/L. There is no indication that MTM/VF mining activities
cause a measurable increase in the concentration of mercury in streams in the study area.
6.7 pH - Minimum 6.0, Maximum 9.0
There were pH measurements made in the field and the laboratory in this study, but only the
field values are valid in evaluating compliance with stream limits. All 476 records of field pH in
this study have been judged valid so the data set completeness is 100 %. Only three of those
values fell outside of the limits of 6.0 to 9.0 set by the WVDEP. All three were for Unmined
sites. This could be a result of acid deposition but that is not known for sure. The sites are:
Table pH -1. Samples Not Meeting pH Criteria - 6.0 to 9.0
Station ID
MT-03
MT-13
MT-50
EIS Category
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Sample Date
11/28/00
1 1/28/00
08/09/00
Value
5.87
5.44
5.79
There were no violations of stream pH criteria resulting from MTM/VF mining identified during
this study.
6.8 Total Selenium
There were 213 samples analyzed for selenium in the second laboratory for this study. The
QA/QC review rejected three values resulting in 98.59 % completeness. The detection limit was
3 ug/L at the second laboratory.
Selenium is essential for life in very small amounts but is highly toxic in slightly greater amounts
(Lemly 1996, page 427). In 1987, the EPA lowered the recommended stream water quality
criterion for selenium to 5 ug/L to protect aquatic life. West Virginia has adopted that same limit
as their stream criterion. Selenium is strongly bioaccumulated in aquatic habitats (Lemly 1996,
page 435). "Waterborne concentrations in the low-ug/1 range can bioaccumulate in the food-
chain and result in an elevated dietary selenium intake and the reproductive failure of adult fish
with little or no additional symptoms of selenium poisoning in the entire aquatic system The
73
-------
most widespread human-caused sources of selenium mobilization and introduction into aquatic
ecosystems in the U.S. today are the extraction and utilization of coal for generation of electric
power and the irrigation of high-selenium soils for agricultural production" (Lemly 1996, page
437).
The West Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey has information on selenium posted on their
website (http;//www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/datastat/te/SeHome.htm). It notes:
Selenium occurs in coal primarily within host minerals, most within commonly occurring
pyrite An unpublished study at WVGES using SEM found selenium ... in 12 of 24
coal samples studied, mainly in the upper Kanawha Formation coals Selenium in
West Virginia coals averaged 4.20 ppm Coals containing the highest selenium
contents are in a region of south central WV where Allegheny and upper Kanawha coals
containing the most selenium are mined.... Selenium is not an environmental problem in
moist regions like the Eastern U.S. where concentrations average 0.2 ppm in normal
soils.
Summarizing this information, we see that in the region MTM/VF mining, the coals can contain
an average of 4 ppm of selenium, normal soils can average 0.2 ppm, and the allowable limits in
the streams are 5 ug/L (0.005 ppm). Disturbing coal and soils during MTM/VF mining could be
expected to result in violations of the stream limit for selenium.
74
-------
6.8.a Selenium Concentration in Stream Samples
Laboratory results for selenium from the second laboratory are shown in Figure Se-1. There are
66 violations of the stream criterion. All values above the stream criterion of 5 ug/L are at Filled
sites and many of those are several times greater than the detection limit of 3 ug/L. The
elevated values of selenium appear to be closely related to MTM/VF mining activity.
There were 30 sets of duplicate samples for selenium tested in the second laboratory. One set of
duplicate samples was rejected in the QA/QC review. Figure Se-2 plots the results of duplicate
samples. The precision of results of the duplicate samples at the second laboratory indicate that
data can be used to identify violations of the stream criterion for selenium.
60
55 -
50 -
45 -
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
Figure Se-1. Selenium Concentrations at All Sites vs. Date - Lab 2 Data Only
O)
E
^
'c
CO
• Filled
• Mined
A Unmined
H Filled/Res (Other Stressors)
• Mined/Other Stressors
O Sediment Control Structure
DL = 3 ug/L
O
• I
o -
(S
CD ©
GD
GO
SO
8/1/00 9/1/00 10/1/00
* aquatic life criterion
11/1/00 12/1/00
Date
1/1/01
2/1/01
3/1/01
75
-------
Figure Se-2. Comparison of Duplicate Samples Total Selenium - Lab 2 Only
80
70 -
§60
u 50
LU
CM
LIJ 40
o
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 -
A
LAB 2
( n = 29 duplicate pairs)
+/- 25% Precision Limits
(DL = 3 ug/l)
10 20 30 40 50 60
DUPLICATE 1 -SELENIUM (UG/L)
70
80
Accuracy was evaluated using spiked duplicates samples prepared in the laboratory and
reviewed in the QA/QC review. Only one of the 50 blank samples tested in the second laboratory
had a detectable concentration of selenium. The selenium dataset from the second laboratory is
suitable for evaluating violations of the stream criterion of 5 ug/L.
6.8.b Selenium Yield
The Yield of selenium for all site samples is presented in Figure Se-3. The very low Yield rates
for selenium are evident in the Figure. As noted earlier, even very small amounts of selenium in
coals and soils can leach or erode to streams and exceed the water quality criterion. The Yield
rates in sites exceeding the criterion were as low as 0.0002 pound per day per acre.
76
-------
Figure Se-3. Selenium Yield for All Sites vs. Date - Lab 2 Data Only
CD
k_
O
co
T3
_
0)
CO
T3
C
O
Q_
u.uu \ u
0.0008 -
0.0006 -
0.0004 -
0.0002 -
0.0000 -
• Filled
• Minec
A Unmi
H Filled
© Minec
•
• •
1
1
•
a
' •
1 • " • "
6 IS ® ll Z al I 1 l l e 3
led
Residential
/Residential
•
IsS
8/1/00
9/1/00
10/1/00
11/1/00
12/1/00
1/1/01
2/1/01
3/1/01
Date
6.8.c Distribution of Sites Violating the Stream Criterion - Lab 2 Only
It was noted earlier that 66 violations of the stream criterion for selenium were identified in
samples tested at the second laboratory. The period of sampling began in August 2000 and
ran through February 2001. Each site was visited six times in this period and samples were
collected at each site if there was flow in the stream. There were 13 sites with selenium
concentrations above the criterion and all are in the Filled category. Sites MT- 18, 32, 34B, 64,
98, and 103 exceeded the criterion in all six samples. Sites MT- 15, 23, 24, 57B, and 104
exceeded the criterion in five of the six samples. Sites MT-25B and 52 exceeded the criterion in
two of the six samples.
The average selenium concentration for each site in the study was calculated for the last six
months of the study and plotted on maps to better evaluate the distribution of the sites with high
selenium. Figures Se-4 through Se-9 are maps of the study area showing the locations of the
sites and the mean concentration of selenium reported by the second laboratory. Many sites had
no detectable (N.D.) concentration of selenium reported by the laboratory, but that does not
77
-------
necessarily mean they have zero selenium. The laboratory's detection limit (DL) for selenium
was 3 ug/L. In calculating statistics for a site, all samples having a reported concentration of
N.D. were arbitrarily assigned a value of one half the D.L. or 1.5 ug/L. If the mean selenium
concentration for a site is 1.5 ug/L, then all the values were below the detection limit. This is
indicated on the maps by "Below D.L."
Figure Se-4 is a map of the entire study area which plots the locations of sites with a high
median value for selenium concentrations. All violations of the criterion were at Filled sites.
The sites with high selenium are scattered across the entire region of mountaintop mining, but
within each watershed they seem be clustered in only a portion of the study area. Maps for each
watershed were prepared to show the location and average concentration of selenium at the
monitoring sites.
Figure Se-4. Mean Selenium Concentrations for USEPA Stream Sampling Stations within
the Region of Major Mountaintop Removal Mining Activity in West Virginia.
MTM/VF
Region
~~| MTM/VF Region
-1 (WVG&E Survey, 1998)
~~| Watershed Boundaries
1 ' (USEPA and USGS)
Mean Selenium
Concentration (ug/L) at
USEPA Sampling Stations
• Below 1.5
• 1.5-5
• 5-13
• 13-37
The stream criterion to
protect aquatic life is 5 ug/L
Mean Selenium concentrations
are based on samples collected
monthly during (he second half
of this study (08/1/00 - 03/01/01).
The detection limit (DL) for
Selenium was 3 ug/L.
DL/2 was used in mean
calculations where sample
concentration < DL.
N
+
EPA B3 (3S TEAM PROJECT 5109? 1 TIC'TITT nff 1 I/I 2/01 MAP# 1619
78
-------
Figure Se-5. Mean Selenium Concentrations for USEPA Stream Sampling Stations
within the Upper Mud River Watershed, West Virginia.
MTM/VF
Region
Sampling Station Category
0 Filled
0 Filled & Residences
0 Mined
0 Mined & Residences
^ Sediment Control Structure
^ Unmined
~1 MTM/VF Region
(WVG&E Survey, 1998)
~1 Watershed Boundaries
1—' (USEPA and USGS)
Mean Concentrations ai-e
noted next to station numbers.
The slream criterion to
protect aquatic life is 5 ug/L.
Mean Selenium concentrations
are based on samples collected
monthly during die second half
of this study (08/1/00 - 03/01/01).
The detection limit (DL) for
Selenium was 3 ug/L.
DL/2 was used in mean
calculations where sample
concentration < DL.
EPA R3 CTS TEAM PROJECT SI0951 HCHUJER12/12/01 MAPS1620
Figure Se-5 covers the Upper Mud River Watershed. Site MT-24 is actually in a diversion ditch
on a reclaimed MTM/VF mine. Site information is:
Site ID # of Fills /Year of Permit # Average Selenium (ug/L) Watershed (acres)
MT-14 8/1985,88,89 1.9
MT-15 6/1988,89,91,92,95 12.1
MT-18 2/1992,95 36.8
MT-23 26 / 1985, 88, 89, 91, 92, 95, 96 12.9
MT-24 1 / 1988, 89 32.6
1,527
1,114
479
10,618
unknown
The level of selenium upstream other upstream sites MT-01, 02, 03, and 13 were all below the
detection limit of 3 ug/L. There is a source of selenium in the upper portion of Sugartree Branch
and Stanley Fork where there has been MTM/VF mining activity.
79
-------
Figure Se-6. Mean Selenium Concentrations for USEPA Stream Sampling Stations
within the Island Creek Watershed, West Virginia.
MTM/VF
Region
Sampling Station Category
n Filled
[3 Filled & Residences
Q Mined
0 Mined & Residences
^ Sediment Control Structure
_/\ Unmined
[ I MTM/VF Region
(WVG&E Survey, 1998)
~~| Watershed Boundaries
1 ' (USEPA and USGS)
Mean Concentrations are
noted next to station numbers.
The stream criterion to
protect aquatic life is 5 ug/L.
Mean Selenium concentrations
are based on samples collected
monthly during the second half
of this study (08/1/00 - 03/01/01).
The detection limit (DL) for
Selenium was 3 ug/L.
DL/2 was used in mean
calculations where sample
concentration < DL,
EPAR3O1S I IMPRQJECTSK»51HCH!ISERJ ' ••'! V1AP#1623
Figure Se-6 shows the average concentrations at the sites in the Island Creek watershed. In the
Island Creek watershed there were two adjacent tributaries that exceeded the selenium criterion.
The average value at MT-52 was 4.8 ug/L, and next door was MT-57B with an average of 8.5
ug/L. These values are near the detection limit of 3 ug/L. There was no detectable concentration
of selenium downstream at MY-55 or MT-60. Dilution and the lack of additional sources of
selenium could cause this. The other sites in this watershed (MT-50 & 51) had no detectable
selenium. There appears to be a source of selenium in the upper portion of Cow Creek
watershed where there has been MTM/VF mining activity.
80
-------
Figure Se-7. Mean Selenium Concentrations for USEPA Stream Sampling Stations
within the Spruce Fork Watershed, West Virginia.
Sampling Station Category
E| Filled
|T] Filled & Residences
O Mined
0 Mined & Residences
[^ Sediment Control Structure
^ Unmined
I MTM/VF Region
(WVG&E Survey, 1998)
~~| Watershed Boundaries
1 ' (USEPA and USGS)
Mean Concentrations are
noted next to station numbers.
The stream criterion to
protect aquatic life is 5 ug/L.
Mean Selenium concentrations
are based on samples collected
monthly during the second half
of this study (08/1/00 - 03/01/01).
The detection limit (DL) for
Selenium was 3 ug/L.
DL/2 was used in mean
calculations where sample
concentration < DL.
N
4-
EPA S3 OTS TEAM PROJECT SIO9J1 HCfflLDER 12/12/01 MAP#1621
Figure Se-7 covers the sites within the Spruce Fork watershed. There were three sites on
tributaries with fills in the Spruce Fork watershed that exceeded the criterion. Data on those
sites is listed below:
Site ID # of Fills /Year of Permit # Average Selenium (ug/L)
MT-25B 1/1986 5.3
MT-32 5 /1986, 88, 89,91 7.5
MT-34B - /1985, 86 22.7
MT-48 22 / many + 4 communities 2.2
Watershed (acres)
997
2,878
1,677
27,742
There was no detectable concentration at the four other sites to the south in this watershed (MT-
39, 40, 42, 45). There is a source of selenium in the upper portion of Beech Creek above MT-32
and MT-34B and in Rockhouse Branch above MT-25B where there has been MTM/VF mining
activity.
81
-------
Figure Se-8. Mean Selenium Concentrations for USEPA Stream Sampling Stations within
the Clear Fork Watershed, West Virginia.
MTM/VF
Region
Sampling Station Category
[] Filled
H Filled & Residences
O Mined
0 Mined & Residences
£3 Sediment Control Structure
/\ Unmined
I 1 MTM/VF Region
(WVG&E Survey, 1998)
~| Watershed Boundaries
1 ' (USEPA and USGS)
Mean Concentrations are
noted next to station numbers.
"Hie stream criterion to
protect aquatic life is 5 ug/L.
Mean Selenium concentrations
are based on samples collected
monthly during the second half
of this study (08/1/00 - 03/01/01).
Hie detection limit (DL) for
Selenium was 3 ug/L.
DL/2 was used in mean
calculations where sample
concentration < DL.
N
4-
EPA E3 <3S TEAM PROJECT SIG951 HCHTTnER 12/12/01 MAP#1622
Figure Se-8 covers the sites within the Clear Fork watershed. Two sites in this watershed had
measurable concentrations of selenium and data on them is listed below:
Site ID # of Fills /Year of Permit # Average Selenium (ug/L)
MT-62 11/1989,91,92,93 " 2.8
MT-64 5/1992,93 13.0
Watershed (acres)
3,193
758
The three other sites on Sycamore Creek (MT-78, 79, and 81) had no detectable concentration of
selenium. There is a source of selenium in the upper portion of Buffalo Fork above MT-64
where there has been MTM/VF mining activity.
82
-------
Figure Se-9. Mean Selenium Concentrations for USEPA Stream Sampling Stations
within the Twentymile Creek Watershed, West Virginia.
MTM/VF
Region
Sampling Station Category
n Filled
H Filled & Residences
O Mined
© Mined & Residences
^] Sediment Control Structure
/^ Unmined
I MTM/VF Region
-1 (WVG&E Survey, 1998)
~~j Watershed Boundaries
1 ' (USEPA and USGS)
Mean Concentrations are
noted next to station numbers.
Tlie stream criterion to
protect aquatic life is 5 ug/L.
Mean Selenium concentrations
are based on samples collected
monthly during the second half
of this study (08/1/00 - 03/01/01).
Tlie detection limit (DL) for
Selenium was 3 ug/L.
DL/2 was used in mean
calculations where sample
concentration < DL.
N
1
™
EPA Ei 01S TEAM PROJECT SIO951 HCHILDER 12/12/01 MAPB1624
Figure Se-9 covers the sites within the Twentymile Creek watershed. The three sites in
Twentymile Creek watershed that had excessive selenium are located along Hughes Fork and
each one flows to the next. Data on the sites is listed below:
Site ID # of Fills /Year of Permit #
MT-98 8/1977,82,90
MT-103 6/1977,82,90
MT-104 8/1977,82,90
Average Selenium (ug/L)
11.6
12.6
6.7
Watershed (acres)
1,208
1,027
2,455
The fact that the values get lower going downstream would indicate the effects of dilution and
that there are no significant additional sources of selenium in this reach of stream. All other
sites in the Twentymile watershed had no detectable concentrations of selenium. There is a
source of selenium in the upper portion of Hughes Fork above MT-103 where there has been
MTM/VF mining activity. It would be worthwhile to further evaluate what other common
attributes, in addition to MTM/VF mining, exist among these sites. Those sites are: MT-18, MT-
24, MT-25B, MT-32, MT-34B, MT-52, MT-57B, MT-64, MT-103.
83
-------
6.9 Total Silver - Maximum Depends on Hardness
There were 213 samples analyzed for silver at the second laboratory. None were rejected in the
QA/QC review so the percent completeness is 100 %. The detection limit was 10 ug/L. The
second laboratory found no detectable concentration of silver in any duplicates or blanks or
stream samples. MTM/VF mining does not appear to cause increased concentrations of silver to
be released to streams in the study area.
6.10 Temperature - Maximum 87°F May through November or 73°F
December through April
Temperature is a field measurement. There were 474 field measurements of stream temperature
in this study. None of them exceeded the maximum allowable temperatures for West Virginia
streams. Continuous temperature records, especially during the hotter summer months, would
have been a better indicator of temperature.
7. OTHER EVALUATIONS
7.1 Parameters with Concentrations Below Detection Limits
In addition to total beryllium, total silver, and total mercury, there were eight other parameters
which were not detected in any of the samples in this study reported in data from the second
laboratory.
7. La Hot Acidity
The second laboratory tested for hot acidity in a few samples at the start of their contract work.
The Study Plan called for only acidity, not hot acidity. Acidity was analyzed for all samples in
this study and that data is discussed earlier in this report. There were 22 samples analyzed for
hot acidity and none was detected in any sample. This limited amount of data on hot acidity
does not support any conclusions.
7.1.b Total Antimony, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Thallium and
Vanadium
There were 213 samples analyzed for these metals and none was detected in any sample at the
detection limit of 5 ug/L. None of the blanks had detectable concentrations and all of the data
passed the QA/QC review. MTM/VF mining did not impact the concentration of these metals in
streams in the study area.
84
-------
7.2 Flow Rate Data
The flow rate was measured 466 times when the stream was sampled in this study. There is a
flow rate to go with 97.3% of the samples. Most flow rates were measured using standard
stream gaging procedures and calculations. There has been considerable discussion and
speculation regarding the impacts of MTM/VF mining on stream flows.
MTM/VF mining can affect runoff. Rain falling on a watershed either runs off in the stream or
infiltrates into the ground. If it infiltrates, it either percolates through the rocks and eventually
comes out of a spring that feeds a surface stream, or it is taken up by plants and stored or
evaporated back into the atmosphere. Many aspects of MTM/VF mining activities can affect
stream flow including: removing the trees and other plants; fracturing rocks; moving soil and
rocks; constructing flow diversion channels and sedimentation ponds; constructing haul roads;
reshaping and compacting mine spoil; constructing valley fills; and reestablishing vegetation on
the mined area. MTM/VF activities can increase the base flows of streams while decreasing the
peak flows of floods by temporarily storing the rainfall in ponds or in the increased voids in the
spoil of mined areas. The Kentucky Geological Survey report Hydrogeology,
Hydrogeochemistry, and Spoil Settlement at a Large Mine-Spoil Area in Eastern Kentucky: Star
Fire Tract notes:
Field investigations have identified numerous ground-water recharge and discharge zones
at the mine spoil area. Recharge occurs by way of disappearing streams, ground-water
infiltration along exposed boulder zones, and at areas where spoil is in contact with
bedrock highwalls. Minor recharge occurs locally on the spoil's surface through
macropores (snakeholes). Discharge of ground-water from the spoil occurs mainly
through springs and seeps at the outslope of the spoil body. Ground-water movement
within the spoil is controlled by the ground-water gradients within the spoil, which are a
function of the buried topography and interaction of the recharge and discharge zones of
low-permeability spoil. The spoil interior, lacking any major direct recharge from the
surface, slowly accumulates water, whereas in the valley fills ground water moves at a
rapid rate. Recharge to the valley fills comes from streams, adjacent bedrock aquifers,
and from surface water that seeps in near the bedrock-spoil interface. (Wunsch 1996,
page 25)
The impact of fills on base flow in streams has been investigated by several researchers. The
USGS Water- Resources Investigations Report 01-4092, Reconnaissance of Stream
Geomorphology, Low Stream/low, and Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region, Southern West
Virginia, 1999-2000 notes:
... the valley-fill sites can have about a 6-7 times greater 90-percent flow duration than
unmined sites. (Wiley et al 2001, page 13)
The 90-percent flow duration is the flow that is exceeded 90 % of the time. The report indicates
85
-------
that base flows of streams with valley fills are 6 to 7 times greater than the base flows of
unmined areas. Stream water quality below MTM/VF mines is also altered in base flow periods
when the mineralized ground-water from the mined area becomes the major portion of the stream
flow.
Figure Flow-1 plots the log of the normalized flow rate (the instantaneous flow divided by the
Figure Flow-1. Normalized Flow Rate vs. Date
o
<^
^•^
a 10 -
1
1
1 *~
^
PH
O
^ °'1 "
1
>
_o
^ 0.01 -
o
§
i
| 0.001 -
on
_o
0.0001 -
• Filled
• Mined
A Unmined
H Filled/Residential
© Mined/Residential
1 " fe
•• •" @i|p *' i^ • • s A
f^jj} ** A ^
^ 1 "* H
1
®
A
A
A
6
. "!• •
A* " | B"
•V fe
©
i A IA
1 AA
A
A
IEPS
6fi !
A I©
f * A
f
M
A
Note: Some streams were ice covered or frozen on 01/03/01 & 01/10/10. Heavy precipitation noted in 24 hours before 12/14/99.
Samples without a flow measurement and/or stream visits having insufficient surface flow for a measurement are not represented.
i I i I i I i I i I
10/1/99 12/1/99 2/1/00 4/1/00 6/1/00 8/1/00
DATE
1 1 '
10/1/00
I '
12/1/00 2/1/01
watershed area) in gallons per minute per acre versus the date. It is noted that the lowest flows
are often at Unmined sites. There is a broad range of normalized flow rates for this study area
and some variation with the seasons is also evident. There does not appear to be any period of
extremely low flow.
Cumulative impacts of MTM/VF mining are difficult to measure but the cumulative impacts on
flow rate should be measurable. When the base flows of streams are increased by MTM/VF
mining, the base flows of larger streams are also increased. Since the base flows from MTM/VF
sites are higher in dissolved minerals, the conductivity of larger streams should increase as low
flows occur. Figure Flow-2 plots the conductivity of samples for the three largest watersheds in
this study (MT-23 the Mud River near Mud, MT-40 Spruce Fork near Blair, and MT-48 Spruce
Fork near Dobra) vs the log of the normalized flow. The pattern of lower flows being associated
86
-------
Figure Flow-2. Field Conductivity vs.
Log (Instantaneous Flow / Watershed Area)
1s
o
1/1
o
J3
s
*
• PN
O
^
0
0
u
2
[3
S
1OUU
1600 -
1400 -
1200 -
1000 -
800 -
600 -
400 -
onn -
MT23
MT23
MT23
MT23
MT23
MT48
MT40
MTW23
iy[T48 A/rr/ie
MT4IJ jy['|4rg40
MT40 ^T48 MT48
^^^^T848
MT40 MT4o
0.01 0.1 1 10
log (Instantaneous Flow (GPM)AVatershed Area (Acres))
with higher conductivity is evident.
The flow rate data for each sampling event is part of the electronic data base of this report.
While outside the scope of this report, there would be value in having experts evaluate the flow
rate data comparing it with references and nearby long term stream flow records to identify
impacts attributable to mining.
87
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, R.M., Beer, K.M., Buckwalter, T.F., Clark, M.E., McAuley, S.D., Sams,J.L, III, and
Williams, D.R., 2000, Water Quality in the Allegheny and Monongahela River Basins,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Maryland, 1996-98: U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 1202, 32 p.
Chambers, D.B., and Messinger, T., 2001, Benthic Invertebrate Communities and Their
Responses to Selected Environmental Factors in the Kanawha River Basin, West
Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 01-4021, 52 p.
Green, J.H., Passmore, M.E., and Childers, H., 2000, A Survey of the Condition of Streams in
the Primary Region of Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Coal Mining: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III.
Greenberg, A.E., Clesceri, L.S., Eaton, A.D., and Franson, M.A., American Public Health
Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation,
1992, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th Edition,
981p.
Hoffman, W., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999-2000, Project Plan "A Survey of the
Water Quality of Streams in the Primary Region of Mountaintop Removal / Valley Fill
Coal Mining": U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III web-site, (variously
paged).
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.
McKee, I.E. &, Wolf, H.W., California State Water Resources Control Board, 1963 Water
Quality Criteria, Second Edition, 548 p.
Messinger, T., and Hughes, C.A., 2000, Environmental Setting and Its Relations to Water
Quality in the Kanawha River Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 00-4020, 57 p.
Paybins, K.S., Messinger, T., Eychaner, J.H., Chambers, D.B., and Kozar, M.D., 2001, Water
Quality in the Kanawha-New River Basin, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina,
1996-98: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1204, 32 p.
Rolich, G.A., Beeton, A.M., Ketchum, B.H., Kruse\ C.W., Larson, I.E., Savinelli, E.A., Shirley,
R.L., Malone, C.R., Fetterolf, C.M., and Rooney, R.C., Committee on Water Quality
Criteria, Environmental Studies Board, 1972, Ecological Research Series, Water Quality
88
-------
Criteria 1972,EPA-R3-73-033-March 1973, 594 p.
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.
Skelly and Loy Engineers-Consultants, 1984, Environmental Assessment of Surface Mining
Methods: Head-Of-Hollow Fill and Mountaintop Removal: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency publication EPA-600/7-84-010a, 75 p.
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., Carey, D.I., and Graham, C.D.R., 1996, Hydrogeology,
Hydrogeochemistry, and Spoil Settlement at a Large Mine-Spoil Area in Eastern
Kentucky: Star Fire Tract: Kentucky Geological Survey Report of Investigations 10,
Series XI, 1996, 49p.
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Mining and Reclamation,
2000, Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment for Twentymile Creek Watershed,
(variously paged).
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources, 2001, An
Ecological Assessment of the Coal River Watershed: West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, 90 p.
89
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS IN WEST VIRGINIA WATER
QUALITY CRITERIA
90
-------
Chemical Parameters Selected From West Virginia Water Quality Criteria
The chemical parameter, the water quality limit, and the type of limit are listed in italics. Any
comments on the monitoring of each parameter are included in plain type.
Aluminum
Not to exceed 750 ug/L
Acute limits for cold and warm water streams
Total aluminum and dissolved aluminum were monitored in this study.
Ammonia
Limit determined using the tables and formulae in the national Criteria section ofUSEPA 's
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia 1984 (EPA 440/5-85-001)
Acute and chronic limits for cold and warm water streams
Ammonia is not thought to be a normal contaminant from coal mining activities and was not
monitored in this study.
Dissolved Trivalent Arsenic
Not to exceed 360 ug/L (Acute) nor 190 ug/L (Chronic)
Acute and chronic limits for cold and warm water streams.
Arsenic in trivalent form is not thought to be a normal contaminant from coal mining activities.
This study monitored for total arsenic concentrations which would include the dissolved trivalent
form. This study's grab sample results can be compared to the limit for dissolved trivalent
arsenic to indicate the need for expanded monitoring in the future. If the total arsenic values are
less than the limit for dissolved trivalent arsenic, no further studies are recommended. If
however the total arsenic values are greater than the limit for dissolved trivalent arsenic, then
further study might be recommended.
Beryllium
Not to exceed 130 ug/L
Acute limit for cold and warm water streams
Beryllium was monitored during this study.
Dissolved Cadmium
The one-hour average concentration shall not exceed the value determined by the following
equation:
Cd (ug/L) = e [{i-^}x{inhardness}-3.828] x [! 1()i672 - {(In hardness) x (0.041838)}]
Chronic limit for warm and cold water streams (acute limit is higher) -
Only total cadmium concentrations were monitored in the grab samples from the streams. This
study's grab sample results can be compared to the one-hour average dissolved cadmium limit to
indicate the need for expanded monitoring in the future.
91
-------
Chloride
Not to exceed 860 mg/L (Acute) nor 230 mg/L (Chronic)
Warm and cold water streams
The 230 mg/L limit was used for this study.
Dissolved Copper
The one-hour average concentration shall not exceed the value determined by the following
equation:
Cu (ug/L) = e [0'9422 - L4641 x 0.960
Acute limit for warm and cold water streams.
Only total copper concentrations were monitored in the grab samples from the streams. This
study's grab sample results can be compared to the one-hour average dissolved copper limit to
evaluate the need for expanded monitoring in the future.
Cyanide (as Free Cyanide HCN = CN ~}
Not to exceed 22ug/L (Acute) nor 5 ug/L(Chronic)
Limits for both warm and cold water streams.
Cyanide is not thought to be a normal contaminant from coal mining activities and was not
monitored in this study.
Dissolved Oxygen
Not less than 5 mg/L at any time
Limit for warm water stream.
Field crews monitored for dissolved oxygen during this study.
Dissolved Hexavalent Chromium
Not to exceed 15.3 ug/L(Acute) nor 6.93 ug/L (Chronic)
There are different limits for warm or cold water streams.
Dissolved hexavalent chromium is not thought to be a normal contaminant from coal mining
activities. Total chromium was monitored in this study. Total chromium results can be
compared to these limits for dissolved hexavalent chromium to evaluate the need for expanded
monitoring in the future.
Iron
Not to exceed 1.5 mg/L
Chronic limit for warm and cold water streams.
Total iron was monitored in this study as well as dissolved iron.
Dissolved Lead
The one-hour average concentration shall not exceed the value determined by the following
equation:
Pb (ug/L) = e [i-2?3{in hardness}-1.46] x [j 46203 - {(In hardness)(0.145712)}]
Acute limit for warm and cold water streams
92
-------
Only total lead concentrations were monitored in this study. This study's grab sample results
can be compared to the one-hour average dissolved lead limit to evaluate the need for expanded
monitoring in the future.
Total Mercury
Not to exceed 2.4 ug/L
Acute limit for warm and cold water streams
Total mercury was monitored in this study.
Methylmercury (water column)
Not to exceed 0.012 ug/L
Chronic limit for warm and cold water streams
Only Total Mercury concentrations were monitored in this study .
Dissolved Nickel
The one-hour average concentration shall not exceed the value determined by the following
equation:
^J _ g [0.846 {In hardness}+ 3.361] x FQ 997]
Chronic limit for both warm and cold water streams
Only total nickel concentrations were monitored in this study. This study's grab sample results
can be compared to the one-hour average dissolved nickel limit to evaluate the need for
expanded monitoring in the future.
Nitrite (as Nitrite-N)
Not to exceed 1.0 mg/L (warm water stream) nor 0.60 mg/L (cold water stream)
The extremely short holding time for Nitrite analyses forced us to monitor for Nitrate + Nitrite.
The Nitrite limit can be compared to the values for Nitrate + Nitrite only for an indication of
which sites may possibly have Nitrite contamination.
Organics
Limits for chronic exposure in warm and cold water streams are -
Chlordane - 4.3 ng/L
DDT- 1.0 ng/L
Dieldrin - 1.9 ng/L
Endrin- 2.3 ng/L
Toxaphene - 0.2 ng/L
PCB- 14.0 ng/L
Methoxychlor- 0.03 ug/L
None of these Organics are thought to be a normal contaminant from coal mining activities.
They were not included in the list of parameters to be monitored.
pJi
No values below 6.0 nor above 9.0 (higher values tolerated if due to photosynthetic activity).
93
-------
Limits for acute and chronic warm and cold water streams
Field crews monitored for pH during this study.
Phenol
Not to exceed 10,200 ug/L (acute) nor 2,560 ug/L (chronic)
Limits for warm and cold water streams
Phenol is not thought to be a normal contaminant of concern from coal mining activities and
was not monitored in this study.
Radioactivity
Gross Beta activity not to exceed 1000picocuriesper liter, etc
Limits for both warm and cold water streams
Radioactivity is not thought to be a normal contaminant of concern from coal mining activities
and was not monitored in this study.
Selenium
Not to exceed 20 ug/L (acute) nor 5 ug/L (chronic)
Limits for warm and cold water streams
The 5 ug/L limit was used for this study.
Silver
The limit varies from 1 ug/L to 43 ug/L depending on the hardness which varies from 0 mg/L to
600 mg/L and whether it is a cold water or warm water stream.
Chronic limits for warm and cold water streams.
Total silver was monitored in this study.
Dissolved Silver
The one-hour average concentration shall not exceed the value determined by the following
equation:
Ag = e [L72{lnhardness}-6-52] x 0 85
Acute limit for warm and cold water streams -
Only total silver concentrations were monitored in this study.
Temperature
not to exceed 87° Fahrenheit during May through November nor 73° Fahrenheit
during December through April etc
Acute limits for warm water streams
Field crews monitored for temperature in this study.
Threshold Odor
Not to exceed a threshold odor number of 8 at 104° Fahrenheit as a daily average
94
-------
Chronic limit for warm and cold water streams
Threshold Odor is not thought to be a normal contaminant from coal mining and was not
monitored in this study.
Total Residual Chlorine
Not to exceed 19 mg/L (acute) nor 11 ug/L
Warm water stream limits only - No chlorinated discharge allowed in cold water streams
(chronic). Total Residual Chlorine is normally a parameter of concern only at sewage treatment
facilities, water treatment plants, chemical plants or swimming pool discharges. It was not
monitored in this study.
Turbidity
No discharge shall contribute to a net load of suspended matter such that the turbidity exceeds
10 NTU's over background turbidity when the background is 50 NTU or less, or have
more than a 10% increase in turbidity (plus 10 NTU minimum) when the background
turbidity is more than 50 NTUs
Chronic limit for warm and cold water streams -
Some of the field meters used in this study had the capability to monitor turbidity. The
intermittent readings taken by some of the crews are not included in the results of the study.
The limits also require upstream and downstream monitoring which was not part of the study
plan.
Dissolved Zinc
The one-hour average concentration shall not exceed the value determined by the following
equation:
2n = Fg {(0.8743) x (In hardness)+ 0.8604}-! x FQ gygn
Acute limit for warm and cold water streams (chronic limit is higher}-
Only total zinc concentrations were monitored in this study. This study's grab sample results
can be compared to the one-hour average dissolved zinc limit to evaluate the need for expanded
monitoring in the future.
95
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
FIELD SHEETS FOR WATER SAMPLING AND FLOW MEASUREMENT
96
-------
FIELD SHEET- WATER SAMPLING
STATION NUMBER LOCATION
DATE mm/dd/yy / / TIME (military) hours
INVESTIGATOR
AGENCY
FIELD READINGS Meter Make & ID:
pH . Temperature (C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) .
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
Calibration Data: Time: Initials:
pH Calibration (4.0) (7.0) (10.0) (Enter pH readings)
Conductivity Calibration (Cone, of Std. KC1 ), Reading: umhos/cm
DO Calibration (Temp.) (Air Calibration), Reading: [Meters are Auto Altitude]
NIST Thermometer: Reference Temperature (0 ° C - Ice/Water in ice chest) Reading:
Reference Temperature (Ambient Air Temperature) Reading:
Hydrolab Thermometer: Reference Temperature (0 ° C - Ice/Water in ice chest) Reading:
Reference Temperature (Ambient Air Temperature) Reading:
FLOW RATE (Meter Make & ID):
gauging sheet attached
measured with bucket & stopwatch @ (volume) per (seconds) = liters/sec
other method - describe
SAMPLE CONTAINERS FILLED AT THIS SITE ("*" Collect Field Duplicate, Mark spaces "x" as
Collected)
* 1L (plastic) no chemical preservation for TSS, TDS, Sulfate, Chloride, Acidity, Alkalinity.
* 250 mL (plastic) preserved with sulfuric acid to pH<2 for Total
phosphorous,(NO2+NO3)
* 40 mL (glass) preserved with sulfuric acid to pH <2 for Total Organic Carbon.
* 40 mL (glass), filtered, preserved with sulfuric acid to pH <2 for Dissolved Organic
Carbon.
* 500 mL (plastic) preserved with nitric acid to pH <2 for total metals and mercury.
* 250 mL (plastic), filtered preserved with nitric acid to pH<2 for dissolved metals.
No Dup. 250 mL (plastic) preserved with nitric acid to pH <2 for dissolved metals (Filter Blank,
I/day per crew).
No Dup. 40 mL (glass) preserved with sulfuric acid to pH <2 for Dissolved Organic Carbon
(Filter Blank, I/day/crew).
FIELD FILTRATION
The plastic syringe will be used to suck up a sample from the stream. A new disposable 0.45 micron filter
will be screwed on to the syringe and the sample will be filtered into the sample container for shipment to
the laboratory. A new syringe and filter will be used at each sample site. The field filtering will comply
with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 136, Table IB, note 4. Filter blanks will be prepared with lab pure
water poured into filtering syringes, dispensed through the filter into the container, and acidified (acid
listed above).
Chain of Custody:
Sampler Signature Date (dd/mm/yy) Time (military ) Hours
Place the above listed samples in the shipping container and seal them for shipment to the lab.
97
-------
Lab Representative Signature
Laboratory custody on Date (mm/dd/yy)
FIELD SHEET- FLOW MEASUREMENT
_. Received the above listed samples into the
Time (military) Hours.
STATION NUMBER
DATE mm/dd/yy
INVESTIGATOR(S)_
AGENCY
LOCATION
TIME (military)
hours
Distance From Bank
Depth of Water
Depth of Reading
Velocity
OBSERVATIONS: (over if required)
98
-------
ATTACHMENTS
INFORMATION ON PARAMETERS MONITORED
99
-------
Information on Parameters Monitored
Parameter
Flow Rate
Temperature (°C),
Dissolved Oxygen***
(mg/1),
pH*** (su),
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Acidity
Alkalinity
Sulfate
Nitrate+Nitrite
Total Phosphorous
Total Organic Carbon
Dissolved Organic Carbon
Method *
USGS stream gaging
protocol modified to use
electromagnetic velocity
meter
EPA 170.1
{Hydrolab type
multiparameter field meter,
in situ. See Section D.]
EPA 170.1
[Hydrolab type
multiparameter field meter,
in situ. See Section D. ]
EPA 360.1 [in situ]
[Hydrolab type
multiparameter field meter,
in situ. See Section D. ]
EPA 150.1 [in situ]
[Hydrolab type
multiparameter field meter,
in situ. See Section D.]
EPA 120.1 [in situ]
EPA 160.2
EPA 160.1
EPA 305.1
EPA 310.1
EPA 375.4
EPA 300.0 Unless acid
preservative interferes
EPA 365.4
EPA 415.1
EPA 415.1
"Frequency of
Collection
On each sampling
occasion at all 37
sites
On each sampling
occasion at all 37
sites
On each sampling
occasion at all 37
sites
On each sampling
occasion at all 37
sites
On each sampling
occasion at all 37
sites
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Sample
Preservation/Holding Time
(ice to < 4C,acid to
pH<2)
not applicable
not applicable, in situ
not applicable, in situ
not applicable, in situ
not applicable, in situ
Ice/7 days
Ice/7 days
Ice/14 days
Ice/14 days
Ice/28 days
Ice/H2SO4/28 Days
Ice/H2SO4 728 Days
Ice/H2SO4 728 Days
Field filtered
(see Appendix A)
Ice/H2SO4 728 Days
Method
Detection
Limits**
(ug/1)
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
(Capable of +
0.2 mg/L*)
not applicable
(Capable of
measuring +/-
0.2 SU*)
not applicable
5000
5000
2000
4000
10000
100
10
1000
1000
100
-------
Information on Parameters Monitored
Parameter
Dissolved Metals
Al, Fe, Mn
Chloride***
Total K, Na
Total Al***,
Ca, Mg, Mn
Hardness
Total, Cr, Zn
Total Ag
Total Cu
Total Fe***
Total Ni
Total Be***
Total As
Total Cd
Total Pb
Total Se***
Total Sb
Total Tl
Total Hg***
Method *
EPA 200.7
EPA 300.0
EPA 258. 1,273.1
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7 (Calculated
from Ca + Mg) 2340B
APHA
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 245.1
"Frequency of
Collection
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Sample
Preservation/Holding Time
(ice to < 4C,acid to
pH<2)
Field filtered
(see Appendix A)
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/28 days
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Ice/HNO3 16 months
Method
Detection
Limits**
(ug/1)
100
80000
1000
250
100
Not
Applicable
10
10
10
500
10
40
5
5
5
2
5
5
0.8
* Other equivalent 40CFR Part 136 Methods may be substituted in order to meet the needed Method Detection Limits listed.
* *The method detection limits listed are not critical if ambient levels are routinely measured at significantly higher levels. If the
detection levels listed for WVWQSC analytes can not be achieved and the routine ambient levels are not detectable, the Project
Officer must be notified.
* * * Denotes parameter with applicable West Virginia Water Quality Stream Criteria (WVWQSC) for aquatic life.
101
-------
ATTACHMENT 4
ELECTRONIC SPREADSHEET OF THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY
102
-------
Ecological Assessment of Streams in the Coal Mining Region of West Virginia Using Data
Collected by the U.S. EPA and Environmental Consulting Firms
Interim Results
April 11, 2002
Assessment Objectives
Currently, there are three major reports generated from the U.S. EPA Region 3's collection of
ecological data in the MTM/VF Region of West Virginia (i.e., Green et al., 2000 Draft; U.S.
EPA Region 3, 2001 Draft; and Stauffer and Ferreri, 2000); separate reports for
macroinvertebrates, fish, and water chemistry data, respectively. The primary analysis in these
reports is descriptive in nature. In addition, mining companies have collected an extensive
amount of biomonitoring data that could also be incorporated in the EIS analysis. An integrated
analysis of maining company and Region 3 data would increase the sample size for the EIS and
potentially provide more information regarding the relationships among water chemistry, fish,
macroinvertebrates and EIS classes. There are two primary objectives of the integrated
assessment. The first of these objectives is to perform an analysis of the data collected by
Region 3 and the data collected by mining company consultants, BMI, REIC and POTESTA.
Results will be presented in a single report. The analysis will include two components: 1) a
statistical evaluation of the EIS classes for fish and for macroinvertebrates, and 2) a statistical
evaluation of the potential ad< itive ^ffi ;ts long .1 e mai i stems < f two watersheds for fish and
macroinvertebrates. A secom obie d\ : i' an ex?.rr. nati >n of ctu nical and physical habitat
A
factors that may contribute to any potential differences among EIS classes detected for fish and
invertebrates. Insights gained from the second objective may provide information to develop
guidance to "minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the adverse environmental effects to
the waters of the United States and to fish and wildlife resources from mountaintop mining
operations, and to environmental resources that could be affected by the size and location of fill
material in valley fill sites".
Assessment Watersheds and Sites
Sites from six watersheds are included in the assessment: Mud River, Spruce Fork, Clear
Fork, Twentymile Creek, Island Creek, and Twelvepole Creek. Each of these watersheds are
within the MTM/VF Region of West Virginia. Two of the watersheds, Island Creek and
Twentymile Creek, have both Region 3 and mining company sites where data were collected.
One watershed, Twelvepole Creek, has only mining company data and three watersheds, Mud
River, Spruce Fork and Clear Fork, have only Region 3 data. Tables 1 to 6 show the distribution
of sites across EIS classes in each of the watersheds and the entity that provided the data. These
sites represent a combination of water chemistry, habitat, fish and macroinvertebrate data. Some
sites have a full set of indicator data collected (fish, macroinvertebrates, water chemistry, and
habitat), whereas other sites only have a subset of indicator data. The least amount of data
available is for habitat. Sampling occurred seasonally beginning in Spring of 1999 and ending in
Winter 2001. Not all sites were sampled in each season. Only two watersheds provide sufficient
data for the additive analysis, Twentymile Creek and Twelvepole Creek.
-------
Table 1. Sites sampled in the Mud River Watershed.
Site ID/Organization
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT01
MT02
MT03
MT13
MT14
MT15
MT24
MT18
MT23
MT106
Table 2. Sites sampled
Site ID/Organization
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT39
MT40
MT42
MT45
MT32
MT34B
MT48
MT25B
Table 3. Sites sampled
Site ID/Organization
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT79
MT78
MT81
MT75
MT70
MT69
MT64
MT62
Stream Name
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
in the Spruce Fork Watershed.
Stream Name
~*^jtel)ak 3ranchA
^ 1 1
|^f
lpf%k>
^ m- ^ M
Oldhouse Branch
Pigeonroost Branch
Beech Creek
Left Fork
Spruce Fork
Rockhouse Creek
in the Clear Fork Watershed.
Stream Name
Davis Fork
Raines Fork
Sycamore Creek
Toney Fork
Toney Fork
Ewing Fork
Buffalo Fork
Toney Fork
EIS Class
Mined/Residential
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Sediment Control Structure
Filled
Filled/Residential
Mined
EIS Class
Unmined
Filled/Residential
Unmined
Mined
Filled
Filled
Filled/Residential
Filled
EIS Class
Mined
Mined
Mined
Filled/Residential
Filled/Residential
Mined/Residential
Filled
Filled/Residential
-------
Table 4. Sites sampled
parenthetically.
Site ID/Organization
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT95 (=Neil-5)
MT91
MT87 (=Rader-4)
MT86 (=Rader-7)
MT103
MT98
MT104
BMI Sites
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-31 4
PMC-TMC-2
PMC-TMC-1
in the Twentymile Creek Watershed.
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
T\ ?nt mipCree^l
r^ / \
T- ent mi.-Cre.Ji
-^^^^^^ _^L_
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
Equivalent sites are noted
EIS Class
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
r Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Continued
-------
Table 4 (Continued).
Site ID/Organization
BMI Sites
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 Sites
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
Tnb. to Neff
Rader Fork
Sugar'" arnn Branch
^^
m^ ft M
Riht^ork
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)
T Filled (1)
Filled (1)
Filled (1)
Filled (1)
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Filled (2 small)
Filled (1 small)
Unmined
Unmined
-------
Table 5. Sites sampled in the Island Creek Watershed.
Site
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT50
MT51
MT107
MT52
MT57B
MT57
MT60
MT55
BMI Sites
Mingo 34
Mingo 4 1
Mingo 39
Mingo 16
Mingo 1 1
Mingo 2
Mingo 86
Mingo 62
Mingo 38
Mingo 24
Mingo 23
Stream Name
Cabin Branch
Cabin Branch
Left Fork
Cow Creek
Hall Fork
Hall Fork
Left Fork
Cow Creek
DRAFT
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
EIS Class
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
-------
Table 6. Sites sampled
parenthetically.
Site ID/Organization
REIC Sites
BM-001A
BM-001C
BM-001B
BM-001
BM-010
BM-011
BM-002
BM-002A
BM-003A
BM-003
BM-004
BM-004A
BM-005
BM-006
BM-UMC
BM-DMC
BM-DBLC
BM-UBLC
in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed. Equivalent sites are noted
Stream Name
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Kiah Creek
Kiah Creek
Kiah Creek
Kiah Creek
Trough Fork
Milam Creek
Milam Creek
Laurel Creek
Laurel Creek
EIS Class
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Additive
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Analyses Planned
Multiple statistical evaluations are planned for the data. The primary analyses are:
1. Are there any differences among EIS classes for fish and for macroinvertebrates? EIS
classes included in this evaluation are Unmined, Mined, Filled and Filled with
Residences. The variables for these analyses are the West Virginia Stream Condition
Index (SCI) for macroinvertebrates and a set of eight macroinvertebrate metrics included
in the Region 3 report and the mid-Atlantic Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for fish and
the nine component metrics for the IBI.
2. For the mainstem of Twentymile Creek, Twelvepole Creek and Kiah Creek: Is there a
trend in the biological condition relative to the distance along the mainstem? The
distance variable is a surrogate measure for additive mining and valley fill impacts. The
response variables are the same analysis variables as number one above.
-------
3. An examination of chemical and physical habitat factors that may contribute to any
potential differences among EIS classes detected for fish and invertebrates. Chemical and
physical habitat variables will be paired with fish and invertebrate metrics to look for
significant correlations. Similar analyses will be conducted along the mainstem of
Twentymile Creek, Twelvepole Creek and Kiah Creek.
Analyses Completed
EPA Region III Macroinvertebrate Data Results
Results of One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for the SCI and eight macroinvertebrate
metrics are given in Tables 7 to 11. Sites were not consistently sampled across seasons due to
drought conditions in the Summer and Fall of 1999. For this reason, analyses were done
separately for each season. Least squares means with a Dunnett's adjustment was used to test
for differences in EIS classes relative to a reference or unmined condition. Results are consistent
across seasons. For the SCI and each metric across all seasons, except HBI in the Fall of 1999,
significant differences among EIS v 'as es ere d^ ected In addi ion, multiple comparisons
results indicated significant di 'ferei ;e: D, tweer v.n 'line i or refe snce condition and the filled
sites, filled with residences or both for every metric, SCI and season combination (except HBI in
the Fall of 1999).
Preliminary results of the analysis of the combined Region III and mining company data, support
these conclusions.
-------
Table 7: Region 3 Macroinvertebrate Data Results for Spring 1999
Total Number of Observations = 41
EIS Classes: Unmined, WV - MTM Reference, Mined, Filled, Filled & Residences
LS Means Comparisons: Unmined as comparative control
Response
SCI
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
% EPT
HBI
% 2 Dominant
Mayfly Taxa
% Mayflies
% Chironomidae
ANOVA F-test
p-value
O.OOOl
0.0199
0.0004
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
0.0003
O.OOOl
0.0003
Normality
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Equal
Variance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
LS Means
Results
F,F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F&R
F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F&R
Table 8: Region 3 Macroinvertebrate Data Results for Summer 1999
Total Number of Observation = 28
EIS Classes: WV-MTMRe eren e,: ill, d, ied
LS Means Comparisons: WV - MTM Reference as comparative control
:sidence
Response
SCI
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
% EPT
HBI
% 2 Dominant
Mayfly Taxa
% Mayflies
% Chironomidae
ANOVA F-test
p-value
O.OOOl
0.0016
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
0.0063
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
0.0083
Normality
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Equal
Variance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
LS Means
Results
F,F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F&R
-------
Table 9: Region 3 Macroinvertebrate Data Results for Fall 1999
Total Number of Observations = 27
EIS Classes: WV - MTM Reference, Filled, Filled & Residences
LS Means Comparisons: WV - MTM Reference as comparative control
Response
SCI
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
% EPT
HBI
% 2 Dominant
Mayfly Taxa
% Mayflies
% Chironomidae
ANOVA F-test
p-value
O.OOOl
0.0110
O.OOOl
0.0036
0.0257
0.0204
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
00123
Normality
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Equal
Variance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
LS Means
Results
F,F&R
F
F,F&R
F&R
None
F
F,F&R
F,F&R
F&R
Table 10: Region 3 Macroinvertebrate Data Results for Spring 2000
Total Number of Observation" ~ 4^
EIS Classes: Unmined, WV - MT1 T F rfe ence, iV ;ned, Filled, I lied & Residences
LS Means Comparisons: Uni ined as on naralve ont 3!
Response
SCI
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
% EPT
HBI
% 2 Dominant
Mayfly Taxa
% Mayflies
% Chironomidae
ANOVA F-test
p-value
O.OOOl
0.0040
0.0003
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
0.0002
O.OOOl
0.0003
O0001
Normality
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Equal
Variance
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
LS Means
Results
F,F&R
F
F,F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F&R
-------
Table 11: Region 3 Macroinvertebrate Data Results for Winter 2000
Total Number of Observations = 39
EIS Classes: Unmined, WV - MTM Reference, Mined, Filled, Filled & Residences
LS Means Comparisons: Unmined as comparative control
Response
SCI
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
% EPT
HBI
% 2 Dominant
Mayfly Taxa
% Mayflies
% Chironomidae
ANOVA F-test
p-value
O.OOOl
0.0131
0.0010
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
0.0002
O.OOOl
O.OOOl
00001
Normality
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Equal
Variance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No#
Yes
Yes
LS Means
Results
F,F&R
F&R
F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
F&R
F,F&R
F,F&R
FF&R
# The variability of the three mined sites is zero.
Combined Region 3/Penn State and Mining Company Fish
The combined fish data for Region 3/Penn State and mining companies were analyzed for
differences among EIS classes. There was inconsistency in the number of seasons that sites were
sampled and several sites were sampled in only one season. This limited the ability to complete a
seasonal analysis for the fish data. For this reason, the IBI and component metric values for all
sites sampled multiple times were averaged across season, and the mean value for a site was used
in all subsequent analysis. The distributions of IBI scores in each of the EIS classes are shown in
Figure 1. Distributions of the nine component metrics for the IBI are shown in Figures 2 tolO.
For comparison, the regional reference sites sampled by Penn State University (PSU) in Big
Ugly Creek are also included in the plots. The data in Figure 1 indicates that the Filled and
Mined classes have lower IBI scores overall than all other EIS classes. The Filled with
Residences class had higher IBI scores than the Filled and the Mined classes. The Filled with
Residences class and the Unimined class had similar median scores to the regional reference
sites, although all EIS classes showed greater variability in IBI scores than the regional
reference. Figure 1 shows that more than half of the Filled and Mined EIS classes scored "poor"
according to the ratings developed by McCormick et al. (2001). Unmined and regional reference
sites were primarily in the "fair" range.
-------
MTM Site Means
an
An
O-7A
"•5
C
(0
^i fin
a ou
73
i 50
AC\
|-r| j
o
i
c
1
3
C
C
1
)
J
1
1
1
1
1
Reference Unmined Filled Mined Filled/Res
EIS Class
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
i Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
EH 75%
25%
n Median
O Outliers
Figure 1. Box and whisker plot of mean IBI scores of sampling sites in 5 classes. Catchments
less than 2 km2 and samples less than 10 fish excluded. "Reference" are 5 regional reference
sites in Big Ugly Creek, outside of study area. All other sites in MTM study watersheds.
Assessment categories (McCormick et al.2001) shown on right side.
IBI scores were plotted , and did not deviate from expectations of normality. Because IBI scores
were normally distributed, we used standard analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test differences
among EIS classes, and Dunnett's test to compare each class to the Unmined (Control) class.
Differences among the EIS classes were statistically significant (Table 12) by ANOVA, and the
Dunnett's one-tailed test showed that the Filled IBI scores were significantly lower than the
Unmined IBI scores (Table 13). Neither the Mined nor the Filled with Residences classes had
significantly lower IBI scores than the Unmined class; in fact, the Filled with Residences class
had higher IBI scores than the Unmined class (see Fig.l).
-------
Table 12. Analysis of variance of IBI scores among EIS classes (Unmined, Filled, Mined,
and Filled/Residential)
Source
DF
Sum of
Squares
Mean Square
F Value Pr > F
Model
Error
3
40
2335.56
4651.31
778.52
116.28
6.70 0.0009
Corrected Total 43 6986.87
R-Square Coeff Var
0.334 17.022
Root MSB INDEX Mean
10.783 63.35
Table 13. Dunnett's test comparing IBI values of EIS classes to the Unmined class.
Comparisons significant at 0.05 are indicated by ***
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 40
Error Mean Square 116.28
Critical Value of Dunnett's t 2.15
EIS_CLAS
Comparison
Filled/R - Unmined
7.919
-Infinity 17.833
Filled
Mined
- Unmined
- Unmined
-9.860
-12.227
-Infinity
-Infinity
-1.485
0.930
The individual metrics that comprise the IBI are not uniform in their response to stressors
(McCormick et al. 2001): some may respond to habitat degradation, some may respond to
organic pollution, and some may respond to toxic chemical contamination. Of the nine metrics
in the IBI, two were statistically significantly different among the EIS classes: the number of
minnow species and the number of benthic invertivore species (Figures 2 and 4). 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 (Figure 7). Two additional metrics, Percent Predators and Percent Tolerant
Individuals, showed increased degradation in Filled sites compared to Unmined sites, on
average, but the difference was not statistically significant (Figures 6 and 10). Four metrics in
the data set were dominated by zero values: Percent Sculpins, Percent Gravel Spawners, Percent
Non-native Fish, and Percent Large Omnivores (Figures 3, 5, 8 and 9). Because of the zero
values and the resultant non-normal distribution, parametric hypothesis tests (e.g., ANOVA) are
problematic.
-------
Figure 2: Number of Invertivore Species
MTM Site Means
14
o
(/>
'o
0
Q.
O 1°
i_
O
I 8 *
0
_c
•o 6
1_ __
0 ; in: _^ ; i Non-Outlier Max
"2 I i I i Non-Outlier Min
r i-U rn ' a 75o/0
L-T-J ! 25%
! | . . ! Median
Reference Unmined Filled Mined Filled/Res ° Outliers
EIS Class
IJK 1
Figure 3: Percent Sculpins
MTM Site Means
90
.9- 50
3
O
S 30
O
fl> i i i i i Non-Outlier Max
°- Non-Outlier Min
10 r o | l=l 75%
r~T~i I ^A^ ! nPi ! I I I °
n Median
! | | | | ! O Outliers
Referenc Unmined Filled Mined Filled/R * Extremes
EIS Class
-------
Figure 4: Number of Minnow Species
MTM Site Means
V)
.2 7
0 '
o>
a.
tn K
%
2 «s
c 3
c
i 4
9
O | T
i * i
o
—i— — ^
T^ -T-
• ; ~ T "
i J_ i
i ' j [ |
: o i T i T
^1^
Reference Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Mined Filled/Res
Figure 5: Percent of individuals that are gravel spawners
MTM Site Means
IUU
tn sn
0
(0
U. DU
"53
^
£ 40
^
-------
Figure 6: Percent Predators
MTM Site Means
on
k.
0
^^
(5 fin
•O
0)
ol
*^ /n
0)
o
1_
0
°- 20
n
[
1
1
1
1
1
T ^ '
1 111 1
o
Reference Unmined Filled Mined Filled/Res
EIS Class
Figure 7: Number of Intolerant Species
MTM Site Means
5
* A
o 4
2
2
C
E 1
D
O-
$ ! ^ |i
i Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
dl 75%
25%
n Median
O Outliers
SK Extremes
Reference Unmined Filled Mined Filled/Res
EIS Class
i Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
dl 75%
25%
n Median
O Outliers
-------
Figure 8: Percent of Fish that are not native
MTM Site Means
12
10
0)
re
§ 2
!_
0)
Q- o
-2
Reference Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Mined Filled/Res
i Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
EH 75%
25%
n Median
JK Extremes
RAFT
rinnls that arp larpp omnivorps
Figure 9: Percent of individuals that are large omnivores
MTM Site Means
zu
(/) on
3 U
Vl T-
3JOAJUI
fc -
O
0)
P
re 10
c
o 5
0 5
0)
0.
*
;
[
I
C
1
)
o
| | T
; ;
Reference Unmined Filled Mined
EIS Class
Filled/Res
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
n Median
O Outliers
* Extremes
-------
Figure 10: Percent of individuals that are tolerant
MTM Site Means
-I nn
An
to
LL
^ fin
RJ OU
i_
0)
0
"~ 40
c
0)
o
(1)
Q_ on
n
1
1
f
O
i
c
c
1
)
)
1
c
i 1 T 1 !
J-
*
*
) i
,
Referenc Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Mined
Filled/R
I Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
CH 75%
25%
n Median
O Outliers
3K Extremes
-------
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 MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F
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 MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F 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 objective 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 VWSCI and it's component metrics were calculated.
The number of metrics that showed significant correlations with distance along the
mainstem increased across seasons. The VWSCI 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 relatively drier conditions in Unmined sites during autumn 1999,
VWSCI 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 MTMA/F 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
MTMA/F 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
Section
Page
NOTICE.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
ANALYTICAL APPROACH AND RESULTS
Fish Data Analyses and Results
Macroinvertebrate Data Analyses and Results
MAJOR FINDINGS AND SIGNIFICANCE
Fish Data Findings and Significance
Macroinvertebrate Data Findings and Significance.
TABLES
FIGURES
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1.2. Environmental Impact Statement Development
1.3. Aquatic Impacts Portion of the EIS
1.4. Scope and Objectives of This Report
1.5. Biological Indices
2. METHODS AND MATERIALS
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Site Classes
2.3. Study Areas
2.3.1. Mud River Watershed
2.3.2. Spruce Fork Watershed
2.3.3. Clear Fork Watershed
2.3.4. Twentymile Creek Watershed.
2.3.5. Island Creek Watershed
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section
Page
2.3.6. Twelvepole Creek Watershed
2.4. Data Collection Methods
2.4.1. Habitat Assessment Methods
2.4.1.1. U.S. EPA Region 3 Habitat Assessment
2.4.1.2. BMI Habitat Assessment
2.4.1.3. POTESTA Habitat Assessment
2.4.1.4. REIC Habitat Assessment
2.4.2. Water Quality Assessment Methods
2.4.2.1. U.S. EPA Water Quality Assessment
2.4.2.2. BMI Water Quality Assessment
2.4.2.3. POTESTA Water Quality Assessment
2.4.2.4. REIC Water Quality Assessment
2.4.3. Fish Assemblage Methods
2.4.3.1. PSU Fish Assemblage Assessment
2.4.3.2. BMI Fish Assemblage Assessment
2.4.3.3. POTESTA Fish Assemblage Assessment
2.4.3.4. REIC Fish Assemblage Assessment Methods
2.4.4. Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Methods
2.4.4.1. U.S. EPA Region 3 Macroinvertebrate Assemblage
Assessment
2.4.4.2. BMI Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Methods
2.4.4.3. POTESTA Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Assessment
2.4.4.4. REIC Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Assessment
3. DATA ANALYSIS
3.1. Database Organization
3.1.1. Data Standardization
3.1.2. Database Description
3.1.2.1. Description of Fish Database.
3.1.2.2. Description of Macroinvertebrate Database.
3.2. Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control
3.3 Summary of Analyses
3.3.1 Summary of Fish Analysis
3.3.2 Summary of Macroinvertebrate Analysis.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section
Page
4. RESULTS
4.1. Fish Results
4.1.1. IBI Calculation and Calibration
4.1.2. IBI Scores in EIS Classes
4.1.3. Additive Analysis
4.1.4. Associations With Potential Causal Factors
4.2.1. Analysis of Differences in EIS Classes
4.2.1.1. Spring 1999
4.2.1.2. Autumn 1999
4.2.1.3. Winter 2000
4.2.1.4. Spring 2000
4.2.1.5. Autumn 2000
4.2.1.6. Winter 2001
4.2.2. Evaluation of Twentymile Creek
4.2.3. Macroinvertebrate and Water Chemistry Associations
4.2.4. The Effect of Catchment Area on the WVSCI
4.2.5 Additive Analysis
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1. Fish Discussion and Conclusions
5.2. Macroinvertebrate Discussion and Conclusions.
6. LITERATURE CITED
Appendix
Page
A. SUMMARY TABLES OF PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES USED BY THE
FOUR ORGANIZATIONS TO COLLECT DATA FOR THE MTM/VF
STUDY A-1
-------
B. IBI COMPONENT METRIC VALUES B-1
C. BOX PLOTS OF THE WVSCI AND COMPONENT METRICS C-1
D SCATTER PLOTS OF THE WVSCI RAREFIED TO 100 ORGANISMS
VERSUS KEY WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS D-1
E. STANDARDIZATION OF DATA AND METRIC CALCULATIONS E-1
-------
TABLES
Table
Page
1-1. The nine metrics in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands IBI, their definitions and their
expected responses to perturbations
1-2. The six metrics in the WVSCI, their definitions and their expected responses to
perturbations
2-1. Sites sampled in the Mud River Watershed
2-2. Sites sampled in the Spruce Fork Watershed
2-3. Sites sampled in the Clear Fork Watershed
2-4. Sites sampled in the Twentymile Creek Watershed
2-5. Sites sampled in the Island Creek Watershed
2-6. Sites sampled in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed
2-7. Parameters used by each organization for lab analyzed water samples.
3-1. Number of fish sites and samples in study area.
3-2. Number of sites and D-frame kick net samples available in each watershed and in
each E IS class
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
3-4. Number of sites and D-frame kick net samples used for comparing EIS classes
after the data set had been reduced
4-1. The ANOVAfor IBI scores among EIS classes
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)
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
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
4-5. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in spring 1999
4-6. Results from ANOVAfor benthic macroinvertebrates in autumn 1999
4-7. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in winter 2000
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table
Page
4-8. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in spring 2000
4-9. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in autumn 2000
4-10. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in winter 2001
4-11. Results from Pearson correlation analyses between the WVSCI rarefied to 100
organisms and key water quality parameters
4-12. Pearson correlation values and p-values for means of metric scores at Unmined
sites
(n = 19) versus catchment area
4-13. Pearson correlation values and p-values for metric scores at Additive sites on
Twentymile Creek versus cumulative river kilometer by season
4-14. The Regression for WVSCI versus Cumulative River Mile for Additive Sites in
Twentymile Creek Winter 2001
-------
FIGURES
Figure
Page
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
1-2. A VF in operation. The excess materials from a MTM operation are being placed
in this adjacent valley
2-1. Study area for the aquatic impacts study of the MTMA/F Region of West Virginia..
2-2. Sites sampled in the Mud River Watershed
2-3. Sites sampled in the Spruce Fork Watershed
2-4. Sites sampled in the Clear Fork Watershed
2-5. Sites sampled in the Twentymile Creek Watershed
2-6. Sites sampled in the Island Creek Watershed
2-7. Sites sampled in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed
3-1 Scatter plots showing IBI scores of sites sampled multiple times
4-1. Number of fish species captured versus stream catchment area
4-2. Calculated Fish IBI and watershed catchment area, all MTM fish samples from sites
with catchment > 2km2
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
4-4. Normal probability plot of IBI scores from EIS classes
4-5. The IBI scores for different site classes, by watershed area
4-6. The IBI scores from the additive sites in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed
4-7. IBI scores from additive sites and Peachorchard Branch in the Twentymile Creek
Watershed
4-8. The WVSCI and its metric scores versus catchment area in Unmined streams
5-1. Mean WVSCI scores in the Unmined and Filled EIS classes versus sampling
-------
season
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
-------
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 Environmental for her efforts in editing and formatting this
document.
-------
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
MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F 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
-------
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.
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).
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 MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F 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
MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F operations for inclusion in the EIS.
The objectives of this document are to: 1) determine if the biological condition of
streams in areas with MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F 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
Metric Metric Description Stress
Number of indigenous taxa that are sensitive to
Native Intolerant Taxa pollution; adjusted for drainage area Decrease
Number of indigenous taxa in the family Cyprinidae
Native Cyprinidae Taxa (carps and minnows); adjusted for drainage area Decrease
Number of indigenous bottom dwelling taxa that
Native Benthic Invertivores consume invertebrates; adjusted for drainage area Decrease
Percent Cottidae Percent individuals of the family Cottidae (i.e., sculpins) Decrease
Percent individuals that require clean gravel for
Percent Gravel Spawners reproductive success Decrease
-------
.. Percent individuals that consume fish or invertebrates Decrease
ior»i\ ir\rf±\rt\ /oH-i\ «-\roc»
Percent Macro Omnivore Percent individuals that are large and omnivorous Increase
Percent Tolerant Percent individuals that are tolerant of pollution Increase
Percent Exotic Percent individuals that are not indigenous 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 et al. 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
Definition
The total number of EPT taxa.
The total number of taxa.
The percentage of the sample made up of EPT individuals.
Expected
Response to
Perturbation
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
-------
% Chironomidae The percentage of the sample made up of Chironomidae Increase
individuals.
HBI An index used to quantify an invertebrate assemblage's Increase
tolerance to organic pollution.
% 2 Dominant The percentage of the sample made up of the dominant two Increase
taxa taxa in the sample.
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 MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F Region of
-------
West Virginia.
The PSU's School of Forest Resources collected fish data in the MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F Region of West Virginia.
The environmental consulting firm, BMI, collected water quality, water chemistry,
habitat, benthic macroinvertebrate and fish data in the MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F 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
-------
* SAMPLING STATtQHS
HI HUC - It BQUKDARY
3| MTMJVF REGION
^| WV COUNTIES
Figure 2-1. Study area for the aquatic impacts study of the MTM/VF Region of
West Virginia.
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).
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 MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F 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
-------
1000 0 1000 Meters
(D
Mud River
o Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
mining permits were
-------
Figure 2-2. Sites sampled in the Mud River Watershed.
Table 2-1. Sites sampled in the Mud River Watershed.
Site ID/Organization Stream Name EIS Class
U.S. EPA Region 3
-------
MT01 Mud River Mined/Residential
MT02 Rushpatch Branch Unmined
MT03 Lukey Fork Unmined
MT13 Spring Branch Unmined
MT14 Ballard Fork Filled
MT15 Stanley Fork Filled
MT24 Unnamed Trib. to Stanley Fork Sediment Control Structure
MT18 Sugartree Branch Filled
MT23 Mud River Filled/Residential
MT16 Unnamed Trib. to Sugartree Branch Mined
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).
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
-------
Spruce Fork
o Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
-------
Figure 2-3. Sites sampled in the Spruce Fork Watershed.
Table 2-2. Sites sampled in the Spruce Fork Watershed.
Site ID/Organization Stream Name EIS Class
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT39 White Oak Branch Unmined
-------
MT40 Spruce Fork Filled/Residential
MT42 Oldhouse Branch Unmined
MT45 Pigeonroost Branch Mined
MT32 Beech Creek Filled
MT34B Left Fork Filled
MT48 Spruce Fork Filled/Residential
MT25B Rockhouse Creek Filled
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).
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
-------
Clear Fork
o Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
-------
Figure 2-4. Sites sampled in the Clear Fork Watershed.
Table 2-3. Sites sampled in the Clear Fork Watershed.
Site ID/Organization Stream Name EIS Class
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT79 Davis Fork Mined
-------
MT78 Raines Fork Mined
MT81 Sycamore Creek Mined
MT75 Toney Fork Filled/Residential
MT70 Toney Fork Filled/Residential
MT69 Ewing Fork Mined/Residential
MT64 Buffalo Fork Filled
MT62 Toney Fork Filled/Residential
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).
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
-------
o Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
n Sites sampled by
environmental consulting firms
Twentymile Creek
Figure 2-5. Sites sampled in the Twentymile Creek Watershed.
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).
-------
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
RaderS
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-31 4
PMC-TMC-2
PMC-TMC-1
Stream Name
Neil Branch
Rader Fork
Neff Fork
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
-------
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-1 5
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
Neff Fork
Neff Fork
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
-------
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).
-------
Island Creek Watershed
O Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
Sites sampled by
1 ' environmental consulting firms
500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Met as
-------
Figure 2-6. Sites sampled in the Island Creek Watershed.
Table 2-5. Sites sampled in the Island Creek Watershed.
Site Stream Name EIS Class
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT50 Cabin Branch Unmined
-------
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
Left Fork
Cow Creek
Hall Fork
Hall Fork
Left Fork
Cow Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
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 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-001 C was located
downstream of the confluence of Laurel Branch which currently has a VF, additional
proposed VFs, and residences. Station BM-001 B 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-002A 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.
-------
Twelvepole Creek
Sites sampled by
environmental consulting firms
-------
Figure 2-7. Sites sampled in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed.
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 (Barbour et al. 1999) to collect habitat data
at each site. Although some parameters require observations of a broader section of the
catchment area, 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
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
-------
Table 2-7. Parameters used by each organization for lab analyzed water samples.
Parameter
Organizations
Acidity
Alkalinity
Chloride
Hardness
Nitrate(NO3) + Nitrite (NO2)
Sulfate
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Coarse Particulate Organic Matter
(CPOM)
Fine Particulate 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)
-------
Table 2-7. Continued.
Parameter
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
Organizations
U.S. EPA
Yes
Yes
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
POTESTA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
REIC
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
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 of fish 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.
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.
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-^im 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 / 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 Macroin vertebrate Assemblage Methods
BMI collected samples using a kick net with a 0.5 m width and a 600 ^im 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 ^im
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 ^im 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.
2.4.4.3. POTESTA Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Assessment
POTESTA collected samples of macroinvertebrates using a composite of four 600
[^m 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 ^im 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 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 ^im 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 ^im 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.
Table 3-1. Number of fish 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
Mud River
Island Creek
Spruce Fork
Clear Fork
Twenty Mile Creek
Twelvepole Creek1
Total
Unmined
3, (4)
1,0)
1,0)
5, (5)
4, (6)
14, (17)
Filled
4, (8)
2, (3)
3, (3)
1,0)
7, (7)
17, (22)
Mined
1,0)
3, (3)
4, (4)
Filled/Res
1,(3)
2, (2)
3, (3)
3, (3)
9, (11)
Additive
1,(2)
2, (2)
1,0)
7, (16)
12, (24)
23, (45)
Total
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.
Table 3-2. Number of sites and D-frame kick net samples available in each
watershed and in each EIS class.
EIS Class
Unmined
Filled/
Filled Residential Mined
Mined/
Residential
Total
Watershe site Sam Site Sam Site Sam Site Sam Site Sam Site Sam
Mud River
Island
Creek
Spruce
Fork
Clear Fork
Twentymile
Creek
Twelve pole
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.
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.
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.
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
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
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
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
Unmined
Waters he site
d
Mud River
Island
Creek
Spruce
U.S. EPA 3
Private 0
U.S. EPA 3
Private 4
U.S. EPA 2
Filled/
Filled Residential
Mined
Total
Sam Site Sam Site Sam Site Sam Site Samp
P
9
0
7
6
7
3
0
4
2
3
P
15
0
15
3
13
1
0
1
0
2
P
5
0
5
0
10
1
0
0
1
1
P
1
0
0
1
5
8
0
8
7
8
30
0
27
10
35
-------
Fork
Clear Fork
Twenty-mil
e Creek
Total
Private 0 0
U.S. EPA 0 0
Private 0 0
U.S. EPA 2 9
Private 6 1 8
U.S. EPA 10 32
Private 1 0 24
0 0
1 5
0 0
5 25
10 37
16 73
12 40
0 0
3 10
0 0
0 0
0 0
7 30
0 0
0 0
3 9
0 0
0 0
0 0
6 15
1 1
0 0
7 24
0 0
7 34
16 55
38 150
23 65
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 Merrittand Cummins (1996), Robins etal. (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 % of the methods' MDLs.
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 MTMA/F 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
-------
* FMR
A Additive
Spring IBI
Spring IBI, Year 1
Spring IBI. Year 2
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.
-------
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.
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., Karretal. 1986, Yoder and Rankin 1995). This was found to be true in the MTMA/F
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.
-------
Figure 4-1.
Number of
fish 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 Site Means
90
80
70
60
50
40
o 1 •
j "
\ °
5 i 14
Reference Unmined
\ o i
! O !
.[ T i.
i • !
: T i
i 17 !
Filled
T
•
4
|
T
•
1
g
Mined Filled/Res
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
_1_ Non-
Non-
E^l 75%
25%
• Med
O Outl
Non-Outlier Max
EIS Class
Mid-Atlantic IBI
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).
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 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 of fish 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 4-5A). Of the 14 sites in watersheds with areas greater than 10 km2, four
were rated fair and ten were rated good or better (Figure 4-5A). 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.
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
Model
Error
Corrected
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
3
40
43
Sum of
Squares
2335.56
4651.31
6986.87
Mean Square F Value
778.52 6.70
116.28
Pr>F
0.0009
R-Square
Coefficient of
Variance
Root MSE
Index Mean
0.334
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/Residentia
1
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
km2 (Table 4-3). Filled sites had an average of one fewer Cyprinidae species, 1.6 fewer
benthic 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.
-------
MTM Site Means, Mined Sites
IBI Riling
; A....
' L
. *
.
u
"
*
: : A
A : :
* ! „• !A
A' pji : .
*
A
ExcOIIOnt
Good
Fllr
Poor
pj Filled
A Filled/Res
e a 10 20
Catchment Area, km
40 N 00 100
B
MTM Site Means, Unmlned Sites
00°
6 B 10 20
Catchment Area, km
IBI Riling
Poor
40 N
O Unmlned
D Reference
Mid-Atlantic IBI
Mid-Atlantic IBI
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.
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/lnvertivores
% 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).
-------
65
60
A*
= 5
: [
''•:
i i
• !
!
1 '-
: |
! 1
3 :
: i
; I
•
1 !
! c
3; ;
1 ! I]
; ; i i
! ! n
! n ;
]| 1
: :
i";
: i
Gc
Fa
Po
•
n
20
40
60
80
100
120
Kiah Creek
Twelvepole Creek
Trough Fork
Catchment area, km
Mid-Atlantic IBI
Figure 4-6. The IBI scores from the additive sites in the Twelvepole Creek
Watershed. Multiple observations from single sites are connected with a vertical
line.
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.
80
70
60
55
4K
! : • :
j ! |
nuuvn -_ ~ . . KBCUVBI;
T i
• : j j
i \ | \
...... ^
!!!!!! A
A ; Peachorchard Branch ; ; [
X ! ; ; ; ! . J
«— Below*- \ •
: : • :
; 1 ;
> : • :
i: : :
Good
Fair
Poor
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
• Twentymile
A Peach Orchard
Catchment Area, km
Mid-Atlantic IBI
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 (NCM- Log Na Log SO4 Log TDS Log Zn
Log Mg
Log Ni
Log (NO3+NO2)
Log Na
Log SO4
Log TDS
Log Zn
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
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 it's
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
<0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
0.0017
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Percent Dominant Two Taxa
(Arcsine Transformed) 0.0010 Yes
Percent EPT Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed) 0.0010 Yes
Percent Chironomidae
Abundance (Arcsine
Transformed) 0.0326 Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Filled/Residential
Table 4-6. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroin vertebrates 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
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)
0.0454
0.3744
0.2401
0.1299
0.2672
0.0178
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
Percent Chironomidae 0.0253 Yes Yes
Abundance (Arcsine
Transformed)
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.
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 Normality Equal
? Variance?
<0.0001 Yes
<0.0001 Yes
<0.0001 Yes
<0.0001 Yes
<0.0001 Yes
<0.0001 Yes
<0.0001 Yes
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
p-value Normality Equal
?
Variance?
LS Means
WVSCI
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
Total Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
EPT Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
0.0001
0.0004
<0.0001
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled and
Filled/Residential
-------
HBI
0.0002
Yes
No
Percent Dominant Two Taxa
(Arcsine Transformed) <0.0001 Yes
Percent EPT Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed) 0.0027 Yes
Percent Chironomidae
Abundance (Arcsine
Transformed) 0.0020 Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Filled/Residential
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
p-val Normality Equal Variance?
ue ?
LS Means
WVSCI 0.194
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms) 5 Yes
Total Taxa 0.474
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms) 4 Yes
EPT Taxa 0.189
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms) 7 Yes
0.724
HBI 3 Yes
Percent Dominant Two Taxa 0.084
(Arcsine Transformed) 6 Yes
Percent EPT Abundance 0.320
(Arcsine Transformed) 0 Yes
Percent Chironomidae
Abundance (Arcsine 0.441
Transformed) 7 Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table 4-10. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroin vertebrates in winter 2001.
Uses Unmined sites as a relative control for LS Means test. Total n = 16, Unmined
n = 6, Filled n = 10.
Metric
p-val Normality? Equal Variance?
ue
LS Means
WVSCI 0.011
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms) 0
Yes
No
Filled
-------
Total Taxa 0.027
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms) 5 Yes Yes
EPT Taxa 0.007
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms) 4 Yes No Filled
0.487
HBI 4 Yes Yes
Percent Dominant Two Taxa 0.001
(Arcsine Transformed) 2 Yes Yes
Percent EPT Abundance 0.344
(Arcsine Transformed) 9 Yes Yes
Percent Chironomidae
Abundance (Arcsine 0.118
Transformed) 0 Yes Yes
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. Clear
Fork could not be used in this 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
VWSCI 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 VWSCI 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 VWSCI and
measures of individual and combined ions (Table 4-11, Appendix D). The VWSCI 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
MTMA/F 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
MTMA/F 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
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
n
53
47
52
53
53
53
53
23
49
53
49
53
21
60
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
P-value
<0.001
0.161
0.032
<0.001
0.761
<0.001
0.086
0.001
0.193
<0.001
0.095
0.235
0.106
0.815
-------
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Total Selenium
Total Sodium
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Zinc
53
53
51
53
53
53
53
-0.165
-0.527
-0.476
-0.572
-0.598
-0.371
-0.343
0.237
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.006
0.012
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 MTMA/F 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 4-12. Pearson correlation values and p-values for means of metric scores
at Unmined sites (n = 19) versus catchment area.
Metric
Tot_S1 00
EPT_S100
HBI
Dom2Pct
EPTPct
ChirPct
WVSCI100
R
-0.157
-0.165
0.228
0.255
-0.168
0.087
-0.312
p-value
0.520
0.501
0.348
0.293
0.493
0.724
0.194
Figure 4-8. The WVSCI and its metric scores versus catchment area in Unmined
streams.
-------
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 it's
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
WVSC1 100
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)
(n\/aliifi=0 8171
-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
m 0181
-0.593
m nn?i
0.410
m 0371
0.545
m nn4i
-0.235
m ?4Ri
0.091
CO 6581
-0.608
m nnn
-------
Table 4-14. The Regression for WVSCI versus Cumulative River Mile for Additive
Sites in Twentymile Creek Winter 2001.
Source
Model
Error
Corrected
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
1
24
25
R-Square
0.369
Parameter Estimate
Intercept
Cumulative
River Km
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 F Value Pr > F
658.99 14.05 0.0010
46.90
Root MSE WVSCI Mean
6.848 82.80
t Value Pr > |t|
31.38 <.0001
-3.75 0.001
-------
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 VWSCI and some of its component metrics in all seasons
except autumn 2000. Differences in the VWSCI 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 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 MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F study area. As a result, comparisons among EIS classes during autumn
2000 and winter 2001 should not be considered typical for the entire MTMA/F 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 MTMA/F study
area. On average Filled sites were in worse ecological condition than were Unmined
sites.
-------
-------
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).
-------
B
-------
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.
-------
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 MTMA/F 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.
-------
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. EPA841-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 jnJ.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.
Kaufmann, P.R., and E.G. Robison. 1998. Physical Habitat Characterization. Pages
77-118 ]n 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.
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., D.J. 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.
McCormick, F.H., and R.M. Hughes. 1998. Aquatic Vertebrates. Pages 161-1181 ]n
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 AT.
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. Cumm ins. 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 D.J. 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.
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/region03/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 MTMA/F coal mining, WV: October 1999 - January
2001. Draft. U.S. EPA Region 3, Wheeling, WV.
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. 34 pp.
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
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY TABLES OF PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES USED BY THE FOUR
ORGANIZATIONS TO COLLECT DATA FOR THE MTM/VF STUDY
-------
Table A-1. 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 Barbour et al. (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
Barbour et al. (1999).
No information on habitat data
collection given.
Procedures
A habitat assessment made
according to Barbour 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 given.
(Continued)
-------
Table A-1. Continued.
Habitat Assessment Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Habitat QA/QC
A habitat assessment made
according to Barbour et al. (1999)
and the riparian habitat and substrate
described using Kaufmann and
Robison (1998).
No information on habitat data
collection given.
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 given.
-------
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)
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).
2019181716
Gravel, cobble, and
boulder particles are
0-25% surrounded by fine
sediment. Layering of
cobble provides diversity
of niche space.
2019181716
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).
2019181716
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.
2019181716
Water reaches base of
both lower banks, and
minimal amount of
channel substrate is
exposed.
2019181716
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).
1514131211
Gravel, cobble, and boulder
particles are 25-50%
surrounded by fine
sediment.
1514131211
Only 3 of the 4 regimes
present (if fast-shallow is
missing, score lower than if
missing other regimes).
1514131211
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.
1514131211
Water fills >75% of the
available channel; or <25%
of channel substrate is
exposed.
1514131211
Marginal
20-40% (10-30% for low
gradient streams) mix of
stable habitat; habitat
availability less than
desirable; substrate
frequently disturbed or
removed.
109876
Gravel, cobble, and boulder
particles are 50-75%
surrounded by fine
sediment.
109876
Only 2 of the 4 habitat
regimes present (if
fast-shallow or slow-shallow
are missing, score low).
109876
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.
109876
Water fills 25-75% of the
available channel, and/or
riffle substrates are mostly
exposed.
109876
Poor
Less than 20% (1 0% for low
gradient streams) stable
habitat; lack of habitat is
obvious; substrate unstable
or lacking.
54321 0
Gravel, cobble, and boulder
particles are more than 75%
surrounded by fine
sediment.
54321 0
Dominated by 1
velocity/depth regime
(usually slow-deep).
54321 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.
54321 0
Very little water in channel
and mostly present as
standing pools.
54321 0
-------
(Continued)
-------
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)
cpORF 1 R
OV^v^rvL. LD
SCORE RB
Channelization or dredging
absent or minimal; stream
with normal pattern.
2019181716
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
continues, placement of
boulders or other large,
natural obstruction is
important.
2019181716
Banks stable: evidence of
erosion or bank failure
absent or minimal; little
potential for future
problems. <5%ofbank
affected.
Left Bank 10
f\
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
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.
1514131211
Occurrence of riffles
infrequent; distance
between riffles divided by
the width of the stream is
between 7 and 15.
1514131211
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
Channelization may be
extensive; embankments or
shoring structures present
on both banks; and 40 to
80% of stream reach
channelized and disrupted.
109876
Occasional riffle or bend;
bottom contours provide
some habitat; distance
between riffles divided by
the width of the stream is
between 15 and 25.
109876
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
Banks shored with gabion or
cement; over 80% of the
stream reach channelized
and disrupted. In-stream
habitat greatly altered or
removed entirely.
54321 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.
54321 0
Unstable; many eroded
areas; "raw" areas frequent
along straight sections and
bends; obvious bank
sloughing; 60-1 00% of
bank has erosional scars.
210
210
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.
210
210
(Continued)
-------
Table A-2 (Continued).
10. Riparian
Vegetation Zone
Width (score each
bank riparian
zone)
(high and low
gradient)
SCORE LB
O/"»/~*DC DD
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
n
Right Bank 10
n
Width of riparian zone 1 2-1 8
meters; human activities
have impacted zone only
minimally.
876
876
Width of riparian zone 6-1 2
meters; human activities
have impacted zone a great
deal.
543
543
Width of riparian zone <6
meters; little or no riparian
vegetation due to human
activities.
210
210
Table A-3. Substrate size classes and class scores.
Class
Bedrock
Boulder
Cobble
Coarse
Gravel
Fine Gravel
Sand
Fines
Size
> 4000 mm
250 to 4000
mm
64 to 250 mm
1 6 to 64 mm
2 to 16 mm
0.06 to 2 mm
< 0.06 mm
Class
Score
6
5
4
3.5
2.5
2
1
Description
Bigger than a car
Basketball to car
Tennis ball to
basketball
Marble to tennis ball
Ladybug to marble
Gritty between fingers
Smooth, not gritty
-------
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.
(Continued)
-------
Table A-4. Continued.
Water Quality Procedures (Continued)
U.S, EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
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
(4° 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)
-------
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
sulfsts
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)
-------
Table A-4. Continued.
Water Quality Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Field QA/QC
A QA/QC plan should be developed.
No information on water
chemistry QA/QC practices
given.
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.
No information on field
measurement QA/QC
practices given.
Sample Collection
QA/QC
A QA/QC plan should be developed.
No information on sample
collection QA/QC practices
given.
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.
No information on sample
collection QA/QC practices
given.
Laboratory QA/QC
A QA/QC plan should be developed.
No information on water sample
analysis laboratory QA/QC
practices given.
The laboratory analysis of water
chemistry follows Standard Methods
and/or EPA approved methods. Any
deviations from these methods are
noted.
No information on water
sample analysis laboratory
QA/QC practices given.
-------
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 offish 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 /-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.
Electrofishing
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
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
-------
were made.
containing water. Three
passes were conducted at
each station.
(Continued)
Table A-5. Continued.
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. Each 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,
Data were entered into a
spreadsheet and confirmed. At
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. For each
-------
frequency analysis and standing
crop (kg/ha) were calculated for
each species at each pass.
species at each sampling station,
Total abundance, Mean length,
Mean weight, Standing stock, and
Sensitivity index (U.S. EPA 1999)
were calculated.
(Continued)
-------
Table A-5. Continued.
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 offish
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.
-------
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
scenario. 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. In 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.
-------
Table A-6. Continued.
(Continued)
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
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.
Sampler Used
Sampling was conducted according
to Barbouret al. (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 %-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 Vi-m 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. The 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. Each 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.
-------
Table A-6. Continued.
(Continued)
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
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.
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
macroinvertebrate composition
and relative abundance were
made. A habitat assessment
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.
-------
was made. Riparian habitat
was described using Kaufmann
and Robison (1998).
Table A-6. Continued.
(Continued)
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
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
(Barbouret 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.
Laboratory Procedures
Samples were thoroughly rinsed in a 500
|xm-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 (/
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). The 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-|im sieve. Then
rinsed with water and
transferred to a four-part
sub-sampler with a 500-|im
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
Vi 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.
Table A-6. Continued.
(Continued)
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
(Barbouret 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. For QC
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
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.
spreadsheets were
routinely checked
against field and
laboratory sheets.
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.
(Continued)
Table A-6. Continued.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Benthic
Macro-invertebrate
Metrics Calculated
Data were used to calculate the
metrics of the WVSCI.
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 Mayflies
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.
-------
APPENDIX B
IBI COMPONENT METRIC VALUES
-------
Figure B-1. 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-1. The ANOVA for IBI scores among EIS classes (Unmined, Filled, Mined,
and Filled/Residential).
Degrees of
Freedom
Sum of
Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr>F
Raferenci)
Source
Model
Error
Corrected
Total
3
40
43
2335.56
4651.31
6986.87
778.52 6.70
116.28
0.0009
R-Square
Coefficient of
Variance
Root MSE
Index Mean
0.334
17.022
10.783
63.350
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
Filled/Residential
Mined
17
9
4
56.8
74.6
54.4
10.6
10.7
13.4
0.0212
0.9975
0.0685
-------
Unmined
I I
I
Reference Unmlned Filled
EIS Class
Number of Invertlvore Species
14
66.7
Mined Filled/Res
N»n-Outltar M«x
N»n-Outll»r M|n
25%
D Median
O Outliers
10.3
Figure B-2. Box plot of the Number of Benthic Invertivore Species among EIS
classes and regional reference sites.
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
Degrees of
Freedom
3
40
43
Sum of
Squares
22.32
60.66
82.98
Mean Square F Value
7.44 4.91
1.51
Pr>F
0.0054
R-Square
Coefficient of
Variance
Root MSE
Index Mean
0.269
23.504
1.231
5.239
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
N
Mean
Standard Deviation
Dunnett's
P-Value
-------
Filled
Filled/Residential
Mined
Unmined
10
5
2
| | | | -r
! SK I ! in
' ! 0 ; § ! ;
Referenc Unmined Filled Mined Fllled/R
EIS Class
Percent Sculpins
17 4.8 1.3
9 5.4 1.2
4 3.6 0.76
14 6.0 1.2
o | ; i |
I £ : i i
i o I I i
n | Q ! | | T
! 1 : : ID
_l_ ! ! ~~T~~ ! !
"T" NW-Outler Max
Non-Outltor Mln
25%
D Median
O Outliers
^ Extremes
0.0182
0.3234
0.0017
T" Non-Outl|»r M«x
Non-Outlier Mln
I I 75%
25%
D Median
O Outliers
Reference Unmined Filled Mined Filled/Res
EIS Class
Minnow Species
Figure B-3. Box plot of the Percent Cottidae( Sculpins) among EIS classes and
regional reference sites.
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
Degrees of
Freedom
3
40
43
Sum of
Squares
11.36
26.19
37.56
Mean Square F Value
3.79 5.79
0.65
Pr>F
0.0022
R-Square
Coefficient of
Variance
Root MSE
Index Mean
0.302
17.777
0.809
4.55
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
P-Value
0.0089
0.0311
0.0008
__
-------
MTM Site Means
100
80
20
0 L
I
I
Referenc Unmined Filled Mined
EIS Class
Percent Gravel Spawners
Fllled/R
—1— Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
1=1 75%
25%
n Median
Figure B-5. Box plot of the Percent Gravel Spawners among EIS classes and
regional reference sites.
-------
I
I
T
T
Non-Outlier M«*
Non-Outlhr Mln
Reference Unmined Filled Mined Filled/Res
EIS Class
Number of Intolerant Species
I I 75«
25%
D Median
O Outliers
Figure B-6. Box plot of the Percent Piscivore/lnvertivores (Predators) among EIS
classes and regional reference sites.
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.
Table B-7. The ANOVA for Number of Intolerant Species 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
iference Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Percent non-Native Fish
3 5.29
40 11.83
43 17.12
*
_$_
1.76
0.29
~T~ Non-Outll»r M«x
Non-Outlier Mln
CZl 75»
25%
G Median
•fc Extremes
5.96
0.0019
R-Square
Coefficient of
Variance
Root MSE
Index Mean
0.308
44.209
0.543
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
__
-------
I
Refereno Unmlned Filled Mined Fllled/R
EIS Class
"T" Non-Outlier Max
NOn-Outllar Mln
^H 75*
25%
D Median
O Outliers
£(£ Extremes
Pecent Tolerant Fish
Figure B-8. Box plot of the Percent Exotic ( Non-Native Fish) among EIS classes
and regional reference sites.
Reference Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Mined
Filled/Res
"T" N«n-Outlter M«x
NOn-Outltor Mln
CZ1 75%
25%
D Median
O Outliers
SK Extremes
Percent Large Omnivores
Figure B-9. Box plot of the Percent Macro Omnivores among EIS classes and
regional reference sites.
Figure B-10. Box plot of the Percent Tolerant Fish among EIS classes and
regional reference sites.
Table B-9. The ANOVA for Number of Tolerant Species among EIS classes
-------
(Unmined, Filled, Mined, and Filled/Residential).
Source Degrees of
Freedom
Model
Error
Corrected
3
40
total 43
R-Square
0.512
Sum of
Squares
21001.35
19956.38
40957.73
Coefficient of
Variance
32.055
Mean Square
7000.45
498.91
Root MSE
22.336
F Value Pr > F
14.03 <0.0001
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
Filled
Filled/Residential
Mined
Unmined
N
17
9
4
14
Mean
82.9
28.9
97.2
71.8
Standard Deviation
21.5
24.1
5.6
24.6
Dunnett's
P-Value
0.2080
1.0000
0.0681
__
-------
APPENDIX C
BOX PLOTS OF THE WVSCI AND COMPONENT METRICS
-------
EISOLASS2
EISOLASS2
EISGL/VSS2
EISCLASS2
EISCLASS2
EISCLASS2
EISCLASS2
d
11 oo
ln«d
Unmln*
DOM2ROT
TOT_S1OO
EPTPCT
EPT_S1OO
CHIRPCT
Figure C-1. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus the EIS
class for the spring 1999 season. Circles represent site scores.
-------
EISGLASS2
EISOL/VSS2
T
EISCLASS2
EISCLASS2
EISGL/VSS2
5C
4C
3C
1C
T
: i
- B
o
T
-
-
,-, -
EISCLASS2
EISCLASS2
>M2RCT
TOT_S1OO
EPTPCT
ERT_S1OO
CHIRPCT
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.
-------
EISCLASS2
EISGLASS2
El SO LAS S2
3« -
2C -
EISCLASS2
EISCLASS2
E ISCLASS2
EISCLASS2
DOM2RCT
TOT_S1OO
EPTRCT
CHIRRCT
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.
-------
EISOLASS2
EISOLASS2
EISGL/VSS2
1 .< '
O.I'
O.I
1C-
af—
EISCLASS2
EISCLASS2
EISCLASS2
EISCLASS2
d
: 11 OO
ln«d
unmln*
DOM2ROT
TOT_S1OO
EPTPCT
EPT_S1OO
CHIRPCT
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.
-------
•le •
1C -
Flllad Unmlnl
EISGLASS2
Flllad Unmlna
EISGLASS2
illed Unmln«
EISGLASS2
O.I
o.-
o.i
O.i
0.'
®
•
_
Js
3€ -
2t -
EISCLASS2
Flllad Unmlnc
EISCLASS2
Flllad Unmlnj
EISCLASS2
WVSCI 1OO
DOM2PCT
TOT_S1OO
EPTPCT
EPT_S100
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.
-------
Flllad Unmlnl
EISCLASS2
I
Flllad Unmlna
EISCLASS2
illed Unmln«
EISCLASS2
Unmlnc
EISCLASS2
°P
Flllad Unmlnc
EISCLASS2
Flllad Unmlnj
EISCLASS2
ec
8C
7€
ec
at
^ 00...00 -
o
c
)
.
WVSCI 1OO
DOM2PCT
TOT_S1OO
EPTRCT
EPT_31OO
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.
-------
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
-|Mud Rlv»l
spruct
Twontyrril • C
WATERSHED
I Crook
Mud Rlvor
Sprue* Fork
Twontymllo C
WATERSHED
Twontymllo C
Island Crook
WATERSHED
I Cr»»k
Twontymllo C
DOM2RCT
ue* Fork
Twontymllo C
TOT_S1OO
Ieland Cn
Sprue
Fork
ERTPCT
EPT_S1OO
Figure C-7. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed
for unmined sites in the spring 1999 season.
-------
WATERSHED
.1
.«
_
£^
1
-
75
ac
7«
ac
51
44
3C
20
1 ^ 1
1 r~-> 1
island C
o
±
-
-
-
tymll» C
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
BC
80
7C
OO
50
«c
C^) .
C V£ 1
O
-
: I T :
Tw«ntymll« C
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
WATERSHEt
I CnB*k
Tw«ntymll« C
Tw«ntymll« C
Tw«ntymll» C
TOT_S1OO
Island Cr*«k
EPTPCT
EPT_S100
CHIRPCT
Figure C-8. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed
for unmined sites in the autumn 1999 season.
-------
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
30 -
2C -
1C -
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
I Crook
Mud Mlvor
Sprue* Fork
Twontymllo C
Sprue* Fork
Twontymllo
WATERSHED
Island Crm»k
Twontymllo C
>M2RCT
Spruco Fork
Twontymllo C
FOT_S1OO
slond Crook
Mud
Sprue
Fork
EPTPCT
ERT_S1OO
CHIRRCT
Figure C-9. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed
for unmined sites in the winter 2000 season.
-------
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
Island croak
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
I Cr«»k
Mud Klv*r
Sprue* Fork
Tw«ntymll« C
Sprue* Fork
Twontymllo C
WATERSHED
Island Crm»k
Twontymllo C
>M2RCT
Spruco Fork
Twantymlla C
FOT_S1OO
stand Croak
Mud
Sprue
Fork
EPTRCT
ERT_S1OO
CHIRRCT
Figure C-10. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus
watershed for unmined sites in the spring 2000 season.
-------
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
30 -
2C -
1C —
WATERSHED
Ulud Rlvor
Sprue* Fork
Twontymllo C
3C -
2C -
Fork WATERSHED
ind Crook
Mud Klvor
Sprue* Fork
Twontymllo C
Island Crook
Mud Rlvor
Spruco Fork
rf 1 00
Spruco Fork
Twontymllo C
TOT_S1OO
,
mll.
ERT_S1OO
Figure C-11. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus
watershed for Filled sites in the spring 1999 season. Circles represent site
scores.
-------
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
,rkWATERSHED
I Crook
Mud Mlvor
Spruco Fork
TwOntymllO C
Sprue* Fork
Twontymllo C
Cloor Fork
WATERSHED
Mr Fork
Isiond
Twontymlio C
>M2RCT
TOT_S1OO
ruco Fork
Twontymllo C
Cloor Fork
I Crook
Mud lUvor
Twont
ymlio
EPTPCT
ERT_S1OO
CHIRRCT
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.
-------
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
Twontynr IIO C
WATERSHED
slond Cr,
(rkWATERSHED
I Crook
Mud Mv«r
Spruc« Fork
TwMntymll* C
Sprue* Fork
Tw«ntym|l» C
WATERSHED
•Or Fork
Isiond
Twontymlio C
>M2RCT
TOT_S1OO
ruco Fork
Twontymllo C
Cloor Fork
I Crook
Mud lUvor
Twont
ymlio
ERT_S1OO
CHIRRCT
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.
-------
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
O.
O.I
o.; -
O.I
O.! -
o..
70-
oo-
50 -
*o-
30-
20-
10 -
Tw»ntyrr !!• O
30-
20 -
WATERSHED
WATERSHED
c,..r Fo
rK WATERSHED
cJSt?1
• Fork
Mud Klvor
Spruco Fork
Twontymlio C
Spruco Fork
TwOntymllO C
ar Fi»rk
Island Cr»»k
Cl««r Fork
lal«nd Crook
Mud Rlvor
Spruoo Fork
Twontymllo O
>M2RCT
Tw«ntymll* C
TOT_S1OO
Cloor Fork
Island Crook
EPT_S1OO
CHIRRCT
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.
-------
APPENDIX D
SCATTER PLOTS OF THE WVSCI VERSUS KEY WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
-------
Figure D-1. The WVSCI, rarefied to 100 organisms, versus water quality
parameters. Dashed line represents best fit line using linear regression.
-------
Figure D-1. Continued.
-------
Figure D-1. Continued.
-------
Figure D-1. Continued.
-------
APPENDIX E
STANDARDIZATION OF DATA AND METRIC CALCULATIONS
Standardization and Statistical Treatment of MTMA/F 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 VW
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-1).
-------
Table E-1. 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/lnvertivores
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.
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 * Log10 (Drainage Area
[km2])
predicted = 0.306788 + 2.990011 * Log10 (Drainage Area
[km2])
predicted = 0.037392 + 2.620796 * Log10 (Drainage 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).
Table E-3. Mid-Atlantic Highland IBI: Metric scoring formulas.
were adjusted for drainage area before calculating scores.
Richness metrics
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/lnvertivores
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) I
If X>1. 51, then 10. If X<0.12, then 0. Else 10*X/1.39
If X>6.24, then 1 0. If X<1 .54, then 0. Else 1 0*X/4.70
If X>5.34, then 1 0. If X<1 .27, then 0. Else 1 0*X/4.07
lfX>7,then10. Else 10*X/7
If X>72, then 1 0. If X<21 .5, then 0. Else 1 0*X/50.5
lfX>9, then 10. Else 10*X/9
lfX>16,thenO. If X<0.2, then 10. Else 10*(16-X)/1 5.8
If X>97, then 0. If X<28, then 1 0. Else 1 0*(97-X)/69
If X>24, then 0. If X<0.2, then 1 0. Else 1 0*(24-X)/23.8
Raw Score
Raw Score x 1.11
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 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.
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.
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 MTMA/F study are summarized in Table E-4.
Table E-4. A comparison of each organization's methods of collecting and
compositing samples, and laboratory subsampling protocols.
Organization
USEPA
Sample Method
4 times 1/4m2 D-frame net
Compositing
Composited samples
Subsampling
1/8 of original sample. If
abundance was low, the
laboratory subsampled to
1/4 or 1/4 of the original
sample, or did not
subsample at all.
-------
REIC
(Twelvepole
Creek)
3 times Surber
and
4 times 1/4m2 D-frame net
All Surber samples were
analyzed separately (no
compositing).
Composited samples.
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.
Potesta
(Twenty Mile
Creek)
4 times 1/4 m2 D-frame net.
Composited samples
Not subsampled; counted
to completion.
BMI
(Twenty Mile
Creek)
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
1/4m2 D-frame sample.
Composited samples.
Surber samples kept
separate. D-frame
samples were composited.
Surber samples kept
separate. D-frame
samples were composited.
Not subsampled; counted
to completion.
Not subsampled; counted
to completion.
Not subsampled; counted
to completion.
BMI
(Island Creek):
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.
Composited samples.
Surber samples were kept
separate. D-frame
samples were composited.
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 entire community is low.
However, a single microhabitat, such as a large rock, is likely to by 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).
at a
random from a collection containing N
individuals, S species, and Nt individuals
in the rth species. _
-------
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 MTMA/F data, benthic samples were standardized to
200 individuals, which is the standard VW 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.
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.
-------
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-1 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.
Figure E-1. 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.
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, since 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 1/8th 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).
-------
Figure E-3. Number of families per site, averaged over 6 Surbers (vertical),
against total numbers from D-frame samples. See Figure 2 caption.
Figure E-4. Total families per site, from composite of 6 Surbers (cumulative),
compared to EPA D-frame results. As in Figures 2 and 3.
-------
Figure E-5. Number of taxa in standardized Surber samples (vertical) compared
to standardized D-frame samples (horizontal). As in Figures 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 1/8th of the total material (with some exceptions
noted in the data); RE 1C to 1/4th 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 1/8th 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.
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.
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.
etrics that decrease with
stress
Scoring formulas (X=metric value)
Total taxa
EPT taxa
% EPT
>re10o = 100 x (X/18), Score200 = 100 x (X/21)
>re10o = 100 x (X/12), Score200 = 100 x (X/13)
>re = 100x(X/91.9)
that increase with stress
%Chironomidae
% 2 dominant
HBI
>re = 100 x [(100-X)/(100-0.98)]
>re = 100 x [(100-X)/(100-36.0)]
>re = 100 x[(10-X)/(10-2.9)]
-------
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.
-------
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 objective 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 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
-------
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
Section Page
NOTICE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
ANALYTICAL APPROACH AND RESULTS
Fish Data Analyses and Results
Macroinvertebrate Data Analyses and Results
MAJOR FINDINGS AND SIGNIFICANCE
Fish Data Findings and Significance
Macroinvertebrate Data Findings and Significance
TABLES
FIGURES
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
1.2. Environmental Impact Statement Development
1.3. Aquatic Impacts Portion of the EIS
1.4. Scope and Objectives of This Report
1.5. Biological Indices
2. METHODS AND MATERIALS
2.1. Data Collection
2.2. Site Classes
2.3. Study Areas
2.3.1. Mud River Watershed
2.3.2. Spruce Fork Watershed
2.3.3. Clear Fork Watershed
2.3.4. Twentymile Creek Watershed
2.3.5. Island Creek Watershed ....
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
2.3.6. Twelvepole Creek Watershed
2.4. Data Collection Methods
2.4.1. Habitat Assessment Methods
2A.I.1. U.S. EPA Region 3 Habitat Assessment
2.4.1.2. BMI Habitat Assessment
2.4.1.3. POTESTA Habitat Assessment
2.4.1.4. REIC Habitat Assessment
2.4.2. Water Quality Assessment Methods
2.4.2.1. U.S. EPA Water Quality Assessment
2.4.2.2. BMI Water Quality Assessment
2.4.2.3. POTESTA Water Quality Assessment
2.4.2.4. REIC Water Quality Assessment
2.4.3. Fish Assemblage Methods
2A3.1. PSU Fish Assemblage Assessment
2.4.3.2. BMI Fish Assemblage Assessment
2.4.3.3. POTESTA Fish Assemblage Assessment
2.4.3.4. REIC Fish Assemblage Assessment Methods
2.4.4. Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Methods
2 A A.I. U.S. EPA Region 3 Macroinvertebrate Assemblage
Assessment
2.4.4.2. BMI Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Methods
2 A A3. POTESTA Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Assessment
2.4.4.4. REIC Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Assessment
3. DATA ANALYSIS
3.1. Database Organization
3.1.1. Data Standardization
3.1.2. Database Description
3.1.2.1. Description of Fish Database
3.1.2.2. Description of Macroinvertebrate Database.
3.2. Data Quality Assurance/Quality Control
3.3 Summary of Analyses
3.3.1 Summary of Fish Analysis
3.3.2 Summary of Macroinvertebrate Analysis
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
4. RESULTS
4.1. Fish Results
4.1.1. IBI Calculation and Calibration
4.1.2. IBI Scores in EIS Classes
4.1.3. Additive Analysis
4.1.4. Associations With Potential Causal Factors
4.2.1. Analysis of Differences in EIS Classes
4.2.1.1. Spring 1999
4.2.1.2. Autumn 1999
4.2.1.3. Winter2000
4.2.1.4. Spring 2000
4.2.1.5. Autumn 2000
4.2.1.6. Winter 2001
4.2.2. Evaluation of Twentymile Creek
4.2.3. Macroinvertebrate and Water Chemistry Associations
4.2.4. The Effect of Catchment Area on the WVSCI
4.2.5 Additive Analysis
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1. Fish Discussion and Conclusions
5.2. Macroinvertebrate Discussion and Conclusions
6. LITERATURE CITED
Appendix Page
A. SUMMARY TABLES OF PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES USED BY THE
FOUR ORGANIZATIONS TO COLLECT DATA FOR THE MTM/VF
STUDY A-l
B. IBI COMPONENT METRIC VALUES B-l
C. BOX PLOTS OF THE WVSCI AND COMPONENT METRICS C-l
D SCATTER PLOTS OF THE WVSCI RAREFIED TO 100 ORGANISMS
VERSUS KEY WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS D-l
E. STANDARDIZATION OF DATA AND METRIC CALCULATIONS E-l
-------
TABLES
Table Page
1-1. The nine metrics in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands IBI, their definitions and their expected
responses to perturbations
1-2. The six metrics in the WVSCI, their definitions and their expected responses to
perturbations
2-1. Sites sampled in the Mud River Watershed
2-2. Sites sampled in the Spruce Fork Watershed
2-3. Sites sampled in the Clear Fork Watershed
2-4. Sites sampled in the Twentymile Creek Watershed
2-5. Sites sampled in the Island Creek Watershed
2-6. Sites sampled in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed
2-7. Parameters used by each organization for lab analyzed water samples.
3-1. Number offish sites and samples in study area
3-2. Number of sites and D-frame kick net samples available in each watershed and in each EIS
class
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
3-4. Number of sites and D-frame kick net samples used for comparing EIS classes after the
data set had been reduced
4-1. The ANOVA for IBI scores among EIS classes
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)
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
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
4-5. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in spring 1999
4-6. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in autumn 1999
4-7. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in winter 2000
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table Page
4-8. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in spring 2000
4-9. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in autumn 2000
4-10. Results from ANOVA for benthic macroinvertebrates in winter 2001
4-11. Results from Pearson correlation analyses between the WVSCI rarefied to 100 organisms
and key water quality parameters
4-12. Pearson correlation values and p-values for means of metric scores at Unmined sites
(n = 19) versus catchment area
4-13. Pearson correlation values and p-values for metric scores at Additive sites on Twentymile
Creek versus cumulative river kilometer by season
4-14. The Regression for WVSCI versus Cumulative River Mile for Additive Sites in
Twentymile Creek Winter 2001
-------
FIGURES
Figure Page
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
1-2. A VF in operation. The excess materials from a MTM operation are being placed in this
adjacent valley
2-1. Study area for the aquatic impacts study of the MTM/VF Region of West Virginia
2-2. Sites sampled in the Mud River Watershed
2-3. Sites sampled in the Spruce Fork Watershed
2-4. Sites sampled in the Clear Fork Watershed
2-5. Sites sampled in the Twentymile Creek Watershed
2-6. Sites sampled in the Island Creek Watershed
2-7. Sites sampled in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed
3-1 Scatter plots showing IBI scores of sites sampled multiple times.
4-1. Number offish species captured versus stream catchment area
4-2. Calculated Fish IBI and watershed catchment area, all MTM fish samples from sites with
catchment > 2km2
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
4-4. Normal probability plot of IBI scores from EIS classes
4-5. The IBI scores for different site classes, by watershed area
4-6. The IBI scores from the additive sites in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed
4-7. IBI scores from additive sites and Peachorchard Branch in the Twentymile Creek
Watershed
4-8. The WVSCI and its metric scores versus catchment area in Unmined streams
5-1. Mean WVSCI scores in the Unmined and Filled EIS classes versus sampling season. .
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
-------
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 Environmental for her efforts in editing and formatting this
document.
-------
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
-------
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.
-------
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).
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. EP A'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.
Metric
Metric Description
Predicted
Response to
Stress
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 et al. 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
Definition
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
Expected Response
to Perturbation
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease
Increase
HBI
individuals.
An index used to quantify an invertebrate assemblage's tolerance
to organic pollution.
Increase
% 2 Dominant taxa The percentage of the sample made up of the dominant two taxa in
the sample.
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
-------
*
Q
| —
SAMPLING STATtOHS
HUC-HBOUHDARV
MTMW REGION
WVCOUKT1ES
J
:'
Figure 2-1. Study area for the aquatic impacts study of the MTM/VF Region of West
Virginia.
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).
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-water shed. Site MT18 was established on Sugartree
Branch. It was located downstream of two VFs for which the mining permits were
-------
1000 0 1000 Meters
Mud River
o Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
Figure 2-2. Sites sampled in the Mud River Watershed.
-------
Table 2-1. Sites sampled in the Mud River Watershed.
Site ID/Organization
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT01
MT02
MT03
MT13
MT14
MT15
MT24
MT18
MT23
MT16
Stream Name
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
EIS Class
Mined/Residential
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Sediment Control Structure
Filled
Filled/Residential
Mined
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).
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
-------
Spruce Fork
o Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
Figure 2-3. Sites sampled in the Spruce Fork Watershed.
-------
Table 2-2. Sites sampled in the Spruce Fork Watershed.
Site ID/Organization
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT39
MT40
MT42
MT45
MT32
MT34B
MT48
MT25B
Stream Name
White Oak Branch
Spruce Fork
Oldhouse Branch
Pigeonroost Branch
Beech Creek
Left Fork
Spruce Fork
Rockhouse Creek
EIS Class
Unmined
Filled/Residential
Unmined
Mined
Filled
Filled
Filled/Residential
Filled
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).
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
-------
Clear Fork
o Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
Figure 2-4. Sites sampled in the Clear Fork Watershed.
-------
Table 2-3. Sites sampled in the Clear Fork Watershed.
Site ID/Organization Stream Name EIS Class
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT79
MT78
MT81
MT75
MT70
MT69
MT64
MT62
Davis Fork
Raines Fork
Sycamore Creek
Toney Fork
Toney Fork
Ewing Fork
Buffalo Fork
Toney Fork
Mined
Mined
Mined
Filled/Residential
Filled/Residential
Mined/Residential
Filled
Filled/Residential
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).
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
-------
S£0 20flO JflOO ;;,6000 .
/ (( r
Sites sampled by the U.S. EPA
Sites sampled by
environmental consulting firms
Twentymile Creek
Figure 2-5. Sites sampled in the Twentymile Creek Watershed.
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).
-------
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-31 4
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
-------
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
Fola33
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
Tnb. 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
-------
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).
-------
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.
-------
Table 2-5. Sites sampled in the Island Creek Watershed.
Site
U.S. EPA Region 3
MT50
MT51
MT107
MT52
MT57B
MT57
MT60
MT55
BMI
Mingo 34
Mingo 4 1
Mingo 39
Mingo 16
Mingo 1 1
Mingo 2
Mingo 86
Mingo 62
Mingo 38
Mingo 24
Mingo 23
Stream Name
Cabin Branch
Cabin Branch
Left Fork
Cow Creek
Hall Fork
Hall Fork
Left Fork
Cow Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
EIS Class
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
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.
-------
Twelvepole Creek
Sites sampled by
environmental consulting firms
Figure 2-7. Sites sampled in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed.
-------
Table 2-6. Sites sampled
parenthetically.
Site ID/Organization
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
in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed.
Stream Name
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
Equivalent sites are noted
EIS Class
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,
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
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
-------
Table 2-7. Parameters used by each organization for lab analyzed water samples.
Parameter
Organizations
Acidity
Alkalinity
Chloride
Hardness
Nitrate(NO3) + Nitnte (NO2)
Sulfate
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Coarse Particulate Organic Matter (CPOM)
Fine Particulate 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)
Table 2-7. Continued.
-------
Parameter
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
Organizations
U.S. EPA
Yes
Yes
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
POTESTA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
REIC
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
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.
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.
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-|im 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 1.0m2. 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 |im 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 |im 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 |im 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.
2.4.4.3. POTESTA Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Assessment
POTESTA collected samples of macroinvertebrates using a composite of four 600 |im
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 |im 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
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 |im 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 |im 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.
-------
Table 3-1. Number of fish 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
Mud River
Island Creek
Spruce Fork
Clear Fork
Twenty Mile Creek
Twelvepole Creek1
Total
Unmined
3, (4)
1,0)
1,0)
5, (5)
4, (6)
14, (17)
Filled
4, (8)
2, (3)
3, (3)
1,0)
7, (7)
17, (22)
Mined Filled/Res
U(3)
2, (2)
1,(1) 3, (3)
3, (3) 3, (3)
4, (4) 9, (11)
Additive
U(2)
2, (2)
1,0)
7, (16)
12, (24)
23, (45)
Total
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.
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/
Residential1
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.
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.
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.
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
0.001
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
Mined
Site Samp
Site
Samp
Site
Samp
Site
Samp
Total
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
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.
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.
-------
MTM sites
MTM sites
Filled
Unmined
* Filled/Res
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 A ***»•
Spring IBI
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Spring IBI, Year 1
o Filled
I Unmined
X Filled/Res
35 4 Additive
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.
-------
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.
-------
CD
'O
CD
CD
.Q
E
30
25
15
10
MTM fish samples
in
i n
..£»•••
: • • a:
i • D D *
cd »o i
> I B -E>--i
n • i D
10
100
• PSU
n Pen
o Fola
* Mingo
Catchment area, krrf
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).
09
o
100
80
60
(0
T= 40
20
MTM fish samples
"*••"
o
• PSU
D Pen
<> Fola
A Mingo
10
100
Catchment Area,
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).
-------
MTM Site Means
90
00
o _„
= Id
(9
^« 60
•o
i
50
-T- |
O
5 i
•
o
14
O
o
1
•
f
1
17
i
J
4
i
L
T
•
T
i
9
Exn
Goo
Fair
Pool
— 1—
1=1
•
Non-Outlier Ma*
Non-Outlier Win
75%
25%
Median
Reference Unmined Filled Mined Filled/Res ° 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
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.
-------
o
0
9
03 2
~zz 1
03 n
^ 0
O u
"O 1
F
6.70 0.0009
Index Mean
0.334
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 km2
(Table 4-3). Filled sites had an average of one fewer Cyprinidae species, 1.6 fewer benthic
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.
-------
f-»
80
ffi
£ 70
£ '°
n
5 RO
<; eo
•o
250
•
"I
mi
^
•V-K--
^Is
•
m o
•
1C 1
A
•
•
R
vicana, HIM
A
•
•
i"--jjjj-"
ieu ones
•
*
A
A
'»
1
A
IBI Rating
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
• Filled
W Mined
A Filled/Res
6 8 10
20
40 60 80 100
Catchment Area, km
B
ffi
— 70
n
*i fin
rf ou
2
S 50
""U
o
8
o
IHIIV
?
O
n
o
out
1 1
o
; ivu
00
idiia, UIHII
o
o
nieu ones
c
IBI Rating
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
o Unmined
4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100
2
n Reference
Catchment Area, km
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.
-------
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).
-------
Additive sites, Twelvepole watershed
^ 75
CQ 7S
O 70
"c
i-
^ 55
50
A1
i [
i I
i1 '
! I
II
!
i
i
r
i
i
! I"
f
1 I
! D
D
I
1 )
D
1
i !
i'"i
i !
Good
Fair
Poor
• Ki
n TV
20 40 60 80 100
Catchment area, kin
120
Kiah Creek
Twelvepole C
« Trough Fork
Figure 4-6. The IBI scores from the additive sites in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed.
Multiple observations from single sites are connected with a vertical line.
Figure 4-7. IBI scores from additive sites and Peachorchard Branch in the Twentymile
Twentymile Creek Watershed
m
_O
*3
C
a
4-1
i
80
75
70
60
55
AH
\ \ : ; i
i i •
i • 1
1 1 | -•
• ! i
i 1 i 1 if'"
A i Peachorchard Branch
i i Recove
\"
1: i :
i • i i
: i
'! i i
111 | j . | |
¥—
Good
Fair
Poor
• T
Twentymile
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 A Peach Orchard
Catchment Area, km
Creek Watershed. Multiple observations from single sites are connected with a vertical
line.
-------
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.
LogCr LogMg LogNi Log LogNa Log SO4 Log TDS Log Zn
LogMg
LogNi
Log (NO3+NO2)
LogNa
Log SO4
Log TDS
Log Zn
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 0.65
0.43 0.76 0.58
-0.35 0.79 0.90 0.65
0.12 0.47 0.34 0.38 0.42
-0.33 -0.42 -0.60 -0.51 -0.47 -0.54
-------
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 it's 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
0.0010
0.0326
Yes
Yes
0.0001
0.0017
0.0010
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
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
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)
0.0454
0.3744
0.2401
0.1299
0.2672
0.0178
0.0253
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
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.
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
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.OOOl
<0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0001
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
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
p-value Normality? Equal Variance?
LS Means
WVSCI
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
Total Taxa
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
0.0001
0.0004
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Filled and
Filled/Residential
Filled and
Filled/Residential
A^X i i (LA(L
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
HBI
Percent Dominant Two Taxa
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent EPT Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
Percent Chironomidae Abundance
(Arcsine Transformed)
0.0001
0.0002
O.OOOl
0.0027
0.0020
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
i' llltV* <111U
Filled/Residential
Filled/Residential
-------
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 p- Normality? Equal Variance? LS Means
value
WVSCT
;„:;,. innr. . , 0.1945 Yes Yes
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
Total Taxa _ ._.. _, _.
,„ „. , , ,„„ „ . , 0.4744 Yes Yes
(Raretied to 100 Organisms)
EPT Taxa
,„ 4- j* i««r» • \ 0.1897 Yes Yes
(Raretied to 100 Organisms)
HBI 0.7243 Yes Yes
Percent Dominant Two Taxa nno*t •»/ •»/
,. . _ „ ,, 0.0846 Yes Yes
(Arcsme Transformed)
Percent EPT Abundance _ -,„«« ,, ,,
,. . „, ., ,, 0.3200 Yes Yes
(Arcsme Transformed)
Percent Chironomidae Abundance nj.<^ ,, ,,
,. . T ., ,-. 0.4417 Yes Yes
(Arcsme Transformed)
Table 4-10. Results from ANOVA
Unmined sites as a relative control
n = 10.
Metric
for
for
benthic macroinvertebrates
LS Means test. Total n = 16
P-
value
Normality?
Equal
in winter 2001
, Unmined n =
Variance?
. Uses
6, Filled
LS Means
WVSCT
;„:;,. innr. . . 0.0110 Yes No Filled
(Rarefied to 100 Organisms)
Total Taxa _ n-»-7= •»/ •»/
,„ „. , , ,„„ „ . , 0.0275 Yes Yes
(Raretied to 100 Organisms)
i- inn« • ^ °-0074 Yes No Filled
(Raretied to 100 Organisms)
HBI 0.4874 Yes Yes
Percent Dominant Two Taxa nnm-« •»/ •»/
,. . _ „ ,, 0.0012 Yes Yes
(Arcsme Transformed)
Percent EPT Abundance _ , . .„ _. _.
,. . T ., ,-. 0.3449 Yes Yes
(Arcsme Transformed)
Percent Chironomidae Abundance nl10n •»? •»?
,. . _ „ ,, 0.1180 Yes Yes
(Arcsme Transformed)
-------
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. Clear Fork could not be used in this
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
-------
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
0.001
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
O.001
0.001
O.001
0.001
0.006
0.012
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
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 4-12. Pearson correlation values and p-values for means of metric scores at
Unmined sites (n = 19) versus catchment area.
Metric R p-value
Tot_S100
EPT_S100
HBI
Dom2Pct
EPTPct
ChirPct
WVSCI100
-0.157
-0.165
0.228
0.255
-0.168
0.087
-0.312
0.520
0.501
0.348
0.293
0.493
0.724
0.194
Figure 4-8. The WVSCI and its metric scores versus catchment area in Unmined streams.
-------
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 it's 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(0.018)
-0.593 (0.002)
0.410 (0.037)
0.545 (0.004)
-0.235 (0.248)
0.091 (0.658)
-0.608 (0.001)
-------
Table 4-14. The Regression for WVSCI versus Cumulative River Mile for Additive Sites in
Twentymile Creek Winter 2001.
Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
Degrees of
Freedom
1
24
25
R-Square
0.369
Parameter
Intercept
Cumulative
River Km
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 F Value Pr > F
658.99 14.05 0.0010
46.90
Root MSE WVSCI Mean
6.848 82.80
t Value Pr > |t|
31.38 <0001
-3.75 0.001
-------
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
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.
-------
100
90
80-I
70
60
50
40
Filled
Unrrined
Twentyrrile
Creek only
Very Good
Good
Fair
SPR99 AUT99 WINOO SPROO AUTOO W1N01
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).
-------
18
.2 14
JO 12 -\
3
o 10
8
Filled
Unmined
SL—}
SPR99 AUT99 WINOO SPROO AUTOO WIN01
B
12
8
o
Q_
LJJ
9
8
7
6 •
5-
4
Filled
Unmined
SPR99 AUT99 WINOO SPROO AUTOO WIN01
Season
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.
-------
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.
-------
6. LITERATURE CITED
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment
protocols for use in streams andwadeable 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.
-------
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. Harbour, 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.
-------
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/region03/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.
-------
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. Damsel/lies 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
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY TABLES OF PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES USED BY THE FOUR
ORGANIZATIONS TO COLLECT DATA FOR THE MTM/VF STUDY
-------
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
Barbour et al. (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 Barbour et al. (1999).
No information on habitat data
collection given.
Procedures
A habitat assessment made according to
Barbour 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 given.
(Continued)
-------
Table A-l. Continued.
Habitat Assessment Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Habitat QA/QC
A habitat assessment made according to
Barbour et al. (1999) and the riparian
habitat and substrate described using
Kaufmann and Robison (1998).
No information on habitat data
collection given.
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 given.
-------
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.
109876
Gravel, cobble, and boulder
particles are 50-75%
surrounded by fine sediment.
109876
Only 2 of the 4 habitat regimes
present (if fast-shallow or
slow-shallow are missing,
score low).
109876
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.
109876
Water fills 25-75% of the
available channel, and/or riffle
substrates are mostly exposed.
109876
Poor
Less than 20% (10% for low
gradient streams) stable
habitat; lack of habitat is
obvious; substrate unstable or
lacking.
543210
Gravel, cobble, and boulder
particles are more than 75%
surrounded by fine sediment.
543210
Dominated by 1 velocity/depth
regime (usually slow-deep).
543210
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.
543210
Very little water in channel
and mostly present as standing
pools.
543210
(Continued)
-------
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
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 continues,
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% of bank
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
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
Channelization may be
extensive; embankments or
shoring structures present on
both banks; and 40 to 80% of
stream reach channelized and
disrupted.
109876
Occasional riffle or bend;
bottom contours provide some
habitat; distance between
riffles divided by the width of
the stream is between 1 5 and
25.
109876
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
Banks shored with gabion or
cement; over 80% of the
stream reach channelized and
disrupted. In-stream habitat
greatly altered or removed
entirely.
543210
Generally all flat water or
shallow riffles; poor habitat;
distance between riffles
divided by the width of the
stream is a ratio of >25.
543210
Unstable; many eroded areas;
"raw" areas frequent along
straight sections and bends;
obvious bank sloughing;
60-100% of bank has erosional
scars.
210
210
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.
210
210
(Continued)
-------
Table A-2 (Continued).
10. Riparian
Vegetation Zone
Width (score each
bank riparian zone)
(high and low
gradient)
SCORE LB
SCORE RB
Width of riparian zone >18
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
Width of riparian zone 12-18
meters; human activities have
impacted zone only minimally.
876
876
Width of riparian zone 6-12
meters; human activities have
impacted zone a great deal.
543
543
Width of riparian zone <6
meters; little or no riparian
vegetation due to human
activities.
210
210
Table A-3. Substrate size classes and class scores.
Class
Bedrock
Boulder
Cobble
Coarse Gravel
Fine Gravel
Sand
Fines
Size Class Score Description
> 4000 mm
250 to 4000 mm
64 to 250 mm
1 6 to 64 mm
2 to 1 6 mm
0.06 to 2 mm
< 0.06 mm
6
5
4
3.5
2.5
2
1
Bigger than a car
Basketball to car
Tennis ball to basketball
Marble to tennis ball
Lady bug to marble
Gritty between fingers
Smooth, not gritty
-------
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.
(Continued)
-------
Table A-4. Continued.
Water Quality Procedures (Continued)
Sample Collection
Preservation
Laboratory Transfer
U.S, EPA Region 3
Samples were collected in accordance
with Title 40, Chapter I, Part 136 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
Samples were preserved in accordance
with Title 40, Chapter I, Part 136 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
No guidance on water sample transport
given.
BMI
No information on water quality
assessment given.
No information on water quality
assessment given.
No information on water quality
assessment given.
POTESTA
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.
Samples were preserved in the field
Samples were transferred to a state-
certified laboratory for analysis.
Chain-of-custody forms accompanied
samples to the laboratory.
REIC
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.
Samples are preserved in the field.
Samples are placed in temperature
controlled coolers (4° C)
immediately after sampling
Samples are delivered to the
laboratory as soon as possible. A
chain-of-custody record
accompanies each set of samples.
(Continued)
-------
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)
-------
Table A-4. Continued.
Water Quality Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Field QA/QC
A QA/QC plan should be developed.
No information on water chemistry
QA/QC practices given.
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.
No information on field
measurement QA/QC practices
given.
Sample Collection
QA/QC
A QA/QC plan should be developed.
No information on sample
collection QA/QC practices given.
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.
No information on sample
collection QA/QC practices
given.
Laboratory QA/QC
A QA/QC plan should be developed.
No information on water sample
analysis laboratory QA/QC
practices given.
The laboratory analysis of water
chemistry follows Standard Methods
and/or EPA approved methods. Any
deviations from these methods are noted.
No information on water sample
analysis laboratory QA/QC
practices given.
-------
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 offish 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 Vs-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.
Electrofishing
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 offish 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)
-------
Table A-5. Continued.
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
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.
Each 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. At 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. For each species at each
sampling station, Total abundance,
Mean length, Mean weight, Standing
stock, and Sensitivity index (U.S.
EPA 1999) were calculated.
(Continued)
-------
Table A-5. Continued.
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 offish 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.
-------
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
scenario. 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. In 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.
(Continued)
-------
Table A-6. Continued.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
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.
Sampler Used
Sampling was conducted according to
Barbouretal. (1999).
A 0.5-m rectangular kick net was used
to composite four Vi-m2 samples.
In the autumn of 1999 and the
spring of 2000, four Vi-m2 samples
collected with a D-frame kick net
were composited. In the autumn of
2000, six Surber samples were
collected and four Vi-m2 samples
collected with a D-frame kick net
were composited. In the spring of
2001, four Surber samples, were
collected and four Vt-m2 samples
were collected with a D-frame kick
net and composited.
Four Vt-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 1/4-m2 samples were taken using a D-
frame kick net. These were composited. The
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.
Each 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.
(Continued)
-------
Table A-6. Continued.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
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.
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
macroinvertebrate 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.
(Continued)
-------
Table A-6. Continued.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
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.
Laboratory Procedures
Samples were thoroughly rinsed in a 500
|-im-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 (1/s 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).
The 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-|_im sieve. Then rinsed
with water and transferred to a
four-part sub-sampler with a 500-
|-im screen and distributed evenly
on the with water. The first Vt 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 Vi, the second Vt 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)
-------
Table A-6. Continued.
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. For QC
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.
(Continued)
-------
Table A-6. Continued.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Procedures (Continued)
U.S. EPA Region 3
BMI
POTESTA
REIC
Benthic Macro-
invertebrate Metrics
Calculated
Data were used to calculate the metrics
ofthe WVSCI.
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 Mayflies
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.
-------
APPENDIX B
IBI COMPONENT METRIC VALUES
-------
MTM Site Means
an
00
0 70
_ 70
n
T-J
< fin
40
|-r-|
0
5
— . —
n^
J_
o
14
O
o
T
.
|
1
17
i
_l
i
L
:
i
9
:
i
Exce
Gooc
Fair
Poor
— 1—
EZ1
•
Reference Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Non-Outlier Ma>
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Mined Filled/Res ° 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
Model
Error
Corrected Total
Degrees of
Freedom
3
40
43
Sum of
Squares
2335.56
4651.31
6986.87
Mean Square F Value
778.52 6.70
116.28
Pr>F
0.0009
R-Square
Coefficient of
Variance
Root MSE
Index Mean
0.334
17.022
10.783
63.350
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
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
__
-------
MTM Site Means
8
"5 12
fl>
(0
£ 10
o
•SJ a
>
^
"5 6
_§
EA
3
2
0
n
I
n
I
I
n
!
i
: D
I ! |
•
Reference Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Mined Filled/Res
^ Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Win
CZl 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.
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
Degrees of
Freedom
3
40
43
Sum of
Squares
22.32
60.66
82.98
Mean Square F Value
7.44 4.91
1.51
Pr>F
0.0054
R-Square
Coefficient of
Variance
Root MSE
Index Mean
0.269
23.504
1.231
5.239
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 P-Value
0.0182
0.3234
0.0017
__
-------
MTM Site Means
7n
W
1- rn
Percent Scu
; s ^
.10
*
*
| jJLj | J_ | ^
T
n
Referenc Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Mined Filled/R
"T" Non-Outlier Man
Non-Outlier Win
EH 75%
25%
n Median
O Outliers
* Extremes
Figure B-3. Box plot of the Percent Cottidae( Sculpins) among EIS classes and regional
reference sites.
MTM Site Means
(0
o>
"o
&
CO
I
5
4
9
O
n
\
$ !
0
jjj |
| i
i
o
..-T-..
i i
i n
^^— i ^|
E 1 1
Reference Unmined Filled Mined
EIS Class
Filled/Res
DZ Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
I 1 75%
25%
D Median
O Outliers
* Extremes
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
Degrees of
Freedom
3
40
43
R-Square
0.302
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 Pr > F
5.79 0.0022
Index Mean
4.55
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 P-Value
0.0089
0.0311
0.0008
-------
MTM Site Means
1UU
2
i
Q.
60
!
2
40
c
0)
0) 20
Q.
0
-c
>-
T
i
— D—
1 T
i
T
i 1
n
Referenc
Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Mined Filled/R
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Win
75%
25%
Median
Figure B-5. Box plot of the Percent Gravel Spawners among EIS classes and regional
reference sites.
(/>
£
"CD
•a
£
CL
i •
c
0
o
0
r\
50
40
30
20
10
0
*
*
*
I ill I i -JTJ- i I
*
3 __=__ 1 Ji 1
Reference Filled
Unmined
EIS Class
Filled/Res
Mined
I Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
CZl 75%
25%
n Median
* Extremes
Figure B-6. Box plot of the Percent Piscivore/Invertivores (Predators) among EIS classes
and regional reference sites.
-------
MTM Site Means
g
'o
SSL 4
(O
co •»
il J
,0
£
^ 2
•5
1-
3
n
T
D
r\ 1 1
! i T
T ! !
T t ! 1
" D 1 r^i 1 4"
J_ ^ET ! UsJ i -1-
Reference Unmined Filled Mined
EIS Class
Filled/Res
ZC Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
CZl 75%
25%
n Median
O 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.
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 F Value
1.76 5.96
0.29
Pr>F
0.0019
R-Square
Coefficient of
Variance
Root MSE
Index Mean
0.308
44.209
0.543
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
-------
12
(A
iZ
.1
•8
0)
(5
Q.
-2
MTM Site Means
Reference Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Mined Filled/Res
HZ Non-Outlier Ma>
Non-Outlier Win
I I 75%
25%
D Median
* Extremes
Figure B-8. Box plot of the Percent Exotic ( Non-Native Fish) among EIS classes and
regional reference sites.
MTM Site Means
(A
I"
C
o 15
o>
n 10
8 5
0)
0.
*
~°~
T
o
I
I
t
C
:
)
:
]
|
O
I ^
^~*~ i
Reference Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Mined Filled/Res
~T~ Non-Outlier Ma>
Non-Outlier Min
I 1 75%
25%
n Median
O Outliers
* Extremes
Figure B-9. Box plot of the Percent Macro Omnivores among EIS classes and regional
reference sites.
-------
MTM Site Means
100
10
2 60
0>
20
I
T
Referenc Unmined Filled Mined Filled/R
EIS Class
HI Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
CZl 75%
25%
n Median
O Outliers
* Extremes
Figure B-10. Box plot of the Percent Tolerant Fish among EIS classes and regional
reference sites.
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
O
6
40
43
Sum of
Squares
21001.35
19956.38
40957.73
Mean Square F Value
7000.45 14.03
498.91
Pr>F
O.0001
R-Square
Coefficient of
Variance
Root MSE
Index Mean
0.512
32.055
22.336
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
Filled
Filled/Residential
Mined
Unmined
N
17
9
4
14
Mean
82.9
28.9
97.2
71.8
Standard Deviation
21.5
24.1
5.6
24.6
Dunnett's P-Value
0.2080
1.0000
0.0681
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
BOX PLOTS OF THE WVSCI AND COMPONENT METRICS
-------
I
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.
-------
T
1
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.
-------
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.
-------
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.
-------
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.
-------
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.
-------
ei -
Figure C-7. TSox plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed for
unmined sites in the spring 1999 season.
-------
-e-
nn
-e-
I t
oeo
e
O
Figure C-8. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed for
unmined sites in the autumn 1999 season.
-------
Figure C-9. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed for
unmined sites in the winter 2000 season.
-------
eJ -
I
Qfi)
Figure C-10. Box plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed for
unmined sites in the spring 2000 season.
-------
Figure C-ll. Rox plots of the WVSCI and its component metrics versus watershed for
Filled sites in the spring 1999 season. Circles represent site scores.
-------
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.
-------
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.
-------
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.
-------
APPENDIX D
SCATTER PLOTS OF THE WVSCI VERSUS KEY WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
-------
O
O
O
1 UU 1
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 •
50 •
40 •
30 •
20 •
L« •
• X * -
. »x^
*.
• X
• . • x
X • •
* X
• m x
• xx
• x^
1 UU
90
80
_ 70
O
> 60
^
> 50
40
30
20
t-.
^>^**
^^
^*^»
• ^^
— ^«_ •
• ^^
*
s
*
'
0 100 200 300 400 0 1 2 3 4 £
Alkalinity Aluminum
100 -I
90
80
70 •
60 •
50
40 •
30 •
20 •
•
••
1,
1 ""**
^0X
• ^^
i '""-^
1 >•>.
• "*
•
•
100 i
90 tf
80
- 70
> 60
^ 50
40
30
20
*" ?•
'•"X/*.
>•• . •
x •
• ^"sv •
. Xx
• ^^
• X
•
0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 g gg ^ gg ^ gg 2QQ 2E
Bery|lium Calcium
•inn ^nn
1 UU
90 •
80
vn
/ u
60
50
40
30
on
i ••
•f** • •
•
•
•
\
•'• •'
•'
•
1 UU
90
80
vn
— / u
O
> 60
^ 50
40
30
on
!%•...
^x* %•
n • V %
• X ,
^x • *
•n^ •
, X •
• •• "X^B
. ^x
• s
•
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.
-------
o
OT
o
o
1 UU
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
•»
k* •
• •
f • • •
h^^
• ^^^
a • ^^^^
• •• ^^^^
•
•
1 UU 1
90 t
rk * * •
80 ^x
_ 70-
O
> 60 -
^ 50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
• ^»_
^s
^>
""-^
•
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0 200 400 600 800 10001200
Copper Hardness
100 |
90 t
f •
80 f .. •
70
60
50
40
30
20
^^
•• ^^^^
• ^^
•" ^^^^
9 "^-Z.
» '
'•
•
100
90 y
r** •••
80 ff ..'.
- 70
O
™ 60 -
^
> 50
40 -
30 -
20 -
• ^^ •
Vv
\. '
• . ^v
* '• v^
• " ' \
. • ^.
•
0123456 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Iron Magnesium
inn "nn
I UU
90 I
80 I .
70 !• ^^^
60
50
40
30
on
1 '^^^ •
r* ^^^^
l
l
K
*
1 \J\J
90 i .
80 -E. » • • •
- 70 -
O
> 6°
• •
** ~~ """""••—•»
"•
5 50 -,V
40
30
on .
£-\J T i i i i i £_\J
0123456 0
•
m
•
*
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
Manganese Nickel
-------
Figure D-l. Continued.
-------
1 UU
90
80
_ 70
O
£ 60
^ 50 •
40
30
20
V.
*-I
~"^~~^^ *
• ^^^
• * ^^^
.
•
1 UU
90
80
_ 70 -
O
> 60 •
^ 50 •
40 •
30 •
20 •
*••'.'
•' s . ?J,* .
. •• •
_ — ——»-—*-• — "" ""
•
"" **i* •
" . • .
•
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1
Nitrate/Nitrite Dissolved Oxygen
100 i
90
80
_ 70
O
£ 60
^ 50
40
30
20
!„ .
\f*
*s*~^ • "
*** •+*
• ""^^-^^
• '***+•*
"-"• ."
*
•
100
90
80
_ 70
O
£ 60-
^ 50
40 -
30 -
20 -
•$*i
lv*'*
•••v^^ /
X •
• v^v .
" * v** * *
• "
•
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Phosphorus Potassium
100
90
80
- 70
O
> 60
^ 50
40
30
on
L •
JV«.
1 ^^_
. x»
" .Xxx
*^ • X •
^^
• * x
100 -I
90 -
80
- 70 -
O
> 60
^ 50
40
30
on .
>>" *•
' ^
• V
• X
• X
• •• X
. X
•x .
x •
X
X
X
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Selenium
Figure D-l. Continued.
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Sodium
-------
o
OT
1
1 UU T
90 t
P** •••
-7/-\ P* X'«. •
70 •• N,. „
60 •
50 •
40 •
30
on
^T^
"^ *•
• ^*^
• • x *
* * * "X
. • x
•
1 UU 1
90 r
r* * •••
80 k"
70 r^^^ *
O
™ 60-
5 50 !
40 •
30
on .
* ~^
^* ^^ • *
• • ^"r^-x,
• . ^^
i
•
o
200 400 600 800 10001200
Sulfate
500 1000 1500
Total Dissolved Solids
2000
IUU
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
on .
L • •
I'"--
j*x.
- X,
. • *^
• X
^^ •
" • •" •** ^x.
% ^
• ^*
•
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
Zinc
Figure D-l. Continued.
-------
APPENDIX E
STANDARDIZATION OF DATA AND METRIC CALCULATIONS
-------
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).
-------
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.
-------
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
predicted
predicted
= 0.440071 + 0.515214 * Log10 (Drainage Area [km2])
= 0.306788 + 2.990011 * Log10 (Drainage Area [km2])
= 0.037392 + 2.620796 * Log10 (Drainage 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).
-------
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)
IfX>1.51,thenlO. If XO.12, then 0. Else 10*X/1.39
IfX>6.24,thenlO. If X<1.54, then 0. Else 10*X/4.70
IfX>5.34,thenlO. If X<1.27, then 0. Else 10*X/4.07
If X>7,then 10. Else 10*X/7
IfX>72,thenlO. 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 1.11
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 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.
-------
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.
-------
Table E-4. A comparison of each organization's methods of collecting and compositing
samples, and laboratory subsampling protocols.
Organization
Sample Method
Compositing
Subsampling
USEPA
4 times l/4m2 D-frame net
Composited samples
1/8 of original sample. If
abundance was low, the
laboratory subsampledto 1/4
or !/2 of the original sample,
or did not subsample at all.
REIC
(Twelvepole
Creek)
3 times Surber
and
4 times l/4m2 D-frame net
All Surber samples were
analyzed separately (no
compositing).
Composited samples.
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.
Potesta (Twenty
Mile Creek)
4 times 1/4 m2 D-frame net.
Composited samples
Not subsampled; counted to
completion.
BMI
(Twenty Mile
Creek)
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.
Composited samples.
Surber samples kept separate.
D-frame samples were
composited.
Surber samples kept separate.
D-frame samples were
composited.
Not subsampled; counted to
completion.
Not subsampled; counted to
completion.
Not subsampled; counted to
completion.
BMI
(Island Creek):
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.
Composited samples.
Surber samples were kept
separate. D-frame samples
were composited.
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
entire community is low. However, a single microhabitat, such as a large rock, is likely to by
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).
= The expected number of species in a
sample of n individuals selected at
random from a collection containing N
individuals, S species, and Nf individuals
in the rth species.
-------
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.
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 My
Beetles
Ca
Ma
Elm idae
Psephenidae
ddisflies
Hydropsychidae
Philopotam idae
A
1 1
6
13
Polycentro pod idae
Rhyacophiloidea
Uenoidae
yflies
Am eletidae
Baetidae
Baetiscidae
Ephem erellidae
Heptageniidae
Stoneflies
1 n
Cnloroperlidae
Nem ouridae
Perlidae
Perlodidae
Taeniopterygidae
e flies
Chironom idae
Em pididae
Sim uliidae
Tipulidae
Other
1 0
Nu
Do
Do
m etrics
tal Individuals
m ber of Fam ilies
m inance (1 )
m inance (2)
Dominant ta mi ly
Subdominant fa mily
8
1
1 1
1
3
1
50
25
2
5
2
A
1 39
T5
0.36
0.54
B
1 3
2
8
2
3
6
2
1
73
l""n-|
26
4
B
1 61
12
0.44
0.60
Surber
C
3
4
4
1
4
1
1
4
61
1
15
1
2
C
1 U2
14
0.60
0.75
D
3
4
6
2
8
E
1 4
9
8
5
5
5
3
18
16
1
25 | 95
7
1
3
4
1
D
/3
14
0.34
0.45
1 1
1
6
E
1 88
12
0.51
0.60
F
1 1
6
3
19
10
1
24
9
2
2
Com posite
44
25
42
3
13
26
1 1
31
27
1
42
2
Z
1 3b
1
24
1 92
93
1
1 1
1 1
13
F Composite Average
8/
1 1
0.28
0.49
Nemou laemoplMemou laemoplaemoplMemou
/bU
25
0.26
0.44
1 2b
13
0.42
0.57
laenioptery f
ChironoChironoChironoPolycenBaetida Am eleti Nemou rida ?
-------
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.
0)
I
(0
30
25
20
0) 15
jJS
3
E
3
o
10
0
..-*•••
1
6
2345
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.
-------
Total Individuals / rrT
to
o>
a.
E
(0
0)
n
3
(/)
A** »
* ..--••"* \*
..,.-••"' * * A US EPA Surbers
..••-"" A * Potesta Surbers
*
.A.
o
o
CM
O
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CO
o
o
o
o
CM
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, since 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).
-------
25
«fl 20
€
3
W 15
<0
•s
d>
O) 10
S
o>
Total Families
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 2 caption.
•O 30
o>
O 25
a.
E
O
20
0) 15
3
W 10
Total Families
* *
• • A
• A
A A • • *
* • * •
• • •
• • * 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 2 and 3.
-------
Number of Families, Standardized
20
re
•O 15
{» 10
€
3
^ 5
A US EPA Surbers
* Potesta Surbers
20
5 10 15
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 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.
-------
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.
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
Score100 = 100 x (X/18),
Score100 = 100 x (X/12),
score = 100 x (X/91.9)
Score200 = 100 x (X/21)
Score200 = 100 x (X/13)
Metrics that increase with
stress
% Chironomidae
% 2 dominant
HBI
score = 100 x [(100-X)/(100-0.98)]
score = 100 x [(100-X)/(100-36.0)]
score = 100 x [(1Q-X)/(10-2.9)1
-------
References
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, J. B. Stribling. 1999. RapidBioassessmentProtocols
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.
-------
Environmental Impact Study of
Mountaintop Mining and Valley Fill
Operations in West Virginia
Aquatic Impacts Study
July 16, 2002
Briefing for EIS Steering Comittee
-------
Overview of Briefin
Aquatic Impacts Study
ORD/NERL Involvement
Biological Indices
EIS Results
- Fish
- Macroinvertebrates
Summary
-------
Aquatic Impacts Study
Objectives
Is the biological condition of streams in areas
with MTM/VF operations degraded
compared to the condition of streams in un-
mined areas?
Are there "additive" biological impacts in
streams where multiple fills are located?
-------
Aquatic Impacts Study
Region III initiated the aquatic impacts
study to support the overall EIS
Spring 1999 to Winter 2000
Field collections
- Fish
- Macroinvertebrates
- Habitat
- Water chemistry
-------
ORD/NERL Involvement
Three reasons:
- Region III was criticized for descriptive only
analysis of macoinvertebrate data
- Penn State/Region III presented fish data using
an index calibrated for larger streams (OEPA)
- Mining company monitoring data was not
included in EIS
-------
ORD/NERL Involvement
Assembled database of Region III, Perm
State and mining company data
Analyzed fish and macroinvertebrate data
separately to address study objectives
Provide report to EIS steering committee for
inclusion in the overall EIS
-------
Mining Company Data
Fish, macroinvertebrate, water chemistry,
habitat and field chemistry
Pen Coal, Arch, Massey, Fola
Twentymile, Island Creek and Twelvepole
-------
Sample Size
424 Benthic
Macroinvertebrate
Samples
>
/ (389)
909 Chemistry Samples
-------
Sample Size By Watershed
50
40
30
20
10
0
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Island Creek Twentymile Spruce Fork
Twelvepole Mud River Clear Fork
-------
Sample Size
by Subwatershed Area (sq km)
70
60
50
40
_g 30
= 20
10
0
Macroin vertebrates
Fish
<=10
10-30
30-50
50-70
70-90
>90
-------
Site Classes
Regional reference
Unmined - no mining activity (EIS)
Filled - one or more valley fills (EIS)
Mined - mined by other methods (EIS)
Filled/Residential - fills and residential land
use (EIS)
Additive - multiple sources
-------
Sample Size By Site Type
50
40
30
20
10
0
Macroinvertebrates
Fish
Reference Mined Filled Filled/Resid Additive
-------
Tow should we assess biological
condition?
Biological indices:
- Compare the diversity, composition, and functional
organization of a stream community to those of natural
streams in the region
- Recommended in EPA Guidance
• Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for
Surface Waters (EPA-440/5-90-004), April 1990
• CALM: Consolidated Assessment and Listing
Methodology
As of 1995, 42 states are using biological indices
to assess impacts to streams
-------
Biological Indices for MTM/VF EIS
(off-the-shelf)
West Virginia Stream Condition Index (WVSCI)
for invertebrates (Gerritsen et al. 2000)
Mid-Atlantic Highlands IBI for fish (McCormick
etal. 2001)
-------
Aquatic Impacts Study Objectives Revisited
Is the biological condition of streams in areas with
MTM/VF operations degraded compared to the
condition of streams in un-mined areas?
One-way analysis of variance to test for differences
among all EIS classes (alpha = 0.05)
Least square means test to compare Unmined sites vs.
Filled, Filled & Residence, and Mined sites (alpha =
0.01)
-------
Aquatic Impacts Study Objectives Revisited
Are there "additive" biological impacts in streams
where multiple fills are located?
Descriptive measures. Spearman correlations
and linear regressions with stream mile along the
main stem in two watersheds
-------
Results of Fish Analysis
-------
Fish IBI Metrics
Differentiate between reference and stressed samples
Represent different aspects of the community
(taxonomic, trophic, reproductive, tolerance)
Adjusted for watershed area
S Intolerant species .
S Native minnow species
S Native benthic invertivore species .
-------
Analysis of Fish Data
No one season had sufficient fish data for
analysis.
Site averages of the IBI and component
metrics were primary analysis endpoints.
-------
Mid-Atlanitc IBI: Filled vs. Unmined
Unmined sites have higher biotic integrity than filled sites
MTM Site Means
an
yu
on
ou
_
O7fl
/ U
'•&
C
(0
*i en
rf DU
T3
i
Cf|
OU
Ar\
•rU
-!-
0
g^M
[
^^
c
^•k
1
^^
)
C
c
[
C^M
J
]
^^
^^
[
^^
^^
]
^•f
itMM
[
^^
^^
]
^•K
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
^^^^™ |V|^
1 No
Mn
INO
1 1 75C
25C
n Me
Reference Unmined Filled Mined Filled/Res
EIS Class
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
O Outliers
-------
Minnow species: Filled vs. Unmined
Unmined sites have more minnow species than filled sites
MTM Site Means
1 U
8,
•
(/>
0 7
0
Q.
tf\ K
Vj
i
P 5
C
_c
^ /I
'
O
• o
[ ]
m
0
t
[ i
1 1
0
^^m
^^m
^^m
^^m
II
•
N
Reference Unmined Filled
EIS Class
Mined Filled/Res
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
HI 75%
25%
n Median
O Outliers
* Extremes
-------
Benthic Insectivore Species: Filled vs. Unmined
Unmined sites have more benthic insectivore species
than filled sites
MTM Site Means
1 O
W1 A
1 4
'o
® 10
Q. '*
CO
*"• m
O 1U
0 «
fl) o
Oc
O
»
+-»
•JT ,•
C^ 4
OQ
0
Z
Po
C
[
for
)
I
•on
f^a, \ \\
^^m
^^m
Tm
^^m
^^m
int
iH
^IHB
[
^^H
Pill
••m
1
^•it
oH
r
^^B
[
^^H
i/lir
^•B
1
^•B
ior
1
Pil
|
or
]
/P
oc
^T~
^^
1
1
D
O
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
EIS Class
-------
Fish Analysis Results: Comparison of
EIS Classes
Filled and Mined classes had lower IBI
scores than Unmined
IBI reduction in filled sites driven by loss of
minnow species (Cyprinidae) and loss of
benthic insectivore species
IBI reduction not uniform: several Filled
sites apparently unaffected
Filled/Residential the same or higher than
Unmined
-------
Filled/Residential the same or higher
than Unmined
Subwatershed area may buffer/mitigate
stressors
Filled or Mined Sites < 10 km2
- IBI nearly always Fair to Poor
Filled or Mined Sites > 20 km2
- IBI nearly always Good to Excellent
Filled/Residential sites tend to have larger
subwatershed areas
-------
Fish Analysis Results: Additive Sites
Two watersheds, Twelvepole Creek (mining
+ residential) and Twentymile Creek
(mining only)
No pattern in Twelvepole Creek; most
observations in "Fair" range
Twentymile Creek IBI in "Good" range to
confluence of Peachorchard; in "Poor"
range below Peachorchard
-------
Water Quality Associations
Small sites (<10 km2)
Zinc, sodium, and sulfate negatively
correlated with IBI score; all may be
leachate from mine spoil
-------
-------
WVSCI Core Metrics
Differentiate between reference and stressed samples
Represent different aspects of the community
(richness, composition, tolerance)
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
% EPT
% Chironomidae
% Top 2 Dominant Taxa
Family HBI
-------
Analysis of Macro invertebrate Data
made for each of six seasons
Creek watershed
available for last two seasons
e primary
analysis endpoints
-------
EIS Class Comparisons by Season
WVSCI
Season
Spring 1999
Autumn 1999
Winter 2000
Spring 2000
Autumn 2000*
Winter 2001*
P-value
O.0001
0.0454
O.0001
0.0001
0.1945
0.0110
Vs. Unmined Only
Filled, Fill & Res.
Filled, Fill & Res.
Filled, Fill & Res.
Filled
Twenty mile Creek only
-------
WV SCI: Filled vs. Unmined
Unmined sites have higher biotic integrity
O
>
100
90 -
80 -
70
60 -
50 -
40
Filled
Unmined
Twentymile
Creek only
Very Good |
Good
Fair
SPR99 AUT99 WINOO SPROO AUTOO WIN01
Season
-------
Total taxa richness: Filled vs. Unmined
Unmined sites have more taxa
(/>
0)
18
16
O 14-
(0
X
'o
12 -
10
8
Filled
Unmined
SPR99 AUT99 WINOO SPROO AUTOO WIN01
-------
Sensitive taxa richness: Filled vs. Unmined
Unmined sites have more sensitive taxa
CD
(ft
0
O
0.
LU
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
Filled
Unmined
SPR99 AUT99 WINOO SPROO AUTOO WIN01
Season
-------
WV SCI Score Distribution by EIS Class
Note bi-modal distribution of Filled sites
o
o
IUU
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
on
i i i
op
(
—
—
—
—
o
O
DOC
OO
r^.r^
O
w
(JO
C OO1 J>
CT) nrftn
s~\s~~\
v 'OU'
—
—
9
<, M J
QD
o
} 1 1 1
EISCLASS2
Spring 2000
-------
WV SCI Scores in Filled Sites
Bi-modality due to scores differing by watershed
Note the high scores in Twentymile Creek
yu
80
\j\jt
70
0
0
6 60
CO
^ en
^ OU
^
40
30
on
1 /-K 1 1 /±\ !
yp yy
SB cBo
X-~N
i£J
"^" ©
i i 0 i i 1
^w
WATERSHED
Spring 2000
-------
Macroinvertebrate Analysis Results:
Comparison of EIS Classes
'tegrity based on macroinvertebrates is
^ites than in Unmined sites
T^J—j i-:_i__:—i :_^^y primarily a result of a loss
of total and sensitive taxa in Filled sites
•tershed
1-1 1 <-» I -t T
correlated with biological integrity
-------
Macroinvertebrate Analysis Results:
Additive Sites
Examined sites along Twentymile Creek
Samples collected Autumn 1999 to Winter 2001
Impacts increased across seasons and upstream to
downstream (17 km)
Winter 2001: WV SCI decreased approximately 1
point for each stream km
Space and time may be surrogates for increased
mining activity in the watershed
-------
Water Quality Associations
Increased levels of ions are negatively correlated
with the WV SCI
- Conductivity
- Total Dissolved Solids (IDS)
- Ca, Mg, K, Na, Sulfate
Increased levels of Se and Zn are negatively
correlated with the WV SCI
-------
Aquatic Impacts Study
Conclusions
Biological integrity is impacted downstream of
mining activity with fills
Strongest associations are with water chemistry
parameters
- Zinc, sodium and sulfate correlated with both fish and
macroinvertebrates
Potential drivers of condition:
- Mining practices and material handling
- Geological factors associated with coal seams,
including overburden
-------
Data Gaps
Additional data for Mud River, Spruce
Fork, and Clear Fork
Before-after time series data for fill and
unmined sites
-------
Data Gaps (cont.)
Information on mining practices:
- Size and age of fills
- Proportion of subwatershed that is mined - the
relative amount of subwatershed that is mined
is greater in smaller subwatersheds than in
lamer subwatersheds
- Material handling
- Geological information on coal beds &
overburden
-------
A SURVEY OF THE CONDITION OF STREAMS IN THE PRIMARY
REGION OF MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILL
COAL MINING
November 2000
Prepared For:
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared by:
Jim Green
Maggie Passmore
USEPA Region 3
Wheeling, WV
and
Hope Childers
Signal Corporation
Wheeling, WV
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region III -, Aquatic Biology Group
303 Methodist Bldg, llth & Chapline Sts.
Wheeling, WV 26003
Telephone: 304/234-0240
Telefax: 304/234-0260
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared for the USEPA Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement. Authors of this report are Jim Green, Maggie Passmore and
Hope Childers. We thank the WVDEP OMR mining inspectors and their supervisors for their
help in early reconnaissance, site access and site attribution including Dan Bays, Grant Connard,
Ray Horroks, Tim Justice, Pat Lewis, Bill Little, Joe Laughery, Barrel O'Brien, Bill Simmons,
Darcy White, and Tom Wood. We thank the WVDEP OWR biologists Jeff Bailey and John
Wilts for extensive help with the field work and habitat assessments. We thank Florence Fulk
(USEPA ORD-NERL-Cincinnati) for helpful comments on the data analysis methods. We thank
everyone who submitted comments on earlier drafts including Jeff Bailey (WVDEP), Karen
Blocksom (ORD-NERL-Cincinnati), Dr. Frank Borsuk, Dan Boward (MDDNR), Skip Call
(KYDW), Doug Chambers (USGS), Bill Hoffman (USEPA), Dr. Donald Klemm (ORD -NERL-
Cincinnati), Dr. Bernie Maynard (OSM), Craig Snyder (USGS), Dr. Bruce Wallace (University
of Georgia) and Doug Wood (WVDEP).
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1.1 Objective 1: Summary of Findings 1
1.2 Objective 2: Summary of Findings 4
1.3 Objective 3: Summary of Findings 5
2.0 INTRODUCTION 6
2.1 The Primary Region of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining 6
2.2 Monitoring Design and Rationale 6
2.3 Effects of the Drought 7
2.4 Monitoring Parameters and Their Frequency of Collection 8
3.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS 12
3.1 Mud River Watershed 12
3.2 Spruce Fork Watershed 12
3.3 Clear Fork Watershed 13
3.4 Twentymile Creek Watershed 13
3.5 Island Creek Watershed 13
4.0 DATA ANALYSIS METHODS 14
4.1 Multi-Metric Stream Condition Index 14
4.2 Expectations for Individual Metric Values 15
4.3 Grouped Sites Analysis 16
5.0 BIOLOGICAL CONDITION OF STREAMS 19
5.1 Benthic Data: Summary of Findings 19
5.2 Spring 1999 Benthic Data 23
5.3 Summer 1999 Benthic Data 25
5.4 Fall 1999 Benthic Data 27
5.5 Winter 2000 Benthic Data 28
5.6 Spring 2000 Benthic Data 30
6.0 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CONDITION OF STREAMS 33
6.1 Field Chemical/Physical Data : Summary of Findings 33
6.1.1 Spring 1999 Field Chemical/Physical Data 36
6.1.2 Summer 1999 Field Chemical/Physical Data 37
6.1.3 Fall 1999 Field Chemical/Physical Data 38
6.1.4 Winter 2000 Field Chemical/Physical Data 39
6.1.5 Spring 2000 Field Chemical/Physical Data 40
6.2 Rapid Bioassessment Protocol Habitat Evaluations 41
6.3 Substrate Size and Composition 45
7.0 ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL CONDITION OF STREAMS AND
11
-------
SELECTED PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
8.0 CUMULATIVE SITES AND SEDIMENT CONTROL STRUCTURE
48
53
9.0 REFERENCES 57
APPENDIX 1.
APPENDIX 2.
APPENDIX 3.
APPENDIX 4.
APPENDIX 5.
APPENDIX 6.
SITE ATTRIBUTES 61
BENTHIC METRICS 74
FIELD CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL, PHYSICAL HABITAT AND
SUBSTRATE SIZE DATA 83
MAPS AND FIGURES 93
REPLICATE DATA 147
DOCUMENTATION OF THE DROUGHT 149
in
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ANO VA Analy si s of Vari ance
CHIA Cumulative Hydrologic Impacts Assessment
CPC Climate Precipitation Center
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera
HBI HilsenhoffBiotic Index
KYDW Kentucky Division of Water
MDDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources
MTM/VF Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill
MTR/VF Mountaintop Removal/Valley Fill
NDMC National Drought Mitigation Center
NERL National Exposure Research Laboratory
NWS National Weather Service
OMR Office of Mining Resources
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSM Office of Surface Mining
OWR Office of Water Resources
PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
RBP Rapid Bioassessment Protocol
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
IV
-------
SCI Stream Condition Index
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
WVDEP West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection
v
-------
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A typical mountaintop mining/valley fill (MTM/VF) mining operation in the Appalachian coal
fields removes overburden and interburden material to facilitate the extraction of coal. Excess
spoils are often placed in adjacent valleys containing first and second order streams. The effect
of these mining operations on the biological condition of reaches downstream of the fills is
uncertain. This study was designed to provide information on the biological condition of
streams downstream of a variety of MTM/VF activities.
This study considered three objectives:
1. Characterize and compare conditions in three classes of streams: 1) streams that are not
mined (termed "unmined"); 2) streams in mined areas with valley fills (termed "filled");
and 3) streams in mined areas without valley fills (termed "mined").
2. Characterize conditions and describe any cumulative impacts that can be detected in
streams downstream of multiple fills.
3. Characterize conditions in sediment control structures (ditches) on MTM/VF operations.
The original objectives describe three classes (unmined, filled and mined), but this final report
discusses four classes (unmined, filled, filled/residential and mined). Preliminary analysis of the
data indicated that streams with both valley fills and residences in their watersheds appeared to
be more impaired than streams with only valley fills (no residences) in their watersheds. Since
we were interested in characterizing the effects of valley fills on streams, we separated those
sites with both valley fills and residences in their watersheds into a new category described as
"filled/residential". There were six sites that had both valley fills and multiple residences or
small communities in their watersheds. To be consistent, we also identified two sites in the
mined class that had residences in their watersheds, described as "mined/residential". Since
there were only two of these sites, they were not included as a separate group in analysis. There
was one site in a sediment control structure that was not included in the analysis of classes since
there was only one of these sites, and the site habitat was more typical of ponds and wetlands
than natural streams.
In this study, we evaluated benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage data, physical stream habitat
assessments, quantitative estimates of substrate size, and limited field chemical/physical
parameters. Please contact the authors if you would like electronic files of the raw data.
1.1 Obj ective 1: Summary of Findings
Biological conditions at the unmined sites were comparable to a broad state-wide wadeable
streams reference condition developed by the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WVDEP). This reference condition was based on a data set of 1268 benthic samples
collected from 1996 to 1998. This reference condition defines condition categories of very good,
1
-------
good, fair, poor and very poor based on Stream Condition Index (SCI) scores. Scores in the fair,
poor and very poor range are impaired relative to the reference condition.
Biological conditions at the unmined sites were also comparable to conditions in a smaller set of
WVDEP reference sites (7 sites) which are located in the primary region of MTM/VF coal
mining. These sites were sampled in 1997 and 1998 by the WVDEP.
Biological conditions in the unmined sites generally represented a gradient of conditions from
good to very good, based on the WVDEP SCI scores. These sites are primarily forested, with no
residences in the watersheds. One site scored in the high-end of the fair range in the summer of
1999, one site scored in the poor range in the fall of 1999, and one site scored in the high-end of
the fair range in the winter of 2000. We believe these sites scored lower primarily because the
drought and lower flows impeded our ability to collect a representative sample. We observed no
other changes at these monitoring sites that could account for the changes in the condition of the
streams, other than the low flows. When these sites were sampled in later index periods, they
scored in the good or very good range.
Biological conditions in the mined sites generally represented very good conditions, although a
few sites did score in the good and poor range. We believe that the one site that scored in the
poor range is naturally flow-limited even during periods of normal flow. We believe this site is
ephemeral and only flows in response to precipitation events and snow melt. The other mined
sites generally have only a small amount of mining activity in their watersheds. In fact, many of
these sites were believed to be in the unmined class prior to the first round of sampling and
ground truthing.
Biological conditions in the filled sites generally represented a gradient of conditions from poor
to very good. One site scored in the very poor range in the spring of 2000. Over the five seasons,
filled sites scored in the fair range more than half of the time. However, over a third of the time,
filled sites scored in the good or very good range over the five seasons. We believe water
quality explains the wide gradient in biological condition at the filled sites. The filled sites that
scored in the good and very good range had better water quality, as indicated by lower median
conductivity at these sites. The filled sites that scored in the fair, poor and very poor ranges had
degraded water quality, as indicated by elevated median conductivity at these sites (see figures
86 and 87).
Biological conditions in the filled/residential sites (filled sites that also have residences in their
watersheds) represented a gradient of conditions from poor to fair. Over the five seasons,
filled/residential sites scored in the poor range more than half of the time. The remainder of the
filled/residential sites scored in the fair range. No sites in the filled/residential class scored in the
good or very good range. All sites in the filled/residential class had elevated median
conductivities.
In general, the filled and filled/residential classes had substantially higher median conductivity
than the unmined and mined classes. It is important to note that the filled sites generally had
-------
comparable or higher conductivity than the filled/residential sites within a watershed, indicating
that the probable cause of the increase in the total dissolved solids at the filled/residential sites
was the mining activity upstream rather than the residences. Unfortunately, there are no aquatic
life criteria for conductivity or total dissolved solids.
Biological conditions in the filled and filled/residential classes were substantially different from
conditions in the unmined class and were impaired relative to conditions in the unmined class,
based on the WV SCI scores.
The filled/residential class was the most impaired class. The causes of impairment in this class
could include several stressors (e.g. the valley fills, the residences, roads). It is impossible to
apportion the impairment in this class to specific causes with the available data.
The general patterns of stream biological condition presented in the previous paragraphs were
clear in all three seasons that have complete data sets (spring 1999, winter 2000 and spring
2000). By complete, we mean that the unmined sites could be sampled.
An independent benthic data set collected at a subset of our sites in the winter 2000 season by
Potesta and Associates, Inc. for Arch Coal supports our conclusions. Our analysis of the only
complete data set provided by Potesta and Associates (Winter 2000) indicated that the sites in
the filled and filled/residential classes were biologically impaired relative to the unmined sites
(Green and Passmore 2000). The filled/residential class was the most impaired class.
Over the course of this study, pH, temperature and dissolved oxygen measurements were usually
within the bounds of the aquatic life criteria for these parameters. (The only violation was
measured in the sediment control structure). Acidity and low dissolved oxygen do not appear to
be limiting the aquatic life in these streams. Temperature was fairly comparable within the four
classes. Dissolved oxygen, pH and temperature can all vary during the day and through the
seasons. The grab samples for these parameters may not be representative of long term water
quality at these sites and should be treated with some caution.
It is not uncommon for streams to meet or exceed ambient water quality criteria but they do not
fully support aquatic life. Biological communities respond to and integrate a wide variety of
chemical, physical and biological factors and stressors. Ohio EPA (Yoder 1995) found that out
of 645 waterbody segments analyzed, biological impairment was evident in 49.8% of the cases
where no impairments of chemical water quality criteria were observed. In addition, as in this
case, often only a few selected chemical parameters are measured, and they only offer a snap
shot of the long term water quality in a stream..
The Rapid Bioassessment Protocols habitat assessment data did not indicate substantial
differences between the stream classes. The habitat in the filled class and the filled/residential
class was slightly degraded relative to the unmined class. Individual sites in the filled and
filled/residential classes had degraded habitat and excessive sediment deposition.
-------
In general, the substrate characteristics of the filled, filled/residential, and mined classes were
not substantially different from the unmined class. Our data did not indicate excessive fines in
the filled or the filled/residential classes as a whole, however, there were specific sites within
these classes with substantially higher percentages of sand and fines compared to the unmined
class. It should be noted that many of the filled sites were established in first and second order
watersheds in order to limit the potential stressors in the watershed to the valley fills. Our data
indicate that the valley fills and associated mining activity did not cause excessive sediment
deposition in the upper reaches of these watersheds. It would not be appropriate to extrapolate
our conclusions to reaches farther downstream in these watersheds or to larger order streams.
Correlations between the benthic metrics and selected physical and chemical variables indicate
that the strongest and most significant associations were between biological condition and
conductivity. Physical habitat variables were more weakly correlated with biological condition
and some of these associations were not significant. Water quality appears to be the major factor
limiting the benthos in the impaired streams.
Several unmined sites could not be sampled for benthos in the summer and fall of 1999 due to
the drought. These sites were either dry or did not have adequate flow to collect a representative
sample in these seasons. All of the unmined sites could be sampled by the winter 2000 sampling
period and the conditions at most of the unmined sites scored in the good to very good range in
the winter of 2000 (including the one unmined site that scored in the high-end of the fair range in
the summer of 1999 and the one unmined site that scored in the poor range in the fall of 1999).
One unmined site scored in the high-end of the fair range in the winter of 2000. All of the
unmined sites scored in the very good range in the spring of 2000.
Most of the filled sites could be sampled for benthos in the summer and fall of 1999. We believe
a probable cause for the sustained flows in the filled streams during the drought could be
decreased evapotranspiration in those watersheds due to the replacement of forested cover with
grassland cover on the mined areas. Decreased evapotranspiration has been found to increase
streamflow (see section 2.3 for a more detailed discussion).
Our field observations and our data indicate that surface flow in the filled sites during the
drought was greater than surface flow in the unmined streams. Some may conclude that this is a
positive impact of mountaintop mining and valley fills, as this could result in perennial flow and
hence benefit aquatic life. This position assumes two points: 1) the water quality in the filled
streams does not change and 2) perennial flow is required for support of aquatic life. However,
our data indicate that at many of the filled sites, the water quality was degraded due to the
mining activity. So, even though there was more flow at the filled sites, the water quality was
degraded. Furthermore, our data and the scientific literature indicate that benthic
macroinvertebrates are clearly able to survive periods of low or no surface flow. In addition,
some authors indicate that some benthic species are only found in intermittent flow regimes.
Clearly, perennial flow regimes are not required to support diverse and abundant assemblages of
macroinvertebrates (see section 5.1 for a more detailed discussion).
-------
1.2 Objective 2: Summary of Findings
We used the WVDEP SCI scores to determine overall differences in biological condition
upstream and downstream of four MTM/VF operations. A monitoring site was established as the
upstream control, and a site was established as the downstream control. (We did not call these
sites "reference" sites because in many cases, they were not comparable to reference conditions.)
This was a difficult objective to explore. In three of the cases (Mud River, Spruce Fork, and
Island Creek), there were potential stressors not related to the MTM/VF operations of interest
located upstream of the upstream control site and in between the upstream and downstream
control sites. The upstream control sites in the Mud River and in Spruce Fork were impaired and
the upstream control site in Cow Creek (Island Creek) was not impaired. In one watershed (Clear
Fork), this objective could not even be explored because several of the headwater streams in the
watershed had been filled by the MTM/VF operation. The only substantial differences between
the upstream and downstream sites were observed in Cow Creek (Island Creek). Biological
conditions were much worse at the downstream site compared to the upstream site. The
observed impairment could be caused by several stressors, including mining and residential land
use.
1.3 Objective 3: Summary of Findings
We considered several sediment control structures as candidate monitoring sites. However,
many of the sites were not reconstructed streams, but ponds or dry ditches filled with boulder-
sized rip-rap. Only one sediment control structure was identified as having flowing water that
could be sampled. Since only one such site was sampled, this study provides only limited
information to characterize conditions in sediment control structures on MTM/VF operations.
Site MT24, located in a sediment control ditch on a surface mine, was more degraded than any
site sampled in the study. The SCI score at this site was in the poor or very poor range over all
five seasons. The entire drainage area of this site has been disturbed by mining. The ditch does
not represent natural stream habitat. This was also the only site in the study where we observed
a violation of a water quality criterion. In the summer 1999 index period, we measured a
dissolved oxygen concentration of 3.6 mg/1, which is less than the required minimum of 5 mg/1.
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 The Primary Region of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining
The West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey has described the primary region of
mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia (Fedorko and Blake 1998). They indicate
that the majority of the mountaintop removal mines target the Coalburg coal zone and the
overlying Stockton coal and associated riders (Kanawha Formation) and/or the "Block" coal
zones of the overlying Allegheny Formation. The region encompassing the outcrop belt of these
targeted zones includes portions of Lincoln, Wayne, Mingo, Logan, Boone, Wyoming, Raleigh,
Kanawha, Fayette, Nicholas, Clay, Webster and Braxton counties.
The region lies in the Cumberland Mountains of the Central Appalachian Plateau (subecoregion
69d) (Woods et al 1999). Woods et al describe the physiography as being unglaciated, dissected
hills and mountains with steep slopes and very narrow ridge tops. The geology is described as
being Pennsylvania sandstone, siltstone, shale, and coal of the Pottsville Group and Allegheny
Formation. 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.
2.2 Monitoring Design and Rationale
This survey was designed to provide a synoptic description of stream conditions in five
watersheds across the primary MTR/VF region, as defined by the West Virginia Geological and
Economic Survey. These watersheds are Twentymile Creek of the Gauley River Basin, Island
Creek and Mud River of the Guyandotte River Basin, and Clear Fork and Spruce Fork of the
Coal River Basin (figures 1 and 2). Within each watershed, two arrays of streams were selected
by staff familiar with the mining operations in the watershed (primarily WVDEP mining
inspectors and the Streams Workgroup staff working on the PEIS). One stream array in each
watershed was thought to be unmined. The other stream array in each watershed contained
significant MTM/VF operations.
Since many characteristics of the candidate sites were largely unknown before the first field
visit, it was impossible to correctly attribute sites prior to the first round of sampling. Some of
the sites that were originally thought to be unmined had mining activity in their watersheds and
were reclassified as mined. During field reconnaissance, it became apparent that the unmined
sites were only in first and second order streams. There were no unmined sites in streams larger
than second order. There was only a limited number of sites in the mined class, and the sites do
not represent the full gradient of mined conditions. Many of the mined sites have only a small
amount of historical mining activity in their watersheds.
The sites in the filled and filled/residential classes represent a gradient of number and size of
fills, age of fills, and stream orders. We believe we have accurate data on the number of fills
upstream of the sampling sites. However, the number of fills does not correlate to the total area
-------
of the watershed disturbed by mining or the area filled because of the wide variation in the size
of the fills. We do not have accurate or detailed information on the size, age, or other
characteristics of the fills. Therefore, we did not explore correlations between stream condition
and fill characteristics (type, size, age, etc).
Preliminary analysis of the data indicated that the sites with valley fills and residences in their
watersheds appeared to be more impaired than those sites with only valley fills in their
watersheds. Therefore, in order to better characterize any impairment found in the filled class of
sites, we created a new class of sites called filled/residential. Sites with valley fills and
residences in their watersheds were put into this class.
Thirty-seven (37) benthic sampling sites were chosen from a larger pool of candidate sampling
sites (a total of 127 sites) during the first sampling event in late April and early May of 1999.
The thirty-seven (37) sites include nine (9) unmined sites, fifteen (15) sites with a valley fill or
fills upstream of the sampling location, six (6) sites with both valley fills and residences
upstream of the sampling location, and four (4) sites with some other sort of past mining activity
upstream (other than valley fills) and no residences. In addition, two sites with past mining
activity and residences in their watersheds and one site in a sediment control structure were
chosen for monitoring. The nine unmined sites did not have any residences in the watershed
upstream of the sampling site and were primarily forested. A list of the sampling sites and
several attributes for the sampling sites are included in Appendix 1 (e.g. locational information,
EIS class, stream order, watershed size).
In the spring of 2000, two more sites were added. One site was an unmined site which was
added to provide a unmined reference site closer to the filled sites in the Island Creek watershed.
The other site was located in the Mud River watershed and was added to provide another mined
site to the small class of mined sites.
We considered several sediment control structures as candidate monitoring sites. However,
many of the sites were not reconstructed streams, but ponds or dry ditches filled with boulder-
sized rip-rap. Only one sediment control structure was identified as having flowing water and
could be sampled. Since only one such site was sampled, this study provides only limited
information to characterize conditions in sediment control structures on MTM/VF operations.
2.3 Effects of the Drought
The region of MTM/VF coal mining in West Virginia suffered periods of prolonged dryness and
drought in 1998 and 1999. See Appendix 6 for a detailed discussion and documentation of the
drought.
The drought clearly impacted our ability to effectively sample the streams. In the summer and
fall of 1999 we could not collect representative invertebrate samples from several streams due to
very low or no flows. Most of the flow-limited streams were unmined streams. Therefore, the
summer and fall 1999 data sets are incomplete and provide limited data to determine the
7
-------
biological condition of the filled sites relative to unmined sites. For this report, we relied on the
spring 1999, winter 2000 and spring 2000 datasets to draw conclusions about the biological
conditions of streams and stream classes.
Our data indicate that when these streams could be effectively sampled, following the low flow
conditions, they were in good or very good biological condition. Benthic invertebrates are
clearly able to survive periods of low or no surface flow (see section 5.1 for a more detailed
discussion).
Clearly, the drought and the decreased precipitation affected stream flow. Stream flow can also
be affected by many characteristics of the watershed including porosity and permeability,
infiltration, runoff, evapotranspiration, groundwater flow, etc (Farndon 1994). Mountaintop
mining and valley fills alter many of these parameters. Evapotranspiration is the major use of
water in all but extremely humid, cool climates. Furthermore, the majority of the water loss due
to evapotranspiration takes place during the summer months. If evapotranspiration is reduced,
then runoff or ground-water infiltration or both could increase. Studies have shown that basin
runoff from a forested watershed increased following the timbering of a watershed. In some
areas of the humid eastern United States, which were originally in forest, as old fields
reconverted to forests, there was a concomitant decrease in streamflow. Conversion of one plant
cover to another can also affect the evapotranspiration rate. In arid Arizona, the conversion of a
plot of land formerly covered with chaparral to grasses resulted in streamflow increases of
several hundred percent (Fetter 1988). Clearly, at the filled sites, the evapotranspiration rates in
the watershed could be affected by the changes in vegetative cover (from forest lands to
grasslands) associated with the mining activity.
2.4 Monitoring Parameters and Their Frequency of Collection
Streams were sampled in five seasons (spring 1999 (late April and early May), summer 1999
(late July and early August), fall 1999 (late October and early November), winter 2000 (late
January and early February) and spring 2000 (late April and early May)) for a suite of biological,
chemical/physical and physical habitat measures, when adequate flows allowed. Every
parameter was not sampled each season (see below).
Several of the streams could not be sampled during the summer and fall 1999 sampling seasons,
as the streams were either completely dry or the flow was too limited to allow benthic sampling.
In this study we define "flow limited" streams as those streams with some flow, but with
insufficient flow to effectively carry organisms and debris into the sampling net.
Monitoring parameters, sampling methods and their frequency of collection are described in
depth in the Quality Assurance Project Plan for this study (Green et al 1999). These methods are
summarized here. In the field, a study reach of 100 meters of longitudinal stream length was
established for sampling sites with a mean wetted width of 2.5 meters or smaller. At some of
the larger sites, it was necessary to sample a longer reach for the substrate size characterization
protocol. At these sites, a reach length of forty times the wetted width was used, up to a
-------
maximum of 500 meters. A site identification section and sketch of each site was completed in
the field once during the study period, unless conditions changed and then another sketch and
description were completed to reflect those changes. Upstream and downstream photos of each
sampling site were taken during each visit.
The benthic sampling site was located at the mid point of the reach unless the site-specific
circumstances required that the reach be moved upstream or downstream to avoid tributary
effects, bridges or fords. Macroinvertebrate were sampled using the USEPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) single habitat sampling protocol (Barbour et al 1999). The
sample was collected in riffle habitat only. A 0.5 meter wide, 595 micron rectangular sampling
net was used to collect organisms in a 0.25 square meter area upstream of the net. Four samples,
each representing 0.25 square meters of riffle habitat, were composited. The total area sampled
for each sample was approximately 1 square meter.
About 25% of the samples were sampled in replicate to provide an estimate of within
season/within site variability. Replicates samples were collected at the same site, at the same
time, and usually in adjacent locations within the same riffle. In some cases it was necessary to
collect the replicate sample in an adjacent riffle. These replicates were highly correlated to each
other (Appendix 5). Where replicates were collected, only the first sample collected was used
when graphing the data and in descriptive and statistical analyses of the data.
The RBP single habitat protocol was slightly modified to collect 1 square meter of substrate
rather than 2 square meters. This modification was made because many of the streams sampled
were small. It would have been difficult to sample 2 square meters of riffle habitat in some of
the streams in each of the four seasons. Because of the drought, we felt that a smaller sampling
area would make it more likely that we could collect comparable samples over the five seasons.
We believe the 1 square meter sampling area provided sufficient sampling area to collect a
representative sample. This finding is based on a comparison of our benthic data to the
WVDEP reference condition. Samples collected by USEPA from unmined sites using the 1
square meter sampling area were of comparable condition to samples collected by WVDEP at
reference sites in the MTM/VF region using the 2 square meter sampling area, based on the
WVDEP Stream Condition Index (SCI) scores. The conditions of the unmined streams sampled
in this study were characterized as good or very good using the WVDEP SCI. Conditions of
very good are highly comparable to the WVDEP reference condition (above the 25th percentile)
and conditions of good are comparable to the below average reference sites (between the 5th and
25th percentiles). Clearly, if the unmined sites we sampled using the 1 square meter technique
scored in the same condition class as the WVDEP reference sites sampled using the 2 square
meter sampling technique, we collected a representative sample of the benthic assemblage which
was comparable to the WVDEP reference condition.
Samples were preserved in 100% ethanol. In the laboratory, a l/8th subsample was picked and
the organisms were identified using published taxonomic references (Merritt and Cummins
1996, Peckarsky et al 1990, Pennak 1989, Stewart and Stark 1993, Westfall and May 1996,
-------
Wiggins 1998) to the family level, except for Oligochaeta (worms) and leeches which were
identified at the class level. This subsampling method is a standard level of effort approach.
Every sample was picked a second time by an independent picker. Pick error rates were
recorded for every sample. All picking and identification was done in the USEPA Wheeling,
WV laboratory. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at each site, in each season,
provided there was sufficient flow for sampling.
The stream physical habitat was assessed using USEPA RBP protocols (Barbour et al 1999).
The RBP habitat protocol rates 10 aspects of physical habitat on a scale of 1 to 20 for an overall
maximum possible rating of 200. Parameters evaluated in the sampling reach include epifaunal
substrate/available cover; embeddedness; velocity/depth regimes; sediment deposition; channel
flow status; channel alteration; frequency of riffles; bank stability; bank vegetative protection;
and riparian vegetation zone width. The habitat assessment was performed on the reach that
encompassed the biological sampling site. Some parameters do require an observation of a
broader area of the catchment other than the sampling reach.
Physical habitat evaluations were performed at all sites which were sampled for benthic
macroinvertebrate in the fall of 1999. However, the flow at several of the sites was very low and
these sites could not be sampled for benthos in the fall of 1999. Physical habitat evaluations
were completed for these sites in the spring of 2000, when adequate flow was present to sample
the benthic assemblage. The physical habitat evaluations performed at flowing sites in the fall
of 1999 were reviewed in the field in the spring of 2000. Any changes from the fall of 1999 to
the spring of 2000 were noted on the original sheet. For example, channel flow status and
velocity depth regimes vary with flow, and many of these parameter scores changed from the fall
of 1999 to the spring of 2000. Only the spring 2000 habitat assessments were used in this report
to determine habitat condition.
Dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature, and pH were measured in situ using a Corning
Check Mate Field Meter. The field chemical/physical measurements were taken directly
upstream of the biological sampling site, prior to benthic sampling. The field chemical/physical
parameters were generally measured at all sites with sufficient flow in each season, except for
dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen was not measured at all sites in the spring of 1999 due to
meter malfunction.
Substrate size characterizations were measured using USEPA Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) protocols (Lazorchak et al 1998, and Kaufmann et al 1999). This
method was slightly modified from the original in that 100 meters were used for the study reach
at all streams with an average wetted width of 2.5 meters or smaller. At some of the larger
sampling sites, forty times the wetted width was sampled, up to a maximum of 500 meters.
Starting at zero meters, eleven transects at equal intervals were measured over the sampling
reach. These transects were defined by the wetted width. Five measurements were taken at
evenly spaced intervals across each transect (left, left middle, middle, right middle, and right).
Substrate particles in the transects were assigned to substrate classes. Five particles were
randomly selected, measured and assigned a substrate size class in each of the 11 transects, for a
10
-------
total of 55 particle measurements. The 55 measurements and resulting size classes were used to
estimate the proportion of bedrock, boulder, cobble, coarse gravel, fine gravel, and sand and
fines present in the reach and the mean particle size in the reach. Bankfull height, thalweg depth,
slope, and wetted width were also recorded for the reach. Thalweg depth and wetted width were
recorded for each transect. Average bankfull height and overall slope were calculated for the
reach.
The substrate size characterizations were measured twice during the study period at selected
sites. Measurements were taken at all sites sampled for benthic macroinvertebrate in the fall of
1999. However, the low flow prevented sampling of several sites. Thus, the substrate
measurements were repeated at all sites in the spring of 2000, to provide complete data for all
sites. Only the spring 2000 substrate size measurements were used to characterize substrate
conditions.
Land cover information for the subwatersheds upstream of the sampled sites was considered for
use in this report. However, after extensive review of the land cover data set, ground-truthing,
and input from our peer reviewers, we decided the information did not accurately represent the
land cover in the subwatersheds at the time the biological and chemical data were collected. The
percent land cover classified as Quarries/Mining appeared to underestimate the actual area
surface mined because surface mining has continued since 1993 (the Landsat images were made
in 1993). Furthermore, older surface mines were classified as grasses or forest cover if they
were covered with vegetation when the 1993 Landsat images were made. Similarly, residential
land cover did not seem to be properly characterized by the Landsat images. We believe this is
due both to the age of the land cover, and the small size of the residential tracts in this region of
southern West Virginia. Many of the residential units are single trailers in very narrow strips
along the streams.
11
-------
3.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS
Detailed descriptions of the sampling sites and a table of several attributes for the sampling sites
are included in Appendix 1 (e.g. locational information, EIS class, stream order, watershed
size).
3.1 Mud River Watershed
The headwaters of the Mud River rise in Boone County and flow in a northwesterly direction
into Lincoln County. Most of the watershed lies in Lincoln County. The headwaters of the Mud
River watershed do not lie in the primary mountaintop mining area as described by the West
Virginia Geological and Economic Survey (figure 1). In this watershed, the area of concern is a
strip of land approximately five miles wide that runs perpendicular to the watershed and
straddles the Boone and Lincoln County line. The remaining downstream watershed is out of the
area of concern.
From the headwaters to the northwestern boundary of the primary mountaintop mining area, the
watershed lies in the Cumberland Mountains of the Central Appalachian Plateau (subecoregion
69d) (Woods et al 1999) (figure 2). Woods et al describe the physiography as being unglaciated,
dissected hills and mountains with steep slopes and very narrow ridge tops. The geology is
described as being Pennsylvania sandstone, siltstone, shale, and coal of the Pottsville Group and
Allegheny Formation. 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.
The remainder of the watershed lies in the Monongahela Transition Zone of the Western
Allegheny Plateau (subecoregion 70b). The Monongahela Transition Zone is outside the primary
area of mountaintop mining. However it is mined and there are fills associated with this mining.
This area is unglaciated with more rounded hills, knobs, and ridges compared to the dissected
hills and mountains with steep slopes and very narrow ridge tops found in the Central
Appalachian Plateau (Woods et al 1999). Land slips do occur in the Monongahela Transition
Zone. The geology is Permian and Pennsylvanian interbedded sandstone, shale, limestone and
coal of the Monongahela Group and less typically the Waynesboro Formation. The primary land
use is forest with some urban, suburban, and industrial activity in the valleys. There is also coal
mining and general farming in this region.
3.2 Spruce Fork Watershed
The Spruce Fork watershed drains portions of Boone and Logan Counties. The stream flows in a
northerly direction to the town of Madison where it joins Pond Fork to form the Little Coal
River. About 85 to 90 percent of the watershed resides in the primary mountaintop mining
region (figure 1). Only the northwest corner lies outside this region. The entire watershed lies
within subecoregion 69d (Cumberland Mountains) (figure 2). The watershed has been the
location of surface and underground mining activity for many years, and numerous
subwatersheds have been disturbed.
12
-------
3.3 Clear Fork Watershed
Clear Fork flows in a northwesterly direction to its confluence with Marsh Fork where they form
the Big Coal River near Whitesville. The entire watershed lies within Raleigh County. All but a
tiny part of the watershed is within the primary mountaintop mining area and is within
subecoregion 69d (Cumberland Mountains) (figures 1 and 2). The coal mining industry has
been active in this watershed for many years. Both surface and underground mining have
occurred in the past and continue today. Two sub watersheds, Sycamore Creek and Toney Fork,
were sampled as part of this survey.
3.4 Twentymile Creek Watershed
Twentymile Creek drains portions of four counties: Clay, Fayette, Kanawha, and Nicholas. It
flows generally 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 mountaintop
mining area, and it all lies within subecoregion 69d (Cumberland Mountains) (figures 1 and 2).
The watershed upstream of Vaughn is uninhabited. Logging, mining, and gas wells are the
primary activities upstream of Vaughn. There has been a limited amount of old mining in the
watershed above Vaughn but the majority of the mining activity is more recent. Downstream of
Vaughn there are numerous residences and some small communities.
3.5 Island Creek Watershed
Island Creek flows in a generally northerly direction to Logan where it enters the Guyandotte
River. The entire watershed is confined to Logan County. All but the northern part of the
watershed lies in the primary mountaintop mining area and the entire watershed is located in
subecoregion 69d (Cumberland Mountains) (figures 1 and 2). Extensive underground mining
has occurred in the watershed for many years. As these reserves have been depleted and
economics have changed, surface mining has taken on a bigger role in the watershed.
13
-------
4.0 DATA ANALYSIS METHODS
4.1 Multi-Metric Stream Condition Index
Several individual metrics and a multi-metric index were used to evaluate the benthic
macroinvertebrate data. A multi-metric index known as the Stream Condition Index (SCI) was
developed by Tetra Tech, Inc. using WVDEP benthic data for West Virginia wadeable streams
(Gerritsen et al 2000). This index was developed to detect impact from a broad range of
stressors, not solely for mining related impacts. The SCI was developed from a data set of 1268
benthic samples (including 107 reference samples) collected in riffle habitats from 1996 to 1998.
The SCI was originally developed using data collected from 1996 to 1997 and was later
validated using an independent dataset collected in 1998. The SCI was developed in accordance
with EPA guidance (Barbour et al 1999).
Six metrics make up the SCI: Total Taxa, Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera (EPT) Taxa, %
EPT, % Chironomidae, % Two Dominant Taxa, and a family-level Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
(HBI). We relied heavily on the multimetric SCI as an overall indicator of stream condition and
to report stream condition classes of very good, good, fair, poor and very poor. The individual
metric values that make up the SCI were also used to analyze differences between the classes.
The six metrics were aggregated into an index by calculating the 5th percentile (%
Chironomidae, % Two Dominant Taxa, HBI) or 95th percentile (% EPT, Total Taxa, EPT Taxa)
for all 720 sampling sites in the WVDEP 1996-1998 database. These values were considered the
standard, "best" values. These values were then assigned a score of 100. Values of a metric
between the minimum possible value (or in some cases the maximum possible value) and the
standard best score were then scored proportionally from 0 ("worst") to 100 ("best"). By
standardizing the metric values to a common 100-point scale, each of the metrics contributes to
the combined index with equal weighting, and all of the metric scores represent increasingly
"better" site conditions as scores increase toward 100. Once all metric values for sites were
converted to scores on the 100-point scale, a single multi-metric index value was calculated by
simply averaging the individual metric scores for the site.
Thresholds for the index were developed using the SCI scores of the 107 reference samples.
Index scores that exceed the 25th percentile of the reference site scores (>78) are considered to
be highly comparable to the WVDEP reference sites and in very good condition. Index scores
that are greater than the 5th percentile(>70) up to the 25th percentile of the reference site scores
(78) are considered to be comparable to the below-average WVDEP reference sites and in good
condition. Scores equal to or less than the 5th percentile of the reference site scores (70) are
considered to be increasingly different from the WVDEP reference condition and impaired.
Scores greater than 46 and up to 70 indicate fair conditions, scores greater than 23 and up to 46
indicate poor conditions, and scores between 0 to 23 indicate very poor conditions (Gerritsen et
al 2000).
Richness metrics have been shown to be positively correlated with abundance (Gerritsen et al
14
-------
2000). The target minimum sample size for this study was 100 individuals. For this project, the
WVDEP samples were rarefied from their original target count of 200 organisms to 100
individuals to recalculate the standard best values for total taxa richness and EPT taxa richness.
We then rarified our data to 100 organisms as well in order to score our samples using the
rarefied SCI best standard values. Rarefaction is a statistical procedure which lets you directly
compare the number of taxa found in samples when the sampling effort differed. Rarefaction
uses the data from the original sample to answer the questions "how many taxa would have been
found in a smaller sample?". Rarefaction takes hypothetical subsamples of 100 organisms from
the original sample, and calculates the richness metrics for each hypothetical subsample (Krebs
1998). Our rarefaction procedure took 100 hypothetical subsamples of 100 organisms from the
original sample, and calculated an average taxa richness and EPT richness metric values for
those 100 subsamples.
The scores for the WVDEP reference sites were recalculated using the rarefied SCI and the 5th
and 25th percentiles were determined to establish the scoring ranges. The rarefied SCI is a
slight modification to the original WV SCI. This modification was made to avoid a possible bias
in the richness metrics by scoring samples with more organisms higher than samples with fewer
organisms, possibly simply because there are more organisms (and hence more taxa) in one
sample. These modifications did not make a difference in the final conclusions of this report.
4.2 Expectations for Individual Metric Values
General expectations for metric values in healthy streams were based on several years of
assessment experience and the ranges of values found in the independent dataset of WVDEP
reference sites used to develop the SCI.
The metric Total Taxa richness measures the number of families in the sample. Total Taxa
richness generally decreases with increasing stream degradation. We generally expect healthy
streams to have at least 20 taxa at the family level.
The metric EPT Taxa measures taxa richness in three insect orders known to be generally
sensitive to disturbance (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera or mayflies, stoneflies and
caddisflies, respectively ). EPT Taxa generally decreases with degrading stream condition.
Healthy streams in West Virginia commonly have 9 to 12 EPT taxa at the family level (Gerritsen
et al 2000). This is a widely used index and is very sensitive to changes in water quality. One
study found that the EPT index was sensitive to chemical-induced disturbances, but was
relatively insensitive to natural disturbances, such as extreme discharges in small headwater
streams (Wallace et al 1996). This same study found that the EPT index showed a "remarkable
ability to track secondary production of invertebrates".
The metric % EPT is based on the proportion of individuals in the sample that belong to the EPT
orders. We generally expect that in healthy streams, a high percentage of the total organisms
present should belong to the EPT orders. It is common in healthy streams that at least 70 to 90%
of the total organisms are in these sensitive orders.
15
-------
The metric % Chironomidae is based on the proportion of individuals in the sample that belong
to the family Chironomidae. This metric generally increases with degrading stream condition.
Since Chironomidae are very small organisms, the mesh size of the collecting net can affect the
number of midges collected. This study and the WVDEP monitoring program used nets with
595 micron mesh size. Studies using smaller mesh sizes may result in higher numbers and
relative abundance of Chironomidae. Based on the WVDEP dataset, and our experience using
the 595 micron mesh net, it is not uncommon in healthy streams that less than 20% of the
organisms in the sample belong to the family Chironomidae.
The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) weights each taxon in a sample by its proportion of
individuals and the taxon's tolerance value. Tolerance values are assigned to each family on a
scale of 0 to 10, with 0 identifying the least tolerant (most sensitive) organisms, and 10
identifying the most tolerant (least sensitive) organisms. The HBI metric can be thought of as an
average organic pollution tolerance value for the sample, weighted by the abundance of
organisms. This metric increases with degrading stream conditions, especially where organic
enrichment is present. Since some of the organic-tolerant organisms are also tolerant to other
stressors, the HBI is often used as a general indication of stress. It is not uncommon for healthy
streams with good water quality to have family-level HBI values in the range of 3 to 4.
The metric % Two Dominant Taxa is based on the proportion of individuals in the sample that
belong to the two most dominant taxa. In healthy streams, there are generally several families,
with the individuals evenly distributed among the different families. As stream degradation
occurs, more individuals are concentrated in fewer, more tolerant families, and this metric
generally increases. It is not uncommon for healthy streams to have as few as 40-60% of the
total individuals in a sample in the 2 dominant taxa.
In addition to the individual metrics that make up the SCI, we also used the metrics Mayfly Taxa
and % Mayfly to evaluate the data. Preliminary analysis of the spring 1999 benthic assemblage
data indicated that mayfly populations were impaired in the filled streams. These metrics have
been widely tested and found useful in numerous studies and are suggested for use in the EPA
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols and related guidance (Barbour et al 1999).
The metric Mayfly Taxa enumerates the number of families of mayflies. Mayflies are generally
sensitive organisms, and in healthy streams, it is not uncommon to find at least 3 or 4 families of
mayflies. The metric % Mayfly is based on the proportion of individuals in the sample that are
mayflies. Since mayflies are generally sensitive organisms, this metric decreases with increasing
degradation. It is not uncommon for healthy streams to have as many as 20-40% of the total
individuals in the sample be mayflies. As streams are degraded, the sensitive mayflies may be
replaced with less sensitive taxa. Both metrics (Mayfly Taxa and % Mayfly) have been used in
other multimetric indices and have been found to discriminate between reference and impaired
sites (Voshell and Smith 1997, Stribling et al 1998, Barbour et al 1999).
4.3 Grouped Sites Analysis
16
-------
Sites were grouped over the entire region by the four classes: unmined (no mining activity or
residences upstream of the sampled site), filled (valley fill or fills upstream of sampling site but
no residences), filled/residential (valley fill or fills upstream of sampling site and residences),
and mined (some type of past mining activity upstream of sampling site, but no valley fills and
no residences). The unmined class was used as the control class. We analyzed each season
separately to minimize the effects of seasonal variability.
We calculated the mean and standard deviation of the metric scores for each class in each season.
We compared the means of the four classes in each season. We also calculated the percentage of
total sites in each SCI condition class (very good, good, fair, poor, very poor) by season and over
all five seasons. We used box and whisker plots to compare the interquartile ranges (25th
percentile to 75th percentile) of the metric values of the classes to the unmined control class.
In the box and whisker plots, we also compared our data to the subset of seven WVDEP
reference sites that are located in the MTM/VF region. Three of these sites are located in the Elk
Watershed (Camp Creek, Ike Fork, and Johnson Branch). Three of the sites are located in the
Gauley Watershed (Bearpen Fork, Ash Fork, and Neil Branch). One site is located in the Lower
Guyandotte Watershed (Laurel Creek). Six of the seven WVDEP reference sites are different
locations from our unmined sites and provide another, independent point of reference for
comparison. Six of the these WVDEP reference sites were sampled in July of 1997 and 1998
and one of these sites was sampled in May 1998. Although the WVDEP reference sites are not
strictly comparable to our sites in seasons outside of the summer, they are provided as an
optional point of reference in the box and whisker plots.
The two sites that were classified as mined but also had residences in their watersheds were not
used in the analysis of the classes because there were so few sites in that class (MT01 and
MT69). The site in the sediment control structure (MT24) was also not included in the analysis
of the classes since it is the only site of this type and does not represent a natural stream habitat.
Several of the unmined streams could not be sampled during the summer and fall of 1999 due to
the drought. We relied on the complete data sets collected in the spring 1999, winter 2000, and
spring 2000 seasons to characterize condition in the streams using the unmined class as the
control class. Descriptive statistics and graphs for the summer and fall 1999 seasons are
included in the report for completeness.
Box-and-whisker plots and vertical point plots were used to evaluate differences in the
interquartile ranges of metric values among the four classes. The box and whisker plots display
descriptive statistics (median, mean, 25th percentile, 75th percentile, 10th percentile, 90th
percentile, and outliers) of a population of sites. The box displays the upper quartile (75th
percentile) and the lower quartile (25th percentile). The whiskers display the 90th percentile and
the 10th percentile. The solid line in the box is the median. The dotted line in the box is the
mean. Box and whisker plots are displayed for only those classes with at least 4 data points.
Vertical point plots display all of the data points as an overlay on the box plot. For those classes
and seasons where fewer than 4 sites were sampled, only the vertical point plot is shown on the
17
-------
graph.
The degree of overlap of the metric ranges in the four classes (i.e., unmined, filled,
filled/residential and mined) was used to visually determine the degree of difference between the
populations. No overlap of the interquartile ranges of metric values for the populations indicates
the greatest degree of difference between the classes. Some overlap of the interquartile ranges,
but the medians of the populations are outside of the interquartile overlap, indicates the next
greatest degree of difference between classes. Moderate overlap of the interquartile ranges, but
at least one median outside the interquartile range overlap indicates some difference between the
classes. Extensive overlap of interquartile ranges and both medians within the overlap indicates
little or no difference between the classes (Barbour et al 1996).
18
-------
5.0 BIOLOGICAL CONDITION OF STREAMS
To assess the overall ecological condition of streams in the primary region of mountaintop coal
mining, we relied on direct measures of the benthic communities that inhabit the streams.
Biological communities reflect overall ecological integrity (i.e. chemical, physical and biological
integrity). Therefore, biosurvey results directly assess the status of a waterbody relative to the
primary goal of the Clean Water Act. The aquatic insects and other benthic organisms integrate
the effects of all stressors to which they are exposed including water quality, degradation of
physical habitat, and flow, and thus provide a broad measure of their aggregate adverse effect.
These organisms also integrate stressors over time since many of them live in the water for
periods of a year or more. Therefore, they provide an ecological measure of fluctuating
conditions, rather than a snapshot like grab water quality measurements. Finally, where criteria
for specific ambient impairments do not exist (i.e. effects that degrade habitat), biological
communities are often the only practical means of evaluating the condition of streams (Barbour
etal 1999).
5.1 Benthic Data: Summary of Findings
The West Virginia Stream Condition Index scores are summarized in tables 1 and 2. The
percentage of sites in each condition class (very good, good, fair, poor and very poor) are
presented by season and then by stream class in table 1. This table allows a quick analysis of
how the site classes compared to each other within a season. The percentage of sites in each
condition class are presented by stream class and then by season in table 2. This table allows a
quick analysis of how the conditions of each site class changed from season to season.
In the seasons with complete data sets (spring 1999, winter 2000, and spring 2000), the unmined
sites generally scored in the good to very good range using the WVDEP Stream Condition Index.
Over all five seasons, the unmined sites scored in the very good range 72% of the time and in the
good range 19% of the time (table 2). It is important to note that although many of the unmined
sites could not be sampled in the fall and summer of 1999 due to the severe drought and low
flows, once they could be sampled effectively, these sites scored in the good to very good range.
In contrast to the unmined sites, the filled sites scored over the entire range of conditions. Over
all five seasons, the filled sites scored in the very good range 14% of the time, in the good range
19% of the time, in the fair range 53% of the time, in the poor range 12% of the time, and in the
very poor range only 1% of the time. We believe the range of biological conditions found in the
filled sites can be explained by differences in water quality (see section 7.0 for a discussion of
the associations between biological condition and conductivity).
The filled/residential class showed even more impairment. Over all five seasons, sites scored in
the fair range 43% of the time, and in the poor range 57% of the time. None of the sites in this
class ever scored in the good or very good range.
19
-------
Table 1. Summary of Stream Conditions Based on the WV Stream Condition Index
Percentage of Sites in Each Condition Category by Season
Stream Class (n)
Very Good
(>78-100)
Good
(>70-78)
Fair
(>46-70)
Poor
(>23-46)
Very Poor
(0-23)
Spnng 1999
Unmined (9)
Filled (15)
Filled/residential (6)
Mined (4)
67
27
0
75
33
7
0
0
0
53
17
0
0
13
83
25
0
0
0
0
Summer 1999*
Unmined (2)
Filled (15)
Filled/residential (6)
Mined (2)
0
0
0
50
50
0
0
50
50
100
67
0
0
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
Fall 1999*
Unmined (2)
Filled (14)
Filled/residential (6)
Mined (1)
0
7
0
100
50
43
0
0
0
50
83
0
50
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
Winter 2000
Unmined (9)
Filled (14)
Filled/residential (6)
Mined (3)
78
21
0
100
11
14
0
0
11
50
33
0
0
14
67
0
0
0
0
0
Spring 2000
Unmined (10)
Filled (15)
Filled/residential (6)
Mined (5)
100
13
0
60
0
33
0
20
0
13
17
0
0
33
83
20
0
7
0
0
* A number of streams lacked sufficient flow to sample during the severe drought. For more detail on the
drought and its effect on sampling, see section 2.3 and Appendix 6.
20
-------
21
-------
Very few mined sites were sampled. Over all five seasons, these sites scored in the very good
range 73% of the time, in the good range 13% of the time, and in the poor range 13% of the time.
The samples that scored in the poor range were collected at the same site, MT78. We believe
this site is naturally flow limited for most of the year, not only during periods of drought. The
other mined sites have limited amounts of mining activity in their watersheds. Many of these
sites were thought to be unmined prior to the first round of field sampling and ground-truthing.
Over all three seasons with complete data sets (spring 1999, winter 2000 and spring 2000), the
same pattern was evident: unmined sites scored generally in the good to very good range; the
filled class described a wide range of conditions and over half of the filled sites were impaired
relative to the unmined class; and the filled/residential class scored in the fair to poor range and
all filled/residential sites were impaired relative to the unmined class.
Our data illustrate the ability of the benthic assemblages in the unmined streams to withstand
natural periods of drought. Other studies have also concluded that intermittent streams are
clearly capable of supporting diverse and abundant invertebrate assemblages:
For example, in Western Oregon taxa richness of invertebrates (>125 species) in temporary
forest streams exceeded that in a permanent headwater stream (100 species) (Dietrich and
Anderson 2000). Dietrich and Anderson also found that only 8% of the species in the total
collection were only found in the permanent headwater. 25% were restricted to the summer-dry
streams and 67% were in both permanent and summer-dry streams. In other words, most of the
aquatic life found in the temporary streams were also found in permanent streams, clearly
indicating that the temporary streams support aquatic life similar to that found in permanent
streams. These researchers concluded that the potential of summer-dry streams with respect to
habitat function is still widely underestimated.
In northern Alabama, Feminella (1996) quantified the flow in six similar-sized streams and
compared benthic macroinvertebrate communities in those same six upland streams of varying
hydrologic permanence . Two of the streams were normally intermittent, three occasionally
intermittent, and one rarely intermittent. Despite the differences in flow, the invertebrate
assemblages differed only slightly. Presence-absence data revealed that 75% of the species were
found in all six streams or showed no pattern with respect to flow permanence. Seven percent
(7%) of the total species were found exclusively in the normally intermittent streams. In other
words, the benthic assemblage can withstand periods of dryness, probably by burrowing into the
wet subsurface zones or taking refuge in residual pools.
Many researchers have found that intermittent streams, springbrooks and seepage areas contain
not only diverse invertebrate assemblages, but some unique aquatic species. Dieterich and
Anderson (2000) found 202 aquatic and semi-aquatic invertebrate species, including at least 13
previously undescribed taxa. Morse et al (1997) have reported that many rare invertebrate
species in the southeast are known from only one of a few locations with pea-sized gravel or in
springbrooks and seepage areas. Kirchner (F. Kirchner pers. comm. 2000 and Kirchner and
Kondratieff 2000) reports 60 species of stoneflies from eastern North America are found only in
22
-------
first and second order streams, including seeps and springs. 50% of these species have been
described as new to science in last 25-30 years.
Williams (1996) reported that virtually all of the aquatic insect orders contain at least some
species capable of living in temporary waters and that a wide variety of adaptations across a
broad phylogenetic background has resulted in over two-thirds of these orders being well
represented in temporary waters. This researcher goes on to say that "perhaps the concept of
temporary waters constraining their faunas is based more on human perception than on fact".
We have conducted field surveys to confirm the extent of perennial and intermittent stream
reaches that would be buried by mountaintop mining valley fills proposed in specific permits.
This field work indicated that the 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps underestimate both the
perennial and intermittent stream resources (Green and Passmore 1999a, Green and Passmore,
1999b). These field surveys indicated that all of the sites that were classified as intermittent
based on flow supported aquatic life very similar to the sites classified as perennial based on
flow. These surveys and others indicate that intermittent flow alone is a poor indicator of the
abundance and diversity of aquatic life supported by a stream.
Other field work done in support of the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill EIS assessed the
potential limits of viable aquatic communities in small headwater streams in southern West
Virginia (Kirchner et al 2000). This study found that a number of taxa that were found in the
extreme headwaters have multi-year life cycles suggesting that sufficient water is present for
long-lived taxa to complete their juvenile development prior to reaching the aerial adult stage.
Although only contiguous flow areas were considered for this study, the field work took place in
the winter and based on our field experience and that of the authors, it is probable these extreme
headwaters are subject to annual drying.
Table 2. Summary of Stream Conditions Based on the WV Stream Condition Index
Percentage of Sites in Each Condition Category by Stream Class
Season (n)
Very
Good
(>78-100)
Good
(>70-78)
Fair
(>46-70)
Poor
(>23-46)
Very Poor
(0-23)
Unmined
Spring 1999 (9)
Summer 1999 (2)
Fall 1999(2)
Winter 2000 (9)
Spring 2000 (10)
Total for all seasons (32)
67
0
0
78
100
72
33
50
50
11
0
19
0
50
0
11
0
6
0
0
50
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
-------
Table 2. Summary of Stream Conditions Based on the WV Stream Condition Index
Percentage of Sites in Each Condition Category by Stream Class
Season (n)
Very
Good
(>78-100)
Good
(>70-78)
Fair
(>46-70)
Poor
(>23-46)
Very Poor
(0-23)
Filled
Spring 1999 (15)
Summer 1999 (15)
Fall 1999 (14)
Winter 2000 14)
Spring 2000 (15)
Total for all seasons (73)
27
0
7
21
13
14
7
0
43
14
33
19
53
100
50
50
13
53
13
0
0
14
33
12
0
0
0
0
7
1
Filled/residential
Spring 1999 (6)
Summer 1999(6)
Fall 1999 (6)
Winter 2000 (6)
Spring 2000 (6)
Total for all seasons (30)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
67
83
33
17
43
83
33
17
67
83
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mined
Spring 1999 (4)
Summer 1999 (2)
Fall 1999 (1)
Winter 2000 (3)
Spring 2000 (5)
Total for all seasons (15)
75
50
100
100
60
73
0
50
0
0
20
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
20
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.2 Spring 1999 Benthic Data
The spring 1999 data set included nine (9) unmined sites, fifteen (15) filled sites, six (6)
filled/residential sites and four (4) mined sites. A summary of the spring 1999 benthic data is
provided in table 3 and in figures 8 - 16 in Appendix 4.
24
-------
The spring 1999 data indicate that all of the unmined sites met our expectations for healthy
streams based on the broader West Virginia reference condition. All of these streams were in
good or very good condition. The class of unmined sites includes primarily forested watersheds
with few or no known stressors. The tight range of metric values and conditions in the unmined
class supports the conclusion that characteristics of minimally impaired streams are fairly
comparable over the MTM/VF region.
Table 3. Summary of Spring 1999 Benthic Data
(mean and standard deviation)
Metric:
mean
(standard
deviation)
WVSCI
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
%EPT
HBI
% 2 Dominant
% Chironomidae
Mayfly Taxa
% Mayflies
EIS Class
Unmined
(n=9)
82.0
(7.8)
20.6
(4.2)
13.2
(3.2)
67.2
(13.6)
3.8
(0.7)
47.3
(9.1)
20.4
(14.0)
4.9
(0.8)
37.4
(11.2)
Filled
(n=15)
61.9
(14.6)
15.2
(3.9)
7.9
(3.6)
50.5
(23.3)
4.6
(0.7)
63.7
(11.3)
28.9
(17.3)
1.6
(1.3)
10.3
(16.7)
Filled/residential
(n=6)
42.2
(9.9)
14.0
(2.6)
6.3
(2.0)
18.5
(11.2)
6.0
(0.5)
71.6
(8.2)
50.4
(16.1)
2.3
(2.0)
3.5
(5.7)
Mined
(n=4)
72.4
(22.7)
17.3
(7.3)
10.8
(5.0)
52.4
(30.6)
4.7
(1.8)
57.3
(23.6)
17.3
(14.0)
3.8
(1.9)
21.3
(17.8)
Condition Categories for the WV SCI:
>78-100 Very Good - Highly comparable to WVDEP reference sites
>70-78 Good - Comparable to below-average WVDEP reference sites
>46-70 Fair
>23-46 Poor
0-23 Very Poor
Conditions in the filled sites ranged from poor to very good conditions. The majority of the
filled sites were in fair condition (53%). However, over a third of the filled sites were in good or
very good condition (34%). The filled sites range from a site that has only one, very small fill in
25
-------
the headwaters (MT52) to sites that have several fills in their headwaters.
Conditions in the filled/residential sites ranged from poor to fair. Eighty-three (83%) of these
sites were in poor condition in the spring of 1999. Conditions in the mined sites were either poor
(25%) or very good (75%). Most of the sites in this class have minimal mining in their
watersheds. The site (MT78) that scored poor is probably naturally limited by flow even during
normal flow periods. We believe this site only flows in response to precipitation events and
snow melt.
The descriptive statistics and the box and whisker plots indicate that the class of unmined sites
was different from the class of filled sites in the spring of 1999 (see table 3 and figures 8-16).
For every individual metric and the SCI, the mean values of the metrics in the filled sites class
indicate some impairment relative to the unmined sites. In the box and whisker plots, there was
no overlap of the interquartile ranges (25th percentile to the 75th percentile) of the unmined and
filled classes for the metrics Mayfly Taxa, % Mayflies, EPT Taxa, Total Taxa, and % Two
Dominant Taxa. For the SCI, modified HBI, and %EPT, there was some overlap of the
interquartile ranges, but the medians of both classes were outside of the interquartile overlap.
There was substantial overlap of the ranges for the metric % Chironomidae.
The descriptive statistics and the box and whisker plots indicate that the class of unmined sites
was different from the class of filled/residential sites in the spring of 1999. For every metric, the
mean values and the range of values in the filled/residential sites indicate some impairment
relative to the unmined sites. There was no overlap of the interquartile ranges (25th% - 75th%)
of the unmined and filled/residential classes for any of the metrics.
Except for a single site (MT78), the data did not indicate that the mined class was impaired
relative to the unmined class in the spring of 1999. As mentioned before, we believe the
impaired stream is naturally limited by low flows, even during periods of non-drought
conditions.
5.3 Summer 1999 Benthic Data
The summer 1999 data set included two (2) unmined sites, fifteen (15) filled sites, six (6)
filled/residential sites and two (2) mined sites. A summary of the summer 1999 benthic data is
provided in table 4 and in figures 17 - 25 in Appendix 4.
Ten of the sites could not be sampled in the summer of 1999. Riffle habitats at six of these sites
were completely dry. At the other four sites, there was some flow, but not enough to collect a
representative sample effectively. Seven of these sites are unmined sites (MT02 on Rushpatch
Branch, MT03 on Lukey Fork, MT13 on Spring Branch, MT39 on White Oak Branch, MT50
and MT51 on Cabin Branch, and MT95 on Neil Branch). Two of these sites were mined sites
(MT81 on Sycamore Creek, and MT78 on Raines Fork). One of the sites was a mined site with
residences in the watershed (MT01 on the Mud River) and was not included in the class analysis.
All of the filled sites had sufficient flow to be sampled in the summer of 1999.
26
-------
Table 4. Summary of Summer 1999 Benthic Data
(mean and standard deviation)
Metric:
mean
(standard
deviation)
WVSCI
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
%EPT
HBI
% 2 Dominant
% Chironomidae
Mayfly Taxa
% Mayflies
EIS Class
Unmined
(n=2)
72.9
(8.0)
16.5
(0.7)
9.0
(0.0)
47.0
(1.7)
4.6
(0.4)
52.8
(21.2)
7.1
(1.8)
3.0
(0.0)
11.8
(11.3)
Filled
(n=15)
60.3
(6.2)
13.5
(2.5)
4.7
(1.6)
53.6
(18.1)
5.0
(0.5)
66.3
(13.3)
14.6
(11.0)
0.5
(0.6)
0.5
(0.7)
Filled/residential
(n=6)
50.0
(8.2)
13.5
(1.9)
4.7
(1.2)
30.7
(11.5)
5.5
(0.5)
67.7
(9.0)
31.1
(15.0)
1.7
(1.5)
1.8
(2.1)
Mined
(n=2)
75.6
(7.3)
18.5
(0.7)
8.5
(0.7)
64.1
(1.7)
4.3
(0.5)
52.3
(14.3)
9.6
(6.4)
1.5
(2.1)
10.5
(14.9)
Condition Categories for the WV SCI:
>78-100 Very Good - Highly comparable to WVDEP reference sites
>70-78 Good - Comparable to below-average WVDEP reference sites
>46-70 Fair
>23-46 Poor
0-23 Very Poor
Since the summer 1999 data set is incomplete, only cursory comparisons could be made between
the unmined control class and the other classes. The summer 1999 data indicate that one of the
unmined sites was in good condition and one was in fair condition. All of the filled sites scored
in the fair range in the summer of 1999. Conditions in the filled/residential sites ranged from
poor to fair. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the filled/residential sites were in fair condition in
the summer of 1999. Conditions in the two mined sites were good and very good. The site that
scored in the poor range in the spring of 1999 was completely dry and could not be sampled in
the summer of 1999 (site MT78).
27
-------
5.4 Fall 1999 Benthic Data
The fall 1999 data set included two (2) unmined sites, fourteen (14) filled sites, six (6)
filled/residential sites and one (1) mined sites. A summary of the fall 1999 benthic data is
provided in table 5 and in figures 26 - 34 in Appendix 4.
Eleven of the sites could not be sampled in the fall of 1999. The riffle habitat at one of these
sites was completely dry. At the other ten sites, there was some flow, but not enough to collect a
representative sample effectively. Seven of these sites were unmined sites (MT02 on Rushpatch
Branch, MT03 on Lukey Fork, MT13 on Spring Branch, MT39 on White Oak Branch, MT42 on
Oldhouse Branch, and MT50 and MT51 on Cabin Branch). Three of the these sites were mined
sites (MT79 on Davis Fork, MT81 on Sycamore Creek, and MT78 on Raines Fork). One of the
sites was a filled site (MT34B on the Left Fork of Beech Creek).
Since the fall 1999 data set is incomplete, only cursory comparisons could be made between the
unmined control class and the other classes. The fall 1999 data indicate that one of the unmined
sites was in good condition and one was in poor condition. We believe the unmined site in poor
condition (MT95 on Neil Branch) was just recently flowing at the time of sampling. This site
had been dry in the summer of 1999 and could not be sampled then. This site scored in the very
good range in later sampling periods (winter 2000 and spring 2000). We do not believe the score
in the fall of 1999 was representative of the conditions at this site based on the other three
seasons (spring 1999, winter 2000 and spring 2000) of data.
Half of the filled sites scored in the fair range in the fall of 1999. The other half of the filled
sites scored in the very good (7%) and good range (43%). Conditions in the filled/residential
sites ranged from poor to fair. Eighty-three percent (83%) of these sites were in fair condition
in the fall of 1999. The one mined site that could be sampled scored very good in the fall of
1999.
Table 5. Summary of Fall 1999 Benthic Data
(mean and standard deviation)
Metric:
mean
(standard
deviation)
WVSCI
Total Taxa
EIS Class
Unmined
(n=2)
56.9
(28.6)
11.0
(9.9)
Filled
(n=14)
68.8
(6.5)
13.5
(3.0)
Filled/residential
(n=6)
56.7
(12.1)
14.8
(3.0)
Mined
(n=l)
88.7
20.0
28
-------
Table 5. Summary of Fall 1999 Benthic Data
(mean and standard deviation)
Metric:
mean
(standard
deviation)
EPT Taxa
%EPT
HBI
% 2 Dominant
% Chironomidae
Mayfly Taxa
% Mayflies
EIS Class
Unmined
(n=2)
5.5
(5.0)
45.0
(38.0)
4.9
(2.5)
72.9
(25.5)
5.4
(7.6)
2.0
(2.8)
1.1
(1.6)
Filled
(n=14)
6.8
(2.3)
72.2
(17.6)
3.3
(1.1)
64.7
(11.3)
13.0
(10.4)
0.9
(0.9)
0.8
(1.2)
Filled/residential
(n=6)
6.5
(2.5)
45.0
(23.6)
4.7
(1.3)
64.3
(15.0)
30.4
(20.5)
2.0
(1.3)
1.3
(1.6)
Mined
(n=l)
11.0
83.0
2.9
53.6
3.1
4.0
7.1
Condition Categories for the WV SCI:
>78-100 Very Good - Highly comparable to WVDEP reference sites
>70-78 Good - Comparable to below-average WVDEP reference sites
>46-70 Fair
>23-46 Poor
0-23 Very Poor
5.5 Winter 2000 Benthic Data
By the winter 2000 sampling period, most of the streams could be sampled, except for one mined
site (MT78) which was completely dry and one filled site (MT34B) which was too low to
sample. The winter 2000 data set included nine (9) unmined sites, fourteen (14) filled sites, six
(6) filled/residential sites and three (3) mined sites. A summary of the winter 2000 benthic data
is provided in table 6 and in figures 35 - 43 in Appendix 4.
The winter 2000 data indicate that most of the unmined sites met our expectations for healthy
streams based on the broader West Virginia reference condition. Most of these streams (89%)
were in good or very good condition. One site scored in the high fair range (MT39 had an SCI
score of 67.8).
29
-------
Conditions in the filled sites ranged from poor to very good conditions. Half of the filled sites
were in fair condition (50%). However, over a third of the filled sites were in good or very good
condition (35%).
Table 6. Summary of Winter 2000 Benthic Data
(mean and standard deviation)
Metric:
mean
(standard
deviation)
WVSCI
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
%EPT
HBI
% 2 Dominant
% Chironomidae
Mayfly Taxa
% Mayflies
EIS Class
Unmined
(n=9)
86.3
(9.6)
19.0
(4.0)
12.1
(2.8)
75.0
(12.8)
3.2
(0.7)
45.9
(18.2)
13.4
(10.1)
4.1
(0.6)
26.3
(11.6)
Filled
(n=14)
62.6
(17.9)
16.2
(3.7)
9.2
(3.8)
50.3
(23.7)
4.6
(1.1)
63.2
(15.4)
37.1
(17.0)
1.9
(1.6)
6.9
(11.2)
Filled/residential
(n=6)
35.2
(11.0)
13.3
(3.5)
6.3
(2.2)
17.2
(13.6)
6.1
(0.7)
81.2
(11.3)
66.1
(13.7)
1.0
(1.3)
0.5
(0.8)
Mined
(n=3)
85.5
(7.5)
21.3
(1.5)
14.3
(2.1)
70.9
(4.9)
3.6
(0.4)
41.8
(12.9)
22.5
(11.4)
4.0
(0.0)
27.1
(12.5)
Condition Categories for the WV SCI:
>78-100 Very Good - Highly comparable to WVDEP reference sites
>70-78 Good - Comparable to below-average WVDEP reference sites
>46-70 Fair
>23-46 Poor
0-23 Very Poor
Conditions in the filled/residential sites ranged from poor to fair. Over two-thirds of these sites
(67%) were in poor condition in the winter of 2000.
All of the mined sites were in very good condition in the winter of 2000. Most of the sites in this
class have minimal mining in their watersheds. The mined site that scored poor in the spring of
1999 (MT78) was still dry in the winter of 2000.
30
-------
The descriptive statistics and the box and whisker plots indicate that the class of unmined sites
was different from the class of filled sites in the winter of 2000 (see table 6 and figures 35 - 43).
For every individual metric and the SCI, the mean value of the metrics in the filled sites class
indicate some impairment relative to the unmined sites. In the box and whisker plots, there was
no overlap of the interquartile ranges (25th percentile to the 75th percentile) of the unmined and
filled classes for the metrics SCI, HBI, % Chironomidae, Mayfly Taxa, and % Mayflies. For the
metrics %EPT, and % Two Dominant, there was some overlap of the interquartile ranges, but
the medians of both classes were outside of the interquartile overlap. There was substantial
overlap of the ranges for the metrics Total Taxa and EPT Taxa.
The descriptive statistics and the box and whisker plots indicate that the class of unmined sites
was different from the class of filled/residential sites in the winter of 2000. For every metric, the
mean values and the range of values in the filled/residential sites indicate some impairment
relative to the unmined sites. There was no overlap of the interquartile ranges (25th% - 75th%)
of the unmined and filled/residential classes for any of the metrics.
The winter 2000 data did not indicate that the mined class was impaired relative to the unmined
class.
We also reviewed an independent benthic data set collected by Potesta and Associates for Arch
Coal in the winter 2000 season (Potesta and Associates, Inc. 2000). Potesta and Associates also
collected samples during the summer and fall 1999 seasons, but like ours, these data sets were
incomplete (many sites could not be sampled due to the drought) and were of limited utility for
comparing the other classes to the unmined class of streams. Potesta and Associates sampled
the benthic assemblage using a Surber sampler. Six samples were collected at each site in the
Mud River, Spruce Fork and Island Creek watersheds at the same time that our winter 2000
samples were collected. This independent data set indicates similar patterns in condition and
generally supports our conclusions. Our analysis of the winter 2000 data set provided by
Potesta and Associates indicated that the sites in the filled and filled/residential classes were
impaired relative to the unmined sites (Green and Passmore 2000). The filled/residential class
was the most impaired class.
5.6 Spring 2000 Benthic Data
The spring 2000 data set included ten (10) unmined sites, fifteen (15) filled sites, six (6)
filled/residential sites and five (5) mined sites. Two sites were added in the spring of 2000. Site
MT107 was established on the Left Fork of Cow Creek in the Island Creek Watershed and was
classified as unmined. Site MT106 was established on an unnamed tributary to Sugartree
Branch in the Mud River Watershed and was classified as mined. A summary of the spring 2000
benthic data is provided in table 7 and in figures 44 - 52 in Appendix 4.
The spring 2000 data indicate that all of the unmined sites met our expectations for healthy
streams based on the broader West Virginia reference condition. All of these streams were in
very good condition in the spring of 2000.
31
-------
Table 7. Summary of Spring 2000 Benthic Data
(mean and standard deviation)
Metric:
mean
(standard
deviation)
WVSCI
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
%EPT
HBI
% 2 Dominant
% Chironomidae
Mayfly Taxa
% Mayflies
EIS Class
Unmined
(n=10)
86.3
(4.6)
17.9
(3.4)
11.6
(2.1)
71.8
(10.2)
3.7
(0.5)
42.4
(8.3)
14.1
(7.5)
4.5
(1.0)
34.7
(9.7)
Filled
(n=15)
57.2
(22.6)
13.5
(3.7)
7.7
(3.3)
44.6
(30.8)
4.8
(1.2)
68.1
(19.3)
34.0
(23.4)
1.5
(1.3)
11.9
(13.4)
Filled/residential
(n=6)
40.6
(5.4)
12.7
(1.9)
7.3
(1.5)
19.7
(7.9)
6.3
(0.5)
77.9
(6.7)
60.6
(14.6)
2.2
(1.3)
6.7
(5.6)
Mined
(n=5)
72.4
(18.6)
16.2
(4.4)
10.8
(2.8)
54.3
(17.4)
4.6
(0.9)
56.5
(18.6)
36.1
(21.6)
3.6
(0.9)
19.4
(12.8)
Condition Categories for the WV SCI:
>78-100 Very Good - Highly comparable to WVDEP reference sites
>70-78 Good - Comparable to below-average WVDEP reference sites
>46-70 Fair
>23-46 Poor
0-23 Very Poor
Conditions in the filled sites ranged from very poor to very good conditions. The slim majority
of the filled sites were in fair to very poor condition (53%). However, a large percentage of the
filled sites were in good or very good condition (46%).
Conditions in the filled/residential sites ranged from poor to fair. Eighty-three (83%) of these
sites were in poor condition in the spring of 2000.
Conditions in the mined sites were either poor (20%) or good or very good (80%). Most of the
sites in this class have minimal mining in their watersheds. The site that scored poor was the site
that had been dry since it was first sampled in the spring of 1999. We believe this site may only
32
-------
flow for a short period in the wet spring season.
The descriptive statistics and the box and whisker plots indicate that the class of unmined sites
was different from the class of filled sites in the spring of 2000 (see table 7 and figures 44 - 52 ).
For every individual metric and the SCI, the mean values of the metric in the filled sites class
indicate some impairment relative to the unmined sites. In the box and whisker plots, there was
no overlap of the interquartile ranges (25th percentile to the 75th percentile) of the unmined and
filled classes for the metrics SCI, EPT Taxa, % Two Dominant, Mayfly Taxa and % Mayflies.
For Total Taxa, HBI, and % Chironomidae, there was some overlap of the interquartile ranges,
but the medians of both classes were outside of the interquartile overlap. There was more
substantial overlap of the ranges for the metric %EPT.
The descriptive statistics and the box and whisker plots indicate that the class of unmined sites
was different from the class of filled/residential sites in the spring of 2000. For every metric, the
mean values and the range of values in the filled/residential sites indicate some impairment
relative to the unmined sites. There was no overlap of the interquartile ranges (25th% - 75th%)
of the unmined and filled/residential classes for any of the metrics.
Except for a single site (MT78), the data did not indicate that the mined class was impaired
relative to the unmined class in the winter of 2000. As mentioned before, we believe the
impaired stream is naturally limited by low flows, even during periods of non-drought
conditions. This stream did not have any flowing water in it during the summer 1999, fall 1999,
or winter 2000 sampling periods.
33
-------
6.0 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL CONDITION OF STREAMS
In the previous section, the ecological condition of the streams and stream classes was described
using the benthic assemblage as a direct indicator of stream condition. This section describes the
characteristics of potential stressors in these streams based on direct measurements of water
quality, physical habitat, and substrate size and composition. We considered using land cover as
a way to characterize potential stressors, but after extensive review of the readily available
Landsat land cover data, we determined that these data were too dated and inaccurate to provide
a current description of potential stressors.
6.1 Field Chemical/Physical Data : Summary of Findings
We measured conductivity, pH, temperature and dissolved oxygen, in the field, at the time of
sampling. Sites were grouped over the entire region by the four classes (unmined, filled,
filled/residential, and mined) and by season. Our data provided only limited information on
water quality as only a single reading was taken during each field visit and some of the water
quality parameters can be quite variable over the course of a day and over the seasons.
Conductivity is often used to estimate the total dissolved solids in water. The quantity of
dissolved material in water depends mainly on the solubility of rocks and soils the water
contacts. Most activities, including mining, logging, development, roads, etc., increase the total
dissolved solids in a watershed. Mining disturbance can produce high sulfate values and
extremely high conductivity. There is no aquatic life criterion for total dissolved solids or
conductivity. In general, the filled and filled/residential classes had substantially higher
conductivity than the unmined class (Tables 8 and 9 and figures 53, 56, 60, 64, and 68). This
was the only obvious pattern in field chemical/physical parameters that held up over all five
seasons. It should be noted that conductivity in the filled sites was generally comparable to or
higher than conductivity in the filled/residential sites within a watershed. These data suggest
that the probable cause of the increase in total dissolved solids at the filled/residential sites
(compared to the unmined sites) was the mining activity, rather than the residences.
A range of pH from 6.0 to 9.0 is considered protective for most organisms in West Virginia's
water quality standards. Changes in the water's pH can also affect aquatic life indirectly by
changing other aspects of water quality. For instance, some metals are more mobile at lower pH
levels. The toxicity of ammonia to fish also varies within a small range of pH values. Over the
course of this study, pH measurements were always within the bounds of the aquatic life criteria
(see figures 54, 57, 61, 65, and 69). Acidity did not appear to be limiting the aquatic life in these
streams.
Aquatic organisms need dissolved oxygen to live. For warm water fisheries, a minimum of 5
mg/1 dissolved oxygen at all times is required by West Virginia water quality standards. Over
the course of this study, dissolved oxygen measurements were always greater than this minimum
criterion (see figures 59, 63, 67, and 71). The data did not indicate any substantial differences
between the classes.
34
-------
Table 8. Summary of Water Quality Based on Field Chemical/Physical Data
Mean by Season and Stream Class
Stream Class (n)
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
pH
(su)
Temperature
(C)
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/1)
Spnng 1999
Unmined (9)
Filled (15)
Filled/residential (6)
Mined (4)
64
946
652
172
7.5
7.9
8.3
8.4
13.5
13.1
14.6
11.8
*
*
*
*
Summer 1999
Unmined (2)
Filled (15)
Filled/residential (6)
Mined (3)
140
1232
1124
385
7.3
7.7
8.3
7.1
23.4
21.0
22.2
19.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
8.7
Fall 1999
Unmined (2)
Filled (14)
Filled/residential (6)
Mined (1)
91
958
984
260
7.5
7.4
7.5
6.7
8.8
8.7
11.7
6.3
11.5
10.3
9.8
10.4
Winter 2000
Unmined (9)
Filled (14)
Filled/residential (6)
Mined (3)
73
836
844
254
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.3
1.6
2.9
1.6
2.2
13.3
13.0
14.0
12.7
Spring 2000
Unmined (10)
Filled (15)
Filled/residential (6)
Mined (5)
58
643
538
192
7.1
7.1
7.1
6.9
12.1
12.1
15.1
12.6
9.5
9.9
9.1
9.9
* Dissolved oxygen was not measured at most sites in the spring of 1999.
35
-------
36
-------
Water temperature can determine which species may be present in a system. Temperature also
affects feeding, reproduction, and the metabolism of aquatic animals. A week or two of high
temperatures at critical times during the year may make a stream unsuitable for sensitive aquatic
organisms or life stages. The West Virginia water quality standards indicate that temperature
rise shall be limited to no more than 5 F or 2.7 C degrees above "natural" temperature, and
should not exceed 87 F (31 C) at any time during the months of May through November and
should not exceed 73 F (24 C) at any time during the months of December and April. Over the
course of this study, none of the temperatures measured exceeded these seasonal maximums (see
figures 55, 58, 62, 66, and 70). Temperature means were also fairly comparable within the four
classes, and did not indicate any widespread rise above "natural" in any of the classes using the
unmined class as the control class.
Table 9. Summary of Water Quality Based on Field Chemical/Physical Data
Mean By Stream Class and Season
Season (n)
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
pH
(su)
Temperature
(C)
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1)
Unmined
Spring 1999 (9)
Summer 1999 (2)
Fall 1999 (2)
Winter 2000 (9)
Spring 2000 (10)
64
140
91
73
58
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.7
7.1
13.5
23.4
8.8
1.6
12.1
*
6.5
11.5
13.3
9.5
Filled
Spring 1999 (15)
Summer 1999 (15)
Fall 1999 (14)
Winter 2000 14)
Spring 2000 (15)
946
1232
958
836
643
7.9
7.7
7.4
7.8
7.1
13.1
21.0
8.7
2.9
12.1
*
7.5
10.3
13.0
9.9
Filled/residential
Spring 1999 (6)
Summer 1999 (6)
Fall 1999(6)
Winter 2000 (6)
Spring 2000 (6)
652
1124
984
844
538
8.3
8.3
7.5
7.8
7.1
14.6
22.2
11.7
1.6
15.1
*
8.5
9.8
14.0
9.1
Mined
37
-------
Table 9. Summary of Water Quality Based on Field Chemical/Physical Data
Mean By Stream Class and Season
Season (n)
Spring 1999 (4)
Summer 1999 (2)
Fall 1999(1)
Winter 2000 (3)
Spnng 2000 (5)
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
172
385
260
254
192
pH
(su)
8.4
7.1
6.7
7.3
6.9
Temperature
(C)
11.8
19.5
6.3
2.2
12.6
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1)
*
8.7
10.4
12.7
9.9
* Dissolved oxygen was not measured at most sites in the spring of 1999.
Dissolved oxygen, pH and temperature can all vary during the day and through the seasons. The
grab samples for these parameters may not be representative of water quality at these sites. Grab
temperature measurements can be problematic since temperature clearly fluctuates during the
day and seasonally in streams. Dissolved oxygen and pH levels can also vary over the course of
a day due to changes in temperature, and changes in the photosynthesis daily cycle. Dissolved
oxygen minimums occur in the very early morning hours, when community respiration is at its
peak and the maximums occur during the afternoon when photosynthesis activity consumes
carbon dioxide and produces oxygen. Therefore, grab dissolved oxygen measures taken during
the day may not be representative of the critical minimum dissolved oxygen levels in a stream.
Inorganic carbon in the form of carbon dioxide ( a weak acid) is consumed during the day, so
pH values can become elevated during the day and depressed at night. So, like grab temperature
measurements, these grab dissolved oxygen and pH measurements should be treated with
caution.
The seven WVDEP reference sites are provided on the box and whisker plots as an additional
point of reference for the summer 1999 index period. These sites are not included on the box
and whisker plots for other seasons because of the strong seasonal patterns in temperature and
dissolved oxygen.
6.1.1 Spring 1999 Field Chemical/Physical Data
Conductivity, temperature and pH were measured at all of the sites, at the time of sampling, in
the spring of 1999 (table 10). Conductivity means and interquartile ranges were much higher in
the filled and filled/residential class than the unmined class (figure 53). Conductivity was
consistently low in the unmined class. As a class, the filled sites had the highest mean
conductivity.
The mean pH values and interquartile ranges were higher in the filled, filled/residential, and
mined classes compared to the unmined class in the spring of 1999 (figure 54). The water
quality standard for pH is 6.0 to 9.0. There were no pH values measured that could be
38
-------
considered to be harmful to aquatic life in the spring of 1999. Acidity did not seem to be a
problem in the sites we sampled.
The means and interquartile ranges of temperature were quite similar for the unmined, filled and
filled/residential classes (figure 55). The mean temperature was slightly, although not
substantially, higher in the filled/residential class in the spring 1999 data set.
Table 10. Summary of Spring 1999 Field Chemical/Physical Data
(mean and standard deviation)
Metric:
mean
(standard dev.)
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
pH (su)
Temperature (C)
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1)*
EIS Class
Unmined
(n=9)
63.7
(19.1)
7.5
(0.7)
13.5
(2.0)
Filled
(n=15)
945.5
(614.0)
7.9
(0.6)
13.1
(1.4)
Filled/residential
(n=6)
651.8
(236.5)
8.3
(0.3)
14.6
(2.9)
Mined
(n=4)
172.0
(90.4)
8.4
(0.3)
11.8
(5.1)
Dissolved Oxygen was not measured in the spring of 1999 at most sites.
6.1.2 Summer 1999 Field Chemical/Physical Data
Conductivity, temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen were measured at all of the sites, at the time
of sampling, in the summer of 1999. Only two unmined sites could be sampled in the summer of
1999, so only cursory comparisons can be made between the classes. Conductivity means were
substantially higher in the filled and filled/residential classes compared to the unmined class
(table 11 and figure 56). Conductivity was consistently low in the unmined class. The filled
sites had a slightly higher mean conductivity than the filled/residential sites. The highest mean
conductivities of the study period occurred during the summer 1999 sampling period.
The mean pH measurements were higher in the filled and filled/residential classes compared to
the unmined class in the summer of 1999. As in the spring, there were no pH values measured
that could be considered to be harmful to aquatic life in the summer of 1999 (figure 57).
The ranges of temperature appeared to be similar for the unmined, filled, filled/residential, and
mined classes in the summer of 1999 (figure 58).
Dissolved oxygen means were higher in the filled, filled/residential and mined sites than in the
39
-------
unmined sites in the summer of 1999. The dissolved oxygen measurements taken in the summer
of 1999 were all above the minimum criterion of 5 mg/1 (figure 59).
Table 11. Summary of Summer 1999 Field Chemical/Physical Data
(mean and standard deviation)
Metric:
mean
(standard dev.)
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
pH (su)
Temperature (C)
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1)
EIS Class
Unmined
(n=2)
139.5
(54.4)
7.3
(0.3)
23.4
(0.9)
6.5
(1.2)
Filled
(n=15)
1231.7
(643.4)
7.7
(0.4)
21.0
(3.0)
7.5
(1.0)
Filled/residential
(n=6)
1123.8
(282.3)
8.3
(0.3)
22.2
(4.4)
8.5
(1.0)
Mined
(n=3)
385.3
(201.6)
7.1
(0.3)
19.5
(2.1)
8.7
(1.3)
6.1.3 Fall 1999 Field Chemical/Physical Data
Conductivity, temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen were measured at most of the sites, at the
time of sampling, in the fall of 1999 (table 12). A pH value could not be recorded at one of the
filled/residential sites due to meter malfunction. Again, only two unmined sites could be
sampled in the fall of 1999, so only cursory comparisons can be made between the classes.
Conductivity means were again higher in the filled and filled/residential classes compared to the
unmined class (figure 60). Conductivity was consistently low in the unmined class. The
filled/residential sites had a slightly higher mean conductivity than the filled sites.
The mean pH measurements between the filled and filled/residential classes were comparable to
the unmined class in the summer of 1999. As in the spring and summer, there were no pH values
measured that could be considered to be harmful to aquatic life in the fall of 1999 (figure 61).
The ranges of temperature appeared to be similar for the unmined and filled classes (figure 62).
Dissolved oxygen means were lower in the filled, filled/residential and mined classes than in the
unmined class in the fall of 1999. The dissolved oxygen measurements taken in the fall of 1999
were all above the minimum criterion of 5 mg/1 (figure 63).
40
-------
Table 12. Summary of Fall 1999 Field Chemical/Physical Data
(mean and standard deviation)
Metric:
mean
(standard dev.)
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
pH (su)
Temperature (C)
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1)
EIS Class
Unmined
(n=2)
91.1
(59.3)
7.5
(0.2)
8.8
(0.4)
11.5
(0.3)
Filled
(n=14)
958.3
(430.2)
7.4
(0.4)
8.7
(2.6)
10.3
(1.2)
Filled/residential
(n=6)
984.3
(220.7)
7.5
(0.4)
11.7
(3.3)
9.8
(0.6)
Mined
(n=l)
260.0
6.7
6.3
10.4
6.1.4 Winter 2000 Field Chemical/Physical Data
Conductivity, temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen were measured at most of the sites, at the
time of sampling, in the winter of 2000. A pH value could not be recorded at one of the
filled/residential sites due to meter malfunction. A dissolved oxygen value could not be
recorded at one of the filled sites due to meter malfunction. Conductivity means were again
substantially higher in the filled and filled/residential classes compared to the unmined class
(table 13 and figure 64). Conductivity was consistently low in the unmined class. The
filled/residential sites had a slightly higher mean conductivity than the filled sites.
The mean pH measurements between the filled and filled/residential classes were comparable to
the unmined class in the winter of 2000. As in earlier seasons, there were no pH values
measured that could be considered to be harmful to aquatic life in the winter of 2000 (figure 65).
The ranges of temperature were similar for the unmined, filled, filled/residential and mined
classes (figure 66).
Dissolved oxygen means were comparable in the unmined, filled, filled/residential and mined
sites in the winter of 2000. The dissolved oxygen measurements taken in the winter of 2000
were all well above the minimum criterion of 5 mg/1, due to the colder temperatures of the water
(figure 67).
41
-------
Table 13. Summary of Winter 2000 Field Chemical/Physical Data
(mean and standard deviation)
Metric:
mean
(standard dev.)
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
pH (su)
Temperature (C)
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1)
EIS Class
Unmined
(n=9)
72.8
(28.8)
7.7
(0.9)
1.6
(1.5)
13.3
(0.8)
Filled
(n=14)
836.2
(424.7)
7.8
(0.4)
2.9
(1.6)
13.0
(0.9)
Filled/residential
(n=6)
844.0
(172.6)
7.8
(0.6)
1.6
(0.9)
14.0
(1.5)
Mined
(n=3)
254.3
(171.1)
7.3
(0.8)
2.2
(1.9)
12.7
(1.6)
6.1.5 Spring 2000 Field Chemical/Physical Data
Conductivity, temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen were measured at all of the sites, at the time
of sampling, in the spring of 2000.
Conductivity means were again substantially higher in the filled and filled/residential classes
than in the unmined class (table 14 and figure 68). Conductivity was consistently low in the
unmined class. The filled sites had a higher mean conductivity than the filled/residential sites.
The mean pH measurements between the filled and filled/residential classes were comparable to
the unmined class in the spring of 2000. As in earlier seasons, there were no pH values
measured that could be considered to be harmful to aquatic life in the spring of 2000 (figure 69).
The ranges of temperature were similar for the unmined, filled and mined classes in the spring of
2000 (figure 70).
Dissolved oxygen means were fairly comparable in the unmined, filled, filled/residential and
mined sites in the winter of 2000. The dissolved oxygen measurements taken in the spring of
2000 were all above the minimum criterion of 5 mg/1 (figure 71).
42
-------
Table 14. Summary of Spring 2000 Field Chemical/Physical Data
(mean and standard deviation)
Metric:
mean
(standard dev.)
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
pH (su)
Temperature (C)
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/1)
EIS Class
Unmined
(n=10
58.4
(27.8)
7.1
(0.7)
12.1
(1.8)
9.5
(0.9)
Filled
(n=15)
642.7
(381.8)
7.1
(0.8)
12.1
(2.1)
9.9
(0.9)
Filled/residential
(n=6)
538.3
(249.0)
7.1
(0.6)
15.1
(2.6)
9.1
(0.3)
Mined
(n=5)
191.6
(155.1)
6.9
(1.0)
12.6
(1.9)
9.9
(0.7)
6.2 Rapid Bioassessment Protocol Habitat Evaluations
Good physical habitat is important for maintaining stream condition. Instream and riparian
habitat influence the structure and function of the aquatic community of a stream. For example,
excessive sediment deposition can reduce habitat space and its availability. Parameters
evaluated in the sampling reach include epifaunal substrate/available cover; embeddedness;
velocity/depth regimes; sediment deposition; channel flow status; channel alteration; frequency
of riffles; bank stability; bank vegetative protection; and riparian vegetation zone width. Only
the spring 2000 habitat assessments were used to determine habitat condition.
In general, the physical habitat data do not indicate substantial differences between the unmined
classes and the other classes. Some individual stations did have marginally degraded habitat,
including excess sediment deposition. Three sites in the filled class (MT18, MT34B, and MT32)
and two sites in the filled/residential class (MT23 and MT55) had degraded habitat scores in the
spring of 2000.
In the Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) the individual habitat parameters are classified into
four general condition classes based on a 20 point scoring system. Optimal habitat (meeting
natural expectations) is scored from 16 to 20, suboptimal habitat (still has adequate habitat for
maintenance of populations) is scored from 11 to 15, marginal habitat (moderate level of
degradation/ frequent intervals of problems within the reach) is scored from 6 to 10, and poor
habitat (where the characteristic of the parameter is substantially altered and there is severe
degradation) is scored from 0 to 5.
The total habitat score is the sum of the 10 individual parameters. In comparison to the unmined
sites, the filled/residential sites had the lowest mean total scores followed by the filled sites (see
43
-------
figure 72). The mined sites had a higher mean score than the unmined sites (table 15). There
was some overlap of the interquartile ranges of the unmined and filled sites and only a slight
overlap between the unmined and filled/residential sites. There was complete overlap between
the unmined and mined sites. Although these data suggested some habitat degradation at the
filled/residential and filled sites, these differences did not appear to be serious enough to impair
aquatic life at most stations.
The parameter embeddedness refers to the extent to which rocks and snags are covered or sunken
into the silt, sand, or mud of the stream bottom. Generally, as rocks become more embedded,
less habitat is available for the aquatic organisms. This parameter was measured in the riffle
where the benthic sample was collected in order to avoid any confusion with the parameter
sediment deposition. The embeddedness scores indicate that among all the classes, only one site
scored less than suboptimal. A filled site (MT34B) scored in the marginal category. There was
overlap of the interquartile ranges between the unmined, filled, and filled/residential sites. Some
overlap occurred between the mined and unmined sites but this was on the top end of the scoring
range. These data indicate that for the most part there is little difference in embeddedness
among the EIS classes (see figure 73).
The parameter sediment deposition measures the amount of sediment that has accumulated in
pools and the changes that have occurred to the stream bottom as a result of the deposition. High
levels of sediment deposition are symptoms of an unstable environment that is unsuitable for
many organisms. The filled sites had the lowest mean score for this parameter followed by the
filled/residential sites (see figure 74). The mined sites once again had the highest mean score.
The interquartile ranges of the filled and filled/residential sites overlapped with the unmined
sites. The mined class overlapped the unmined class on the high end of the scoring range.
A total of eight sites scored in the marginal category for sediment deposition. In the unmined
sites, site MT50 scored high marginal. A gas line was replaced along this stream during the
study period and this activity clearly increased erosion along the stream. Three filled sites
(MT18, MT32, and MT57) scored at the high end of the marginal range (10) and three other
filled sites (MT14, MT34B, and MT15) had scores of 8, 7, and 6, respectively. One mined site
(MT106) had a marginal score of 10. One filled/residential site (MT23) scored in the poor
range for sediment deposition. The pools in this stream reach were impaired by sand deposition.
The parameter epifaunal substrate considers the relative quantity and variety of natural structures
in the stream, such as cobble, large rocks, fallen trees, logs and branches, undercut banks, etc.
These structures provide habitat available as refugia, feeding, or sites for spawning and nursery
functions. All three of the disturbed classes had some overlap with the unmined class (figure
75). The filled/residential class had the lowest mean score followed by the filled class. The
mined sites had a higher mean score than the unmined sites. The filled sites as a class had
epifaunal substrate characteristics comparable to natural conditions. The filled/residential class
had a mean score in the suboptimal range. One of the filled/residential sites (MT55) scored in
the marginal range because of bedrock dominated substrate.
44
-------
The parameter bank stability measures whether the stream banks are eroded. Eroded banks
indicate a problem of sediment movement and deposition, and suggest a scarcity of cover and
organic input to streams. The interquartile ranges of the unmined, filled, and filled/residential
classes overlap, and there is some overlap between the unmined class and the mined class, but
again on the high end of the scale (figure 80). The means of the filled, filled/residential, and
mined classes were higher than the unmined sites. These data indicate that there was no
substantial difference between the classes. Only site MT25B (filled) scored in the marginal range
(9).
The parameter bank vegetative protection measures the amount of vegetative protection afforded
to the stream bank and the near-stream portion of the riparian zone. The root systems of plants
and trees growing on the bank stabilize the bank, reducing erosion and increasing stability.
Overhanging vegetation also provides cover for organisms and organic input to the stream.
Banks that have full, natural plant growth are better for fish and macroinvertebrates than are
banks without vegetation or which are shored up with rip rap, concrete, or other artificial
structures. The interquartile ranges of the four EIS classes had some degree of overlap (figure
81). The filled/residential sites had the lowest mean of all the classes and one site (MT23)
scored at the top end of marginal category. Only two of the six filled/residential sites scored in
the optimal range. All of the filled sites scored in the optimal to suboptimal range. One
unmined site (MT51) scored in the marginal range because of recent gas pipeline construction.
The parameter channel flow status measures the degree to which the channel is filled with water.
All the unmined, filled, and filled/residential sites scored in the optimal range for the parameter
(figure 76). The mined sites all scored in the optimal and suboptimal range. These data indicate
that habitat loss due to low stream flows was not a substantial problem at any of the sites during
the spring 2000 index period.
The parameter channel alteration is a measure of large-scale changes in the shape of the stream
channel such as straightening, dredging, diversion, etc. The mean scores for the unmined and
mined classes were in the optimal category and there was overlap of the interquartile ranges for
these classes (figure 77). There was some overlap of the interquartile ranges between the
unmined and filled classes and the mean score for the filled class was in the high suboptimal
range. Two of the filled sites scored in the marginal category. These were sites MT34B and
MT32. The filled/residential sites had the lowest mean score of all the classes but only one site
(MT55) scored in less than suboptimal. Several of these sites are on larger streams and highway
construction along their banks has resulted in channel alteration.
The parameter frequency of riffles is a way to measure the sequence of riffles and the
heterogeneity in a stream. Riffles are very productive habitat. All four classes had mean scores
in the optimal range and none of the streams scored out of the optimal range (figure 78). There
were no substantial differences between the stream classes.
45
-------
Table 15. Summary of Rapid Habitat Assessment Data Collected in the Spring of 2000
(mean and standard deviation)
Habitat
Parameter:
mean
(standard dev.)
Total Habitat Score
Embeddedness
Sediment
Deposition
Epifaunal Substrate
Channel Flow
Status
Channel Alteration
Frequency of
Riffles
Velocity Depth
Regimes
Bank Stability
Bank Vegetative
Protection
Riparian Vegetation
Zone
EIS Class
Unmined
(n=10)
155
(9.6)
14.8
(2.3)
14.2
(2.6)
16.3
(2.8)
17.5
(0.9)
16.7
(0.9)
17.9
(1.1)
12.8
(3.0)
14.5
(2.8)
15.1
(2.3)
15.2
(2.9)
Filled
(n=15)
148
(10.7)
14.3
(2.6)
12.2
(3.6)
15.6
(2.7)
17.9
(1.0)
14.7
(3.1)
17.5
(1.0)
12.6
(3.0)
15.0
(2.4)
14.8
(2.0)
13.9
(2.9)
Filled and
Residences
(n=6)
144
(11.8)
14.0
(1.1)
12.7
(4.1)
13.5
(3.7)
17.8
(1.5)
13.3
(2.5)
17.2
(0.8)
16.0
(1.4)
15.2
(1.9)
13.3
(3.1)
11.0
(4.0)
Mined
(n=5)
159
(7.2)
16.2
(1.3)
15.2
(3.1)
18.0
(1.2)
15.6
(1.9)
16.0
(1.9)
18.2
(0.8)
11.2
(2.7)
16.6
(0.9)
15.6
(1.9)
16.2
(1.9)
Condition Categories for Individual Parameters:
20-16 Optimal
15-11 Suboptimal
1 0-6 Marginal
5-0 Poor
The parameter velocity/depth combinations measures the patterns of velocity and depth in the
stream reach. The best streams will have all four velocity/depth patterns present ( slow-deep,
fast-deep, slow-shallow and fast-shallow). There was overlap of the interquartile ranges between
the unmined, filled, and mined classes and some overlap between the unmined and
filled/residential classes (figure 79). The mean score for the filled/residential sites was 16, while
46
-------
the mean scores for the other classes ranged from 11.2 to 12.8. Many of the streams that scored
low in the unmined, filled, and mined classes are small streams and are naturally limited because
they often do not have deep water. Several of the filled/residential sites are located on larger
streams which are more complex and more likely to have deep water.
The parameter riparian vegetation zone width measures the amount of vegetative protection
afforded to the stream bank and the near-stream portion of the riparian zone. The interquartile
ranges between the unmined and mined classes overlapped and there was some overlap of the
unmined class with the filled and filled/residential classes (figure 82). The filled/residential and
filled sites had the lowest mean scores, 11.0 and 13.9, respectively. The filled/residential sites
were often located close to highways which results in a loss of vegetation and the filled sites
were sometimes located close to haul roads, which had the same effect.
6.3 Substrate Size and Composition
Riffles and runs are critical for maintaining a variety and abundance of aquatic insects in high
gradient streams. More diverse invertebrate assemblages are generally associated with larger
substrates which provide lots of interstitial spaces and surface area (Barbour et al 1999, Hynes
1970, Kaufmann et al 1999, Ward 1992). Excessive amounts of sediment in a stream can fill in
interstitial spaces, reducing the habitat available for the organisms. High levels of sediment
deposition are also symptoms of an unstable and continually changing environment that is
unsuitable for many organisms. In the MTM/VF region in southern West Virginia, many
activities can destabilize watersheds and increase sediment supply, including logging and
mining. We measured substrate size and composition in order to determine if excessive
sediment was causing the biological impairment observed in the filled and filled/residential
classes.
Numeric scores were assigned to the substrate size classes that are proportional to the logarithm
of the midpoint diameter of each size class (table 16). The mean substrate size class was
calculated as the arithmetic mean of the numerically transformed size classes. The logarithmic
nature of the substrate size classes specified in EMAP methods makes these mean size class
scores proportional to the geometric mean substrate diameter. Based on assigning geometric
midpoint diameters to each particle class, the following relationship was derived to transform
mean diameter class scores into estimates of the Iog10 of mean substrate diameter in millimeters:
If mean substrate size class score was less than or equal to 2.5 then Iog10 of mean substrate
diameter was calculated as (-4.61 +(2.16 *mean diameter class)); if mean substrate size class
score was greater than 2.5 then Iog10 of mean substrate diameter was calculated as (-1.78 +(0.960
*mean diameter class)) (Kaufmann et al 1999). The reach level mean substrate diameter in
millimeters was derived by taking the antilog of these equations.
The reach level percentages of sands and fines (diameter less than or equal to 2 mm) were
derived from the frequency of particles in these two size classes divided by the 55 total particle
measurements. For example, if 5 of the measurements in the reach were classified as sand or
fines, then the percentage of the substrate less than or equal to 2 mm would be 5/55*(100) or
47
-------
approximately 9%.
Table 16. Substrate Size Classes and Class Scores
Class
Bedrock
Boulder
Cobble
Coarse Gravel
Fine Gravel
Sand
Fines
Size
>4000 mm
>250-4000 mm
>64-250 mm
> 16-64 mm
>2-16 mm
>0.06-2 mm
<0.06 mm
Class Score
6
5
4
3.5
2.5
2
1
Description
Bigger than a car
Basketball to car
Tennis ball to basketball
Marble to tennis ball
Lady bug to marble
Gritty between fingers
Smooth, not gritty
The substrate size data indicate that the mean substrate size class scores and the mean calculated
substrate particle sizes were smaller in the filled sites than in the unmined sites (table 17). The
filled/residential streams also had substrates which were smaller than the unmined sites. The
mined sites had the largest substrate of all the sites. The interquartile range of the unmined
classes overlapped almost completely with the interquartile ranges of the filled and
filled/residential classes indicating that the differences between the classes were not substantial
(figures 83 and 84). The outliers included two sites with natural bedrock substrates (sites
MT104 (filled) and MT55 (filled/residential)). Site MT23 (filled/residential) had the smallest
substrate of all the sites with a mean substrate size in the small gravel range.
The filled and filled/residential class streams contained a greater mean percentage of sands and
fines than did the unmined streams. The mined streams contained the lowest amount of sands
and fines (table 17 and figure 85). There was substantial overlap of the interquartile ranges
between the unmined and filled classes but the data also indicate signs of fining in some of the
individual filled streams. There was also some overlap of the interquartile ranges between the
unmined and filled/residential classes indicating mean conditions in the two classes might not be
substantially different. Again, though, there were indications of fining in some of the individual
streams in the filled/residential class.
In general, the measured substrate characteristics of the filled, filled/residential, and mined
classes were not substantially different from the unmined class. However, there were specific
stations within these EIS classes that were substantially different. Site photographs taken during
the field work also illustrate these conclusions. It should be noted that many of the filled sites
were established in first and second order streams in order to limit the potential stressors in the
watershed to the valley fills. Our data indicate that the valley fills do not seem to be causing
excessive sediment deposition in the first and second order streams that were sampled. Our
results should not be extrapolated to reaches downstream in these watersheds or to higher order
48
-------
streams.
Table 17. Summary of Substrate Size and Composition Data Collected in the Spring of 2000
(mean and standard deviation)
Substrate
Parameter:
mean
(standard dev.)
Mean Substrate
Size Class
Calculated Mean
Substrate Size (mm)
% < or = to 2mm
(% that is sand and
fines)
EIS Class
Unmined
3.65
(0.31)
53
(coarse gravel)
16.9
(9.9)
Filled
3.50
(0.45)
38
(coarse gravel)
20.7
(12.9)
Filled/residential
3.55
(0.84)
42
(coarse gravel)
29.7
(24.1)
Mined
3.98
(0.30)
109
(cobble)
8.0
(9.2)
49
-------
7.0 ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL CONDITION OF STREAMS AND
SELECTED PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
In the previous section, the physical and chemical conditions of the streams and stream classes
were described using direct measurements of water quality, physical habitat, and substrate size
and composition. We explored differences between the classes using the unmined class as a
control group. In this section, we explore associations between the spring 2000 benthic metrics
and median conductivity, total habitat scores, sediment deposition scores, and % sand and fines.
These physical and chemical parameters were either substantially different between the EIS
classes, appeared to be different at several individual sites, or they were measured at levels that
could be considered limiting or harmful to aquatic life. We calculated the median conductivity
over the study period at each of the sites and used that statistic to represent longer term
conductivity values. We used the spring 2000 total habitat scores, sediment deposition scores,
and % sand and fines estimates.
7.1 Correlation Analysis
Correlation analysis is used to determine the relationship between two variables without
specifying a dependent and independent variable. That is, there is no causal relationship
assumed.
We used Pearson Product Moment Correlation to explore associations between the benthic
metrics and the physical and chemical parameters. The results of these tests are in shown in
table 18. The correlation coefficient, r, quantifies the strength of the relationship between the
variables. The values of r can vary between -1 and +1. A correlation coefficient near +1
indicates that there is a strong positive relationship between the two variables, with both always
increasing together. A correlation coefficient near -1 indicates there is a strong negative
relationship between the two variables, with one always decreasing as the other increases. A
correlation coefficient of zero indicates no relationship between the two variables.
The P value is the probability of being wrong in concluding that there is a true association
between the variables. The smaller the P value, the greater the probability that the variables are
correlated. Traditionally, you can conclude there is a true association between the variables
when P< 0.05.
Generally, all of the benthic metrics were associated positively or negatively, as expected to the
potential stressors. The Stream Condition Index (SCI), Total Taxa, EPT, %EPT, Mayfly Taxa,
and % Mayflies all decreased with increasing conductivity and increasing % sand and fines
(increasing degradation). These same metrics all increased with increasing total habitat scores
and increasing sediment deposition scores (decreasing degradation). The metrics HBI, % Two
Dominant, and % Chironomidae all increased with increasing conductivity and % sand and fines.
These metrics all decreased with increasing total habitat scores and sediment deposition scores.
50
-------
Table 18 . Strength of Associations Between Benthic Metrics and Physical/Chemical Variables
Pearson Product Moment Correlation Matrix
r (correlation
coefficient)
p value
WVSCI
Total Taxa
EPT
%EPT
HBI
%2Dom
%Chiro
Mayfly Taxa
% Mayflies
Median
Conductivity
Total Habitat Score
Sediment
Deposition Score
Median
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
-0.810
<0.01
-0.699
O.01
-0.783
0.01
-0.753
0.01
0.672
O.01
0.760
O.01
0.511
0.01
-0.812
0.01
-0.780
O.01
Total Habitat
Score
0.459
O.01
0.413
0.012
0.530
0.01
0.483
0.01
-0.360
0.031
-0.371
0.026
-0.219
0.200
0.287
0.09
0.511
O.01
-0.535
O.01
Sediment
Deposition Score
0.411
0.013
0.483
O.01
0.601
0.01
0.433
0.01
-0.318
0.06
-0.384
0.02
-0.145
0.4
0.363
0.03
0.429
O.01
-0.547
O.01
0.695
0.01
% < or = to 2mm
(% sand and fines)
-0.296
0.079
-0.323
0.055
-0.378
0.02
-0.369
0.03
0.278
0.10
0.194
0.26
0.198
0.25
-0.183
0.29
-0.320
0.06
0.348
0.04
-0.658
0.01
-0.756
0.01
n = 36 for all pairs.
The strengths of the associations varied ® values), as did the significance of the associations (P
values). Generally, the strongest associations and the smallest P values were related to
associations between the benthic metrics and the median conductivity. The associations between
the benthic metrics and total habitat score and between the benthic metrics and the sediment
deposition scores had lower correlation coefficients, and larger P values. The associations
between the benthic metrics and the % sand and fines measurements had the lowest correlation
coefficients and the highest P values. Many of the P values for this stressor were greater than the
51
-------
significance threshold of 0.05.
The Stream Condition Index (SCI) and the Mayfly Taxa metric were the benthic metrics most
strongly correlated to median conductivity ( r = -0.810 and r = -0.812) respectively. Many of the
other metrics also had strong correlations.
It should be noted that we used a single habitat approach to sampling the benthic community;
we only sampled riffles. The total habitat scores, sediment deposition scores and % sand and
fines reflect habitat degradation in the entire reach, including pool habitat. Therefore, we would
not necessarily expect strong correlations between benthic condition and habitat degradation
measured throughout the reach since the benthic community was not sampled in all habitats.
It is also important to note that conductivity was negatively and quite strongly correlated to the
total habitat score and the sediment deposition scores. Conductivity is often used as a general
indicator of watershed disturbance. Our data indicate that watersheds with elevated conductivity
are also likely to have degraded stream habitats. Disturbance in a watershed rarely impacts only
water quality or only habitat.
Total habitat scores were strongly correlated with sediment deposition scores and % sand and
fines. Sediment deposition scores were strongly correlated to % sand and fines. These
parameters are all related: sediment deposition was one of the few habitat parameters that scored
marginally at several sites and directly affects the total habitat score. The measurement of %
sand and fines is simply a more quantitative estimate of sediment deposition.
7.2 Regression Analysis
Regression analysis involves one dependent and one independent variable. Regression analysis
determines the relationship between two variables in cases in which the magnitude of one
variable, the dependent variable or Y, is a function of the magnitude of the second variable, the
independent variable or X. In order to determine how well some of these physical and chemical
measures predict the benthic metrics (or in other words, stream condition), we used least squares
simple linear regression. Table 19 shows the coefficient of determination values (r2) for each
pair of variables. The coefficient of determination indicates how much of the variation in the
observations can be explained by the regression equation. The largest value r2 can assume is 1,
a result that occurs when all of the variation is explained by the regression, or all of the data
points fall on the regression line.
Several of the variables failed either the normality test or the constant variance test of the linear
regression and had to be transformed. The normality test requires that the source population is
normally distributed around the regression line. Failure of the normality test can indicate the
presence of outlying data points or an incorrect regression model (the model may be non linear).
The constant variance test requires that the variance of the dependent variable (in our case the
benthic metrics) in the source population is constant regardless of the value of the independent
variable (in our case the physical and chemical measurements).
52
-------
Table 19 . Least Squares Linear Regression Coefficients of Determination
Non-Transformed Data
r2 (coefficient of
determination)
values
WVSCI
Total Taxa
EPT
%EPT
HBI
%2Dom
%Chiro
Mayfly Taxa
% Mayflies
Median
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
0.656
0.489
0.614
0.567
0.451
0.578
0.261
0.660
0.608
Total Habitat
Score
0.211
0.170
0.281
0.233
0.130
0.137
0.048*
0.082*
0.261
Sediment
Deposition Score
0.169
0.233
0.361
0.187
0.101*
0.147
0.021*
0.132
0.184
% < or = to 2mm
(% sand and fines)
0.088*
0.104*
0.143
0.136
0.077*
0.038*
0.039*
0.033*
0.102*
n = 36 for all pairs.
r2 values in bold indicate that this data set failed either the normality test or the constant variance test and had to
be transformed to use the linear regression model. See table 20.
*: r2 values marked with an asterisk had a P>0.05.
When the variables failed one or both of these tests, we used the transformation log (x) to
transform some of the variables (SCI, Total Taxa, HBI, median conductivity, sediment
deposition and total habitat scores). We used an arcsin square root transformation to transform
the percentage metrics and measures (% Mayflies, % EPT, % Chironomidae, and % sand and
fines). The percentage metrics and measures were first converted to proportions (values between
0 and 1) before being transformed. The coefficient of determination (r2) values for those pairs of
variables which failed the assumptions of the test and had to be transformed are shown in table
20. For some of the variables, the standard transformations were not successful in resolving the
normality and equal variance problems of the data sets (SCI vs. % sand and fines, Total Taxa vs.
median conductivity, and Total Taxa vs. total habitat scores). The coefficients of determination
for the transformed data sets are shown in table 20.
The non-transformed and transformed regressions for the Stream Condition Index (SCI) against
conductivity are shown in figures 86 and 87. The non-transformed and transformed regressions
for the SCI against sediment deposition scores are shown in figures 88 and 89. The non-
transformed regressions for the SCI against total habitat scores and % sand and fines are shown
in figures 90 and 91. The regression equations are provided in the figures. It should be noted
that P was greater than 0.05 for the SCI vs. % sand and fines regression.
53
-------
Table 20 . Least Squares Linear Regression Coefficients of Determination
Transformed Data
r2 (coefficient of
determination)
values
WVSCI
Total Taxa
EPT
%EPT
HBI
%2Dom
%Chiro
Mayfly Taxa
% Mayflies
Median
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
0.560
**
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.264
N/A
N/A
Total Habitat
Score
N/A
**
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sediment
Deposition Score
0.199
N/A
N/A
0.222
N/A
N/A
0.040*
N/A
N/A
% < or = to 2mm
(% sand and fines)
**
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.070*
N/A
0.036*
N/A
0.124
n = 36 for all pairs.
*: r2 values marked with an asterisk had a P>0.05.
**: transformations did not solve normality or constant variance problems in data set.
N/A: data did not require transformations (see table 19).
Figure 86 and the regression equation for SCI and median conductivity suggest that in order for a
site to score 70 or better (good or very good condition), the median conductivity must be 426
uS/cm or less. Figure 87 and the regression equation for SCI and transformed median
conductivity suggest that in order for a site to score 70 or better (good or very good condition),
the median conductivity must be 230 uS/cm or less. We believe the higher median conductivity
concentration (426 uS/cm) is a more realistic threshold where adverse impacts to the biota may
occur.
There were no apparent trends, or very weak trends between the SCI scores and sediment
deposition scores, total habitat scores, and % of the substrate that was sand and fines (see figures
88, 89, 90 and 91). Sites with similar physical characteristics (i.e. similar sediment deposition
scores, total habitat scores, or % sand and fines) had widely varying Stream Condition Index
scores. Again, it is important to remember that we sampled the benthic community in the riffles
only, and the parameter % sand and fines measures excess sediment deposition throughout the
reach, including pools. Keeping in mind the implications of the use of the single habitat protocol
to sample the benthic community, we still believe the data indicate most of the difference in the
biological condition of these streams can be explained by water quality.
54
-------
8.0 CUMULATIVE SITES AND SEDIMENT CONTROL STRUCTURE
This study considered three objectives. This study only provides limited data to address the
second and third objectives. Our findings on these objectives are summarized below, but should
be treated with caution since they are based on limited data.
Objective 2. Characterize conditions and describe any cumulative impacts that can be detected
in streams downstream of multiple fills.
We used the WVDEP SCI scores to determine overall differences in biological condition
upstream and downstream of four MTM/VF operations (table 18). A monitoring site was
established as the upstream control, and a site was established as the downstream control. This
was a difficult objective to explore. In three of the cases (Mud River, Spruce Fork, and Island
Creek), there were potential stressors upstream of the upstream control site and in between the
upstream and downstream control sites not related to the MTM/VF operations of interest. The
upstream control sites in the Mud River and in Spruce Fork were impaired and the upstream
control site in Cow Creek was not impaired. In one watershed (Clear Fork), this objective could
not even be explored because several of the headwater streams in the watershed had been filled
by the MTM/VF operation. The only substantial differences between the upstream and
downstream sites was observed in Cow Creek (Island Creek Watershed). Conditions were much
worse at the downstream site compared to the upstream site. The observed impairment could be
caused by several stressors, including mining and residential land use.
Two of the watersheds are larger watersheds and the monitoring sites were located to compare
conditions upstream and downstream of multiple fills. In the case of Mud River, site MT01 was
established upstream of the MTM/VF operations and site MT23 was located downstream of
these operations. Biological conditions degraded very slightly from upstream to downstream in
the spring 1999 dataset. The upstream site on the Mud River could not be sampled in the
summer of 1999 due to the drought. In the fall 1999, winter 2000, and spring 2000 datasets, the
conditions improved from upstream to downstream. The difference observed in the fall 1999
dataset is the only difference that appears to be significant.
In the case of Spruce Fork, site MT40 was established upstream of the MTM/VF operations and
site MT48 was established downstream of the operations. Biological conditions improved from
upstream to downstream in the spring!999, summer 1999, fall 1999, and winter 2000 datasets.
Conditions degraded from upstream to downstream in the spring 2000 dataset.. The difference
observed in the spring 1999 dataset is the only difference that appears to be significant.
In both the Mud River and Spruce Fork watersheds, there are stressors other than mining in the
reach between the sampling locations (residences and roads). In both watersheds, there are a few
unmined tributaries that contribute flow to the watershed between the sampling locations.
55
-------
Table 18. Summary of Biological Condition at Upstream and Downstream Control Sites
Season
SCI Score and
Condition Class at
Upstream Station
SCI Score and
Condition Class at
Downstream Station
Change in SCI Score
from Upstream to
Downstream
Mud River Watershed
Spnng 1999
Summer 1999
Fall 1999
Winter 2000
Spnng 2000
MT01
49
fair
N/A
34
poor
45
poor
37
poor
MT23
45
fair
58
fair
68
fair
53
fair
42
fair
-4
N/A
+34
+8
+5
Spruce Fork Watershed
Spnng 1999
Summer 1999
Fall 1999
Winter 2000
Spnng 2000
MT40
38
poor
49
fair
53
fair
29
poor
43
poor
MT48
57
fair
59
fair
63
fair
35
poor
35
poor
+19
+10
+10
+6
-7
56
-------
Table 18. Summary of Biological Condition at Upstream and Downstream Control Sites
Season
SCI Score and
Condition Class at
Upstream Station
SCI Score and
Condition Class at
Downstream Station
Change in SCI Score
from Upstream to
Downstream
Twentymile Creek Watershed
Spnng 1999
Summer 1999
Fall 1999
Winter 2000
Spnng 2000
MT91
73
good
67
fair
77
good
78
good
85
very good
MT86
81
good
58
fair
77
good
74
good
77
good
+8
-10
no change
-4
-8
Island Creek Watershed
Spring 1999
Summer 1999
Fall 1999
Winter 2000
Spring 2000
MT52
82
very good
63
fair
71
good
86
very good
88
very good
MT55
27
poor
53
fair
34
poor
23
very poor
40
poor
-55
-10
-37
-63
-48
N/A: not applicable. The upstream site could not be sampled due to the drought.
Two of the watersheds are smaller watersheds and sites were located to compare conditions
upstream and downstream of the fills. In Rader Fork (Twentymile Creek watershed), site MT91
was established upstream of the operations and MT86 was established downstream of the
operations. Biological conditions improved slightly from upstream to downstream in the spring
of 1999. In the summer 1999, winter 2000 and spring 2000 datasets, conditions degraded
slightly from upstream to downstream. There was no change in the stream condition index in
the fall of 1999. None of these differences appear to be substantial. Rader Fork has no
residences and there is mine drainage treatment on two of the fills influencing the stream.
57
-------
In Cow Creek (Island Creek watershed), site MT52 was established upstream of the MTM/VF
operations, and MT55 was established downstream of the operations. There is one very small
fill upstream of site MT52, but it was built to face up the entrance to an underground mine and is
not a typical valley fill. Biological conditions degraded from upstream to downstream in every
season. Except for the difference observed in the summer 1999 dataset, these differences are
substantial. There are several residences between the upstream and downstream sites in this
reach. The impairment observed at site MT55 could be due to several stressors, including
mining and residential land use.
In both Cow Creek and Rader Fork, there are no unmined tributaries that contribute flow to the
watersheds between the sampling locations.
This objective could not be explored in the Clear Fork watershed as Toney Fork had several
valley fills in its headwaters, and there was no "upstream" control.
Objective 3. Characterize conditions in sediment control structures (ditches) on MTM/VF
operations.
We considered several sediment control structures as candidate monitoring sites. However,
many of the sites were not reconstructed streams, but ponds or dry ditches filled with boulder-
sized rip-rap. Only one sediment control structure was identified as having flowing water and
could be sampled. Since only one such site was sampled, this study provides only limited
information to characterize conditions in sediment control structures on MTM/VF operations.
Site MT24, located in a sediment control ditch on a surface mine, was more degraded than any
site sampled in the study. The SCI score at this site was in the poor or very poor range over all
five seasons. The entire drainage area of this site has been disturbed by mining, and the ditch
does not represent natural stream habitat. This was also the only site in the study where we
observed an exceedance of a water quality criterion. In the summer 1999 index period, we
measured a dissolved oxygen concentration of 3.6 mg/1, which was less than the required
minimum of 5 mg/1.
58
-------
9.0 REFERENCES
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, G.E. Griffith. R. Frydenborg, E. McCarron, J.S. White, and M.L.
Bastian. 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic
macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 15(2):185-211.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish,
Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water;
Washington, D.C.
Climate Prediction Center, CPC (2000) Index for Series of Maps [WWW]
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/regional_monitoring/palmer/
(September 13, 2000).
Dieterich, M. and N.H. Anderson. 2000. The invertebrate fauna of summer-dry streams in
western Oregon. Arch. Hydrobiologie. 147:273-295.
Farndon, J. 1994. Dictionary of the Earth. Dorling Kindersley Publishing, Inc. New York, NY.
Fedorko, N. And M. Blake. 1998. A Geologic Overview of Mountaintop Removal Mining in
West Virginia. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey.
Feminella, J.W. 1996. Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in small streams
along a gradient of flow permanence. J. N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 15(4):651-659.
Fetter, C.W. 1988. Applied Hydrology, second edition. Merrill Publishing Company.
Columbus, Ohio.
Gerritsen, J., J. Burton, and M.T. Barbour. 2000. A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia
Wadeable Streams. Tetra Tech, Inc. Owings Mills, MD.
Green, J. and M. Passmore. 1999a. Field Survey Report: An Estimate of Perennial Stream
Miles in the Area of the Proposed Independence Mining Company, Constitution Mine.
February 1999. USEPA, Wheeling, WV.
Green, J. and M. Passmore. 1999b. Field Survey Report: An Estimate of Perennial Stream
Miles in the Area of the 1997 Proposed Hobet Mining Spruce No. 1. Mine (West Virginia
Surface Mine Application #5013-97). July 1999. USEPA, Wheeling, WV.
Green, J. and M. Passmore. 2000. A Review of Potesta and Associates, Inc. Supplemental
Quantitative Benthic Macroinvertebrate Studies Implemented in Conjunction with the USEPA
59
-------
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact Statement Study Within the Mud River,
Spruce Fork and Island Creek Watersheds. USEPA. Wheeling, WV.
Green, J., M. Passmore and H. Childers. 1999. Quality Assurance Project Plan: A Survey of the
Condition of Streams in the Primary Region of Mountaintop Removal/Valley Fill Coal Mining.
USEPA. Wheeling, WV.
Hynes, H.B. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto Press. Ontario,
Canada.
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.
Kirchner, R.F. US Army Corps of Engineers, Apple Grove, WV. Personal Communication on
10/19/2000 via telephone and on 107 30/2000 via email.
Kirchner, R.F. and B.C. Kondratieff 2000. Plecoptera of Eastern North America Found Only in
First and Second Order Streams, Including Seeps and Springs. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Apple Gove, WV. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Kirchner, R.F., B. Stout and B. Wallace. 2000. A Survey of Eight Major Aquatic Insect Orders
Associated with Small Headwater Streams Subject to Valley Fills from Mountaintop Mining (in
draft). US Army Corps of Engineers, Apple Grove, WV. Wheeling Jesuit University,
Wheeling, WV. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Krebs, Charles J. 1998. Ecological Methodology 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley Educational
Publishers, Inc. Menlo Park, CA.
Lazorchak, J.M., DJ. Klemm and D.V. Peck (editors). 1998. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program - Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods Manual for Measuring
the Ecological Condition of Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-94/004F. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Morse, J.C., B.P. Stark, W.P. McCafferty and KJ. Tennessen. 1997. Southern Appalachia and
other southeastern streams at risk: implications for mayflies, dragonflies, stoneflies and
caddisflies. Pp 17-42, in: G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The
Southeastern Perspective. Special Publication 1, Southeastern Aquatic Research Institute. Lenz
Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 554 p.
Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins (eds.). 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North
America, Third Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. IA. 862 p.
60
-------
National Drought Mitigation Center, NDMC (1998) Drought in the United States, Index for
Series of Maps [WWW] http://enso.unl.edu/ndmc/impacts/us/ (March 21, 2000)
National Drought Mitigation Center, NDMC (1999a) Drought in West Virginia; Links and
Historical Information [WWW] http://enso.unl.edu/ndmc/impacts/us/westvirginia.htm (January
18,2000)
National Drought Mitigation Center, NDMC (1999b) Drought in the United States, Index for
Series of Maps [WWW] http://enso.unl.edu/ndmc/impacts/us/ (March 21, 2000)
National Drought Mitigation Center, NDMC (2000) Drought in the United States, Index for
Series of Maps [WWW] http://enso.unl.edu/ndmc/impacts/us/ (September 11, 2000).
NWS Charleston, WV (2000) Latest (Final?) Drought Statement [WWW]
http://tgsv5.nes.noaa.gov/er/rlx/2000events/drought011200.html (January 18, 2000)
Peckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, and D.J. Conklin. 1990. Freshwater
Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Cornell University Press. NY. 442 p.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States: Protozoa to Mollusca,
Third Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. NY. 628 p.
Potesta and Associates, Inc. 2000. Supplemental Quantitative Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Studies Implemented in Conjunction with the USEPA Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill
Environmental Impact Statement Study Within the Mud River, Spruce Fork and Island Creek
Watersheds. Charleston, WV.
Stewart, K.W. and B.P. Stark. 1993. Nymphs of North American Stonefly Genera (Plecoptera).
University of North Texas Press. TX. 460 p.
Stribling, J.B., B.K. Jessup, J.S. White, D. Boward and M. Kurd. 1998. Development of a
Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Maryland Streams. CBWP-MANTA-EA-98-3. Maryland
Department of Natural Resources; Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division; Annapolis,
MD.
United State Geological Survey, USGS (1998) National Water Conditions [WWW]
http://water.usgs.gov/nwc/NWC/htm^ack_issues/wy98/TOC.html (January 18, 2000)
United State Geological Survey, USGS (1999) National Water Conditions [WWW]
http://water.usgs.gov/nwc/NWC/htm^ack_issues/wy99/TOC.html (January 18, 2000)
United States Geological Survey, USGS (2000) National Water Conditions [WWW]
http://water.usgs.gov/nwc/NWC/html/back_issues/wyOO/TOC.html (September 11, 2000).
61
-------
U.S. Drought Monitor (2000) Index for Series of Maps
[WWW] http://enso.unl.edu/monitor/archive/2000 (September 13, 2000).
Voshell, J.R. and E.P. Smith. 1997. Studies of Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish in Streams
Within EPA Region 3 for Development of Biological Indicators of Ecological Condition. Part I
Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University. Blacksburg,
VA.
Wallace, J.B., J.W. Grubaugh, and M.R. Wiles. 1996. Biotic indices and stream ecosystem
processes: results from an experimental study. Ecological Applications. 6(1): 140-151.
Ward, J.V. 1992. Aquatic Insect Ecology. 1. Biology and Habitat. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
New York.
Westfall, M.J., and M.L. May. 1996. Damselflies of North America. Scientific Publishers. FL.
650 p.
Wiggins, G.B. 1998. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera), Second
Edition. University of Toronto Press. Canada. 457 p.
Williams, D.D. 1996. Environmental constraints in temporary fresh waters and their
consequences for the insect fauna. J.N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 15(4):634-650.
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.
Yoder, C.O. 1995. Policy issues and management applications of biological criteria. In Davis,
W.S & T.P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource
Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 327-343.
62
-------
APPENDIX 1. SITE ATTRIBUTES
Mud River Watershed
The headwaters of the Mud River rise in Boone County and flow in a northwesterly direction
into Lincoln County. Most of the watershed lies in Lincoln County. The headwaters of the Mud
River watershed do not lie in the primary mountaintop mining area as described by the West
Virginia Geological and Economic Survey (figure 1). In this watershed, the area of concern is a
strip of land approximately five miles wide that runs perpendicular to the watershed and
straddles the Boone and Lincoln County line. The remaining downstream watershed is out of the
area of concern.
From the headwaters to the northwestern boundary of the primary mountaintop mining area, the
watershed lies in the Cumberland Mountains of the Central Appalachian Plateau (subecoregion
69d) (Woods et al 1999) (figure 2). Woods et al describe the physiography as being unglaciated,
dissected hills and mountains with steep slopes and very narrow ridge tops. The geology is
described as being Pennsylvania sandstone, siltstone, shale, and coal of the Pottsville Group and
Allegheny Formation. 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.
The remainder of the watershed lies in the Monongahela Transition Zone of the Western
Allegheny Plateau (subecoregion 70b). The Monongahela Transition Zone is outside the primary
area of mountaintop mining. However it is mined and there are fills associated with this mining.
This area is unglaciated with more rounded hills, knobs, and ridges compared to the dissected
hills and mountains with steep slopes and very narrow ridge tops found in the Central
Appalachian Plateau (Woods et al 1999). Land slips do occur in the Monongahela Transition
Zone. The geology is Permian and Pennsylvanian interbedded sandstone, shale, limestone and
coal of the Monongahela Group and less typically the Waynesboro Formation. The primary land
use is forest with some urban, suburban, and industrial activity in the valleys. There is also coal
mining and general farming in this region.
Site MT01 was established on the Mud River (see figure 3). The county road and residences are
the major disturbances in this part of the watershed. The Mud River watershed from its
headwaters to site MT01 has seen very little mining activity. One small area of contour surface
mining and some drift punch mining have taken place in Bearcamp Branch. Based on the USGS
topographic map, the estimated area disturbed by mining is 16 acres, or about 0.8 percent of the
watershed area upstream of site MT01. In addition, this mining occurred sometime prior to
1962. This site served as the upstream cumulative control for the Hobet MTM/VF complex.
Site MT01 was classified as mined/residential. This site was not used in the final analysis of the
classes since it has both historical mining and residences upstream.
Site MT02 was established on Rushpatch Branch upstream of all residences and a small farm.
There is no history of mining in this watershed. There is evidence of logging and gas well
63
-------
development. This site was classified as unmined.
Site MT03 was established on Lukey Fork. This site was classified as an unmined site and
logging is the only known disturbance that has occurred upstream of this site. This site was
established well above the mouth of Lukey Fork because three valley fills were being
constructed on the lowest three unnamed tributaries on the West side of Lukey Fork. In addition,
a gas transmission line was relocated through the lower part of the watershed. These activities
are related to the active Westridge Mine.
Site MT13 was established on the Spring Branch of Ballard Fork. Site MT13 was classified as
unmined, and there is little evidence of human disturbance in the watershed, with the exception
of historical logging activity.
The entire north side of Ballard Fork has been mined. There are ten fills on the north side of the
watershed. The south side has not been mined. Site MT14 was established on Ballard Fork
downstream of eight fills. Three permits were issued for this mining in 1985, 1988, and 1989.
Mountaintop mining has occurred on all of the ridges in the Stanley Fork watershed. There are a
total of six fills within the Stanley Fork drainage. Both upper fills are large, with one fill on an
unnamed tributary being about 1.3 miles long. Site MT15 was established on Stanley Fork
downstream of all six fills. These mining permits were issued in 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, and
1995.
A sediment control structure on top of the mining operation was also sampled (site MT24). This
structure is associated with the 1.3 mile-long fill on the unnamed tributary to Stanley Fork. The
structure is a series of wetland cells with flowing water in between the cells. This stream is
located at the interface of the valley fill and overburden and is directly on the pavement of the
lowest coal seam mined. This site was not used in the final analysis of the classes since it does
not represent natural stream habitat. This site was classified as a sediment control structure.
Two valley fills are located in the Sugartree Branch watershed. One fill is small, but the other
one is about one mile long. Site MT18 was established downstream of both of these fills. The
mining permits were issued in 1992 and 1995.
Site MT23 was established on the Mud River downstream of the entire Hobet complex. Mining
activity upstream includes both active and inactive surface mines and one active underground
mine. This site was used as the cumulative downstream site for the Mud River Watershed. This
site was established downstream of a total of 26 completed or under construction fills. This site
was classified as filled/residential.
In the spring of 2000, another site was added in the Mud River Watershed. This site (MT106)
was established on an unnamed tributary to Sugartree Branch and has historical surface mining
but no valley fills in its watershed. This site was classified as mined.
64
-------
Spruce Fork Watershed
The Spruce Fork watershed drains portions of Boone and Logan Counties. The stream flows in a
northerly direction to the town of Madison where it joins Pond Fork to form the Little Coal
River. About 85 to 90 percent of the watershed resides in the primary mountaintop mining
region (figure 1). Only the northwest corner lies outside this region. The entire watershed lies
within subecoregion 69d (Cumberland Mountains) (figure 2). The watershed has been the
location of surface and underground mining activity for many years, and numerous
subwatersheds have been disturbed.
Site MT39 was established on White Oak Branch (figure 4). White Oak Branch is a tributary
with no surface mining, entering Spruce Fork from the east, not far downstream of the former
Kelly Mine. This site was classified as unmined.
Site MT40 was established on Spruce Fork and served as the upstream control for the bulk of the
Daltex MTM/VF operations. The watershed above this point is anything but pristine. Again,
mining has been an ongoing activity for many years. Based on the information available
(Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Analysis (CHIA) maps, topographic maps, and personnel
knowledge), there are seven surface mine valley fills and three fills associated with refuse
disposal located upstream of this sampling point. This site was classified as filled/residential.
Oldhouse Branch enters Spruce Fork in the town of Blair, from the east. Site MT42 was
established on this tributary, well upstream of any residences. This tributary has no known
history of surface mining and was classified as unmined.
Pigeonroost Branch is the next downstream tributary to Spruce Fork and enters the river from the
east. Site MT45 was established on Pigeonroost Branch, well upstream of any residences. Some
contour mining has occurred in the headwaters of this watershed. Based on permit information
and topographic maps, this mining was done sometime between 1987 and 1989. Approximately
75 acres, or about 6.7 percent of the watershed, were disturbed. This site was classified as
mined.
Site MT32 was established on Beech Creek downstream of five valley fills. Beech Creek enters
Spruce Fork from the west. The watershed upstream of this site has been extensively mined over
the years. Contour mining occurred prior to 1963 and has continued until the recent past.
Mountaintop mining began in the late 1980s. Underground mining activity has also occurred in
the watershed. This site was classified as filled.
MT34B was established on the Left Fork of Beech Creek. This watershed has also been
extensively mined over the years by both underground and surface mining methods. There is
evidence of contour mining prior to 1963 and continuing through 1989. It appears mountaintop
mining began in the late 1980s and continued into 1999. Reclamation is still active in the
watershed. Based on the information available, we estimate that greater than 80 percent of the
watershed has been disturbed by mining activities. This site was classified as filled.
65
-------
Site MT48 was established on Spruce Fork downstream of all the Daltex operations except for
those activities on Rockhouse Creek. This site was used as a cumulative downstream site for
Spruce Fork. To the best of our knowledge, we believe there are 22 valley fills upstream of this
site. There are several small communities upstream of this site including Blair, Spruce Valley,
Five Block, and Sharpies. This site was classified as filled/residential.
Site MT25B was established on Rockhouse Creek below the sediment pond of a large valley fill.
Over the years, greater than 90 percent of the watershed has been disturbed by mining activities.
The valley floor was mined and some contour mining was done prior to 1963. The mountaintop
mining permit for this watershed was issued in 1986. This mining impacted nearly the entire
watershed above the sampling site, including the older mine workings. The mainstem of
Rockhouse Creek has a low U-shaped fill. The side tributaries are more typical with the fills
extending up to the pavement of the lowest coal seam mined. This site was classified as filled.
Clear Fork Watershed
Clear Fork flows in a northwesterly direction to its confluence with Marsh Fork where they form
the Big Coal River near Whitesville. The entire watershed lies within Raleigh County. All but a
tiny part of the watershed is within the primary mountaintop mining area and is within
subecoregion 69d (Cumberland Mountains) (figures 1 and 2). The coal mining industry has
been active in this watershed for many years. Both surface and underground mining have
occurred in the past and continue today. Two sub watersheds, Sycamore Creek and Toney Fork,
were sampled as part of this survey.
There are no unmined sites in Clear Fork. Site MT79 was established on Davis Fork, a tributary
to Sycamore Creek (see figure 5). Site MT79 was initially classified as unmined, but further
investigation revealed mining activity in the headwaters. This site was classified as mined.
Site MT78 was established on Raines Fork, also a tributary to Sycamore Creek. This watershed
has been subjected to shoot and shove contour surface mining prior to 1965. The term "shoot
and shove" applies to pre-law mining practices. This practice was primarily narrow bench
contour mining where the spoil material was handled by shoving it over the side of the hill.
There was little or no reclamation associated with this practice. Approximately 20 percent of
this watershed has been disturbed in the past. There is evidence that the ridge tops have also
been underground mined. This site was classified as mined.
Site MT81 was established on Sycamore Creek upstream of the confluence with Lem Fork. Part
of the watershed upstream of this site has been contour mined using the old shoot and shove
method. About 12 percent of the watershed was impacted by contour mining prior to 1965.
Underground mining has also occurred in the ridge tops. A treatment plant for permit # U-3024
is located on the valley floor above MT81. The effluent from the mine is piped from the ridge
top to the treatment plant. The plant treats the effluent with sodium hydroxide in order increase
the pH and remove metals. On our field visits to the stream, we did not see a direct discharge to
the stream. This site was classified as mined.
66
-------
Site MT75 was established on Toney Fork downstream of five valley fills. Mountaintop mining
occurred on both sides of the subwatershed upstream of this sampling point. There are numerous
residences upstream of this point, which is unusual for a valley this size. The spring and summer
samples were collected at this site. Site MT70 was later established downstream of site MT75
because of sampling and logistical constraints. The fall 1999, winter 2000 and spring 2000
samples were collected at MT70. MT70 was established about 0.6 miles downstream of MT75,
downstream of one additional valley fill and some additional residences. Both sites were
classified as filled/residential.
Site MT69 was established on Ewing Fork about 0.35 miles above its confluence with Toney
Fork. Some contour mining was done in this watershed prior to 1965. About three percent of
the watershed was disturbed by this activity. There are also indications that underground mining
has occurred in the past. This site was not used in the analysis of the classes since it has both
mining activity and a residence in its headwaters.
Site MT64 was established on Buffalo Fork. Some contour mining has occurred in this
watershed prior to 1965 and prior to mountaintop mining. The mountaintop mining in this
watershed was permitted in 1992 and 1993. There are five valley fills upstream of this site
associated with these permits. Reclamation work is still under way on the south side of the
watershed. There are no residences in the watershed above the sampling point. There is a small
amount of pasture upstream of the sampled site. This site was classified as filled.
Site MT62 was established on Toney Fork and served as the cumulative downstream site for
Toney Fork. MT62 was established downstream of the confluence of Toney Fork and Buffalo
Fork, downstream of all eleven fills in the watershed and numerous residences. There is also a
small amount of pasture in the Buffalo Fork drainage upstream of MT62. This site was
classified as filled/residential.
Twentymile Creek Watershed
Twentymile Creek drains portions of four counties: Clay, Fayette, Kanawha, and Nicholas. It
flows generally 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 mountaintop
mining area, and it all lies within subecoregion 69d (Cumberland Mountains) (figures 1 and 2).
The watershed upstream of Vaughn is uninhabited. Logging, mining, and gas wells are the
primary activities upstream of Vaughn. There has been a limited amount of old mining in the
watershed above Vaughn but the majority of the mining activity is more recent. Downstream of
Vaughn there are numerous residences and some small communities.
Site MT95 was established on Neil Branch, a tributary of Twentymile Creek (figure 6). Neil
Branch is located in the middle of the Twentymile Creek watershed. At the beginning of this
study, we believed that the Neil Branch watershed was entirely forested with no recent logging
or other activities. During the study we heard that some logging was occurring in Neil Branch,
but we have not personally confirmed this. This site was classified as unmined.
67
-------
Site MT91 was established on Rader Fork upstream of Neff Fork and was classified as an
unmined site. There is an active haul road that runs adjacent to this stream. There is
considerable coal truck traffic on this road which is a potential impact to the stream. Alex
Energy Inc. has applied for a surface mine permit which would include the headwaters of Laurel
Run, a tributary to Rader Fork.
Site MT87 was established on Neff Fork. There are three valley fills upstream of this sampling
site, two in the headwaters of the mainstem and one on a tributary entering from the northeast. A
mine drainage treatment plant is in place below the two mainstem fills and uses sodium
hydroxide to increase the pH and remove metals. This site was classified as filled.
Site MT86 was established on Rader Fork about 500 feet upstream of its confluence with
Twentymile Creek. This site was established downstream of both MT87 andMT91. This site
was classified as filled.
Three sampling sites were established on Hughes Fork in the southern portion of Twentymile
Creek watershed. This watershed is unique in that there is only one sediment pond for all fills in
the watershed instead of one for each individual fill. The most upstream site (MT103) was
established downstream of six completed fills. Site MT98, downstream of MT103, was
established downstream of eight fills. One of the eight fills has not been completed. Site
MT104 was established downstream of the large sediment pond which serves all eight fills. All
three sites were classified as filled.
Island Creek Watershed
Island Creek flows in a generally northerly direction to Logan where it enters the Guyandotte
River. The entire watershed is confined to Logan County. All but the northern part of the
watershed lies in the primary mountaintop mining area and the entire watershed is located in
subecoregion 69d (Cumberland Mountains) (figures 1 and 2). Extensive underground mining
has occurred in the watershed for many years. As these reserves have been depleted and
economics have changed, surface mining has taken on a bigger role in the watershed.
Two unmined sites (MT50 and MT51) were initially established in the Island Creek watershed
(figure 7). They were both established on Cabin Branch. This watershed is leased to a hunting
club and access is limited. There is a gas line and jeep trail running adjacent to the stream, and
one gas well at the confluence of Cabin Branch and Jacks Fork. Site MT50 was established in
the headwaters of the mainstem just upstream of the confluence with Jacks Fork and a gas well.
MT51 was established further downstream and nearer the mouth of Cabin Branch. The
watershed area at site MT51 is roughly twice as large as at site MT50.
In the spring of 2000, we added another unmined site in the Island Creek watershed. Site
MT107 was established on Left Fork, upstream of the influence of the fills. We established this
unmined site to provide a closer watershed reference site for the Cow Creek sites. Three valley
fills have been proposed upstream of this site.
68
-------
Site MT52 was established near the headwaters of Cow Creek, upstream of all fills associated
with surface mining. There has been limited disturbance in the headwaters. Approximately 1.3
percent of the watershed was disturbed by an entry for an underground mine. The entry was
faced up and a small fill with a sediment pond was created in the headwaters of Cow Creek.
This site was classified as filled.
A single valley fill resides in the headwaters of Hall Fork of Left Fork. Site MT57B was
initially established directly downstream of the sediment pond for the valley fill. Because of
access and sampling constraints, the site was moved downstream nearer the mouth of Hall Fork
in the fall of 1999. The new location was named site MT57. The spring and summer 1999
samples were collected at MT57B and all subsequent samples were collected at MT57. These
sites were classified as filled.
Site MT60 was established on Left Fork downstream of both of the existing fills. These fills
include the Hall Fork fill and a small fill in an unnamed tributary. Three additional fills are
proposed for the headwaters of this stream. This site was classified as filled.
Site MT55 was established on Cow Creek below its confluence with Left Fork. This site also
served as the cumulative downstream site for Cow Creek. There are four valley fills upstream of
this site associated with mountaintop mining and one associated with the underground mine.
There is also a small community located near the confluence of Cow Creek and Left Fork. The
area disturbed by the surface mining in this watershed has different uses than the typical
reclaimed area. There are residences, a log mill, small orchards and vineyards, beef cattle, and
municipal sewage sludge disposal located on the surface mine. This site was classified as
filled/residential.
69
-------
Monitoring Site Attributes
StationID
MT02
MT03
MT107
MT13
MT39
MT42
MT50
MT51
MT91
MT95
MT103
MT104
MT14
MT15
MT18
MT25B
MT32
MT34B
MT52
MT57
MT57B
MT60
MT64
MT86
MT87
MT98
MT23
MT40
MT48
MT55
MT62
MT70
MT75
MT106
EIS Class
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled/Residences
Filled/Residences
Filled/Residences
Filled/Residences
Filled/Residences
Filled/Residences
Filled/Residences
Mined
Basin
Mud River
Mud River
Island Creek
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Island Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Clear Fork
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Mud River
Order
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
4
4
5
3
3
2
3
2
Watershed Area
(acres)
511
717
382
335
669
447
563
1172
1302
968
1027
2455
1527
1114
479
997
2878
1677
316
288
125
790
758
2201
752
1208
10618
11955
27742
3167
3193
1221
876
327
70
-------
Monitoring Site Attributes
StationID
MT45
MT78
MT79
MT81
MT01
MT69
1UT94
EIS Class
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined/Residences
Mined/Residences
Sediment Control
Sstriirtiirp
Basin
Spruce Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Mud River
Clear Fork
X/Tiirl TJivpr
Order
3
2
2
3
3
2
1
Watershed Area
(acres)
1111
524
448
1258
1897
708
NA
71
-------
Monitoring Site Attributes Continued
StationID
MT02
MT03
MT107
MT13
MT39
MT42
MT50
MT51
MT91
MT95
MT103
MT104
MT14
MT15
MT18
MT25B
MT32
MT34B
MT52
MT57
MT57B
MT60
MT64
MT86
MT87
MT98
StreamName
Rushpatch
Branch
Lukey Fork
Left Fork
Spring
Branch of
Ballard Fork
White Oak
Branch
Oldhouse
Branch
Cabin Branch
Cabin Branch
Rader Fork
Neil Branch
Hughes Fork
Hughes Fork
Ballard Fork
Stanley Fork
Sugartree
Branch
Rockhouse
Creek
Beech Creek
Left Fork of
Beech Creek
Cow Creek
Hall Fork
Hall Fork
Left Fork
Buffalo Fork
Rader Fork
NeffFork
Hughes Fork
Location
approx. 500 ft. upstream of confluence with Mud River
approx 1 mile upstream of confluence with Mud River
approx. 100 m upstream of Hall Fork
approx. 585 feet upstream of confluence with Ballard Fork
approx. 2000 ft. upstream of confluence with Spruce Fork
approx. 2400 ft upstream of confluence with Spruce Fork
approx. 650 ft upstream of confluence with Jack's Fork
approx. 1800 ft upstream of confluence with Copperas Mine Fork
approx. 500 ft. upstream of confluence with NeffFork
approx. 500 ft. upstream of confluence with Twentymile Creek
approx. 2500 ft. upstream of confluence with Jim's Hollow
approx. 1.3 miles upstream of confluence with Bell's Fork.
Downstream of pond on mainstem of Hughes Fork.
approx. 900 ft upstream of confluence with Mud River
approx. 700 ft upstream of confluence with Mud River
approx. 2000 ft. upstream of confluence with Mud River
approx. 1.2 miles upstream of confluence with Spruce Fork,
downstream of pond
approx 1.9 miles upstream of confluence with Spruce Fork
approx 900 ft upstream of confluence with Beech Creek,
downstream of pond.
approx 3 miles upstream of confluence with Left Fork
approx. 500 ft upstream of Left Fork
approx. 3600 ft. upstream of Left Fork. Downstream of pond
effluent
approx. 5000 ft. upstream of confluence with Cow Creek
approx. 4900 ft. upstream of confluence with Toney Fork
approx. 500 ft. upstream of confluence with Twentymile Creek
approx. 800 ft. upstream of confluence with Rader Fork
approx. 200 ft. upstream of confluence with Jim's Hollow
72
-------
Monitoring Site Attributes Continued
StationID
MT23
MT40
MT48
MT55
MT62
MT70
MT75
MT106
MT45
MT78
MT79
MT81
MT01
MT69
MT24
StreamName
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Cow Creek
Toney Fork
Toney Fork
Toney Fork
NNTto
Sugartree
Pigeonroost
Branch
Raines Fork
Davis Fork
Sycamore
Creek
Mud River
Ewing Fork
Stan lev Fork
Location
approx. 1300 ft. downstream of confluence with Connelly Branch,
downstream of MTM
In Blair, directly upstream of confluence with White Trace Branch
approx 5100 ft downstream of confluence with Beech Creek
approx. 1000 ft. downstream of confluence with Left Fork
approx. 300 ft downstream of confluence with Buffalo Fork
upstream of confluence with Ewing Fork
approx 700 ft. downstream of Reeds Branch
upstream of confluence with Sugartree
approx 4500 ft upstream of confluence with Spruce Fork
approx. 400 ft. upstream of confluence with Sycamore Creek
approx. 600 ft. upstream of confluence with Sycamore Creek
approx. 500 ft. upstream of confluence with Lem Fork
approx. 650 ft downstream of confluence with Rushpatch Branch
approx. 2000 ft. upstream of confluence withToney Fork
Stan lev Fork Drainage Sediment Control Structure
73
-------
Monitoring Site Attributes Continued
StationID
MT02
MT03
MT107
MT13
MT39
MT42
MT50
MT51
MT91
MT95
MT103
MT104
MT14
MT15
MT18
MT25B
MT32
MT34B
MT52
MT57
MT57B
MT60
MT64
MT86
MT87
MT98
MT23
MT40
MT48
MT55
MT62
MT70
MT75
MT106
MT45
Latitude
38.050409
38.054968
37.710836
38.067288
37.862890
37.873395
37.844838
37.835209
38.344246
38.297422
38.249313
38.251236
38.072155
38.084996
38.090552
37.933609
37.909185
37.905423
37.709626
37.711111
37.706352
37.715706
37.899344
38.352418
38.344591
38.250588
38.090968
37.874671
37.932826
37.726947
37.909472
37.910552
37.908626
38.094460
37.883155
Longitude
-81.932945
-81.958674
-82.037565
-81.937647
-81.803831
-81.822344
-82.103711
-82.102368
-80.958472
-81.086116
-81.258160
-81.242886
-81.947080
-81.956693
-81.951047
-81.840678
-81.851805
-81.846021
-82.064232
-82.040286
-82.047282
-82.040098
-81.331196
-80.958912
-80.955857
-81.251563
-81.971783
-81.832148
-81.823662
-82.029593
-81.337667
-81.325875
-81.315588
-81.951610
-81.811142
USGS Quad
Mud
Mud
Barnabus
Mud
Amherstdale
Amherstdale
Hoi den
Hoi den
Gilboa
Lockwood
Mammoth
B entree
Mud
Mud
Mud
Clothier
Clothier
Clothier
Barnabus
Barnabus
Barnabus
Barnabus
Pax
Gilboa
Gilboa
Mammoth
Mud
Clothier
Clothier
Barnabus
Pax
Pax
Pax
Mud
Clothier
County
Boone
Boone
Logan
Boone
Logan
Logan
Logan
Logan
Nicholas
Nicholas
Kanawha
Kanawha
Boone
Boone
Boone
Logan
Logan
Logan
Logan
Logan
Logan
Logan
Raleigh
Nicholas
Nicholas
Kanawha
Lincoln
Logan
Logan
Logan
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Boone
Logan
74
-------
Monitoring Site Attributes Continued
StationID
MT78
MT79
MT81
MT01
MT69
MT24
Latitude
37.919763
37.915166
37.907029
38.053931
37.913970
38083213
Longitude
-81.407243
-81.402750
-81.403113
-81.936138
-81.324878
-81 934656
USGS Quad
Dorothy
Dorothy
Dorothy
Mud
Pax
Mud
County
Raleigh
Raleigh
Raleigh
Boone
Raleigh
Boone
75
-------
APPENDIX 2. BENTHIC METRICS
Please contact the authors for electronic files of the taxonomic data.
76
-------
Benthic Metrics - Spring 1999
StationID
MT02
MT03
MT13
MT39
MT42
MT50
MT51
MT91
MT95
MT14
MT15
MT18
MT25B
MT32
MT34B
MT52
MT57B
MT60
MT64
MT86
MT87
MT98
MT103
MT104
MT23
MT40
MT48
MT55
MT62
MT75
MT45
MT78
MT79
MT81
MT01
EIS CLass
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled/Reside
ntial
Filled/Reside
ntial
Filled/Reside
ntial
Filled/Reside
ntial
Filled/Reside
ntial
Filled/Reside
ntial
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined/Resid
ential
CollDate
04/19/99
04/19/99
04/20/99
04/22/99
04/22/99
04/26/99
04/26/99
05/05/99
05/05/99
04/20/99
04/20/99
04/20/99
04/21/99
04/21/99
04/21/99
04/26/99
04/27/99
04/27/99
04/28/99
05/05/99
05/05/99
05/06/99
05/06/99
05/06/99
04/20/99
04/22/99
04/22/99
04/26/99
04/28/99
04/28/99
04/22/99
04/29/99
04/29/99
04/29/99
04/19/99
BenSamp
ID
04199902
04199903
04209901
04229901
04229907
04269901
04269902
05059904
05059905
04209902
04209903
04209908
04219901
04219902
04219903
04269903
04279901
04279902
04289902
05059901
05059903
05069901
05069903
05069904
04209909
04229906
04229909
04269905
04289901
04289908
04229908
04299901
04299902
04299906
04199901
Tot
Taxa
25
21
21
22
21
25
16
12
22
13
9
10
19
15
13
20
13
23
18
13
19
13
16
14
14
15
18
14
13
10
20
7
24
18
19
EPT
%
40.71
55.22
70.15
75.95
80.92
70.76
84.86
60.61
65.59
53.04
22.02
32.46
44.10
28.96
57.61
67.35
15.98
59.86
50.94
85.51
78.03
85.71
57.93
17.48
20.96
10.32
20.77
6.11
14.75
38.01
82.65
9.76
58.40
58.88
43.44
Chiro
%
47.27
34.33
19.39
8.33
9.25
12.53
6.25
16.16
30.00
36.82
63.30
25.22
51.74
16.59
26.63
7.22
52.51
22.80
36.60
5.80
14.97
9.74
31.74
31.47
42.78
53.33
28.27
77.54
48.20
52.04
8.24
2.44
29.51
28.97
45.48
EPT
Tax
13
12
13
16
13
17
11
7
17
6
4
o
6
9
6
4
11
6
16
8
10
13
8
9
6
7
6
9
7
6
o
6
12
4
16
11
10
2Dom
%
56.83
50.25
38.01
53.81
29.48
48.04
57.93
46.46
44.71
80.07
77.98
59.42
78.95
58.78
77.72
47.77
66.67
41.81
63.77
62.32
61.46
55.19
62.22
60.84
69.97
69.25
60.77
85.98
71.15
72.40
43.82
92.68
47.10
45.79
78.73
HBI
4.97
4.48
3.15
3.15
3.46
3.42
2.99
4.56
4.36
4.37
5.89
5.19
4.82
5.02
4.27
3.96
5.64
4.73
4.63
4.14
3.53
3.47
4.18
5.51
5.71
6.42
5.55
6.78
5.85
5.54
3.35
7.29
4.36
3.95
5.80
WVSCI
R100
70.40
75.95
86.27
86.97
94.88
85.39
81.35
72.66
84.28
54.92
39.15
50.09
48.23
55.87
56.43
81.84
45.30
80.23
61.76
80.85
79.59
77.90
62.63
53.09
44.91
38.14
57.08
26.83
41.33
44.83
86.49
38.49
82.40
82.25
49.09
Ephem
%
19.67
31.84
31.89
56.43
38.73
44.13
45.67
42.42
26.18
4.73
0.00
0.00
2.95
5.24
0.00
25.09
0.46
23.04
0.38
62.32
12.74
14.29
2.77
0.70
0.00
2.80
14.81
2.79
0.66
0.00
44.47
1.22
18.21
21.50
40.05
Ephem
Tax
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
3
5
2
0
0
3
1
0
4
1
3
1
3
3
1
1
1
0
4
4
4
2
0
5
1
5
4
6
77
-------
Benthic Metrics - Spring 1999
StationID
MT69
MT24
EIS CLass
Mined/Resid
ential
Sediment
Control
Structure
CollDate
04/28/99
04/20/99
BenSamp
ID
04289903
04209910
Tot
Taxa
16
9
EPT
%
46.80
1.07
Chiro
%
36.70
75.73
EPT
Tax
10
1
2Dom
%
63.30
83.20
HBI
4.66
6.96
WVSCI
R100
62.61
23.48
Ephem
%
2.89
0.00
Ephem
Tax
2
0
78
-------
Benthic Metrics - Summer 1999
StationID
MT42
MT91
MT14
MT15
MT18
MT52
MT60
MT57B
MT34B
MT32
MT25B
MT64
MT86
MT87
MT98
MT103
MT104
MT23
MT48
MT40
MT55
MT62
MT75
MT45
MT79
MT69
MT24
EIS CLass
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled/Resid
ential
Filled/Resid
ential
Filled/Resid
ential
Filled/Resid
ential
Filled/Resid
ential
Filled/Resid
ential
Mined
Mined
Mined/Re si
dential
Sediment
Control
Structure
CollDate
7/29/99
8/11/99
7/26/99
7/27/99
7/27/99
7/28/99
7/28/99
7/28/99
7/29/99
7/29/99
7/29/99
8/10/99
8/11/99
8/11/99
8/12/99
8/12/99
8/12/99
7/27/99
7/27/99
7/27/99
7/28/99
8/10/99
8/10/99
7/29/99
8/9/99
8/10/99
7/27/99
BenSamp
ID
07299912
08119904
07269901
07279901
07279909
07289901
07289904
07289905
07299901
07299902
07299903
08109909
08119901
08119903
08129901
08129903
08129904
07279910
07279912
07279914
07289902
08109901
08109911
07299911
08099901
08109910
07279911
Tot
Taxa
16
17
15
13
10
16
15
18
14
17
15
13
11
13
10
11
12
13
16
14
12
15
11
19
18
15
12
EPT
%
48.26
45.79
46.81
79.72
68.71
57.88
52.59
29.85
22.50
27.51
66.10
56.92
60.19
77.23
68.82
56.35
33.33
33.12
51.41
28.29
21.89
18.89
30.88
62.91
65.29
61.86
1.52
Chiro
%
5.81
8.41
3.19
2.10
6.80
2 12
17.24
23.13
23.33
1.51
20.34
9.88
25.93
11.88
9.41
24.31
37.76
27.27
11.44
40.44
17.60
39.56
50.53
5.09
14.12
8.47
82.68
EPT
Tax
9
9
3
2
2
7
6
6
3
6
6
5
4
5
5
6
4
5
6
6
4
4
3
8
9
4
3
2Dom
%
37.79
67.76
67.02
79.72
68.71
69.39
53.45
44.78
38.33
78.71
81.60
69.57
70.37
82.18
68.82
53.04
68.37
56.49
72.01
64.54
59.66
73.22
80.00
42.18
62.35
67.37
89.39
HBI
4.28
4.90
5.07
4.57
4.89
4.76
4.84
5.08
5.78
4.85
5.48
4.61
4.89
4.97
4.86
3.99
5.84
5.15
4.66
5.86
5.54
5.74
5.94
3.95
4.67
5.20
6.98
WVSCI
R100
78.59
67.27
62.99
62.04
59.58
63.08
69.30
65.91
59.78
48.58
54.72
60.70
58.45
64.16
61.98
65.77
46.82
57.90
59.38
48.92
52.76
41.02
40.13
80.77
70.41
61.73
21.57
Ephem
%
19.77
3.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
1.72
0.75
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.35
1.10
0.68
0.00
1.94
4.78
3.86
0.11
0.00
21.09
0.00
0.00
0.43
Ephem
Tax
3
3.00
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
o
5
o
3
i
0
o
J
0
0
1
79
-------
Benthic Metrics - Fall 1999
StationID
MT91
MT95
MT18
MT15
MT14
MT25B
MT32
MT60
MT57
MT52
MT64
MT86
MT87
MT98
MT103
MT104
MT23
MT40
MT55
MT48
MT62
MT70
MT45
MT01
MT69
MT24
EIS CLass
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled/Resid
ential
Filled/Resid
ential
Filled/Resid
ential
Filled/Resid
ential
Filled/Resid
ential
Filled/Resid
ential
Mined
Mined/Re si
dential
Mined/Re si
dential
Sediment
Control
Structure
CollDate
1 1/3/99
1 1/3/99
10/25/99
10/26/99
10/26/99
10/27/99
10/27/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
11/2/99
11/3/99
11/3/99
11/4/99
11/4/99
11/4/99
10/25/99
10/27/99
10/28/99
10/29/99
1 1/2/99
1 1/2/99
10/27/99
10/26/99
1 1/2/99
10/26/99
BenSampID
11039910
11039911
10259902
10269901
10269909
10279902
10279910
10289901
10289902
10289904
11029903
11039901
11039902
11049901
11049902
11049903
10259901
10279911
10289903
10299901
11029901
11029906
10279901
10269910
11029905
10269911
Tot
Tax
18
4
17
12
7
15
14
17
15
16
17
11
11
12
14
11
13
16
11
19
17
13
20
10
13
9
EPT
%
71.88
18.18
35.65
64.08
88.11
56.93
47.50
85.04
89.20
84.14
67.11
72.73
86.57
91.93
83.33
58.58
63.43
25.35
12.50
42.73
49.64
76.32
83.04
12.93
92.13
0.00
Chiro
%
10.71
0.00
35.22
12.68
7.49
33.58
10.19
8.76
4.23
2.76
23.54
12.50
7.46
4.91
11.98
7.10
9.72
49.30
60.29
31.63
16.61
15.13
3.12
70.26
2.30
65.21
EPT
Tax
9
2
5
4
3
8
5
9
8
10
10
7
7
7
8
4
6
9
4
10
6
4
11
4
7
0
2Dom
%
54.91
90.91
55.22
50.70
83.26
54.01
60.79
72.63
84.74
79.08
67.88
53.41
59.70
67.37
57.81
59.76
51.85
63.38
80.64
52.83
52.08
84.87
53.57
79.74
76.39
87.87
HBI
3.19
6.67
5.19
3.53
1.87
4.47
4.46
2.70
1.85
2.02
4.64
2.90
2.34
2.52
3.29
4.26
4.61
5.74
6.20
4.82
4.32
2.51
2.85
6.06
2.20
6.80
WVSCI
R100
77.09
36.64
58.37
70.28
62.56
69.45
58.29
74.99
69.44
70.99
63.05
76.62
78.34
72.94
74.02
64.35
68.01
52.75
34.20
62.94
61.42
61.11
88.75
33.60
70.18
22.23
Ephem
%
2.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.46
0.23
0.92
0.11
3.41
2.99
1.40
1.30
0.00
0.23
2.35
0.49
4.11
0.27
0.33
7.14
0.86
0.00
0.00
Ephem
Tax
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
0
1
4
1
3
2
1
4
2
0
0
80
-------
Benthic Metrics - Winter 2000
StationID
MT13
MT03
MT02
MT42
MT39
MT51
MT50
MT91
MT95
MT18
MT15
MT14
MT25B
MT32
MT52
MT60
MT57
MT64
MT86
MT87
MT103
MT98
MT104
MT23
MT48
MT40
MT55
MT62
MT70
MT45
MT79
EIS CLass
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled/Reside
ntial
Filled/Reside
ntial
Filled/Reside
ntial
Filled/Reside
ntial
Filled/Reside
ntial
Filled/Reside
ntial
Mined
Mined
CollDate
1/25/00
1/25/00
1/25/00
1/26/00
1/26/00
1/27/00
1/31/00
2/7/00
2/8/00
1/24/00
1/25/00
1/25/00
1/26/00
1/26/00
1/27/00
1/31/00
1/31/00
2/1/00
2/7/00
2/7/00
2/8/00
2/8/00
2/8/00
1/24/00
1/27/00
1/27/00
1/27/00
2/1/00
2/2/00
1/26/00
2/1/00
BenSamp
ID
01250010
01250011
01250018
01260002
01260003
01270004
01310001
02070010
02080005
01240002
01250001
01250009
01260010
01260017
01270006
01310002
01310004
02010009
02070001
02070003
02080001
02080002
02080004
01240001
01270001
01270003
01270005
02010017
02020003
01260001
02010001
Tot
Tax
15
19
23
26
18
13
21
17
19
13
8
12
19
17
20
18
16
17
22
20
13
16
16
16
17
14
9
9
15
21
20
EPT
%
81.82
84.52
58.64
68.63
55.21
87.20
81.46
89.86
67.57
9.88
12.22
61.54
47.55
28.10
77.57
77.19
52.10
32.63
69.72
82.24
54.59
63.83
35.61
30.00
8.18
4.59
10.29
11.84
38.12
76.47
68.69
Chiro
%
4.55
5.36
24.07
18.30
32.42
3.66
11.92
4.93
15.32
56.89
63.33
21.15
50.38
40.70
15.01
17.54
43.70
62.11
25.08
15.35
41.74
29.79
37.12
45.13
72.12
65.65
79.78
78.68
55.48
9.56
27.27
EPT
Tax
10
13
14
17
10
8
14
10
13
3
4
4
12
7
13
13
11
11
14
13
7
10
7
7
8
6
o
6
5
9
12
15
2Dom
%
38.64
31.55
41.36
28.43
57.76
69.51
36.42
78.36
30.63
85.03
81.11
44.23
81.32
63.21
45.34
32.46
72.27
71.58
62.08
58.77
68.81
51.60
66.67
58.72
81.41
86.05
89.52
87.14
84.31
27.21
46.46
HB
I
2.07
2.57
3.67
3.50
4.29
2.80
3.02
2.71
4.06
6.39
6.32
3.92
4.67
5.44
2.92
3.62
4.56
5.50
3.87
3.54
4.10
3.92
5.70
5.68
6.23
6.84
6.60
6.41
5.08
3.15
3.86
WVSCI
R100
91.33
96.45
86.87
91.45
67.80
78.56
95.87
77.62
90.44
32.14
34.90
69.89
50.56
48.66
86.36
92.12
66.93
52.84
73.58
78.46
60.63
72.72
56.83
53.02
35.06
28.97
23.22
28.25
42.40
94.15
81.10
Ephem
%
40.91
41.07
27.16
30.72
12.97
8.54
28.48
15.89
30.63
0.00
0.00
0
0.75
0.00
15.32
11.40
5.88
0.70
18.96
39.04
1.38
2.13
1.52
0.26
1.86
1.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
36.03
12.79
Ephem
Tax
3
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
0
0
2
0
4
3
3
1
4
4
1
3
2
1
2
3
0
0
0
4
4
81
-------
Benthic Metrics - Winter 2000
StationID
MT81
MT01
MT69
MT24
EIS CLass
Mined
Mined/Re sid
ential
Mined/Re sid
ential
Sediment
Cont. Struct.
CollDate
2/1/00
1/24/00
2/2/00
1/25/00
BenSamp
ID
02010002
01240003
02020001
01250019
Tot
Tax
23
9
16
13
EPT
%
67.52
9.68
84.63
0.14
Chiro
%
30.74
38.71
11.07
89.07
EPT
Tax
16
o
J
8
1
2Dom
%
51.68
58.06
77.87
93.75
HB
I
3.75
5.94
2.73
6.96
WVSCI
R100
81.35
45.03
68.34
16.17
Ephem
%
32.62
6.45
0.20
0.14
Ephem
Tax
4
2
1
1
82
-------
Benthic Metrics - Spring 2000
StationID
MT02
MT03
MT13
MT51
MT50
MT39
MT42
MT107
MT95
MT91
MT14
MT15
MT18
MT34B
MT25B
MT60
MT57
MT52
MT32
MT64
MT98
MT103
MT104
MT86
MT87
MT23
MT55
MT62
MT70
MT48
MT40
MT106
MT45
MT78
EIS CLass
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled/Residen
tial
Filled/Residen
tial
Filled/Residen
tial
Filled/Residen
tial
Filled/Residen
tial
Filled/Residen
tial
Mined
Mined
Mined
CollDate
04/17/00
04/18/00
04/18/00
04/24/00
04/24/00
04/25/00
04/25/00
04/26/00
05/03/00
05/04/00
04/18/00
04/18/00
04/18/00
04/25/00
04/25/00
04/26/00
04/26/00
04/26/00
04/27/00
05/02/00
05/03/00
05/03/00
05/03/00
05/04/00
05/04/00
04/19/00
04/26/00
05/02/00
05/02/00
05/10/00
05/10/00
04/18/00
04/25/00
05/01/00
BenSamp
ID
04170001
04180001
04180010
04240001
04240002
04250007
04250008
04260004
05030005
05040010
04180009
04180011
04180018
04250010
04250011
04260001
04260003
04260005
04270001
05020003
05030001
05030003
05030004
05040001
05040003
04190001
04260006
05020001
05020002
05100001
05100002
04180019
04250009
05010001
Tot
Taxa
19
22
20
12
15
20
20
13
18
20
6
5
12
11
14
15
16
15
16
14
16
14
13
18
17
13
13
15
10
11
14
17
17
9
EPT
%
59.72
69.57
69.28
76.92
76.25
64.88
68.10
87.63
58.25
87.38
19.15
3.30
2.00
7.20
52.00
75.00
66.67
70.41
17.51
23.29
65.14
69.25
29.79
83.45
84.70
14.48
26.14
29.07
17.41
7.88
23.49
71.59
54.17
26.11
Chiro
%
23.61
9.94
7.19
15.38
12.50
9.52
18.10
10.22
29.13
5.83
76.60
57.10
34.91
12.49
44.51
6.90
23.81
6.12
38.28
70.50
28.13
24.87
61.28
14.79
10.38
69.66
70.02
55.91
77.41
53.33
37.48
17.05
20.83
71.34
EPT
Tax
11
14
12
8
9
13
13
10
12
14
4
2
4
3
9
8
9
10
9
7
11
10
5
13
11
8
9
8
6
5
8
10
10
7
2Dom
%
40.28
32.92
38.56
46.15
37.50
36.90
35.34
59.68
44.66
52.10
87.23
96.04
93.77
88.47
72.46
62.07
62.70
30.61
64.27
81.68
50.15
45.72
76.60
62.32
48.09
76.55
79.38
69.33
86.67
83.64
72.02
56.82
33.33
85.35
HBI
4.01
3.47
3.73
3.44
3.52
3.51
4.02
2.75
4.59
3.56
6.13
6.45
6.29
5.88
4.96
3.78
3.83
3.66
5.38
5.82
3.73
3.40
5.61
3.84
3.27
6.25
6.11
5.59
6.14
6.86
6.70
3.64
4.40
6.06
WVSCI
R100
85.24
93.10
90.35
79.85
86.42
90.25
90.18
80.48
82.54
84.64
30.94
22.57
29.31
37.60
51.56
77.81
74.39
87.89
48.62
40.01
73.10
75.35
44.59
76.56
87.55
42.33
40.05
48.38
34.05
35.19
43.38
82.76
82.58
39.45
Ephem
%
19.44
32.30
44.44
30.77
46.25
40.48
38.79
24.73
24.27
45.31
2.13
0.00
0.25
0.00
17.80
29.31
12.70
33.67
1.27
0.00
11.31
5.08
4.26
39.08
21.31
2.76
7.67
6.39
2.59
3.64
17.27
5.68
29.17
18.47
Ephem
Tax
4
6
5
4
5
6
4
3
4
4
1
0
1
0
2
2
1
5
2
0
1
1
1
3
2
3
4
1
1
1
3
3
4
3
83
-------
Benthic Metrics - Spring 2000
StationID
MT79
MT81
MT01
MT69
MT24
EIS CLass
Mined
Mined
Mined/Reside
ntial
Mined/Reside
ntial
Sediment
Cont. Struct.
CollDate
05/01/00
05/01/00
04/17/00
05/02/00
04/19/00
BenSamp
ID
05010002
05010003
04170002
05020005
04190003
Tot
Taxa
17
21
11
16
11
EPT
%
65.28
54.17
15.79
43.71
1.49
Chiro
%
31.94
39.35
73.03
39.94
60.89
EPT
Tax
13
14
6
9
2
2Dom
%
52.78
54.17
81.58
68.87
91.97
HBI
4.07
4.65
6.35
4.77
6.67
WVSCI
R100
80.07
77.00
37.10
59.34
24.41
Ephem
%
8.33
35.19
12.5
2.52
1.15
Ephem
Tax
3
5.00
4.00
1
1
84
-------
APPENDIX 3. FIELD CHEMICAL/PHYSICAL, PHYSICAL HABITAT AND
SUBSTRATE SIZE DATA
85
-------
Field Chemistry - Spring 1999
StationID
MT02
MT03
MT13
MT39
MT42
MT50
MT51
MT91
MT95
MT103
MT104
MT14
MT15
MT18
MT25B
MT32
MT34B
MT52
MT57B
MT60
MT64
MT86
MT87
MT98
MT23
MT40
MT48
MT55
MT62
MT75
MT45
MT78
MT79
MT81
MT01
MT69
MT24
Basin
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Island Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Clear Fork
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Spruce Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Mud River
Clear Fork
Mud River
EIS Class
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined & Residences
Mined & Residences
Sediment Control Structure
Collection
Date
4/19/99
4/19/99
4/20/99
4/22/99
4/22/99
4/26/99
4/26/99
5/5/99
5/5/99
5/6/99
5/6/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
4/20/99
4/21/99
4/21/99
4/21/99
4/26/99
4/27/99
4/27/99
4/28/99
5/5/99
5/5/99
5/6/99
4/20/99
4/22/99
4/22/99
4/26/99
4/28/99
4/28/99
4/22/99
4/29/99
4/29/99
4/29/99
4/19/99
4/28/99
4/20/99
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
60
49
51
103
74
55
71
73
38
937
731
1201
1970
1854
861
741
2160
256
669
303
984
233
409
873
927
505
633
276
734
836
187
118
293
90
115
729
2510
pH (su)
6.76
6.80
7.73
8.17
8.29
8.21
8.02
6.57
6.91
7.60
7.95
8.10
8.33
8.20
8.14
8.36
8.16
8.16
8.43
8.45
8.37
6.82
6.27
7.47
8.47
7.85
8.05
8.04
8.53
8.60
7.96
8.65
8.62
8.51
6.70
8.54
8.36
Temperature
©
14.7
15.5
9.8
12.5
16.5
12.5
13.8
13.3
13.1
12.6
14.2
11.8
14.6
14.8
10.4
13.0
15.3
11.9
14.1
14.0
12.3
11.2
13.2
12.6
15.3
16.0
19.3
13.5
12.1
11.6
19.4
8.9
9.8
9.2
14.7
12.0
15.1
86
-------
Field Chemistry - Summer 1999
StationID
MT42
MT91
MT103
MT104
MT14
MT15
MT18
MT25B
MT32
MT34B
MT52
MT57B
MT60
MT64
MT86
MT87
MT98
MT23
MT40
MT48
MT55
MT62
MT75
MT45
MT79
MT81
MT69
MT24
Basin
Spruce Fork
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Clear Fork
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Spruce Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Mud River
EIS CLass
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined & Residences
Sediment Control
Structure
Collection
Date
7/29/99
8/11/99
8/12/99
8/12/99
7/26/99
7/27/99
7/27/99
7/29/99
7/29/99
7/29/99
7/28/99
7/28/99
7/28/99
8/10/99
8/1 1/99
8/1 1/99
8/12/99
7/27/99
7/27/99
7/27/99
7/28/99
8/10/99
8/10/99
7/29/99
8/9/99
8/9/99
8/10/99
7/27/99
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
101
178
1054
892
2300
2500
2270
890
1178
1461
850
1293
595
1148
489
530
1025
1532
1023
1067
688
1141
1292
264
618
274
1165
3490
DO
(mg/L)
7.3
5.6
8.5
8.3
7.0
7.9
7.7
5.8
6.7
5.9
7.0
6.5
6.8
9.1
8.5
8.0
8.4
7.3
9.1
8.7
7.4
9.8
8.6
8.7
9.9
7.4
8.5
3.6
pH
(su)
7.01
7.50
7.88
8.15
8.22
7.94
7.64
7.05
8.11
7.43
7.74
7.65
7.88
7.97
6.95
7.27
8.09
7.95
8.66
8.44
8.13
8.17
8.31
7.42
6.85
7.08
7.84
7.51
Temperature
©
24.0
22.7
15.8
22.5
25.4
22.8
23.7
21.7
22.8
23.5
21.5
23.8
20.9
16.6
18.3
19.2
16.3
26.1
26.3
25.0
21.5
15.3
19.0
21.9
18.4
18.2
17.5
26.9
87
-------
Field Chemistry - Fall 1999
StationID
MT91
MT95
MT103
MT104
MT14
MT15
MT18
MT25B
MT32
MT52
MT57
MT60
MT64
MT86
MT87
MT98
MT23
MT40
MT48
MT55
MT62
MT70
MT45
MT01
MT69
MT24
Basin
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Clear Fork
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Spruce Fork
Mud River
Clear Fork
Mud River
EIS CLass
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Mined
Mined & Residences
Mined & Residences
Sediment Control
Structure
Collection
Date
1 1/3/99
11/3/99
11/4/99
11/4/99
10/26/99
10/26/99
10/25/99
10/27/99
10/27/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
1 1/2/99
11/2/99
11/3/99
11/4/99
10/25/99
10/27/99
10/29/99
10/28/99
1 1/2/99
1 1/2/99
10/27/99
10/26/99
11/2/99
10/26/99
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
133
49
1060
940
1437
1764
1565
785
1000
774
618
537
1226
304
420
986
1087
826
1000
629
1223
1141
260
277
1247
2140
DO
(mg/L)
11.7
11.3
11.4
11.4
9.6
10.3
9.3
8.4
10.7
8.1
9.8
10.1
9.4
11.6
11.8
11.8
9.3
9.8
10.4
10.6
9.0
9.5
10.4
9.0
8.9
9.0
pH
(su)
7.36
7.65
7.00
7.75
7.44
7.78
7.30
7.60
8.22
7.91
7.00
7.00
7.64
7.13
6.79
7.53
7.16
7.63
7.38
7.37
8.06
6.73
8.13
8.03
7.99
Temperature
©
8.5
9.1
4.8
8.3
7.7
7.1
10.7
11.1
9.3
11.9
8.5
7.2
13.9
8.4
7.9
4.8
10.5
15.1
8.0
8.0
13.7
15.0
6.3
12.1
15.8
9.8
88
-------
Field Chemistry - Winter 2000
StationID
MT02
MT03
MT13
MT39
MT42
MT50
MT51
MT91
MT95
MT103
MT104
MT14
MT15
MT18
MT25B
MT32
MT52
MT57
MT60
MT64
MT86
MT87
MT98
MT23
MT40
MT48
MT55
MT62
MT70
MT45
MT79
MT81
MT01
MT69
MT24
Basin
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Island Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Clear Fork
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Spruce Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Mud River
Clear Fork
Mud River
EIS CLass
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined & Residences
Mined & Residences
Sediment Control
Structure
Collection
Date
1/25/00
1/25/00
1/25/00
1/26/00
1/26/00
1/31/00
1/27/00
2/7/00
2/8/00
2/8/00
2/8/00
1/25/00
1/25/00
1/24/00
1/26/00
1/26/00
1/27/00
1/31/00
1/31/00
2/1/00
2/7/00
2/7/00
2/8/00
1/24/00
1/27/00
1/27/00
1/27/00
2/1/00
2/2/00
1/26/00
2/1/00
2/1/00
1/24/00
2/2/00
1/25/00
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
66
57
58
104
77
50
72
132
40
808
689
1050
1740
1674
827
762
585
504
434
1016
296
535
787
940
727
859
573
899
1066
186
449
128
258
907
2110
DO
(mg/L)
13.3
13.3
13.1
13.4
13.1
13.0
15.2
12.1
13.3
12.7
13.1
14.0
11.7
13.8
14.5
14.1
12.0
12.5
12.4
13.0
12.4
12.9
13.0
15.1
14.1
16.1
12.0
13.8
14.5
12.3
11.4
13.8
14.6
13.3
pH
(su)
7.51
7.78
9.35
7.43
6.47
7.72
6.33
8.40
7.92
7.54
8.43
7.89
7.27
7.58
7.83
8.33
7.40
7.94
7.92
7.72
7.15
7.37
8.30
7.68
8.51
7.89
6.98
8.08
6.41
7.60
7.91
8.12
7.46
7.69
Temperature
©
0.9
0.9
0.4
1.3
1.7
0.7
0.4
5.0
3.0
4.9
3.7
0.9
-0.1
5.2
5.2
2.0
1.4
3.2
2.5
1.4
3.9
3.0
3.5
2.6
2.4
1.8
0.4
1.5
0.8
0.5
1.8
4.3
0.8
0.7
2.4
89
-------
Field Chemistry - Spring 2000
StationID
MT02
MT03
MT107
MT13
MT39
MT42
MT50
MT51
MT91
MT95
MT103
MT104
MT14
MT15
MT18
MT25B
MT32
MT34B
MT52
MT57
MT60
MT64
MT86
MT87
MT98
MT23
MT40
MT48
MT55
MT62
MT70
MT106
MT45
MT78
MT79
MT81
MT01
MT69
Basin
Mud River
Mud River
Island Creek
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Island Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Mud River
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
Clear Fork
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Twentymile Creek
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Spruce Fork
Island Creek
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Mud River
Spruce Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Clear Fork
Mud River
Clear Fork
EIS CLass
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined & Residences
Mined & Residences
Collection
Date
4/17/00
4/18/00
4/26/00
4/18/00
4/25/00
4/25/00
4/24/00
4/24/00
5/4/00
5/3/00
5/3/00
5/3/00
4/18/00
4/18/00
4/18/00
4/25/00
4/27/00
4/25/00
4/26/00
4/26/00
4/26/00
5/2/00
5/4/00
5/4/00
5/3/00
4/19/00
5/10/00
5/10/00
4/26/00
5/2/00
5/2/00
4/18/00
4/25/00
5/1/00
5/1/00
5/1/00
4/17/00
5/2/00
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
47
42
133
44
64
47
45
56
67
39
850
650
464
1387
976
575
454
1210
159
236
212
1011
242
441
773
426
460
589
155
751
849
152
94
108
466
138
76
742
DO
(mg/L)
8.2
10.5
8.1
10.0
10.1
10.9
9.2
9.1
8.9
9.5
10.5
10.6
9.6
10.3
10.0
10.0
10.7
7.4
10.9
9.6
10.2
9.2
9.1
9.4
10.7
9.2
8.8
8.9
9.0
9.4
9.4
10.5
10.7
9.5
9.4
9.3
8.0
9.9
pH
(su)
5.68
7.10
7.47
7.50
6.75
7.25
7.62
7.82
6.38
7.49
7.39
7.90
7.05
7.96
7.69
8.12
6.25
6.89
6.80
7.00
5.94
7.77
6.04
5.95
7.85
6.70
8.02
7.47
6.40
6.97
7.30
8.54
7.39
6.03
6.26
6.50
6.36
7.83
Temperature
©
14.4
10.6
12.0
10.1
11.1
10.5
11.8
11.5
14.2
15.2
11.1
13.7
11.5
11.0
13.3
13.2
9.7
15.5
12.3
8.6
8.6
14.5
13.3
14.0
10.6
11.8
18.1
17.5
16.5
13.0
13.5
10.5
10.8
12.8
14.6
14.1
16.7
14.6
90
-------
Field Chemistry - Spring 2000
StationID
MT24
Basin
Mud River
EIS CLass
Sediment Control
Structure
Collection
Date
4/19/00
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
1980
DO
(mg/L)
6.6
pH
(su)
7.13
Temperature
©
13.9
91
-------
0
o
fS
M)
"C
B.
VI
1
•s
Q
e
ssessmc
d Habitat A
Q.
c«
ai
IB
PH 0
-^ o
5"
.=
« "S.
^
•d a
u «
% Q
-' P9
£*
•2-£
B! S
IS
y
B! 6
o 2
S"S
£*
01
* 2
fe £
o. .a
w s
!»
_L «
5 2
•° £
C "O
C u
W -a
e '-
^
"3 rf.
ll
6s
Bank Veg
P-RB
Bank Veg
P-LB
*$
«i
^s
«i
i
Q
"o
U
%
VD
00
in
VD
4/24/00
•d
S
g
p
o
in
H
^
^1-
VD
m
00
00
00
(N
in
o\
(N
00
^i-
i>
4/24/00
•d
S
g
p
in
H
E
C^
in
in
in
VD
C^
C^
00
VD
C^
VD
in
c^
00
00
0
o
^
in
•d
S
g
p
c^
H
E
00
VD
0
O\
00
O
00
00
o\
r~
00
c^
c^
c^
VD
0
o
m
in
•d
S
g
p
in
c^
H
^
C^
^1-
0
m
c^
c^
00
VD
^1-
00
c^
^1-
c^
c^
o^
0
o
rn
m
u
fe
m
O
H
^
0
in
0
m
C^
c^
VD
^-c
c^
in
c^
00
00
00
o^
0
o
rn
m
u
fe
|MT104
00
^1-
VD
00
C^
o\
t-~
^1-
O
VD
(N
VD
^)-
m
c^
o
00
^1-
00
00
4/27/00
u
fe
(N
m
H
^
VD
(N
0
l>
o\
^1-
VD
^-c
C^
0
00
o^
VD
C^
00
4/25/00
u
fe
JMT34B
^
VD
m
^1-
c^,
00
c^
(N
(N
00
m
o^
in
00
4/26/00
u
fe
(N
in
H
E
m
m
o
o
o^
o\
00
c^
(N
VD
O\
O^
O^
O^
00
4/26/00
u
fe
C^
in
H
^
c^
m
o
^t-
o^
VD
O^
t-~
VD
VD
C^
C^
c^
c^
00
4/25/00
u
fe
O
VD
H
E
c^
^t-
0
VD
VD
m
00
00
VD
00
C^
c^
in
in
00
0
o
04
in
u
fe
^1-
VD
H
E
0
c^
l>
VD
VD
O
00
C^
l>
00
VD
C^
0
c^
o^
0
o
^
in
u
fe
VD
00
H
E
^1-
in
0
i>
o\
VD
C^
C^
l>
^1-
00
o^
t-~
VD
C^
0
o
^
in
u
fe
l>
00
H
E
c^
in
0
i>
(N
O\
00
c^
00
VD
00
00
00
o^
o^
0
o
m
in
u
fe
00
c^
H
E
in
(N
VD
in
(N
m
VD
(N
^1-
^)-
00
^)-
VD
C^
00
4/19/00
m
(D
is
^ -55
fe f^
m
(N
H
E
(N
-------
0
o
fS
M)
"C
B.
VI
1
•s
Q
e
ssessmc
d Habitat A
Q.
c«
ai
IB
PH 0
-^ u
5"
.=
« "S.
^
•° s-
u «
% Q
-' CO
£*
•2-£
B! S
IS
y
B! 6
o 2
S"S
£*
01
§ £
fe £
o. .Q
u s
!»
_L «
5 2
•° £
C "O
C u
W -a
e '-
^
"3 rf.
ll
6s
Bank Veg
P-RB
Bank Veg
P-LB
^
«i
^s
«i
i
Q
"o
U
S CLass
u
StationID
5
c^
^t-
o^
00
^1-
^1-
(N
C^
O^
*$•
o^
VD
5/10/00
led&
sidences
fe f^
O
^1-
H
^
S
00
(N
C^
00
00
00
^1-
in
VD
O^
O^
00
00
5/10/00
led&
sidences
fe f^
00
^1-
H
^
00
m
in
i>
00
(N
C^
00
in
0
o
00
m
o^
VD
4/26/00
rSl
(D
^ 1
Td ^
^ 'S
fe &
m
m
H
^
C^
^1-
^1-
m
c^
c^
c^
in
(N
l>
m
c^
c^
c^
o
o
(N
in
«
u
* 1
Td ^
^ '55
fe f^
(N
VD
H
^
0
in
VD
r*~i
C^
c^
c^
(N
(N
C^
O^
OO
00
VD
VD
O
O
CN
m
led&
sidences
fe f^
O
c^
H
^
00
^)-
0
o
VD
C^
00
VD
VD
C^
l>
C^
VD
00
00
4/18/00
"d
u
S
JMT106
c^
in
VD
in
in
c^
c^
00
l>
m
00
VD
C^
00
00
4/25/00
"d
u
S
in
^l-
H
^
00
VD
0
00
O
O\
00
00
00
00
m
c^
c^
o^
o\
o
o
in
"d
u
S
00
i>
H
^
S
0
VD
00
O\
O^
O^
in
VD
in
00
c^
00
o\
o
o
in
"d
u
S
c^
i>
H
^
00
m
0
c^
00
00
o^
o^
in
VD
in
c^
00
00
00
o
o
in
"d
u
s
00
H
^
-------
Substrate Size Characterization Data - Spring 2000
Station ID
MT02
MT03
MT107
MT13
MT39
MT42
MT50
MT51
MT91
MT95
MT103
MT104
MT14
MT15
MT18
MT25B
MT32
MT34B
MT52
MT57
MT60
MT64
MT86
MT87
MT98
MT23
MT40
MT48
MT55
MT62
MT70
MT106
MT45
MT78
MT79
MT81
MT01
MT69
EIS Class
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Filled & Residences
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined
Mined & Residences
Mined ft. Residences
Mean Size Class
3.41
4.13
3.91
3.33
3.96
3.47
3.7
3.18
3.55
3.81
3.47
4.50
3.09
2.97
3.52
3.91
2.70
3.05
3.42
3.29
3.61
3.78
3.54
3.75
3.91
2.34
3.68
3.25
4.80
4.04
3.17
3.75
3.65
4.07
4.42
3.98
3.86
349
Estimated
Geometric Mean
Diameter (mm)
31.1
152.0
93.9
25.9
105.9
35.8
59.1
18.8
42.0
75.3
35.8
346.4
15.4
11.9
39.6
93.9
6.5
14.2
31.7
23.9
48.4
70.8
41.2
65.4
93.9
2.7
56.8
22.1
672.3
124.3
18.3
66.7
52.4
134.7
289.1
110.2
84.9
379
% sand and fines
(% < or = to 2mm)
27.3
16.4
12.7
20.0
5.5
16.4
16.4
36.4
16.4
1.8
21.8
14.6
32.7
34.6
16.4
1.8
47.3
30.9
25.5
32.7
18.2
9.1
7.3
10.9
7.3
78.2
14.6
25.5
16.4
20.0
23.6
9.1
23.6
1.8
3.6
1.8
29.1
189
94
-------
95
-------
APPENDIX 4. MAPS AND FIGURES
96
-------
SAMPLING WITHIN THE REGION OF MAJOR MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING ACTIVITY IN WEST VIRGINIA
# SAMPLING STATIONS
| | HUC - 11 BOUNDARY
| | MTM/VF REGION
| | WV COUNTIES
Due to the stile ofthismip and the stale of the
hydrography cc-Trerige, itmay be difficuJLto
detenuhfc the bcitionof some sampling stations
from this m ip. Please referto the MTM EIS
EiologicalMordtornigStations Attribute Title
form on station loc itijn iifona atioix.
Diti Sources:
Sampling Stations: US EPA
MTMAfF Esgion: WV S&E Sunny
HydiognphyindHUC-ll: USEPA and TOSS
EPA R3 SE TEAM PROTECT SKJ541 H. C HILDEKS 09/WflO MAP* 102S
WILLI
Figure 1. Sampling within the Region of Major Mountaintop Removal Mining Activity in West Virginia.
-------
ECOREGIONS WITHIN THE REGION OF MAJOR MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING ACTIVITY IN WEST VIRGINIA
ECOREGIONS(LEVEL IV)
I 1 Cumberland Mountains
| : : ; :| Forested Hills and Mountains
Oreenbriar Karst
• ' ' :| Monongahela Transition Zone
I Permian Hills
Southern Limestone/Dolomite
Valleys and Low Rolling Hills
| Southern Sandstone P,idges
| Northern Dissected
Ridges and Knobs
# SAMPLING STATIONS
I | MTRM REGION
Arei of
Interest
Mnnottgahela
T ran si tin 11 Zraie
Cumberland
Mountains
Forested Hills
and Mountains
ttj olid} ~faciLid j LJI EFA Vbecli
TM/YF r«}ioii. yv G^E Lur^e
CrCJIOdg. l_ l^r'i'dl li J L iL.Lir'JI;.t'v. I
EPAR3 UK TEAM PROTECT SIGS39 H. CHLDERS 09^0.00 MAP** 1022
Figure 2. Ecoregions within the Region of Major Mountaintop Removal Mining Activity in West Virginia.
-------
STREAM SAMPLING STATIONS - UPPER MUD RIVER WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA
SAMPLING STATIONS
D Filled
H Filled & Residences
O Mined
® Mined & Residences
0 Sediment Control Structure
A Unmined
I>ue to Ihe scat of this map and the scale of the
hydrography coverage, itmaybe difficult to
detem lie the location of some sampling stations
from thir map. Please refertothe MTM EE>
Bio logical Monitoring Stations Attribute Table
fcormore station locatim nfoimation.
Sampling Stations: US EPA
HydrographyandHUC.il: USEPAandUSGS
EPAR3 CIS TEAM PROTECT SI0541H. CHILDEP.3 09/1900 MAP* 1026
Figure 3. Stream Sampling Stations - Upper Mud River Watershed, West Virginia
-------
STREAM SAMPLING STATIONS - SPRUCE FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA
SAMPLING STATIONS
D Filled
0 Filled & Residences
O Mined
© Milled & Residences
El Sediment Control Structure
A Unmined
Due to the scale of this map and tile seal* of the
hydrography coverage, itmiybe difficult tx>
determiie the location of some sampling stations
torn this nup. Pkise refertothe MTM EIS
Biological Monitoring Stations Aurfljute Table
formon station location xifciimatiDn.
Data Somees:
Sampling Stations: US EPA
H?diogjiphyiiuJHUC-ll: USEPAandUSGS
EPAR3 OIS TEAM PROJECT SISM1 H. CfflLDERS WilifKl MAPH 1027
Figure 4. Stream Sampling Stations - Spruce Fork Watershed, West Virginia
100
-------
STREAM SAMPLING STATIONS - CLEAR FORK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA
SAMPLING STATIONS
D Filled
H Filled & Residences
O Mined
® Mined & Residences
B Sediment Control Structure
A Unmined
Due to the scafe of this map and the scale of the
hydrography coverage, itmaybe difficulLto
deteim lie the bcationof some sampling stations
from tliis mip. Please referto the MTM EIS
BiologicalMonitoimgStAtions Attribme Tible
formore stutiorLlocationiifcinLition.
'CIS Team
INFORMATION
DataSouKes:
Sampling Stations: US EPA
I^diogHphyaMHUC-11: USEPA andUSGS
EPAR3 SB TEAM PEOrECT SIG541 H. CHILPEKS OSflSflO MAPS 1024
Figure 5. Stream Sampling Stations - Clear Fork Watershed, West Virginia
101
-------
STREAM SAMPLING STATIONS - TWENTYMILE CREEK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA
DUA t0 1he scale of this map and the scale of the liyctro^apliy cotrerage, tmaybe difficultto
detera iae the location of some sampling stations from thismap. Pie ase refer to th* MTMEIS
Biological Monitoring Stations ABritale Table for more station location inf arm ation.
Data Sources:
Sampling Stations: US EPA
B/drognphyandHUC.ll: USEPA and US KS
EPAE3 MS TEAM PROTECT SIO541 H. CHILDERS OS/19*)0 MAP* 1028
SAMPLING STATIONS
D Filled
H Fill ed& Residences
O Mined
© Mined & Residences
0 Sediment Control Structure
A Unmined
Figure 6. Stream Sampling Stations - Twentymile Creek Watershed, West Virginia
102
-------
STREAM SAMPLING STATIONS - ISLAND CREEK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA
SAMPLING STATIONS
D Filled
H Filled & Residences
O Mined
® Mined & Residences
0 Sediment Control Structure
A Unmined
Due tolhe scafe of thismip and the scale of the
hydrography coverage, itmaybe difficult to
detera rie the b ration of som e sampling ftitioro
from thEmip. Pltase refertotl-i* MTM EIS
Biological Monitoring Stations Attribute Tible
for m ore elation loc ation iifona ition.
Diti Sources:
Sampling Stations: US EPA
Hydrography and HUC-11: USEPA and US OS
EPAR3 OE TEAM PROTECT SICW41 H. CHILDERS 05/19*0 MAP* 1025
Figure 7. Stream Sampling Stations - Island Creek Watershed, West Virginia
103
-------
Figure 8. Comparison of WV Stream Condition Index (SCI) Values
Spring 1999
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
n = 7 n = 9 n = 15 n = 6
n = 4
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 9. Comparison of Family-Level Total Taxa Values
Spring 1999
25 -
>
_^ 20 -
>>
E
™ 15 -
ro
(0
n 1°-
o
5 -
n
-<
^ ^
•
•tj.
^
t J
>-
• *
}
-A- A
•
5 • •
> •
•
•
n = 7 n = 9 n = 15 n = 6 n = 4
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
104
-------
105
-------
Figure 10. Comparison of Family-Level EPT Values
Spring 1999
£U
£=• 15 -
0
>-,
E
co ln
u_ 10 -
co
X
co
CL
LU 5 -
n
Jt. -
-•-
•*"
i
n = 7
^P^ • •
• T^- • A
\
t
4
«
n =
F 1 F
L_ •
» O .»..
1 1
• -f-
1 * * 1
1 P IF
-•- •
• IF
9 n = 15 n = 6 n = 4
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 11. Comparison of %EPT Values
Spring 1999
90 -
80 -
/O
60 -
50 -
40 -
Qf\
20 -
10
n
r
i = 7
^t
• •- •
f
_L
i =
i
-J
4
1
— i
1
4
41
9
k
J-
1
1
P—
I
>
»
n
-|
1
(
»
1
4
4
:
t
t
5
h
)
1
|
1
•
»
»
;
k
i
n = 6
-f-
1
A
1
n = 4
A
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
106
-------
CD
I
Figure 12. Comparison of HBI Values
Spring 1999
o
7 -
6 -
b -
4 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
n
A
-T-
1
•
.1.
•
^r
n = 7
•
^
V
• "•"
-§- it
* I
-i- T •
• •
t-A-
: * •
n = 9 n = 15 n = 6 n = 4
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 13. Comparison of % Two Dominant Familes Values
Spring 1999
90 -
80 -
in
4— '
ro 60 -
0 50 -
Q
™ 40-
30 -
20 -
10 -
n
_£
-0-
+
iT T
I 1
n = 7 n = 9
•
JL T
[. J. -I
t T
• -9-
* *
• *
n = 15 n = 6 n = 4
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
107
-------
Figure 14. Com parison of Fam ily-Level M ayfly Taxa Values
Spring 1999
6 -
0
5 5 H
E 4 -\
-------
Figure 16. Comparison of % Chironomidae Values
Spring 1999
90 -
80 -
70 -
CD
co
^ 60 -
o
1_
O 40 -
s.0
20 -
10 -
n = 7 n = 9 n = 15 n = 6 n = 4
~Q~ 9
• T •
T 1
.-J-, • -
f i ^
1 a A
• m T~^
A i I •
r^~l •»• ^ L^-i
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
109
-------
Figure 17. Comparison of WV Stream Condition Index Values
Summer 1999
100
90
80
70
60
40
30
20
10
0
r .
n = 7 n = 2 n = 15 n = 6 n = 2
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 18. Comparison of Family-Level Total Taxa Vaues
Summer 1999
30
(D
E
co
25 -
20 -
15 -
co
x
co
15 10
5 -
n = 7 n = 2 n = 15 n = 6 n = 2
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
110
-------
Figure 19. Comparison of Family-Level EPT Taxa Values
Summer 1999
20
:=• 15
CD
CD
E
co
co
X
co
10 -
CL
LU 5
n = 7 n = 2 n = 15 n = 6 n = 2
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 20. Comparison of % EPT Values
Summer 1999
100
90
80
70
60
Q_
LU 50
so
d^
40 H
20
10
0
I
T 1
• 1
% •
±
2
-1-
0
n = 7 n = 2 n = 15
t
t
•
. M. .
A
T
n = 6 n = 2
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
111
-------
Figure 21. Comparison of HBI Values
Summer 1999
o -
7 -
6 -
5 -
55 4 _
3 -
2 -
1 -
n
_•_ -•-
-•- V
2 . *. .
I A
• ^ 1
19
*
n = 7 n = 2 n = 15 n = 6
•
•
n = 2
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 22. Comparison of % Two Dominant Families Values
Summer 1999
IUU
90 -
80 -
70 -
•I—*
ro 60 -
0 50 -
Q
sP
30 -
20 -
10 -
n
4
'
n = 7 n
A T
•
a *
^
1
I .
1 *
= 2 n = 15 n = 6 n = 2
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
112
-------
Figure 23. Comparison of Family-Level Mayfly Taxa Values
Summer 1999
(D
6 -
5 -
E 4 -\
co
co
x
co
co
2 -
1 -
n = 7 n = 2 n = 15 n = 6 n = 2
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 24. Comparison of % Mayfly Values
Summer 1999
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
n = 7 n = 2 n = 15 n = 6 n = 2
1
1 1 ^w^
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
113
-------
Figure 25. Comparison of % Chironomidae Values
Summer 1999
iuu -
90 -
80 -
70 -
0
ro
^ 60 -
E
o
| 5°-
6 40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
n=7 n=2
t
I t
w
n = 15
•
n = 6 n = 2
I
•
•
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
114
-------
Figure 26. Comparison of WV Stream Condition Index Values
Fall 1999
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
=9=
I
n = 7 n = 2 n = 14 n = 6 n =
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled & Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 27. Comparison of Family-Level Total Taxa Values
Fall 1999
30
0
E
co
25 -
20 -
15 -
co
x
co
15 10
5 -
n = 7 n = 2 n = 14 n = 6 n = 1
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled & Res Mined
EIS Class
115
-------
Figure 28. Comparison of Family-Level EPT Taxa Values
Fall 1999
20
:=• 15
0
0
CO
X
co
CL
LU
10-
5 -
n = 7
n = 2 n = 14 n = 6
n = 1
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled & Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 29. Comparison of % EPT Values
Fall 1999
uu
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
n
- *
• •
•m 9
• •
I • l
n = 7 n = 2 n = 14 r
J
t
4
4
1
i =
L
|
»
»
k
r
6
0
n = 1
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled & Res Mined
EIS Class
116
-------
Figure 30. Comparison of HBI Values
Fall 1999
7 -
6 -
5 -
5 4-
3 -
2 -
1 -
n
^ t
T JL
• I L-f-J
.». . 0 . *• .
-2- • •
-*- 4- •
i
n = 7 n = 2 n = 14 n = 6 n = 1
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled & Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 31. Comparison of %2Dominant Families Values
Fall 1999
IUU
90 -
80 -
70 -
•I—*
m 60
C
0 50 -
Q
S 40~
30 -
20 -
10 -
n
•
t rt,
i
-0. •^" ' •' '
_ i F
9 V -B- ^ •
• "*"
n = 7 n = 2 n = 14 n = 6 n = 1
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled & Res Mined
EIS Class
117
-------
Figure 32. Comparison of Family-Level Mayfly Taxa Values
Fall 1999
(D
6 -
5 -
E 4 -\
co
co
x
co
co
2 -
1 -
n = 7 n = 2 n = 14 n = 6 n =
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled & Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 33. Comparison of % Mayfly Values
Fall 1999
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
n = 7 n = 2 n = 14 n = 6 n = 1
1
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled & Res Mined
EIS Class
118
-------
Figure 34. Comparison of % Chironomidae Values
Fall 1999
IUU
90 -
80 -
70 -
Chironomidae
-fc. en O)
O O O
1 1 1
30 -
20 -
10 -
n = 7 n = 2 n = 14 n = 6 n = 1
T ••-
T It
• i • •• • T
•*•• * m "•"
I 4 .
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled & Res Mined
EIS Class
119
-------
Figure 35. Comparison of WV Stream Condition Index (SCI) Values
Winter 2000
o
QO
80 -
70 -
60 -
50
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
n
-f- -f-
* -•- *
=t •••• f
+ -•- I
T I
i T
t
T
4
n=7 n=9 n=14
0
•
A
T
n=6 n=3
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 36. Comparison of Family-Level Total Taxa Values
Winter 2000
30
0
E
co
25 -
20 -
15 -
co
x
co
15 10
5 -
n=7 n=9
n=14 n=6 n=3
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
120
-------
Figure 37. Comparison of Family-Level EPT Taxa Values
Winter 2000
20
£=• 15 H
0
0
E
co
co
X
co
10 -
CL
LU 5 H
n=7 n=9
n=14 n=6
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 38. Comparison of % EPT Values
Winter 2000
uu
90 -
80 -
7D
60 -
50 -
40 -
Qrt
20 -
10 -
n
n = 7
n=9
f
I
V
9
4
n=1
t
..
4 n=6 n=3
9
T
1
•
*
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
121
-------
Figure 39. Comparison of HBI Values
Winter 2000
7 -
6 -
5 -
DQ 4 _
2 -
1 -
n
.
n=7
f
•
•
A
I
1
n=9
•
n=14
.
.
n=6
n=3
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 40. Comparison of % Two Dominant Families Values
Winter 2000
100
E
o
Q
CM
sP
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
4
<
-0-
« «
I. J
j
^|
n=7 n=
• Ff=|
r I
' I
-n 1
n • •
A M
T !
i A
h
F * •
9 n=14 n=6 n=3
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
122
-------
Figure 41. Comparison of Family-Level Mayfly Taxa Values
Winter 2000
(D
6 -
5 -
E 4 -\
co
co
x
co
co
1 -
n=7 n=9 n=14 n=6 n=3
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 42. Comparison of % Mayfly Values
Winter 2000
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
n=7 n=9 n=14 n=6 n=3
T
£
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
123
-------
Figure 43. Comparison of % Chironomidae Values
Winter 2000
90 -
80 -
70
0)
03
!2 60 -
0
0 50 ~
6 40 -
^S
30 -
10 -
n = 7
,,
»•
A
n=9 n=1
1
.-I
_j
-r :
T -S
i j
V
— ^B—
4 n=6 n=3
«
•
i —
•
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
124
-------
Figure 44. Comparison of WV Stream Condition Index (SCI) Values
Spring 2000
70 -
60 -
U 50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
n
-f-
I
| "I"
ft
T
•
n = 7
r
•>
-W-
V
H
'
= 10
n
= 15
0
rt,
•
* -it-
^
n = 6 n = 5
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 45. Comparison of Family-Level Total Taxa Values
Spring 2000
30
0
E
co
25 -
20 -
15 -
co
x
co
15 10
5 -
T
n=7 n=10 n=15 n=6 n=5
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
125
-------
Figure 46. Comparison of Family-Level EPT Values
Spring 2000
20
<=? 15
(D
CD
E
co
co
x
co
10 -
Q_
LU 5
n = 7 n = 10 n = 15 n = 6 n = 5
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 47. Comparison of %EPT Values
Spring 2000
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
t
LU 50 -
so
d^
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
n=7 n=10 n=15 n=6 n=5
fii
1-
I
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
126
-------
Figure 48. Comparison of HBI Values
Spring 2000
7 -
6 -
5 -
go 4J
3 -
2 -
1 -
0
£
n=7 n=10 n=15 n=6 n=5
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 49. Comparison of % Two Dominant Families Values
Spring 2000
90 -
80 -
70 -
m fifl
0 50 -
Q
™ 40 -
so w
o^
30 -
20 -
10 -
n
t
•
J
• — r~
_L T
• -^- • , — A — . f
\ • V ^
I. ... .
I
T .
n = 7 n = 10 n = 15
-•_
z
A
4-
n = 6
r
-<
1
1
H
1 =
I
1
»-
5
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
127
-------
Figure 50. Comparison of Family-Level Mayfly Taxa Values
Spring 2000
(D
6 -
5 -
E 4 -\
co
co
_>>
14—
co
3 -
1 -
n = 7 n=10 n=15 n=6 n=5
w
1
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 51. Comparison of %Mayfly Values
Spring 2000
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
8 60-
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
n = 7 n = 10 n = 15 n = 6 n = 5
1
1-
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
128
-------
Figure 52. Comparison of % Chironomidae Values
Spring 2000
CD
ro
I
o
|
!c
O
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
n = 7 n = 10 n = 15 n = 6 n = 5
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
129
-------
Figure 53. Comparison of Conductivity
Spring 1999
3000
2500 -
2000 -
to
•=; 1500
o
-a
o 1000
O
500 -
to
7 -
6 -
n = 9 n = 15 n = 6 n = 4
T 1
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 54. Comparison of pH
Spring 1999
n = 9 n = 15 n = 6 n = 4
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
130
-------
Figure 55. Comparison of Temperature
Spring 1999
25
O
20 -
15 H
Q.
E 10 H
5 -
n=9 n=15 n=6 n = 4
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
131
-------
Figure 56. Comparison of Conductivity
Summer 1999
3000
2500 -
2000 -
•=; 1500
T3
O 1000
o
500 -
7 -
6 -
n = 7 n = 2 n = 15 n = 6 n = 3
T
$
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 57. Comparison of pH
Summer 1999
*$
I
n = 7 n = 2 n = 15 n = 6 n = 3
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
132
-------
Figure 58. Comparison of Temperature
Summer 1999
30
0
4—'
l_
0
Q.
E
0
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
f T
n = 7 n = 2 n = 15 n = 6 n = 3
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 59. Comparison of Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
Summer 1999
15
10-
c
0
O)
X
O
T3
0
t
n = 7
n = 2 n = 15 n = 6 n = 3
WV Ref Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
133
-------
Figure 60. Comparison of Conductivity
Fall 1999
o
T3
O
2500 -
2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
n
n = 2 n = 14 n = 6 n = 1
• A
fm
..Q..
J-m-
s
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 61. Comparison of pH
Fall 1999
7 -
6 -
n = 2 n = 14 n = 6 n =
T
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
134
-------
Figure 62. Comparison of Temperature
Fall 1999
30
25 -
o 20H
>
X
O
T3
O
_>
O
(/)
(/)
b
10 -
n = 2 n = 14 n = 6
n =
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
135
-------
Figure 64. Comparison of Conductivity
Winter 2000
3000
2500 -
2000 -
~ 1500
'.^
o
-o
o 1000
O
500 -
X
Q.
7 -
6 -
n=9 n=14 n=6 n=3
$
-------
Figure 66. Comparison of Temperature
Winter 2000
25
20 -
O,
O
ro
0
o.
E 10-|
0
5 -
n=9 n=14 n=6 n=3
$
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 67. Comparison of Dissolved Oxygen
Winter 2000
20
^ 15 -
0
O)
-o
0
"o
to
to
T~ -•-
=9= T-
-T- 1
• -J-
n=9 n=13
•— . *
A
:
n=6 n=3
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
137
-------
Figure 68. Comparison of Conductivity
Spring 2000
3000
2500 -
2000 -
~ 1500
o
T3
O 1000
O
500 -
I
Q.
7 -
6 -
n = 10 n = 15 n = 6 n = 5
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 69. Comparison of pH
Spring 2000
r
•
4
— 1
i
4
=
p
»
|
»
10
f*
A
i
i
n = 1
J
4
<
4
-4
5 n
L
>
1
t-
= 6
-4
^
t
t
J
n
h
)
i
C^
_ 1
)
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
138
-------
Figure 70. Comparison of Temperature
Spring 2000
30
25 -
o 20H
0
ro 15 -
0
Q_
0
i- 10 H
5 -
n = 10 n = 15 n = 6 n = 5
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 71. Comparison of Dissolved Oxygen
Spring 2000
15
O)
E,
o
O)
>>
X
O
T3
O
_>
O
(/)
(/)
b
10 -
n = 10 n = 15 n = 6 n = 5
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
139
-------
o
u
to
2
o
Figure 72. Rapid H abitat Assessm ent
Total Score
Spring 2000
200
180 -
160 -
1 40 -
120 -
n = 10
n = 1 5
n = 6
n = 5
100
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 73. Rapid H abitat Assessm ent
Embeddedness Score
Spring 2000
20
0)
c
T3
0)
-O
T3
0)
J2
E
L±J
15 -
10 -
5 -
n = 10
n = 15
n = 6
n = 5
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
140
-------
o
Q.
0)
Q
0)
^
0)
Figure 74. Rapid H abitat Assessment
Sediment Deposition Score
Spring 2000
20
1 5 -
10 -
5 -
&
oo
CO
12
cc
Q.
L±J
n = 10
n = 1 5
n = 6
n = 5
Unm ined
Filled
Filled/Res
M ined
EIS Class
Figure 75. Rapid Habitat Assessment
Epifaunal Substrate Score
Spring 2000
20 -i
15 -
10 -
5 -
w
* * M
j
ft ' '
>_
«
4
^
-<
p
»
>-
n = 10
n = 1 5
n = 6 n = 5
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
141
-------
CO
.c
O
Figure 76. Rapid H abitat Assessment
Channel Flow Score
Spring 2000
20
1 5 -
10 -
5 -
*
n=10
n=15
n=6
n = 5
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 77. Rapid Habitat Assessment
Channel Alteration Score
Spring 2000
0
c
cu
L_
< 10 -
0)
CO
O
5 -
n
- -
_ — M) 1 ^^ ^^
|^| ^ |
^ ^ X
• . .W. . •
^ 1
4 k ^
1 T
*
n=10 n=15 n=6
^
^p
I
-•-
n = 5
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
142
-------
Figure 78. Rapid H abitat Assessment
Frequency of Riffles Score
Spring 2000
20
r*n
(fl
0)
u
c
0)
3
cr
0)
10 -
5 -
n = 10
n = 1 5
n = 6
n = 5
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 79. Rapid H abitat Assessment
Velocity Depth Combinations Score
Spring 2000
20 -i
Q.
0)
Q
8
>
1 5 -
10 -
5 -
n=10 n=15 n=6 n=5
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
143
-------
Figure 80. Rapid H abitat Assessment
Bank Stability Score
Spring 2000
20
1 5 -
_Q
CD
co 10
c
CD
CQ
5 -
n = 10
n = 15
n = 6 n = 5
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 81. Rapid H abitat Assessment
Bank Vegetation Protection Score
Spring 2000
n 1 5
+-'
CD
o
0.
•S 10 -
CD
CD
0)
CD
C
CD 5 -
CQ
n
• «
• A
• ^^
- - ^P - -
I A
*
f
-*-
^
n = 1 0 n = 1 5
T "X"
| 4
i
.-.. i
• -•-
•
_J_
n = 6 n = 5
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
144
-------
Figure 82. Rapid H a bitat Assessm ent
Riparian Vegetation Zone Score
Spring 2000
CD
o
M
O
c
CO
'
20
1 5 -
1 0 -
5 -
n = 10
n = 1 5
n = 6 n = 5
Unmined Filled Filled/Res Mined
EIS Class
145
-------
Figure 83. Mean Substrate Size Class
5 -
4 -
to
to
_ro
O
0
N
O)
- ,
ro 3
J=
to
.Q
3
O)
ro
2 -
1 -
T
n=10 n=15 n=6 n=5
Unmined Filled Filled & Res Mined
EIS Class
Figure 84. Estimated Geometric Mean Substrate Size
ouu
"E" 600 -
0
0
I 400 -
Q
0
2
|> 200 -
^
O)
c
ro
0
^ 0 -
«
•
^^
J r— 4
1 rfi ^
b=|=l LJ
»
T
«--
t1-^^-1
d
Unmined Filled Filled & Res Mined
EIS Class
146
-------
Figure 85. % of Substrate <=2mm (% that is sand and fines)
100
E
-------
Figure 86. Relationship Between Stream Condition Index
and Median Conductivity
100
x
0
T3
T3
O
O
E
ro
0
CO
O
CM
O)
Q_
CO
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
SCI = 86.2 - (0.038*Median Conductivity)
r2 = 0.656
n = 36
Legend
Unmined
Filled
Filled/Residential
Mined
0 200 400 600 800100012001400160018002000
Median Conductivity (uS/cm)
Figure 87. Relationship Between Stream Condition Index
and log10(Median Conductivity)
100
X
0
T3
O
'
90 -
80 -
£ 70 -
T3
O
O
E
ro
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
CO
O
O
O
CM
O)
-| 20 H
Q_
CO
10 -
SCI = 147.7 - 32.9*log (median conductivity)
r2 = 0.560
n = 36
2 3
log (Median Conductivity)
148
-------
Figure 88. Relationship Between Stream Condition Index
and Sediment Deposition Scores
100
o
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10
IA A
SCI = 28.4 + (2.73*Sediment Deposition)
r2 = 0.169
n = 36
Legend
Unmined
Filled
Filled/Residential
Mined
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Sediment Deposition Scores
20
Figure 89. Relationship Between Iog10 (Stream Condition Index)
and Sediment Deposition Scores
2.1
2.0 -
O
O)
o
1.7 -
1.6 -
1.5 -
1.4 -
1.3
loglO(SCI) = 1.47 + (0.023*Sediment Deposition)
r2 = 0.199
n = 36
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Sediment Deposition Scores
149
-------
Figure 90. Relationship Between Stream Condition Index
and Total Habitat Scores
100
90
80
70
60
40
30
20
10
SCI = -79.6 + (0.96*Total Habitat Score)
r2 = 0.211
n = 36
120 130 140 150 160
Total Habitat Scores
170
180
Legend
A Unmined
• Filled
4 Filled/Residential
• Mined
Figure 91. Relationship Between Stream Condition Index
and % Sand and Fines
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
SCI = 73.4 - (0.45*% sand and fines)
r2 = 0.0877
n = 36
20 40 60
% sand and fines
80
100
150
-------
APPENDIX 5.
REPLICATE DATA
Replicate samples were collected at the same place, at the same time, usually at adjacent
locations in the same riffle. Replicates were collected in every season, at a total of 42 sites. Sites
were chosen randomly and represent all classes and conditions of streams. The replicate
samples provide an estimate of variability due to true spatial variation of the benthic assemblage
within a site, and variation due to sampling and laboratory procedures. The replicate samples
are highly correlated to each other for every metric used in this project (see table 4-1).
Replicate Sample Analysis
Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Metric
WVSCI
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
%EPT
HBI
% 2 Dominant
%Chironomidae
% Mayfly
# Mayfly
Correlation Coefficient
r
0.941
0.768
0.798
0.921
0.860
0.838
0.902
0.967
0.831
P value
2.22E-20
2.86E-9
2.48E-10
6.24E-18
2.92E-13
4.27E-12
3.74E-16
2.61E-25
9.83E-12
We also estimated the standard deviation of repeated measures, as suggested in the revised RBP
protocol (Barbour et al 1999). The standard deviation was calculated as the root mean square
error (RMSE) of an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), where the sites are treatments in the
ANOVA (see table below). These standard deviations can be used to estimate the detectable
difference of a single sample from a threshold. Although comparing single samples to thresholds
was not an objective of this study, the standard deviations do provide an estimate of the
variability of our assessment technique.
151
-------
Replicate Sample Analysis
Statistics of Repeated Samples for the MTM/VF Region and the detectable difference at
0.1 significance level. Sampling Gear was a 0.5 meter wide, 595 um kick net. The WV
SCI Score is on a 100 point scale. The data are at family level.
Metric
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
HBI
% Two Dominant Taxa
% Chironomidae
% EPT
WVSCI
% Mayfly
# Mayfly Taxa
Standard Deviation for
Repeated Measures
(RMSE)
2.2
1.6
0.42
5.7
6.6
6.9
4.3
3.2
0.7
Detectable Difference for a
single sample from a
threshold (1-tailed test)
(p=0.10)
2.8
2.0
0.54
7.3
8.4
8.8
5.5
4.1
0.9
152
-------
APPENDIX 6. DOCUMENTATION OF THE DROUGHT
The region of MTM/VF coal mining in WV suffered periods of prolonged dryness and drought
in 1998 and 1999. West Virginia was relatively dry in July and August of 1998. Although rains
occurred in September, soil moisture levels remained low. By September 1998, the National
Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) classified the state as an area to watch as far as drought
concern (NDMC 1998). Stream flows remained normal throughout July and August, but were
below normal in September (USGS 1998). There was not enough rainfall in October or
November to improve soil moistures. In November, the state received only 45% of its normal
rainfall (NDMC 1999a). The NDMC classified WV as "experiencing dryness" during October
and as "experiencing significant dryness" for November and December (NDMC 1998). In
December the USGS reported below normal stream flows October, November, and December
(USGS 1999). By the end of December, southern portions of the state received temporary relief
in the form of above normal amounts of precipitation (NDMC 1999a).
During the first month of 1999, WV received 167% of normal precipitation, but additional
moisture was needed to overcome long-term shortages (NDMC 1999a). Stream flows in January
were normal for southern and eastern portions of the state and were above normal for northern
areas. Stream flows were reported as below normal for most of the state during February, but
were reported as normal during March 1999 (USGS 1999). Stream flows for April are of
particular interest since the first round of USEPA MTM biological samples were collected
during April and early May. Unfortunately the USGS National Water Conditions' stream flow
map for April 1999 was absent from the USGS National Water Conditions Internet site.
Rainfall amounts, for most of WV, were below normal in May, June, and July of 1999 (NDMC
1999b). The NDMC classified all of WV as an "area to watch" in May, an "area experiencing
significant dryness" for June, and a "state or federally declared drought" for July, August, and
September of 1999 (NDMC 1999a). USGS stream flows for the entire state, were below normal
for the entire state during May, June, and July (USGS 1999). USEPA MTM biological samples
were collected from July 26 - August 11. The Palmer Index of drought severity described the
climate divisions that included the sampling sites as "severe drought" during these weeks. The
NDMC pulled the following statement from the National Weather Service's WV Drought
Statement from July 29, 1999: "The USGS reports that 80% of the river gages that have a 30 or
more year record are below-normal flow for this time of year. . . Many small streams remain dry
or flowing at a trickle. . . Most farm ponds remained very low or nearly dry" (NDMC 1999a).
The southwestern portion of WV continued to be classified as experiencing a drought by the US
drought monitor in October, November, and December 1999 (NDMC 1999b). Most of the
USGS gauges in WV continued to record below average flows during August, September, and
November. Gages in the region of major mountaintop mining (MTM) activity in WV (Fedorko
and Blake 1998) continued to have below average stream flows during December 1999 (USGS
1999).
On January 12, 2000 the National Weather Service (NWS) reported that drought conditions had
153
-------
eased for much of WV, southeast OH, eastern KY, and southwest VA. The NWS described a
decrease in rainfall deficits and indicated that the Palmer Index classified the same area at
normal conditions. Only 20% of the river gages in WV were reporting below normal flow, but
groundwater levels were still a concern (NWS Charleston, WV 2000). Gages in the MTM
region in WV continued to have below average stream flows during January, but USGS reported
normal stream flows for all gages in WV during February (USGS 2000).
Throughout Spring 2000 stream flows fluctuated between normal and below normal. The USGS
reported below normal stream flow for most of WV during March and May and reported normal
stream flow during April and June (USGS 2000). The Long-term Palmer Index calculations for
April 1, April 11, and May 13 suggested that eastern portions of the MTM region in WV were
experiencing moderate drought conditions. However, the index suggested that conditions were
near normal on April, 8, April 22, April 29, and May 6 (CPC 2000). The U.S. Drought Monitor
continued to classify all or portions of the MTM region as "abnormally dry" throughout Spring
2000. This abnormally dry classification is used to describe areas "going into drought: short-
term dryness slowing planting and growing crops or pastures; fire risk above average" and areas
that are, "Coming out of drought: lingering water deficits; pastures or crops not fully recovered"
(U.S. Drought Monitor 2000). Similarly, the National Drought Mitigation Center continued to
classify southwestern WV as either a "drought watch area" or as an area "recovering from
drought, but should be monitored closely for recurring conditions or lingering impacts" from
February through May (NDMC 2000).
It is important to acknowledge that most of the drought data available at this time has been
released as provisional data subject to review and that the data are aggregated spatially and
temporally. In some cases the areal units are larger than the region of mountaintop mining
activity in WV. However, the drought seems to have impacted a large region over several
months rather than isolated locations and times. Different aggregations of the data are likely to
show the same trends.
154
-------
science for a changing world
Prepared in cooperation with the
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
OFFICE OF MINING AND RECLAMATION
Reconnaissance of Stream Geomorphology,
Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature
in the Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region,
Southern West Virginia, 1999-2000
Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4092
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
-------
US. Department ofthe Interior
US.GeokxjcalSuvey
Reconnaissance of Stream
Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and
Stream Temperature in the Mountaintop
Coal-Mining Region, Southern West
Virginia, 1999-2000
By Jeffrey B. Wiley, Ronald D. Evaldi,
James H. Eychaner, and Douglas B. Chambers
Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4092
In cooperation with theWESTVIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION, OFFICE OF MINING AND RECLAMATION
Charleston, West Virginia
2001
-------
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 is for descriptive purposes
only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
For additional information write to:
District Chief
U.S. Geological Survey
11 Dunbar Street
Charleston, WV 25301
or visit our site on the World Wide Web at
http://wv.usgs.gov
Copies of this report can be purchased from:
U.S. Geological Survey
Branch of Information Services
Box 25286
Denver, CO 80225-0286
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract 1
Introduction 1
Description of study area 2
Background 2
Data collection 4
Geomorphology 7
Low streamflow measurements 7
Continuous streamflow and stream temperature 7
Stream geomorphology 8
Bed material 8
Channel characteristics 10
Low streamflow characteristics 11
Stream temperature 13
Summary 16
References Cited 17
FIGURES
1-2. Maps showing:
1. Location of study basins and long-term gaging stations in the coal-mining region of
southern West Virginia 3
2A-B. Upper Mud River Basin (A.), Clear Fork Basin (B.), short-term gaging stations, and
small-stream sampling sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia 5
2C-D. Twentymile Creek Basin (C.), Spruce Fork Basin (D.), short-term gaging stations, and
small-stream sampling sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia 6
3-6. Graphs showing:
3. Distributions of particles less than 2 millimeters, median particle size, and particle size of
the 84th percentile, Spruce Fork and Clear Fork Basins in the coal-mining region of southern
West Virginia 9
4. Comparisons among bankfull cross-sectional areas and drainage areas for valley-fill and unmined
sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia 10
5. Comparisons among the 90-percent flow durations and drainage areas for valley-fill and unmined
sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia 12
6. Daily mean water temperatures, December 1999 through November 2000, at a valley-fill and an
unmined site in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia 16
Contents I
-------
TABLES
1. Low-streamflow statistics at long-term gaging stations in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia 11
2. Daily mean discharges in cubic feet per second, December 1999 through November 2000, at Unnamed
Tributary to Ballard Fork near Mud (03202405) in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia 14
3. Daily mean discharges in cubic feet per second, December 1999 through November 2000, at Spring
Branch near Mud (03202410) in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia 15
4. Low streamflow, particle sizes, and channel characteristics for sampling sites in the coal-mining region
of southern West Virginia 20
5. Low-streamflow measurements at small-stream sampling sites in the coal-mining region of southern
West Virginia 25
6. Maximum, minimum, and mean water temperature in degrees Celsius, December 1999 through
November 2000, at Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork near Mud (03202405) in the coal-mining region
of southern West Virginia 29
7. Maximum, minimum, and mean water temperature in degrees Celsius, December 1999
through November 2000, at Spring Branch near Mud (03202410) in the coal-mining region
of southern West Virginia 32
CONVERSION FACTORS AND VERTICAL DATUM
Multiply
inch (in.)
foot (ft)
acre
square mile (mi2)
acre-foot (acre-ft)
cubic foot per second (ft3/s)
cubic foot per second per square
mile [(ft3/s)/mi2]
By
25.4
0.3048
4,047
2.590
1,233
0.02832
0.01093
To Obtain
millimeter (mm)
meter (m)
square meter (m2)
square kilometer (km2)
cubic meters (m3)
cubic meter per second (m3/s)
cubic meter per second per
square kilometer [(m3/s)/ km2]
Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) can be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:
°C = (°F-32)/1.8
VERTICAL DATUM
Sea Level: In this report "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD
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.
II Contents
-------
Reconnaissance of Stream Geomorphology, Low
Streamflow, and Stream Temperature in the Mountaintop
Coal-Mining Region, Southern West Virginia, 1999-2000
By Jeffrey B. Wiley Ronald D. Evaldi, James H. Eychaner, and Douglas B. Chambers
Abstract INTRODUCTION
The effects of mountaintop removal coal mining
and the valley fills created by this mining method
in southern West Virginia were investigated by
comparing data collected at valley-fill, mined, and
unmined sites. Bed material downstream of
valley-fill sites had a greater number of particles
less than 2 millimeters and a smaller median parti-
cle size than the mined and unmined sites. At the
84th percentile of sampled data, however, bed
material at each site type had about the same size
particles.
Bankfull cross-sectional areas at a riffle sec-
tion were approximately equal at valley-fill and
unmined sites, but not enough time has passed and
insufficient streamflows since the land was dis-
turbed may have prevented the stream channel at
valley-fill sites from reaching equilibrium. The
90-percent flow durations at valley-fill sites gener-
ally were 6-7 times greater than at unmined sites.
Some valley-fill sites, however, exhibited stream-
flows similar to unmined sites, and some unmined
sites exhibited streamflows similar to valley-fill
sites. Daily streamflows from valley-fill sites gen-
erally are greater than daily streamflows from
unmined sites during periods of low Streamflow.
Valley-fill sites have a greater percentage of base-
flow and a lower percentage of flow from storm
runoff than unmined sites. Water temperatures
from a valley-fill site exhibited lower daily fluctua-
tions and seasonal variations than water tempera-
tures from an unmined site.
Increased mechanization of coal mining in West
Virginia in recent decades has led to wider-scale use of
mountaintop-mining techniques to reach coal seams
and the use of valleys to dispose of excess materials,
creating what is known as "valley fills." Mountaintop
mining with valley fills in the coal-mining region,
southern West Virginia, has changed forested
landscapes with layered sedimentary rocks into grass-
covered landscapes containing poorly sorted rock
fragments with large interconnected spaces. The U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the
West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, Office of Mining and Reclamation,
investigated the stream geomorphology and measured
the low Streamflow and stream temperature from mined
and unmined areas to determine the effects of valley
fills upon streams.
Results of this study will be used to prepare the
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill
EIS will assess 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 is a voluntary
effort among the Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the West Vir-
ginia Department of Environmental Protection (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2001).
This report presents comparisons of streambed
materials, stream-channel characteristics, low stream-
flow, and stream temperature among sites with and
without valley fills. A comparison of streambed materi-
als can indicate habitat alteration for stream aquatic
organisms if the particle-size distribution shows an
appreciable change in the number of small particles. A
Abstract 1
-------
comparison of stream-channel characteristics can indi-
cate an increase in peak discharges if bankfull area,
width, and depth increase. A comparison of stream
temperature can indicate possible effects to stream
aquatic organisms if the magnitude of annual fluctua-
tions are reduced. A comparison of low streamflow can
indicate changes in water quantity and alterations in
habitat that can affect the stream aquatic communities.
The study area is in the southern coalfields of West Vir-
ginia, and results of this study may apply to other areas
along the Appalachian Mountains and worldwide with
similar geohydrology.
Description of study area
The study area is in the Appalachian Plateaus
Physiographic Province of southern West Virginia
(fig. 1). It consists of consolidated, mostly
noncarbonate sedimentary rocks that dip gently to the
northwest. Streams have eroded the rocks forming
steep hills with deeply incised valleys that follow a
dendritic pattern and have formed uplifted plateaus
because of resistant layers of sandstone and shale
(Fenneman, 1938; Fenneman and Johnson, 1946; and
U.S. Geological Survey, 1970). Most 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 movement is greater laterally than vertically and
decreases with increasing depth to about 100 ft, except
in coal seams where equivalent ground water can move
at depths greater than 200 feet (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 a 24-hour
precipitation intensity of about 2.75 in. falls on the
average of once every two years (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1961).
Background
The demand for low-sulfur coal increased during the
1990s partly because of efforts to reduce harmful
emissions from coal-fired power plants. This increase
and the application of dragline mining technologies
made it economical to extract low-sulfur coal from the
southern coalfields of West Virginia. The draglines
remove large quantities of material atop and between
the low-sulfur coal seams and deposit the material in
adjacent valleys. The number of mines using dragline
methods has increased affecting the environment.
These effects include alterations in streambed material,
stream-channel characteristics, low streamflow, and
stream temperature.
Many of the changes in the stream environment
that potentially result from mountaintop mining affect
biological communities in these streams. Changes in
sediment transport and deposition, streamflows, and
temperature alter the physical and chemical environ-
ment to which biological communities are adapted.
Deposition of fine-grained sediment often alters
the physical habitat of streams. Changes in the physical
habitat used for feeding, reproduction, and cover affect
biological communities. Although all stream communi-
ties may be affected by habitat change caused by sedi-
mentation, effects to benthic invertebrate and fish
communities have been studied most extensively.
Increases in transport and deposition of fine sedi-
ments decreases the abundance of invertebrates and
invertebrate species (Lemly, 1982;Nutall, 1972). Some
taxa, such as the Heptageniid mayfly Epeorus pleura-
lis, prefer a habitat underneath large rocks in cobble
substrates. Filling of the spaces underneath the large
rocks by fine sediments reduces the availability of this
habitat (Minshall, 1967). Some invertebrates are dis-
placed by the loss of this habitat, and other inverte-
brates must modify behaviors making them more
susceptible to predation (Haro and Brusven, 1994).
Sedimentation can decrease flow through the stream
substrate, decreasing the availability of the stream-sub-
strate habitat, an important refuge for invertebrates
during droughts (Richards and Bacon, 1994). Sedimen-
tation can reduce invertebrate feeding efficiency. Malas
and Wallace (1977) found that sediments can clog the
finely meshed capture nets of the filter feeding caddis-
fly Dolophilodes modesta. Furthermore, sedimentation
can reduce the quality of food resources for the benthic
community (Graham, 1990).
Sedimentation can reduce or eliminate the abun-
dance offish and fish species because of the sedimenta-
tion effects on the invertebrate communities. Particular
fish species that feed upon benthic macroinvertebrates
and periphyton may be reduced or eliminated because
sedimentation reduces their food sources (Berkman
and Rabeni, 1987). Berkman and Rabeni also found
that particular fish species requiring clean stony or
gravel substrates for spawning may be reduced or elim-
2 Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region Southern W.Va., 1999-2000
-------
40 MILES
J
78°
39'
Appalachian Plateau
Physiographic Provin
STUDY AREA
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE
BOUNDARY
MAJOR STREAMS
• GAGING STATION AND
03202750 NUMBER IDENTIFIER
Figure 1. Location of study basins and long-term gaging stations in the coal-mining
region of southern West Virginia.
inated because of increased sedimentation. Further-
more, sedimentation can eliminate or reduce deep pool
habitats, a habitat providing cooler waters with
increased stream depth during summer months
(Waters, 1995).
Increases in 90-percent flow duration, the flow
that is exceeded 90-percent of the time, and baseflow,
the portion of flow the stream receives from ground
water, at valley-fill sites can affect benthic invertebrate
communities. Streams with valley fills may flow
throughout the drought season, although before min-
ing, no-flow periods may have been common. During
droughts, invertebrates utilize various drought-survival
strategies enabling them to persist until streamflows
return (Feminella, 1996; Dietrich and Anderson, 2000).
The effects to benthic communities of subtle alterations
in streamflow are uncertain because, other than flood or
drought effects, little attention has been given to study-
ing the effect of changing streamflow in stream ecol-
ogy. Increases in baseflow from valley fills can be
beneficial because of increases in water availability and
waste assimilation. However, increases in baseflow
from valley fills can be detrimental because stream-
flows originating from valley fills can have higher spe-
cific conductance than streamflows originating from
other settings (Green and others, 2000); thus, eliminat-
ing some sensitive species and reducing numbers of
tolerant species (Green and others, 2000).
Water temperature affects all aspects of aquatic
invertebrate physiology and ecology (Allan, 1995).
Timing of crucial life-cycle events such as egg hatch-
ing, emergence, and mating relies on thermal cues
INTRODUCTION 3
-------
(Ward and Stanford, 1982). Temperature controls the
growth rate of most species, and interactions among
closely related species may be reduced because differ-
ent responses to temperature segregate the species in
time (Ward and Stanford, 1982). Temperature controls
the feeding efficiency of invertebrate species along a
thermal gradient such that the optimal temperature for
assimilation of food often determines the distribution
of invertebrate species. Furthermore, temperature
changes can increase or decrease algal food production,
thereby affecting all higher levels in the food chain
(Ward and Stanford, 1982). The annual range of tem-
peratures can also affect the invertebrate communities.
An increase in the annual range of temperature, within
limits, can increase the number of invertebrates species
and the abundance of many species in a stream. A
decrease in the annual range of temperature, whether
from natural or human factors, can decrease the
number of species in a stream (Ward and Stanford,
1982).
DATA COLLECTION
Stream geomorphology and low streamflow
measurements were made at a network of 54 small
stream sites with drainage areas of 26 to 1,527 acres
(fig. 2). The 54 sites were chosen from a larger group
of about 120 sites with similar drainage areas. A team
of agencies determined the 120 sites as sample
locations. The 120 sites were located in five basins, and
the sites had an identified land use of either unmined,
mined, or valley fill. Unmined sites were those with no
evidence of previous coal mining in the tributary
watersheds. Mined sites represent watersheds where
coal has been mined but where no valley fills were
constructed. Valley-fill sites were in tributary
watersheds where both previous mining and valley fills
were present. In general, the valley-fill sites represent
recent or larger mining operations, and the mined sites
represent older or smaller operations.
Two sites (station numbers MT67 and MT68B)
were combined to make one of the 54 sites because
particle size could not be measured on the individual
stream reaches (fig. 2b). The subset of 54 sites was
selected throughout four of the five basins where the
USGS had active short-term (data collected for less
than 10 years) streamflow-gaging stations: Unnamed
Tributary to Ballard Fork near Mud (03204205), Spring
Branch near Mud (03204210), and Ballard Fork near
Mud (03204215) in the Upper (upstream of Middle
Fork) Mud River Basin, (fig. 2a); Clear Fork at Whites-
ville (03198350) in the Clear Fork Basin (fig. 2b);
Twentymile Creek at Vaughan (03192200) in the Twen-
tymile Creek Basin (fig. 2c); and, Spruce Fork at
Sharpies (03198690) in the Spruce Fork Basin (fig. 2d).
Continuous streamflow and stream temperature
were measured at two USGS streamflow-gaging sta-
tions in the Upper Mud River Basin, Unnamed Tribu-
tary to Ballard Fork near Mud (03204205) and Spring
Branch near Mud (03204210). Continuous data are col-
lected at time intervals that accurately represent the
changes among individual values. Continuous stream-
flow data were collected at three long-term (data col-
lected for ten years or longer) USGS gaging stations
(fig. 1): Cranberry River near Richwood (03187500),
Clear Fork at Clear Fork (03202750), and East Fork
Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow (03206600).
4 Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region Southern W.Va., 1999-2000
-------
82°7'30"
38°15'
)
I
) 5
5
I
I
10
10
I
KILOMETERS
MILES
EXPLANATION
— SELECTED STREAMS
MT76 • SAMPLING SITE
03198350 • GAGING STATION AND
NUMBER IDENTIFIER
• SELECTED TOWNS
Upper Mud River Basin (A.)
82°
OH
03204205
MT12
MT11B
MT1 OB and 03202405
MT09B
MT08
Clear Fork Basin (B.)
10 KILOMETERS
Figure 2A-B. Upper Mud River Basin (A.), Clear Fork Basin (B.), short-term
gaging stations, and small-stream sampling sites in the coal-mining region of
southern West Virginia.
DATA COLLECTION 5
-------
38°22'30"
Twentymile Creek Basin (C.)
81°7'30"
10 MILES
03198350 • GAGING STATION AND
NUMBER IDENTIFIER
EXPLANATION
— SELECTED STREAMS
MT76 • SAMPLING SITE
Spruce Fork Basin (D.)
Figure 2C-D. Twentymile Creek Basin (C.), Spruce Fork Basin (D.), short term gaging stations,
and small-stream sampling sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia.
6 Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region Southern W.Va., 1999-2000
-------
Geomorphology
Bed material and bankfull channel characteristics were
measured at the 54 sites in the Clear Fork, Upper Mud
River, Spruce Fork, and Twentymile Creek Basins
(fig. 2). Bankfull is the stream stage and discharge that
forms the stream channel. Bankfull discharge
transports the maximum amount of sediments over
time resulting in bankfull-channel characteristics
representative of the watershed (Rosgen, 1996).
Methods described by Wolman (1954) were
modified and used to make a quantitative analysis of
the distribution of particle sizes on the streambed in
this study. The method required measuring the size of
up to 100 particles from each stream. Collecting parti-
cle-size information from multiple cross sections with
a mixture of geomorphic features (such as riffles,
pools, and runs) was desired, but at some sites a pool-
and-riffle pattern was not available or the streams were
too narrow (less than 10 ft). The method presented by
Wolman, therefore, was modified to collect pebbles
from a mixture of geomorphic features on narrow
streams. Streambed-particle sizes were surveyed
between October 25 and November 10, 1999 (table 4,
located at the end of this report) using the following
method:
(1) Begin the pebble count at bankfull elevation
on the left bank at the upstream boundary of the stream
reach and proceed downstream toward the right bank.
Proceed at a 45-degree angle (or less for short reaches)
with a line along the center of streamflow (or center of
channel if the center of streamflow is not apparent) to
the bankfull elevation on the right bank. Proceed down-
stream from right bank to left bank and left bank to
right bank until 60-100 pebbles are collected or until
arriving at the end of the stream reach.
(2) Proceed one step at a time, with each step
constituting a sampling point.
(3) At each step, reach down to the tip of your
boot and, with your finger extended, pick up the first
pebble touched by the extended finger;
(4) To reduce sampling bias, look across and not
down at the channel bottom when taking steps or
retrieving bed material; and,
(5) As you retrieve each pebble, measure the
intermediate axis. If the intermediate axis cannot be
determined easily, measure the long diameter and the
short diameter of the pebble, and determine the average
of the two numbers.
Bankfull channel characteristics were surveyed
between August 31 and November 9, 2000 (table 4). A
cross section was selected in a riffle where effects of
exceptional features such as a large (relative to the
stream size) rock, cliff, or fallen tree were minimal.
The bankfull channel was located using techniques that
include identifying bankfull indicators such as changes
in bank slope, vegetation, and sediments. The maxi-
mum depth, width, and cross-sectional area of the
bankfull channel were determined.
Low streamflow measurements
Discharges at the 54 sites in the Clear Fork, Upper Mud
River, Spruce Fork, and Twentymile Creek Basins
(fig. 2) were measured four times during low
streamflow (table 5, located at the end of this report)
using methods described by Rantz and others, 1982.
The four measurement periods were October 25
through November 10, 1999; June 6-9, 2000; August
16-21, 2000; and August 31 through November 9,
2000.
Continuous streamflow and stream
temperature
The USGS collects continuous streamflow data at
selected locations, provides historic and real-time data
at http://www.usgs.gov/ (real-time data are not
available for all stations), and publishes data annually
(see for example, Ward and others, 2000). Continuous
streamflow data are collected following procedures
described by Rantz and others, 1982. Streamflow data
were collected at two gaging stations where
temperature data also were collected. Streamflow data
necessary to determine reliable low streamflow
statistics for this study required a minimum of 10 years
of unregulated continuous record. Data from
continuous streamflow-gaging stations with drainage
areas approximately equal to those of the 54 sites was
preferred, but no stations were available with 10 years
of record in the current network of gages with drainage
areas as small as the 54 sites. Streamflow-gaging
stations in the study area at the time of this study
(1999-2000) that had been operating for a minimum of
10 years drained much greater areas: Cranberry River
DATA COLLECTION 7
-------
near Richwood (03187500), 80.4 mi2; Clear Fork at
Clear Fork (03202750), 126 mi2; and, East Fork
Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow (03206600), 38.5 mi2.
Continuous stream temperature was measured at
two USGS streamflow-gaging stations established in
Ballard Fork of the Upper Mud River Basin in Novem-
ber 1999. The two stations are located near two of the
54 sites (fig. 2a). The station Unnamed Tributary to
Ballard Fork near Mud (03202405) is near sample site
MT10B, about 400 feet downstream of a valley fill.
The station Spring Branch near Mud (03202410) is
near sample site MT13, which drains an unmined
basin. Installation of the temperature monitors fol-
lowed manufacturer specifications and procedures
described by Wilde and others (1998).
STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY
Stream geomorphology was analyzed using
measurements of bed materials and channel
characteristics. Stream geomorphology for unmined,
mined, and valley-fill sites are compared.
Bed material
Bed material data were studied using particle sizes of
the median, 84th percentile, and percentage less than 2
millimeters. The 84th percentile is an arbitrary particle
size equal to two standard deviations larger than the
mean size, assuming a normal distribution. The
particle size of the 84th percentile has been related to
stream roughness, and particles greater than or equal to
the 84th percentile can be considered as large particles
(Leopold and others, 1995). Particle sizes less than 2
millimeters can be considered as small.
The distribution (median, 84th percentile, and
percentage of particles less than 2 millimeters) of parti-
cle sizes among unmined sites located within an indi-
vidual basin are similar (table 4). The distribution of
particle sizes for unmined sites among all basins, how-
ever, may or may not be similar. Particle sizes from
streams draining unmined areas in Spruce Fork and
Clear Fork have a similar distribution, but these parti-
cle-size distributions are different from those of
streams draining unmined areas of both Upper Mud
River and Twentymile Creek. The similar and dissimi-
lar particle-size distributions among basins indicate
that natural factors, such as localized geology and land
slope, may have some affect on particle sizes.
The bed material of mined and unmined sites can
have similar distributions of particle sizes when the
land surface of the mined site is not appreciably dis-
turbed, and the bed material of mined and valley-fill
sites have similar distributions of particle sizes when
the land surface of the mined site is disturbed. For
example, streams at sites MT82, MT83, and MT84
(table 4), located on and tributary to Sycamore Creek in
the Clear Fork Basin, drain areas of approximately the
same size. The land upstream of MT82 and MT84 is
mined. The land upstream of MT83 is unmined. The
percentage of particles less than 2 millimeters at site
MT82 (mined) is about three times the percentage of
particles less than 2 millimeters at site MT83
(unmined). Additionally, the median particle size at site
MT82 (mined) is about 100 millimeters smaller than
the median particle size for site MT83 (unmined). Par-
ticle-size distributions at the mined site MT84, how-
ever, are similar to those at the unmined site.
Data for Spruce Fork and Clear Fork were com-
bined on the basis of the assumption that the similar
distributions of particle sizes between the basins indi-
cated that the same natural factors, such as localized
geology and land slope, were affecting the basins. The
combined basins provided 8 unmined sites, 8 mined
sites, and 14 valley-fill sites for further analysis. The
minimum, 75th percentile, median, 25th percentile, and
maximum particle sizes with outliers indicated as hori-
zontal lines are shown in box plots (fig. 3). Particle
sizes less than 2 millimeters are analyzed as equal to 2
millimeters. Valley-fill sites have a greater number of
particles less than 2 millimeters, a smaller median par-
ticle size (11 sites out of the total 14 sites have median
particle sizes less than 2 millimeters), and about the
same 84th-percentile particle size as the mined and
unmined sites (fig. 3). The percentage of particle sizes
less than 2 millimeters increases appreciably at the
valley-fill sites compared to the mined and unmined
sites.
Data for Upper Mud River and Twentymile
Creek were insufficient for analysis similar to that done
with the combination of Spruce Fork and Clear Fork
data. There are a sufficient number of valley fill sites
(8) in the Upper Mud River Basin, but there are no
mined sites and only three unmined sites. A sufficient
number of unmined sites (7) are available in the Twen-
tymile Creek Basin, but only one mined site and three
valley-fill sites are available.
8 Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region Southern W.Va., 1999-2000
-------
If
eg
Q.
X
UJ
a
E
'c
g> c .22
E—[
i- -4 03
= O £
ID
c o
CD
e
0
Q.
vV
IT 1 1
c ' '
m r i
ii i 1
c
co 1 1 1
c
§888
0 •* CO S
1 1 —
H
ZH
0 C
o
SU313l/\inill/\l NI '31llN30U3d fr8 3H1 dO 3ZIS 310liyVd
CD
O
CD
N
'to
.CD
O
'•c .
CO CO
C0>
a'
o
'€ a?
-T
M
8
m
CM
Sd313l/\HTIII/\l NI '3ZIS 310lldVd NVIQ3I/M
CO
00
E-CID
E—I
E
]—]
o
o
in
CM
NI 'syai3i/\iniii/\i z NVHI ssai sanoiiyvd
|8
T3 B
0 ,-
E 9
I?
If
CM CO
= 8
CO
co
CD
— co
CO C
® w
O CO
'•£ CD
CO ^
o u-
g co
i|
I!
si
£8
.
U. CO
STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY 9
-------
Sites with an increase in the percentage of parti-
cles less than 2 millimeters could return to the particle-
size distributions that were present before the land dis-
turbance. A sediment-load study (Ward and Appel,
1988) in relation to highway construction in southern
West Virginia indicated that sediment loads decreased
after revegetation and stabilization of the disturbed
land. The report also indicated a trend of decreasing
magnitudes of sediment loads, but the time required for
the sediment loads to return to magnitudes of the pre-
construction loads was not measured. Particle-size dis-
tributions measured in this study could follow a similar
trend as the decreasing sediment loads in the previous
report and return to the pre-disturbed distributions.
Channel characteristics
The maximum depth, width, and cross-sectional area of
the bankfull channel at a riffle section were compared
among valley-fill and unmined sites. Mined sites were
not considered in this analysis because there were only
nine, which is an insufficient number of sites to
develop a regression curve. Comparisons among maxi-
mum depths, maximum widths, and drainage areas did
not indicate any difference between valley-fill and
unmined sites. Comparisons among cross-sectional
areas and drainage areas (fig. 4) show the similarity
between the valley-fill and unmined sites. The linear
regression equation for the valley-fill sites
(R-squared = 0.48; standard error = 47 percent) is
100
ti
HI
li.
HI
cc
o
co
ss
CC
HI
co
CO
CO
o
cc
o
m
10 -
VALLEY-FILL SITE
UNMINED SITE
— LINEAR REGRESSION FOR VALLEY-FILL SITES
- - LINEAR REGRESSION FOR UNMINED SITES
0 *W5
XS-Afl|| =0.379(DA) , where
XS-Af{|| is the bankfull cross-sectional area for a valley fill site,
in square feet; and DA is the drainage area, in acres.
, where
XS-Aunmined is the bankfull cross-sectional area for unmined
sites, in square feet; and DA is the drainage area, in acres.
10
100
1,000
10,000
DRAINAGE AREA, IN ACRES
Figure 4. Comparisons among bankfull cross-sectional areas and drainage areas for valley-fill
and unmined sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia.
10 Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region Southern W.Va., 1999-2000
-------
XS-Afiil = 0.379 (DA) °385,
where
XS-Afiii is the bankfull cross-sectional area for a
valley-fill site, in square feet;
and
DA is the drainage area, in acres.
The linear regression equation for the unmined sites
(R-squared = 0.27; standard error = 54 percent) is
XS-Aunmmed = 0.388 (DA)0-360,
where
XS-Aunmined is the bankfull cross-sectional area
for unmined sites, in square feet;
and
DA is the drainage area, in acres.
The approximately equal bankfull cross-sec-
tional areas of valley-fill and unmined sites suggests
the bankfull discharges between the two groups are
approximately equal. This conclusion may be inaccu-
rate if bankfull indicators are not representative of
land-use changes. Bankfull indicators at valley-fill sites
may be biased toward the pre-disturbed condition (an
unmined condition) if the elapsed time and peak
streamflows since the land was disturbed have been
insufficient to bring the channel (thus, the bankfull
indicators) to equilibrium.
LOW STREAM FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
Low streamflow characteristics were investigated by
comparing 90-percent flow durations (the streamflow
expected to be equalled or exceeded at the site 90
percent of the time), daily streamflow records, base-
streamflows (streamflow from ground-water
discharge), and stormflows (streamflow from over-land
runoff) among all valley-fill and unmined sites.
Ward and others (2000) published the 90-percent
flow durations for the selected continuous streamflow-
gaging stations (table 1). The discharge measurements
made at the 54 sites were compared to concurrent dis-
charges at the continuous streamflow stations. These
data were used to estimate the 90-percent flow duration
at the 54 sites (table 4), using methods described by
Riggs (1972).
Low streamflows in relation to drainage area
were compared among all valley-fill and unmined sites
(fig. 5). Mined sites were not considered in this analy-
sis because only 9 sites were available, which is an
insufficient number of sites to develop a regression
curve. Sites with 90-percent flow durations of no
streamflow were omitted (six sites), because the data
were logic transformed. The valley-fill sites can have
about a 6-7 times greater 90-percent flow duration than
unmined sites (fig. 5). The linear regression equation
for the valley-fill sites (R-squared = 0.60; standard
error =115 percent) is
Table 1. Low-streamflow statistics at long-term gaging stations in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia
Station number
Station name
90-percent flow duration, in
cubic feet per second
03187500
03202750
03206600
Cranberry River near Richwood
Clear Fork at Clear Fork
East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow
16
12
1.3
LOW STREAMFLOW CHARACTERISTICS 11
-------
D90mi = 0.000161 (DA)
1.098
where
D90fin is the 90-percent flow duration for a
valley-fill site, in cubic feet per second;
and
DA is the drainage area, in acres.
The linear regression equation for the unmined sites
(R-squared = 0.29; standard error = 155 percent) is
D90unmmed= 0.0000209 (DA) L129,
where
D90unmined is the 90-percent flow duration for
an unmined site, in cubic feet per second; and
DA is the drainage area, in acres.
Three of the valley-fill sites (MT74, MT87, and
the combination of MT67 and MT68B) exhibited
90-percent flow durations similar to those of unmined
sites, and three of the unmined sites (MT41, MT92,
and MT97) exhibited 90-percent flow durations similar
to those of valley-fill sites (fig. 5). The site MT41 is on
Oldhouse Branch in the Spruce Fork Basin. Another
site on Oldhouse Branch, MT42, has a larger drainage
area and smaller 90-percent flow duration than MT41.
Field observations indicated some of the streamflow
measurements from MT41 were made where the stre-
ambed was a rock outcrop. These measurements at the
rock outcrop suggest it restricts ground-water flow, and
the outcrop was forcing water to the surface into the
stream. The water forced to the surface and into the
stream may have produced a greater discharge than
typically is at an unmined site with that drainage area.
Other unmined sites that exhibit 90-percent flow dura-
tions similar to 90-percent flow durations from valley-
fill sites may have similar field conditions. This conclu-
sion, however, is speculative and not definitive.
1.0
ill
w
cc
HI
Q_
HI
li.
o
CO
o
Q
I
HI
O
cc
HI
Q.
6
O)
0.1 -
0.01 -
0.001 -
0.0001
D90fiN=0.000161(DA)1l°98, where
D90fi|| is the 90-percent flow duration for a valley fill site,
in cubic feet per second; and DA is the drainage area,
in acres.
d—SITE MT87
1.129
SITE MT74
/°
D90unmined=0.0000209(DA) ' .where
D90unmined is tne 90-percent flow duration for an unmined site, in cubic
feet per second, and DA is the drainage area, in acres.
O
D
VALLEY-FILL SITE
UNMINED SITE
LINEAR REGRESSION FOR
LINEAR REGRESSION FOR
VALLEY-FILL SITES
UNMINED SITES
10
100 1,000
DRAINAGE AREA, IN ACRES
10,000
Figure 5. Comparisons among the 90-percent flow durations and drainage areas for valley-fill
and unmined sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia.
12 Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region Southern W.Va., 1999-2000
-------
Valley-fill sites exhibiting 90-percent flow dura-
tions similar to unmined sites suggest the fill is not
retaining water, as is typical of other fills. Water may
not be retained because the fill is relatively small com-
pared to the rest of the drainage area or because of
some difference in the design of the fill, but data col-
lected for this study are insufficient to determine a spe-
cific cause.
Daily streamflows determined for the valley-fill
site, Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork near Mud
(03202405), and the unmined site, Spring Branch near
Mud (03202410), for the period December 1999
through November 2000 are presented in tables 2 and
3, respectively. Spring Branch had no streamflow for
several days in October and November, but Unnamed
Tributary to Ballard Fork had streamflow for the entire
period. Greater streamflows may be expected at Spring
Branch than at Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork for
these days in October and November because the
drainage area at Spring Branch (0.53 mi ) is 2.8 times
greater than the drainage area at Unnamed Tributary to
Ballard Fork (0.19 mi ). The most probable reason that
streamflow is not greater at Spring Branch than at
Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork is because
Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork is a valley-fill site,
and the valley-fill sites can have about a 6-7 times
greater 90-percent flow duration than unmined sites
. 5).
The daily streamflow data from Spring Branch
and Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork gaging stations
were analyzed using a technique of streamflow parti-
tioning. Streamflow partitioning separates streamflow
data into estimates of base-streamflow and stormflow
components using the Rorabaugh streamflow model
(Rutledge, 1998). For this report, streamflow data were
partitioned for the period December 1999 through
November 2000. The estimated unit-mean base stream-
flow was 0.98 cubic foot per second per square mile of
drainage area [(ft3/s)/mi2] for Unnamed Tributary to
Ballard Fork and 0.42 (ft3/s)/mi2 for Spring Branch.
Streamflows were about 84-percent base streamflow
and 16-percent stormflow for Unnamed Tributary to
Ballard Fork, and streamflows were about 59-percent
base streamflow and 41 -percent stormflow for Spring
Branch. The most probable reason the unit-mean base
streamflow and percentage of base streamflow are
greater for Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork than
Spring Branch is because Unnamed Tributary to Bal-
lard Fork is a valley-fill site, and the valley-fill sites can
have about a 6-7 times greater 90-percent flow duration
than unmined sites (fig. 5).
STREAM TEMPERATURE
Daily water-temperature data measured at Unnamed
Tributary to Ballard Fork near Mud (03202405) and at
Spring Branch near Mud (03202410), for the period
December 1999 through November 2000, are presented
in tables 6 and 7, respectively (located at the end of this
report). The temperature monitor at Unnamed
Tributary to Ballard Fork is approximately 400 ft.
downstream from a valley fill. The daily fluctuations of
temperatures at Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork are
less than the daily fluctuations at Spring Branch. The
minimum water temperature observed at Unnamed
Tributary to Ballard Fork was 3.3°C on January 28,
2000, which indicated above freezing conditions. The
minimum water temperature observed at Spring
Branch was -2.4°C on January 28, 2000, which
probably indicated frozen water conditions. The
minimum water temperatures at Unnamed Tributary to
Ballard Fork and Spring Branch differ because water at
Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork was mixed with
warmer water discharging from the valley fill. The
water temperature at Unnamed Tributary to Ballard
Fork showed a lesser seasonal range than the seasonal
range observed at Spring Branch. The daily-mean
water temperature at Unnamed Tributary to Ballard
Fork was greater than the daily-mean water
temperature at Spring Branch during winter, and the
daily-mean water temperature at Unnamed Tributary to
Ballard Fork was less than the daily-mean water
temperature at Spring Branch during summer (fig. 6).
STREAM TEMPERATURE 13
-------
Table 2. Daily mean discharges in cubic feet per second, December 1999 through November 2000, at Unnamed Tributary to
Ballard Fork near Mud (03202405) in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia
[e, estimated; —, no value; Acre-ft, quantity of water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot; CFSM, cubic foot per second per square mile; In., depth
to which the drainage area would be covered by the indicated runoff]
Day
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
Total
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Acre-ft
CFSM
In.
Total=81.85
Dec.
0.27
.23
.20
.20
.19
.20
.17
.14
.14
.17
.18
.17
.22
1.3
.99
.70
.52
.43
.37
.34
.30
.32
.34
.31
.31
.30
.28
.27
.27
.26
.26
10.35
.33
1.3
.14
21
1.76
2.03
Jan.
0.26
.25
.27
.31
.27
.28
.26
.26
.25
.26
e.25
e.24
e.23
e.22
e.21
e.21
e.21
e.21
e.21
e.21
e.21
e.22
e.23
e.24
e.24
e.22
e.20
e.20
e.22
e.25
e.24
7.34
.24
.31
.20
15
1.25
1.44
Mean=0.22
Feb.
eO.22
e.20
e.19
e.18
e.17
e.17
e.17
e.16
.16
.15
.17
.16
.17
.59
.53
.42
.32
.59
el. 8
el.l
.77
.58
.48
.42
.38
.34
.35
.32
.31
—
—
11.57
.40
1.8
.15
23
2.10
2.27
Mar.
0.31
.29
.26
.26
.25
.25
.18
.15
.13
.11
.21
.25
.25
.20
.17
.14
.15
.15
.15
.16
.20
.21
.18
.16
.13
.13
.12
.14
.13
.11
.11
5.64
.18
.31
.11
11
.96
1.10
Maximum=1.8
Apr.
0.10
.10
.12
.32
.37
.31
.26
.30
.30
.26
.24
.21
.19
.18
.17
.15
.17
.19
.18
.17
.19
.22
.21
.23
.35
.39
.34
.29
.25
.21
—
6.97
.23
.39
.10
14
1.22
1.36
May
0.20
.20
.19
.17
.16
.15
.14
.14
.13
.13
.13
.11
.13
.10
.10
.10
.10
.09
.10
.09
.10
.09
.11
.10
.09
.09
.36
.90
1.2
.49
.34
6.53
.21
1.2
.09
13
1.11
1.28
Minimum=0.09
June
0.28
.25
.22
.20
.17
.16
.15
.13
.12
.11
.11
.11
.10
.10
.11
.10
.21
.41
e.41
e.42
e.58
e.58
e.46
e.32
e.32
e.30
e.28
e.29
e.26
e.23
—
7.49
.25
.58
.10
15
1.31
1.47
July
eO.21
e.21
e.24
e.27
e.26
e.24
.22
.21
.19
.28
.55
.53
.43
.41
.52
.51
.40
.34
.34
.31
.31
.28
.25
.23
.22
.21
.19
.19
.20
.19
.19
9.13
.29
.55
.19
18
1.55
1.79
Total Acre-ft= 162
Aug.
0.20
.19
.19
.17
.15
.15
.17
.23
.34
.54
.51
.40
.33
.26
.24
.21
.20
.19
.19
.18
.17
.15
.15
.15
.15
.15
.15
.15
.15
.14
.13
6.68
.22
.54
.13
13
1.13
1.31
Sept.
0.11
.12
.11
.13
.13
.12
.11
.11
.11
.15
.17
.19
.16
.14
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.10
.10
.14
.14
.15
.13
.11
.11
—
3.73
.12
.19
.10
7.4
.65
.73
TotalCFSM=1.18
Oct.
0.11
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.11
.11
.11
.11
.10
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.14
.14
.13
.13
3.35
.11
.14
.10
6.6
.57
.66
Nov.
0.12
.11
.13
.14
.13
.12
.12
.09
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.09
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
—
3.07
.10
.14
.09
6.1
.54
.60
Total In.=16.03
14 Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region Southern W.Va., 1999-2000
-------
Table 3. Daily mean discharges in cubic feet per second, December 1999 through November 2000, at Spring Branch near
Mud (03202410) in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia
[e, estimated; —, no value; Acre-ft, quantity of water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot; CFSM, cubic foot per second per square mile; In., depth
in inches to which the drainage area would be covered by the indicated runoff]
Day
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
Total
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Acre-ft
CFSM
In.
Total=136.31
Dec.
0.13
.13
.12
.11
.11
.12
.10
.09
.09
.20
.16
.15
.29
4.8
1.1
.54
.37
.29
.24
.22
.18
.17
.15
.14
.12
.13
.12
.12
.11
.11
.11
10.82
.35
4.8
.09
21
.66
.76
Mean=0
Jan.
0.11
.10
.11
.18
.14
.14
.14
.14
.17
.18
.17
.15
.14
.12
.12
.13
.12
.12
.12
.13
.11
.10
.11
.11
.10
.10
.09
.08
.10
.15
.13
3.91
.13
.18
.08
7.8
.24
.27
.37
Feb.
0.12
.12
.13
.15
.14
.14
.15
.16
.17
.19
.23
.23
.25
2.2
1.4
.95
.62
2.5
e!4
e3.5
el .7
el
.68
.59
.49
.41
.43
.38
.35
—
—
33.38
1.15
14
.12
66
2.17
2.34
Mar.
0.35
.32
.30
.29
.27
.25
.25
.26
.30
.26
.53
.92
.90
.79
.66
.64
.73
.68
.68
.74
.95
.94
.89
.76
.66
.59
.54
.49
.41
.37
.33
17.05
.55
.95
.25
34
1.04
1.20
Maximum=14
Apr.
0.31
.31
e.6
e3.1
e2.1
el.6
el.l
el.6
el. 5
el.4
el.2
el.l
e.9
.67
.60
.53
.55
.51
.49
.48
.60
.64
.70
.77
1.5
1.8
1.4
1.0
.76
.56
—
30.38
1.01
3.1
.31
60
1.91
2.13
May
0.47
.43
.34
.29
.26
.23
.21
.18
.16
.14
.11
.09
.18
.11
.08
.07
.07
.06
.20
.20
.13
.10
.27
.17
.13
.10
2.6
2.0
.88
.53
.34
11.13
.36
2.6
.06
22
.68
.78
Minimum=0.00
June
0.25
.20
.16
.13
.12
.10
.09
.07
.06
.05
.04
.03
.03
.04
.11
.06
.29
.37
.37
.31
1.8
6.3
1.1
.48
.32
.25
.23
.25
.20
.16
—
13.97
.47
6.3
.03
28
.88
.98
July
0.12
.10
.13
.17
.13
.11
.09
.07
.07
.35
.87
.44
.29
.39
.36
.33
.28
.22
.36
.36
.30
.25
.21
.20
.17
.14
.11
.12
.13
.16
.12
7.15
.23
.87
.07
14
.44
.50
Total Acre-ft=270
Aug.
0.18
.15
.11
.10
.09
.08
.14
.30
.32
.64
.33
.24
.20
.16
.13
.12
.12
.18
.13
.12
.12
.11
.11
.13
.10
.10
.14
.10
.09
.08
.08
5.00
.16
.64
.08
9.9
.30
.35
Sept.
0.09
.08
.08
.09
.07
.08
.07
.08
.06
.32
.10
.03
.02
.02
.02
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
e.Ol
e.Ol
e.Ol
e.Ol
e.Ol
e.Ol
e.Ol
e.Ol
e.Ol
e.Ol
—
1.36
.045
.32
.01
2.7
.09
.10
Total CFSM=0.70
Oct.
0.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
.01
.03
.00
.01
.02
.03
.00
.01
.01
.03
.00
.01
.01
.01
.02
.02
.00
.01
.01
.01
.01
.03
.06
0.40
.013
.06
.00
.8
.02
.03
Nov.
0.07
.00
.01
.02
.05
.07
.02
.00
.03
.08
.03
.02
.03
.04
.04
.04
.06
.08
.10
.10
.11
.13
.14
.17
.07
.04
.04
.04
.05
.08
—
1.76
.059
.17
.00
3.5
.11
.12
Total In.=9. 57
STREAM TEMPERATURE 15
-------
24
22 -
20 -
CO
§ 13
O 16 -
CO
a 14
CC
S 12 J
Q
LU
CC
LU
0_
LJJ
10 -
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
0 -
-2
VALLEY-FILL SITE (UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO BALLARD FORK NEAR MUD, 03202405)
UNMINED SITE (SPRING BRANCH NEAR MUD, 03202410)
NO DATA
DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV.
1999 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
DATE
Figure 6. Daily mean water temperatures, December 1999 through November 2000, at a
valley-fill and an unmined site in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia.
SUMMARY
Mining coal by removing mountaintops and disposing
of the overburden in valleys, creating valley fills, has
changed the landscape in the coal-mining region of
southern West Virginia and affected stream
geomorphology, low streamflow, and stream
temperatures. The USGS, in cooperation with the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Office of Mining and Reclamation, investigated these
mining effects by comparing data collected between
1999 and 2000 in four basins at valley-fill, unmined,
and mined sites. Information from this study will assist
in the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement to assess the policies, guidance, and
decision-making processes of regulatory agencies in
order to minimize any adverse environmental effects
from this mining practice.
Particle sizes were measured at 54 small stream
sites in the Clear Fork, Upper Mud River, Spruce Fork,
and Twentymile Creek Basins, using a modification to
the procedure described by Wolman (1954). A compar-
ison of all unmined sites indicated that distribution of
particle sizes can differ among unmined basins. The
different distributions among basins suggests that natu-
ral factors may have some effect over particle sizes.
Valley-fill sites had a greater number of particles less
than 2 millimeters in size, a smaller median particle
size, and about the same 84th percentile particle size, as
compared to the mined and unmined sites.
Bankfull maximum depth, width, and cross-sec-
tional area at a riffle section were measured at the 54
small-stream sites. No differences in the bankfull mea-
surements could be determined between valley-fill and
unmined sites. Bankfull indicators at valley-fill sites
16 Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region Southern W.Va., 1999-2000
-------
may not represent the valley-fill condition if there has
not been enough time and if peak streamflows since the
land was disturbed have been insufficient to bring the
channel to equilibrium.
Low streamflows were investigated by compar-
ing 90-percent flow durations, daily streamflow
records, base-streamflows, and stormflows. Generally,
the 90-percent flow durations at valley-fill sites were
6-7 times greater than the 90-percent flow durations at
unmined sites. Some valley-fill sites, however, exhib-
ited 90-percent flow durations similar to unmined sites,
and some unmined sites exhibited 90-percent flow
durations similar to valley-fill sites. Daily streamflows
from valley-fill sites generally are greater than daily
streamflows from unmined sites during periods of low
streamflow. Valley-fill sites have a greater percentage
of base-streamflows and lower percentage of storm-
flows than unmined sites.
Stream temperature was recorded at a valley-fill
site and at an unmined site. Water temperatures from a
valley-fill site exhibited lower daily fluctuations and
lesser seasonal variations than water temperatures from
an unmined site. Water temperatures from the valley-
fill site were warmer in the winter and cooler in the
summer than water temperatures from the unmined
site.
REFERENCES CITED
Allan, J.D., 1995, Stream ecology: Structure and function of
running waters: Chapman and Hall, London, 388 p.
Berkman, H.E., and Rabeni, C.F., 1987, Effect of siltation on
stream fish communities: Environmental Biology of
Fishes, v. 18, p. 285-294.
Dietrich, M, and Anderson, N.H., 2000, The invertebrate
fauna of summer-dry streams in western Oregon:
Archives fur Hydrobiologie, v. 147, p 273-295.
Feminella, J.W., 1996, Comparison of benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages in small streams along a
gradient of flow permanence: Journal of the North
American Benthological Society, v. 15, p. 651-669.
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.
Graham, A. A., 1990, Siltation of stone-surface periphyton in
rivers by clay-sized particles from low concentrations in
suspension: Hydrobiologia, v. 199, p. 107-115.
Green, Jim, Passmore, Maggie, and Childers, Hope, 2000, A
survey of the condition of streams in the primary region
of mountaintop mining/valley fill coal mining:
Mountaintop mining/valley fill programmatic
environmental impact statement, USEPA, Region III,
Wheeling, W. Va.
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.
Haro, R.J., and Brusven, M.A., 1994, Effects of cobble
embeddedness on the microdistribution of the sculpin
Coitus beldingi and its stonefly prey: Great Basin
Naturalist, v. 54, no. 1, p. 64-70.
Lemly, D.A., 1982, Modification of benthic insect
communities in polluted streams: combined effects of
sedimentation and nutrient enrichment: Hydrobiologia,
v. 87, p. 229-245.
Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P, 1995, Fluvial
processes ingeomorphology: Dover Publications, New
York, 522 p.
Malas, D., and Wallace, J.B., 1977, Strategies for
coexistence in three net-spinning Caddisflies
(Trichoptera) in second-order southern Appalachian
streams: Canadian Journal of Zoology, v. 55, p. 1829-
1840.
Minshall, J.N., 1967, Life history and ecology of Epeorus
pluralis (Banks) (Ephemeroptera; Heptageniidae):
American Midland Naturalist, 78, p. 369-388.
Nutall, P. M., 1972, The effects of sand deposition upon the
macroinvertebrate fauna of the River Camel, Cornwall:
Freshwater Biology, v. 2, p. 181-186.
Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and
computation of streamflow: Volume 1. Measurement of
stage and discharge; Volume 2. Computation of
discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
2175, 631 p.
Richards, Carl, and Bacon, K.L., 1994, Influence of fine
sediment on macroinvertebrate colonization of surface
and hyporheic stream substrates: Great Basin
Naturalist, v. 54, no. 2, p. 16-113.
Riggs, H.C., 1972, Low-flow investigations: Techniques of
Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological
Survey, Book 4, Chap. Bl, 18 p.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996, Applied river morphology:
Minneapolis, Minnesota, Printed Media Companies.
Rutledge, A.T., 1998, Computer programs for describing the
recession of ground-water discharge and for estimating
mean ground-water recharge and discharge from
streamflow records - update: U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4148, 43 p.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1960, Climates of the States,
West Virginia: Weather Bureau, Climatography of the
United States, no. 60-46, 15 p.
REFERENCES CITED 17
-------
1961, Rainfall frequency atlas of the United States:
Weather Bureau Technical Paper no. 40, 115 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, Mountaintop
mining valley fill draft environmental impact statement:
EPA/903/R-00/013, accessed June 8 at URL
http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1970, The national atlas of the
United States of America: U.S. Geological Survey,
417 p.
Ward, J.V, and Stanford, J.A., 1982, Thermal responses in
the evolutionary ecology of aquatic insects: Annual
Reviews in Entomology, v. 27, p. 97-117.
Ward, S.M., Taylor, B.C., and Crosby, G.R., 2000, Water
resources data, West Virginia, water year 1999: U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Data Report WV-99-1, 305 p.
Ward, S.M., and Appel, D.H., 1988, Suspended-sediment
yields in the Coal River and Trace Fork Basins, West
Virginia, 1975-84: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 87-4171, 38 p.
Waters, T.F., 1995, Sediment in streams: Sources, biological
effects and control: American Fisheries Society
Monograph 7, 251 p.
Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, I, and Iwatsubo, R.T.,
1998, National field manual for the collection of water-
quality data: Preparations for water sampling: U.S.
Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources
Investigations, Book 9, Chapter Al, 47 p.
Wolman, M.G., 1954, A method of sampling coarse river-
bed material: American Geophysics Union
Transactions, v. 35, no. 6, p. 951-956.
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.
18 Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region Southern W.Va., 1999-2000
-------
TABLES
-------
•earn Geom
o
jhology, Low Streamfli
u
ai
3
Q.
1
a>
5
i
•D
0>
3
e-
ire, Mountaint
0
•D
O
0
ai
s
3'
in
70
(D
in
o'
(n
0
F*
3-
(D
^
3
g
a>
1
[— , no value; •
Station
number
<, less than]
Stream name
Latitude
Longi-
tude
Drain
-age
area,
in
acres
Mining
class
90-per-
cent
flow
dura-
tion, in
cubic
feet per
second
Median
parti-
cle
size, in
milli-
meters
Parti-
cle size
of the
84th
per-
cen-
tile, in
milli-
meters
Parti-
cles
smaller
than 2
milli-
meters,
in per-
cent
Bank-
full
cross-
sec-
tion
width,
in feet
Maxi-
mum
bankfull
cross-
section
depth, in
feet
Bank-
full
cross-
sec-
tion
area, in
square
feet
Clear Fork Basin
MT64
MT65C
MT66
MT67
and
MT68B
MT69
MT70
MT71
MT72
MT73
MT74
MT76
MT78
Buffalo Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Buffalo Fork
Buffalo Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Buffalo Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Buffalo Fork
Ewing Fork
Toney Fork
Toney Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Toney Fork
Toney Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Toney Fork
Reeds Branch
Raines Fork
37°53'58"
37°53'48"
37°53'47"
37°53'47"
37°53'46"
37°54'50"
37°54'38"
37°54'19"
37°54'17"
37°54'21"
37°54'25"
37°54'28"
37°55'11"
81°19'52"
81°19'38"
81°19'09"
81°18'55"
81°18'53"
81°19'30"
81°19'33"
81°18'07"
81°18'11"
81°18'17"
81°18'40"
81°18'46"
81°24'26"
758
65
373
46
221
708
1,221
81
107
207
55
296
524
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Mined
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Mined
0.3
.03
.1
.008
.2
.5
.04
.04
.08
.001
.06
0
<2
<2
<2
2
10
<2
<2
30.5
--
67.5
<2
205
225
43
48
145
21
176
184
--
300
97
62
57
56
70
41
72
56
34
--
29
60
9.1
5.8
13.5
9.9
10.5
6.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
5.0
4.3
6.6
0.52
.59
.95
.77
.57
1.04
.85
.95
.80
.50
.61
.73
2.21
1.86
6.49
3.34
4.38
3.53
3.09
4.70
3.62
1.45
1.50
3.04
-------
Table 4. Low streamflow, particle sizes, and channel characteristics for sampling sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia—Continued
[--, no value; <, less than]
Station
number
MT79
MT80
MT82
MT83
MT84
Stream name
Davis Fork
Lem Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Sycamore
Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Sycamore
Creek
Sycamore Creek
Latitude
37°54'55"
37°54'28"
37054=08"
37053=44"
37053=42==
Longi-
tude
81°24'10"
81°24'08"
81°24'26"
81°24'11"
81°24'15"
Drain
-age
area,
in
acres
448
689
294
261
222
Mining
class
Mined
Unmined
Mined
Unmined
Mined
90-per-
cent
flow
dura-
tion, in
cubic
feet per
second
0.005
.01
0
0
0
Median
parti-
cle
size, in
milli-
meters
41
26.5
<2
98.5
99.5
Parti-
cle size
of the
84th
per-
cen-
tile, in
milli-
meters
431
142
72
197
217
Parti-
cles
smaller
than 2
milli-
meters,
in per-
cent
25
38
56
20
26
Bank-
full
cross-
sec-
tion
width,
in feet
11.8
8.4
8.7
5.5
3.8
Maxi-
mum
bankfull
cross-
section
depth, in
feet
1.41
.76
.47
.63
.75
Bank-
full
cross-
sec-
tion
area, in
square
feet
16.7
6.36
1.48
1.90
1.62
Mud River Basin
MT03
MT08
MT09B
MT10B
MT11B
MT12
H
ai
*• MT13
Lukey Fork
Sally Fork of Ballard
Fork
Sally Fork of Ballard
Fork
Ballard Fork
Left Fork of Ballard
Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Ballard Fork
Spring Branch of
Ballard Fork
38°03'18"
38°03'47"
38°03'58"
38°04'08"
38°04'11"
38°04'10"
38°04'02"
81°57'31"
81°54'58"
81°55'09"
81°55'18"
81°55'20"
81°55'29"
81°56'16"
717
98
39
152
157
26
335
Unmined
Unmined
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Unmined
.01
.004
.008
.06
.07
.004
.003
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
164
81
269
<2
<2
<2
26
53
61
59
95
86
87
69
13.0
5.9
4.6
4.1
--
3.7
6.4
.93
.58
.42
.51
--
.45
.39
12.1
1.94
1.14
1.43
--
1.04
2.51
-------
Table 4. Low streamflow, particle sizes, and channel characteristics for sampling sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia—Continued
[--, no value; <, less than]
0)
O
(D
omorphology, Low Str
(D
0)
o"
0)
3
Q.
«
F*
f5
0)
1
I
1
o
c
3
Sf
•D
O
0
Si
3'
in
in
o'
3
«
0
F*
hern W.'
«;
0)
t f*
Station
number
MT14
MT16B
MT18
MT20B
MT25B
MT26
MT27
MT29B
MT30B
MT31B
MT33B
MT36B
MT37
Stream name
Ballard Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Stanley Fork
Sugartree Branch
Sugartree Branch
Rockhouse Creek
Beech Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Beech Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Beech Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Beech Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Beech Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Beech Creek
Hurricane Branch
White Oak Branch
Latitude
38°04'20"
38°04'55"
38°05'26"
38°05'29"
37°56'01"
37°54'25"
37°54'34"
37°54'42"
37°54'35"
37°54'39"
37°54'34"
37°55'05"
37°51'42"
Longi-
tude
81°56'49"
81°56'23"
81°57'04"
81°56'53"
81°50'26"
81°52'30"
81°52'39"
81°51'28"
81°51'24"
81-51-10"
81°50'39"
81°50'18"
81°47'23"
Drain
-age
area,
in
acres
1,527
516
479
383
997
920
266
81
169
141
69
286
320
Mining
class
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Spruce
Valley fill
Mined
Mined
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Valley fill
Unmined
90-per-
cent
flow
dura-
tion, in
cubic
feet per
second
0.4
.4
.4
.3
Fork Basin
.2
.002
.001
.1
.06
.03
.01
.1
.007
Median
parti-
cle
size, in
milli-
meters
<2
<2
<2
<2
69.5
13
<2
<2
<2
--
<2
<2
60.5
Parti-
cle size
of the
84th
per-
cen-
tile, in
milli-
meters
42
8
84
<2
149
260
63
<2
16
--
109
42
127
Parti-
cles
smaller
than 2
milli-
meters,
in per-
cent
63
83
52
90
7
44
53
92
66
--
61
59
6
Bank-
full
cross-
sec-
tion
width,
in feet
12.7
15.3
12.4
6.0
10.4
2.9
15.0
6.0
3.2
--
4.5
8.0
5.9
Maxi-
mum
bankfull
cross-
section
depth, in
feet
0.65
.74
.72
1.01
.80
.95
1.2
1.15
.90
--
.60
.85
.69
Bank-
full
cross-
sec-
tion
area, in
square
feet
8.26
8.08
8.93
4.02
4.30
2.06
11.6
3.00
2.07
--
1.90
4.60
2.12
-------
Table 4. Low streamflow, particle sizes, and channel characteristics for sampling sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia—Continued
[--, no value; <, less than]
Station
number
MT38
MT39
MT41
MT42
MT43
MT44
MT87
MT88
MT89B
MT90
MT91
H MT92
o-
(D
* MT93
Stream name
Unnamed tributary
to White Oak
Branch
White Oak Branch
Oldhouse Branch
Oldhouse Branch
Pigeonroost Branch
Unnamed tributary
to Pigeonroost
Branch
NeffFork
Unnamed tributary
to NeffFork
Unnamed tributary
to NeffFork
NeffFork
Rader Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Radar Fork
Laurel Run
Latitude
37°51'45"
37°51'46"
37°52'18"
37°52'24"
37°52'48"
37°52'47"
38°20'41"
38°20'36"
38°20'45"
38°20'41"
38°20'39"
38°20'19"
38°20'18"
Longi-
tude
81°47'23"
81°48'14"
81°48'44"
81°49'20"
81°47'46"
81°47'47"
80°57'21"
80°57'04"
80°56'34"
80°56'33"
80°57'30"
80°57'28"
80°57'41"
Drain
** Mining
area, . a
. ' class
in
acres
84
669
226
447
470
294
752
179
108
297
1,302
213
343
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Mined
Unmined
Twenty mile
Valley fill
Mined
Valley fill
Valley fill
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
90-per-
cent Median
flow parti-
dura- cle
tion.in size, in
cubic milli-
feet per meters
second
0
.02
.04
.02
.04
.003
Creek Basin
.03
.07
.04
.1
.2
.06
.01
35.5
54.5
15
67
<2
<2
<2
<2
42.5
14
<2
34.5
<2
Parti-
cle size
of the
84th
per-
cen-
tile, in
milli-
meters
147
120
71
172
103
74
135
70
128
164
81
82
146
Parti-
cles
smaller
than 2
milli-
meters,
in per-
cent
27
21
33
8
63
67
61
54
34
45
79
28
57
Bank-
full
cross-
sec-
tion
width,
in feet
6.2
11.3
8.6
11.6
10.6
7.2
12.4
7.7
7.1
7.9
17.8
10.4
10.1
Maxi-
mum
bankfull
cross-
section
depth, in
feet
0.45
.59
.58
.89
.88
.33
.62
.41
.47
.52
.57
.39
.65
Bank-
full
cross-
sec-
tion
area, in
square
feet
1.41
3.32
3.04
4.78
4.58
1.52
5.47
1.46
1.56
2.66
6.18
2.24
3.53
-------
o
c
o
•D
O
o
0)
3i
5'
in
o
(A
O
Table 4. Low streamflow, particle sizes, and channel characteristics for sampling sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia—Continued
[--, no value; <, less than]
ai
O
(D
omorphology, Low Str
(D
o"
a>
3
Q.
V>
ft
m
1
i
Station
number
MT94
MT95
MT96
MT97
Stream name
Rader Fork
Neil Branch
Unnamed tributary
to Neil Branch
Neil Branch
Drain
• • -age
• i-i -• Longi- a
Latitude . . area,
tude . '
in
acres
38°20'16" 80°57'41" 601
38°17'51" 81°05'10" 968
38°18'22" 81-05-14" 58
38°18'19" 81°05'10" 654
Mining
class
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
Unmined
90-per-
cent
flow
dura-
tion, in
cubic
feet per
second
0.03
.1
0
.2
Median
parti-
cle
size, in
milli-
meters
<2
73.5
<2
52
Parti-
cle size
of the
84th
per-
cen-
tile, in
milli-
meters
23
184
110
141
Parti-
cles
smaller
than 2
milli-
meters,
in per-
cent
81
19
65
35
Bank-
full
cross-
sec-
tion
width,
in feet
12.9
11.6
11.6
6.2
Maxi-
mum
bankfull
cross-
section
depth, in
feet
0.69
.59
.59
.37
Bank-
full
cross-
sec-
tion
area, in
square
feet
5.19
4.50
4.03
1.47
g
<
(D
(O
-------
Table 5. Low-streamflow measurements at small-stream sampling sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia
[--, no value, <, less than]
Station
number
Stream name
Date
Time,
in
hours
Dis-
charge,
in
cubic
feet per
second
Date
Time,
in
hours
Clear Fork
MT64
MT65C
MT66
MT67
and
MT68B
MT69
MT70
MT71
MT72
MT73
MT74
MT76
MT78
MT79
I MT80
(D
cn
Buffalo Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Buffalo Fork
Buffalo Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Buffalo Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Buffalo Fork
Ewing Fork
Toney Fork
Toney Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Toney Fork
Toney Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Toney Fork
Reeds Branch
Raines Fork
Davis Fork
Lem Fork
10/27/99
10/27/99
10/27/99
10/27/99
10/26/99
10/26/99
10/26/99
10/26/99
10/26/99
10/26/99
10/26/99
--
10/28/99
10/28/99
1420
1340
1225
1135
1055
1150
1505
--
1540
1335
1240
--
--
--
0.249
.027
.146
.008
.212
.007
.042
.046
.087
.001
.069
--
.004
.012
06/08/00
06/08/00
06/09/00
06/09/00
06/08/00
06/08/00
06/08/00
06/08/00
06/08/00
06/08/00
06/08/00
06/08/00
06/08/00
06/08/00
1100
1025
1128
1455
1408
1325
1156
1135
1215
1235
1250
--
1000
1030
Dis-
charge,
incubic
feet per
second
Basin
0.948
.161
.338
.446
.901
.943
.063
.290
.261
.026
.368
0
.411
.359
Date
08/16/00
08/16/00
08/16/00
08/17/00
08/16/00
08/16/00
08/06/00
08/16/00
08/16/00
08/16/00
08/16/00
08/22/00
08/22/00
08/22/00
Time,
in
hours
1330
1250
1115
1150
1730
1635
1430
1400
1505
1525
1550
--
1210
1045
Dis-
charge,
incubic
feet per
second
0.815
.102
.050
.338
.906
.787
.046
.126
.204
.029
.247
0
.181
.092
Date
10/16/00
10/16/00
10/04/00
10/16/00
10/04/00
10/04/00
10/04/00
10/04/00
10/04/00
10/04/00
10/04/00
10/05/00
10/24/00
10/27/00
Time,
in
hours
1050
1025
1610
0940
1450
1345
1015
1045
1130
1210
1250
1315
1105
1350
Dis-
charge,
incubic
feet per
second
0.403
.037
.370
0.170
7.64
.675
.088
.105
.132
.027
.134
0
.065
.018
-------
Table 5. Low-streamflow measurements at small-stream sampling sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia—Continued
[--, no value, <, less than]
a*
Q
(D
O
O
•D
31
O.
Q
in
£
«
3
0)
I
o"
0)
3
Q.
2
(D
fi)
•D
3
1
o
c
af
I
0
•D
O
0
Si
1
3'
in
in
o'
0
s
(D
01
(O
(O
to
10
o
o
Station
number
MT82
MT83
MT84
MT03
MT08
MT09B
MT10B
MT11B
MT12
MT13
MT14
MT16B
MT18
MT20B
Stream name
Unnamed tributary
to Sycamore
Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Sycamore
Creek
Sycamore Creek
Lukey Fork
Sally Fork of
Ballard Fork
Sally Fork of
Ballard Fork
Ballard Fork
Left Fork of
Ballard Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Ballard Fork
Spring Branch of
Ballard Fork
Ballard Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Stanley Fork
Sugartree Branch
Sugartree Branch
Date
10/28/99
10/28/99
10/28/99
10/26/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
Dis-
T. charge,
Time, . a
in
in . .
. cubic
hours , .
feet per
second
0
0
0
.014
.004
1610 .008
1500 .059
1438 .075
1336 .004
1125 .004
1000 .375
.414
.376
.266
Date
06/08/00
..
Mud
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/08/00
06/08/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
Dis-
Time, charge,
in incubic
hours feet per
second
0
. .
..
River Basin
1350 .194
.006
1230 .016
1130 .186
1115 .093
1100 .007
1030 .110
0930 .781
1500 .719
1600 .672
1535 .612
Time,
Date in
hours
08/22/00
. .
..
08/17/00 1550
08/17/00 1353
08/17/00 1442
08/17/00 1131
08/17/00
08/17/00 1155
08/17/00
08/17/00 1000
08/17/00 1834
08/17/00 1652
08/17/00 1709
Dis-
charge,
incubic
feet per
second
0
..
.103
.009
.099
.323
.109
.024
.073
.082
1.26
1.62
1.28
Date
10/05/00
10/05/00
10/05/00
08/31/00
09/06/00
09/06/00
09/06/00
09/06/00
10/12/00
9/13/00
09/06/00
9/28/00
10/05/00
Time,
in
hours
1245
1111
1130
1045
1220
1145
1112
1015
1205
1405
1415
1237
1642
Dis-
charge,
incubic
feet per
second
0
.035
0
.015
.016
.008
.195
.008
.007
.435
1.23
.622
.541
-------
Table 5. Low-streamflow measurements at small-stream sampling sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia—Continued
[--, no value, <, less than]
0)
o-
Station
number
MT25B
MT26
MT27
MT29B
MT30B
MT31B
MT33B
MT36B
MT37
MT38
MT39
MT41
MT42
MT43
Stream name
Rockhouse Creek
Beech Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Beech Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Beech Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Beech Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Beech Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Beech Creek
Hurricane Branch
White Oak Branch
Unnamed tributary
to White Oak
Branch
White Oak Branch
Oldhouse Branch
Oldhouse Branch
Pigeonroost
Branch
Date
11/01/99
11/09/99
11/09/99
11/09/99
11/09/99
11/09/99
11/09/99
11/09/99
11/01/99
11/01/99
11/01/99
11/01/99
11/01/99
11/09/99
Time,
in
hours
1545
1050
--
1100
1138
--
--
1340
1240
1300
1405
1005
1100
1330
Dis-
charge,
in
cubic
feet per
second
0.089
.413
<001
.109
.069
.042
.015
.172
.005
0
.014
.024
.010
.081
Time,
Date in
hours
Spruce Fork
06/07/00 1555
06/07/00 1140
06/07/00 1105
06/07/00 0945
06/07/00 1220
06/07/00
06/07/00 1355
06/07/00 1455
06/07/00 1225
06/07/00 1240
06/07/00 1315
06/07/00 1050
06/07/00 1110
06/07/00 0950
Dis-
charge,
incubic
feet per
second
Basin
1.10
.055
1.63
.333
.245
.188
.046
.320
.023
.035
.057
.216
.190
.426
Date
08/17/00
08/17/00
08/17/00
08/17/00
08/17/00
08/17/00
08/17/00
08/17/00
08/21/00
08/21/00
08/21/00
08/21/00
08/21/00
08/17/00
Time,
in
hours
1730
1030
1115
1425
1450
1515
1600
1645
1610
1600
1510
1250
1330
1245
Dis-
charge,
incubic
feet per
second
1.81
4.97
.277
.611
.492
.372
.039
.658
.050
.057
.246
.195
.245
.778
Date
10/13/00
10/03/00
10/03/00
10/03/00
10/03/00
10/03/00
10/03/00
10/03/00
10/03/00
10/13/00
10/13/00
10/03/00
10/03/00
10/13/00
Time,
in
hours
1400
1130
1055
1315
1240
1230
1415
1500
1451
1015
1100
1203
1110
1150
Dis-
charge,
incubic
feet per
second
0.641
.010
1.46
.165
.163
.191
.015
.315
.023
.026
.063
.157
.138
.203
-------
Table 5. Low-streamflow measurements at small-stream sampling sites in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia—Continued
[--, no value, <, less than]
O
(D
O
3 Station
•3 number
3-
o
0
in
£
* MT44
3
Q)
3
o"
-*•
» MT87
Q.
| MT88
0)
g MT89B
3
•D
£• MT90
~S MT91
o
c
E MT92
3.
0
•n
0 MT93
0
0)
^ MT94
5'
=' MT95
n
f MT96
3
g MT97
<•*
(D
0)
to
to
to
Stream name
Unnamed tributary
to Pigeonroost
Branch
Date
11/09/99
Time,
in
hours
1335
Dis-
charge,
in
cubic
feet per
second
0.003
Date
06/07/00
Dis-
Time, charge,
in incubic
hours feet per
second
1000
Twenty mile Creek
NeflFFork
Unnamed tributary
toNeflfFork
Unnamed tributary
toNeflfFork
NeflfFork
Rader Fork
Unnamed tributary
to Radar Fork
Laurel Run
Rader Fork
Neil Branch
Unnamed tributary
to Neil Branch
Neil Branch
11/10/99
11/10/99
11/10/99
11/10/99
11/10/99
11/10/99
11/10/99
11/10/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
1345
1340
1450
1455
1235
1230
1125
1135
1150
1315
1355
.402
.089
.056
.201
.358
.089
.018
.077
.002
.0002
.180
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
06/06/00
1912
1903
1816
1829
1941
1634
1605
1542
1016
1122
1131
0.090
Basin
3.33
.30
.420
1.60
4.84
.510
1.26
2.07
.670
.044
.510
Date
08/17/00
08/21/00
08/16/00
08/16/00
08/16/00
08/21/00
08/21/00
08/21/00
08/21/00
08/16/00
08/16/00
08/16/00
Time,
in
hours
1315
1253
--
1357
1428
1237
1402
1524
1449
1155
1105
1130
Dis-
charge,
incubic
feet per
second
0.402
.704
.193
.232
.478
.667
.061
.285
.302
.735
.196
.803
Date
10/13/00
11/09/00
11/09/00
10/04/00
1 1/09/00
11/09/00
10/04/00
10/04/00
10/04/00
10/04/00
10/04/00
10/04/00
Time,
in
hours
1210
1155
1130
1527
1055
1235
1620
1728
1700
1238
1139
1046
Dis-
charge,
incubic
feet per
second
0.047
.448
.064
.135
.286
.267
.050
.213
.390
.353
.351
.031
-------
Table 6. Maximum, minimum, and mean water temperature in degrees Celsius, December 1999 through November 2000, at
Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork near Mud (03202405) in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia
[ —, no value]
December January
„ Maxi-
Day
mum
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 10.9
24 10.2
25 9.4
26 10.2
27 10.2
28 9.4
29 10.6
30 11.7
31 11.7
Month
Mini- .. Maxi-
Mean
mum mum
12.5
13.3
14.1
13.3
10.2
10.6
10.6
10.9
11.7
12.1
10.9
11.3
11.7
8.6
10.2
11.7
8.6
8.6
9.8
8.6
7.4
7.4
9.4 10.2 9.4
9.0 9.8 8.6
7.8 8.5 7.4
8.2 9.5 7.8
9.4 9.7 6.6
9.0 9.2 7.0
9.4 9.7 8.6
9.4 10.3 8.2
9.4 10.5 8.2
14.1
Mini-
mum
9.0
10.9
12.5
9.8
7.0
8.2
8.6
7.4
9.4
9.8
9.0
8.2
8.6
7.0
6.6
8.6
7.0
7.4
8.2
7.0
5.3
4.9
7.4
7.0
5.3
6.2
4.1
3.3
4.9
7.0
6.6
3.3
Mean
10.8
12.0
13.2
12.2
9.6
9.1
9.4
9.2
10.5
10.9
10.4
9.7
10.5
7.6
8.4
10.6
7.8
8.1
8.7
8.1
6.5
6.3
8.5
8.2
6.3
6.8
5.3
4.8
6.5
7.7
7.2
8.7
February
Maxi-
mum
8.2
9.0
9.8
9.4
9.0
9.4
10.6
12.5
10.9
11.7
10.9
9.4
11.7
11.0
12.1
13.3
11.7
12.9
12.1
12.1
12.9
12.9
14.1
14.1
15.2
15.2
13.7
13.7
14.1
—
—
15.2
Mini-
mum
6.6
6.6
6.6
7.8
6.6
6.6
7.0
6.6
7.0
7.8
9.4
7.8
8.2
7.8
10.6
10.6
9.8
9.4
9.4
11.7
10.9
10.9
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
10.6
9.8
—
—
6.6
Mean
7.5
7.5
8.1
8.3
7.9
7.7
8.3
8.1
8.5
9.5
10.4
8.9
10.2
9.8
11.1
11.9
10.8
11.6
11.3
11.9
11.6
11.9
12.9
13.0
13.2
13.3
13.0
11.7
11.3
—
—
10.4
Maxi-
mum
13.7
13.3
12.1
13.3
14.4
15.2
15.6
15.9
15.6
14.4
12.1
11.7
12.5
14.1
15.2
13.3
12.1
12.9
13.3
12.9
12.5
14.8
15.9
16.7
16.3
14.1
12.9
15.2
15.6
15.6
--
March
Mini-
mum
10.9
10.2
9.4
10.2
9.8
10.2
10.2
10.9
12.0
10.6
10.2
9.7
9.0
9.8
10.2
12.1
9.4
8.6
10.6
11.3
10.9
10.9
10.6
10.9
12.5
10.9
10.6
10.2
10.2
9.4
--
Mean
12.2
11.5
10.6
11.3
11.4
12.0
12.3
12.9
13.3
12.3
11.4
10.3
10.5
11.3
12.3
12.6
10.8
10.5
11.7
11.9
11.8
12.4
12.6
13.1
13.8
12.1
11.3
12.0
12.1
11.9
--
Table 6 29
-------
Table6. Maximum, minimum, and mean water temperature in degrees Celsius, December 1999 through November2000, at
Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork near Mud (03202405) in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia—Continued
[--, no value]
Day
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
Month
Maxi-
mum
15.9
14.1
15.6
13.3
14.8
15.6
16.7
13.3
14.1
15.6
13.3
12.9
16.3
17.1
15.9
16.3
15.6
12.9
15.6
15.9
14.1
12.5
16.3
13.3
13.7
15.6
15.9
15.6
15.6
17.1
—
17.1
April
Mini-
mum
9.4
12.5
12.9
11.3
10.9
11.7
12.1
10.8
10.6
10.9
12.1
10.6
10.2
10.9
12.5
13.3
12.9
12.5
12.1
11.7
11.7
11.7
10.9
11.7
12.1
11.3
10.9
11.3
12.1
11.3
—
9.4
Mean
12.2
13.3
13.9
12.1
12.3
13.2
13.8
12.0
11.9
12.9
12.7
11.9
12.0
13.3
14.0
14.3
13.8
12.7
13.3
13.7
12.9
12.0
13.0
12.6
12.6
12.9
12.9
13.1
13.4
13.5
—
12.9
Maxi-
mum
17.4
17.4
17.8
17.1
17.1
17.1
18.6
18.2
17.8
17.1
17.4
—
17.4
17.1
16.3
16.7
17.1
17.8
15.9
15.6
15.9
16.3
17.1
16.7
16.7
16.7
18.2
17.6
14.4
16.3
16.7
--
May
Mini-
mum
11.7
12.5
11.7
13.7
13.3
13.3
13.7
14.1
14.1
12.9
12.1
—
14.4
12.5
11.7
11.3
13.3
13.7
14.4
14.4
14.1
13.7
14.1
14.1
14.4
12.5
14.1
14.1
13.7
13.3
13.3
--
June
Mean
13.9
14.6
14.3
14.8
14.9
15.0
15.3
15.3
15.3
14.9
14.3
—
15.4
14.2
13.5
13.5
14.4
15.1
15.0
14.9
14.7
14.7
14.9
15.1
15.0
14.4
15.0
14.8
14.0
14.5
14.6
--
Maxi-
mum
16.7
17.4
16.3
16.7
17.1
15.2
17.1
17.4
18.2
18.2
18.6
17.8
18.6
18.2
17.1
17.8
17.5
19.4
16.1
15.9
18.0
20.5
15.6
16.3
16.3
16.7
15.4
15.6
16.7
16.7
—
20.5
Mini-
mum
14.1
14.1
14.4
12.9
13.7
13.7
12.1
12.5
13.3
14.1
14.4
14.8
14.8
14.8
14.8
14.8
15.2
15.2
14.8
14.4
14.4
14.6
14.1
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.8
14.8
14.8
14.1
—
12.1
Mean
15.0
15.2
14.9
14.5
14.8
14.1
14.1
14.6
15.1
15.5
15.9
16.0
16.1
16.1
15.7
15.7
15.9
16.6
15.2
14.9
15.5
16.1
14.6
14.9
15.0
15.2
15.0
15.0
15.3
15.0
—
15.2
Maxi-
mum
16.7
17.1
17.1
16.3
15.9
17.1
17.4
17.8
17.8
19.8
18.6
16.7
16.3
18.6
16.7
16.3
16.7
16.3
17.1
16.7
17.1
17.1
16.7
15.9
16.7
17.1
17.8
17.4
16.7
17.1
17.1
19.8
July
Mini-
mum
14.1
14.1
14.4
15.2
15.2
15.2
14.8
14.1
14.4
15.2
15.2
15.2
14.8
14.8
14.8
14.8
14.8
14.8
15.2
14.8
14.4
14.8
14.4
14.8
14.4
14.8
14.8
15.2
15.2
15.2
15.6
14.1
Mean
15.1
15.2
15.4
15.7
15.4
15.5
15.7
15.5
15.7
16.6
16.1
15.6
15.4
15.9
15.7
15.2
15.4
15.4
15.6
15.5
15.5
15.6
15.3
15.3
15.4
15.7
15.9
15.8
15.8
16.0
15.9
15.6
30 Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region Southern W.Va., 1999-2000
-------
Table6. Maximum, minimum, and mean water temperature in degrees Celsius, December 1999 through November2000, at
Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork near Mud (03202405) in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia—Continued
[--, no value]
August
Day
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
Month
Maxi-
mum
17.4
17.4
17.4
16.7
17.4
17.1
18.6
19.0
18.2
18.2
16.3
16.3
16.7
17.1
17.1
17.4
16.3
16.3
17.1
17.1
17.1
17.4
—
16.3
17.1
17.1
17.4
17.1
17.4
17.4
17.4
-
Mini-
mum
15.6
15.2
15.6
15.6
15.2
15.2
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.2
14.8
14.4
14.4
14.8
15.2
14.8
15.6
15.2
14.8
14.8
15.2
--
15.2
15.6
15.2
15.6
15.6
15.2
14.8
15.2
--
Mean
16.1
16.1
16.2
15.9
16.0
16.1
16.7
16.8
16.6
16.5
15.6
15.3
15.3
15.4
15.7
16.0
15.5
15.8
15.9
15.8
15.7
16.0
—
15.8
16.0
16.0
16.2
16.1
15.9
16.0
16.1
--
September
Maxi-
mum
17.4
17.4
17.1
17.1
16.1
17.1
17.4
16.7
17.4
19.4
17.1
16.7
17.1
17.1
16.1
14.9
15.6
15.6
16.7
17.1
16.7
16.3
17.1
16.3
15.9
14.8
15.6
15.6
15.9
15.9
—
19.4
Mini-
mum
15.6
15.6
15.9
15.6
15.6
14.4
14.4
15.2
15.2
15.6
15.9
15.6
15.6
15.2
14.4
12.9
12.1
12.9
14.1
14.4
14.8
13.3
14.8
15.6
14.8
13.7
12.5
12.5
12.9
12.9
—
12.1
Mean
16.2
16.3
16.4
16.1
15.8
15.5
15.4
15.7
16.1
16.4
16.3
15.9
16.0
15.9
15.5
13.9
13.5
14.2
15.0
15.3
15.5
14.6
15.6
15.9
15.1
14.1
13.8
13.8
14.2
14.1
—
15.3
October
Maxi-
mum
15.6
18.6
17.1
16.7
17.1
15.6
14.8
12.9
12.1
13.7
14.1
14.4
14.4
14.8
15.2
15.6
15.6
15.6
14.8
15.2
15.2
15.9
15.9
15.6
15.6
16.3
15.9
14.8
13.7
12.9
13.3
18.6
Mini-
mum
12.9
13.3
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.8
12.5
10.2
10.2
10.6
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.9
12.1
12.1
14.1
14.1
11.7
11.3
12.9
13.7
12.9
13.3
13.7
14.4
13.3
13.3
10.2
9.4
9.4
9.4
Mean
14.1
14.5
15.1
15.2
15.4
15.2
13.1
11.6
11.3
11.6
11.5
11.7
11.9
12.3
13.2
13.6
14.5
14.8
13.0
12.8
13.8
14.5
14.2
14.3
14.7
15.0
14.4
14.2
11.8
10.9
10.8
13.4
November
Maxi-
mum
13.3
14.1
14.8
14.1
12.5
13.3
14.8
15.2
15.2
14.1
12.5
12.5
12.9
12.5
11.3
11.3
11.7
9.8
9.8
9.8
8.6
8.6
9.4
10.6
11.7
11.7
11.3
10.9
10.9
9.8
—
15.2
Mini-
mum
9.4
10.2
12.5
12.5
10.2
9.0
12.9
12.5
14.1
11.7
11.3
9.4
10.2
10.6
9.8
9.0
9.8
9.0
8.6
7.8
7.4
5.8
5.8
6.6
9.0
10.9
9.4
8.6
7.4
9.0
—
5.8
Mean
10.9
11.7
13.4
13.5
11.4
10.8
13.7
13.7
14.7
12.5
11.8
10.9
11.4
11.4
10.5
10.1
10.9
9.4
9.1
8.8
8.1
6.8
7.2
8.0
10.3
11.3
10.7
9.4
8.9
9.2
—
10.7
Table 6 31
-------
Table?. Maximum, minimum, and mean water temperature in degrees Celsius, December 1999 through November 2000, at
Spring Branch near Mud (03202410) in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia
[ - -, no value]
December January
„ Maxi-
Day
mum
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 2.8
24 2.0
25 .7
26 1.1
27 1.1
28 .7
29 2.0
30 3.3
31 4.5
Month
Mini- .. Maxi-
Mean
mum mum
4.5
7.0
9.4
10.2
4.9
3.3
3.7
2.8
5.3
7.0
6.2
4.5
6.2
2.2
1.8
5.3
2.6
.7
2.4
1.1
-.1
-.1
.7 1.7 -.1
.2 1.1 .2
.2 .3 -.1
.2 .5 -.1
.2 .8 -.6
.2 .6 -.1
.7 1.0 -.1
.2 1.7 .2
1.8 2.7 .2
10.2
Mini-
mum
1.1
3.7
6.6
4.9
2.0
.7
1.1
.2
2.4
3.7
3.1
1.6
2.2
.2
-.1
1.8
.2
.2
.7
-.1
-1.0
-1.4
-.1
-.1
-.6
-.6
-1.9
-2.4
-1.0
-.1
-.1
-2.4
Mean
2.8
5.3
8.1
8.6
3.8
1.8
2.0
1.6
3.7
5.0
4.5
3.2
4.8
.7
.6
3.7
.8
.5
1.4
.8
-.5
-.6
-.1
.1
-.4
-.5
-1.0
-1.2
-.5
-.1
.0
1.9
February
Maxi-
mum
.2
.7
.7
1.1
1.6
1.1
2.8
3.3
4.5
5.3
5.3
3.7
6.8
7.0
6.6
9.0
7.0
9.0
8.2
6.6
5.8
7.8
10.6
10.9
13.3
13.7
10.6
10.6
10.6
—
—
13.7
Mini-
mum
-.1
-.1
-.1
.2
-.1
-.1
-.1
-.1
-.1
.7
3.7
2.0
2.4
5.3
4.9
5.3
4.1
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.3
4.9
6.6
7.0
7.8
7.8
8.8
5.5
3.7
—
—
-.1
Mean
.0
.1
.2
.4
.5
.3
1.0
1.0
1.6
2.9
4.8
2.9
4.6
6.4
5.4
6.8
5.5
7.5
6.7
6.0
5.5
6.1
8.3
8.9
10.0
10.2
10.0
7.7
6.6
—
—
4.8
Maxi-
mum
10.9
9.4
7.8
9.8
10.9
12.5
13.7
15.2
14.8
12.5
9.4
7.8
8.2
10.2
12.9
10.6
9.4
8.6
10.6
10.2
9.8
12.5
14.1
15.2
15.2
11.7
10.2
12.5
13.7
14.1
-
March
Mini-
mum
5.3
5.1
3.3
4.5
3.7
4.9
5.3
7.0
9.4
7.4
7.8
4.9
3.7
4.5
6.2
9.0
4.9
3.7
6.6
8.2
8.2
7.4
6.6
7.4
9.8
7.8
7.0
6.2
6.2
5.3
-
Mean
8.2
7.2
5.6
6.4
6.8
8.1
9.0
10.4
11.4
9.8
8.6
6.3
5.8
7.0
9.0
9.6
7.1
6.2
8.2
8.9
9.0
9.3
9.6
10.7
12.0
9.4
8.0
8.5
9.0
8.9
-
32 Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region Southern W.Va., 1999-2000
-------
Table?. Maximum, minimum, and mean water temperature in degrees Celsius, December 1999 through November 2000, at
Spring Branch near Mud (03202410) in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia—Continued
[ - -, no value]
Day
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
Maxi-
mum
4.8
12.9
15.6
12.1
12.5
14.4
16.3
11.3
12.1
14.4
11.3
—
—
16.7
15.9
15.9
15.6
12.1
14.4
15.9
13.7
9.8
15.2
11.3
11.7
13.7
14.1
13.7
14.1
15.6
—
April
Mini-
mum
4.9
10.6
11.3
8.2
7.4
8.6
9.4
7.8
6.6
7.8
9.4
—
—
7.4
10.6
11.7
11.7
10.6
10.6
9.4
9.8
9.0
7.8
9.4
10.2
8.6
7.8
8.6
9.8
8.6
—
Mean
9.3
11.6
13.1
10.2
9.4
10.8
12.2
9.8
8.8
10.5
10.3
—
—
11.2
12.7
13.5
13.0
11.1
11.6
12.6
11.7
9.5
11.0
10.6
10.7
10.7
10.6
11.0
11.6
11.6
—
Maxi-
mum
16.3
17.1
17.4
17.4
18.2
15.6
14.1
14.8
12.9
15.6
12.1
—
19.0
17.3
15.2
14.8
15.9
18.2
17.4
17.0
16.7
16.3
16.3
18.2
17.7
17.0
16.7
15.7
14.8
18.2
19.4
May
Mini-
mum
9.0
12.5
10.2
13.7
13.7
6.2
5.3
4.9
10.6
11.3
8.6
—
16.7
12.5
10.2
9.8
12.5
14.1
15.6
15.9
14.8
14.8
14.4
14.8
16.3
12.9
14.8
14.4
13.7
13.7
15.6
June
.. Maxi- Mini- ..
Mean Mean
mum mum
12.4 18.9 15.5 16.8
13.9 15.5 11.6 13.6
13.4 18.6 10.9 14.8
15.0 19.8 14.8 16.9
15.6 20.9 15.9 17.7
9.6 20.9 17.1 18.1
8.9
93
11.6
13.1
10.3
„
17.4
14.5
12.5
12.1
13.6
15.3
16.3
16.2
15.6
15.4
15.2
16.1
16.8
15.0
15.4
14.8
14.1
15.4
17.1
Maxi-
mum
—
—
—
—
--
19.0
17.8
18.2
20.2
18.6
19.4
18.6
18.6
18.6
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
--
19.8
19.0
19.0
19.0
20.5
20.2
July
Mini-
mum
-
—
—
—
--
17.4
15.6
15.9
17.4
17.8
17.4
17.1
17.1
16.3
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
--
18.6
18.2
17.8
18.2
18.6
19.0
Mean
—
—
—
—
--
18.1
16.8
17.1
18.3
18.2
18.4
18.0
18.0
17.8
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
--
19.2
18.5
18.3
18.6
19.5
19.4
Month
Table 7 33
-------
Table?. Maximum, minimum, and mean water temperature in degrees Celsius, December 1999 through November 2000, at
Spring Branch near Mud (03202410) in the coal-mining region of southern West Virginia—Continued
[ - -, no value]
August
Day
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
Month
Maxi-
mum
20.9
19.8
19.4
18.6
18.6
18.6
19.0
19.4
19.0
19.8
19.4
19.0
19.0
19.8
-
..
—
—
—
-
—
—
19.4
20.5
19.9
20.5
19.9
20.2
19.8
19.4
-
Mini-
mum
19.0
18.2
17.4
16.7
17.1
17.1
17.4
17.1
17.4
18.2
17.1
16.3
16.7
17.4
--
..
—
—
—
--
—
—
18.2
18.6
18.2
18.2
18.6
17.4
17.4
18.2
--
Mean
19.9
19.0
18.5
17.8
17.7
17.9
18.5
18.3
18.5
18.9
18.1
17.8
17.9
18.4
--
..
—
—
—
--
—
—
18.7
19.2
19.0
19.1
19.1
18.5
18.6
18.8
--
September
Maxi-
mum
20.9
20.5
20.5
20.9
20.3
18.6
18.6
18.2
18.2
20.2
19.1
19.0
19.0
18.6
18.6
17.1
15.9
15.9
15.9
15.9
15.9
15.6
15.9
16.3
16.3
15.2
14.4
14.4
14.8
14.4
—
20.9
Mini-
mum
18.6
19.0
19.4
19.4
18.2
16.3
15.9
17.1
17.4
17.8
18.2
18.6
18.2
17.8
17.1
15.6
14.8
15.2
15.6
15.2
15.6
14.8
15.6
15.9
14.8
14.1
13.3
13.3
13.7
13.7
—
13.3
Mean
19.2
19.6
19.9
19.8
19.0
17.4
16.9
17.6
17.9
18.2
18.7
18.7
18.6
18.1
17.7
16.2
15.4
15.5
15.7
15.6
15.7
15.3
15.7
16.1
15.8
14.4
13.8
13.8
14.1
14.1
—
16.8
October
Maxi-
mum
14.4
15.9
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.3
14.8
12.6
11.4
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.3
11.7
11.7
12.1
12.9
14.4
13.0
12.5
12.9
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.7
14.1
14.1
14.1
13.4
10.9
10.6
15.9
Mini-
mum
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.4
14.8
12.5
10.6
10.2
10.6
9.4
9.0
9.0
9.4
10.2
10.6
12.1
12.5
10.9
10.6
11.3
12.5
12.1
12.5
12.9
13.3
12.9
12.9
10.6
9.0
8.6
8.6
Mean
14.2
14.4
14.6
14.8
15.0
15.1
13.2
11.6
10.9
11.0
10.5
10.1
10.1
10.3
10.9
11.3
12.3
13.5
11.8
11.5
12.0
12.7
12.7
12.9
13.3
13.7
13.5
13.5
11.3
10.0
9.5
12.3
November
Maxi-
mum
10.2
10.9
11.7
11.7
11.0
10.2
11.3
12.1
12.8
12.9
10.2
10.2
10.6
9.8
9.0
9.4
9.4
7.4
7.8
7.4
6.7
5.8
6.2
7.0
7.4
7.0
7.4
7.4
7.4
6.7
—
12.9
Mini-
mum
8.2
8.2
10.2
10.9
8.6
7.0
10.2
10.6
11.7
9.0
9.0
7.4
8.2
8.2
8.2
7.8
7.4
7.0
7.0
6.6
5.8
4.5
4.5
4.9
6.2
7.0
6.2
5.3
5.3
5.8
—
4.5
Mean
9.2
9.4
10.8
11.3
9.5
8.4
10.7
11.2
12.0
10.6
9.4
8.7
9.1
8.9
8.4
8.4
8.6
7.2
7.4
7.0
6.3
5.1
5.4
5.7
6.6
7.0
7.0
6.3
6.3
6.3
—
8.3
34 Stream Geomorphology, Low Streamflow, and Stream Temperature, Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region Southern W.Va., 1999-2000
-------
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The Value of Headwater Streams:
Results of a Workshop,
State College, Pennsylvania,
April 13,1999
April 2000
Sponsored by:
Pennsylvania Field Office,
Suite 322, 315 South Allen Street,
State College, Pennsylvania
-------
THE VALUE OF HEADWATER STREAMS
Results of a Workshop
State College, Pennsylvania
April 13,1999
Sponsored by:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pennsylvania Field Office
State College, Pennsylvania
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword ...,,...., i
List of Participants iii
About the Presenters , iv
Executive Summary v
Larry Emerson 1
Arch Coal, Inc., Huntington, West Virginia
Dr. Bruce Wallace 10
Department of Entomology and Institute of Ecology,
University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
Dr. Bern Sweeney 26
Stroud Water Research Center, Avondale, Pennsylvania
Dr. Denis Newbold 38
Stroud Water Research Center, Avondale, Pennsylvania
Dr. Jay Stauffer 46
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
Discussion; What is a Stream? 51
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection are cooperating in the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on mountaintop mining operations and valley fills in the
Appalachian coal fields. As announced in the Federal Register, the purpose of the EIS is to:
...consider developing agency policies, guidance, and coordinated agency decision-making processes
to minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse environmental effects to waters of the United States
and to fish and wildlife resources from mountaintop mining operations, and to environmental resources
that could be affected by the size and location of fill material in valley fill sites.
As a result of the public EIS scoping process, the potential for valley filling to adversely affect streams emerged as a
priority issue. The multi-agency EIS steering committee identified the following questions, among others, that need
to be addressed during preparation of the EIS:
• How will we measure the effects (impacts) of mountaintop mining operations and associated valley fills on
streams and aquatic life?
» What are the short- and long-term effects of individual mountaintop mining operations and associated valley
fills on the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of affected streams and their watersheds, both
within the area of direct impact and downstream? In answering this, consider water quality and quantity,
changes in aquatic habitat, and stream use.
* What are the expected effects likely to be on aquatic species of federal and state concern (i.e., listed and
proposed threatened and endangered species, candidate species, and species of special concern)?
• What are the relative individual and cumulative effects of a single large valley fill versus multiple small
headwater fills? In answering this question, assess the relative value of headwaters and their contribution to
the physical, chemical, and biological health of the larger watershed.
* How do we reach a better scientific consensus on the water quality/aquatic habitat values of valley
headwater streams so that the on-site impacts of fills, and the resulting mitigation, restoration, and
reclamation requirements can be judged more effectively — both in the fill area and downstream? What
does "minimize" environmental damages mean in this context?
• What criteria should be used to determine whether a fill may be placed in a stream?
• What is a stream? The agencies should develop a mutually acceptable approach for reconciling the
interagency and interstate differences concerning the definition of streams.
To gather information relative to these questions, a one-day invitational meeting was organized by the Pennsylvania
Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss the value of headwater streams. Experts from industry,
government, and academia attended. In advance of the meeting, participants were sent the following list of
questions, to be discussed at the meeting:
* What is a stream?
At what point in the upper reaches of a stream do regulators stop regulating?
How far upstream should we regulate to ensure that downstream functions and quality are
maintained?
-------
Are stream classifications such as perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral ecologically useful
or even relevant in this context?
What indicators do we use to define these conditions? Flows? Fish presence?
Invertebrate abundance and/or diversity?
• What can we afford to lose?
In evaluating the cumulative impacts of more than one valley fill, what size watershed do
we evaluate?
How many streams can be eliminated by valley filling in a given watershed before the
downstream aquatic ecosystem is unacceptably impaired?
If we assume that the amount of overburden material that needs to be disposed of is a
constant, is one valley fill or a few very large valley fills better for the environment than
more numerous small valley fills at the upper reaches of more valleys?
The meeting was held on April 13, 1999, in State College, Pennsylvania, Participants were informed that the
meeting was being tape-recorded, and that the transcript would become part of the formal EIS record.
This report constitutes the meeting record, compiled from notes recorded during the meeting by EPA's Rebecca
Hanmer, text slides or overheads used by presenters, and transcription of the meeting tapes by FWS's Cindy Tibbott.
In addition, each presenter was given the opportunity to edit a draft transcript of his presentation. The meeting was
informal and interactive, so discussions of various technical and regulatory issues are interspersed throughout the
speakers' presentations and are delineated by use of a "SMALL CAP" font. Due to space limitations, many of the
presenters' slides are not included here.
The State College meeting agenda also included a discussion of technical issues related to the EIS work plan for
studying the effects of valley fills on streams. Because that discussion occurred early in the development of the
study, and resulted in numerous follow-up discussions and iterations of the work plan, it is not included here.
The EIS steering committee extends its sincere appreciation to the speakers and participants for taking the time to
share their expertise and insights on this important issue.
-------
List of Participants
John Arway, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Bellefonte, PA
Frank Borsuk, Potesta and Associates, Inc., Charleston, WV
Robert Brooks, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Hope Childers, EPA, Wheeling, WV
David Densmore, U.S. FWS, State College, PA
Larry Emerson, Arch Coal, Huntington, WV
Diana Esher, EPA, Philadelphia, PA
Jim Green, EPA, Wheeling, WV
Steven N. Handel, Rutgers University, Bridgewater, NJ
Rebecca Hanmer, EPA, Washington, D.C.
Dave Hartos, OSM, Pittsburgh, PA
William Hoffman, EPA, Philadelphia, PA
Steve Kepler, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Bellefonte, PA
George Kincaid, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Apple Grove, WV
Fred Kirschner, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Apple Grove, WV
Jerry Legg, Virginia DMME, Big Stone Gap, VA
Bernie Maynard, OSM, Pittsburgh, PA
Dan McGarvey, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Dennis Newbold, Stroud Water Research Center, Avondale, PA
Maggie Passmore, EPA, Wheeling, WV
Ken Politan, WV DEP, Nitro, WV
Randy Pomponio, Canaan Valley Institute, Valley Forge, PA
Dan Ramsey, FWS, Elkins, WV
David Rider, EPA, Philadelphia, PA
Mike Robinson, OSM, Pittsburgh, PA
Craig Snyder, U.S.G.S. - BRD, Kearneysville, WV
Jay Stauffer, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
Don Stump, OSM, Pittsburgh, PA
Bernard Sweeney, Stroud Water Research Center, Avondale, PA
Cindy Tibbott, FWS, State College, PA
J. Bruce Wallace, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
John Wins, WV DEP, Charleston, WV
John Young, U.S.G.S. - BRD, Kearneysville, WV
ill
-------
About the Presenters....
Larry Emerson is Director of Environmental Performance with Arch Coal, Inc., in Huntington, West Virginia. He
has a Bachelors degree in Agronomy from Virginia Tech (1978) and has been in the coal mine reclamation and
environmental compliance field for 21 years. His professional affiliations include membership in the West Virginia
Association of Professional Soil Scientists and the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation.
Denis Newbold is a Research Scientist at the Stroud Water Research Center where he studies nutrient cycling,
organic particle transport, and riparian zone influences in stream ecosystems. He received a B.S. in engineering
from Swarthmore College in 1971, an M.S. in hydrology from Cornell in 1973, and a Ph.D. in aquatic ecology from
the University of California in 1977. From 1977 through 1983 Denis worked in the Environmental Sciences
Division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where he was involved in both theoretical development and
experimental analysis of the nutrient spiraling concept. Since joining the Stroud Center (then part of the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia) in 1983, his work has included modeling temperature influences on insect life
histories, experimental studies of the spiraling of dissolved and particulate organic carbon, and investigations of the
role of riparian forest buffers in mitigating nonpoint source pollution.
Jay R. Stauffer, Jr., has been working on the systematics, ecology, distribution, and behavior of stream fishes for
more than 25 years. He received his B.S. from Cornell and his Ph.D. from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University. He co-authored a text on the Fishes of West Virginia, and is currently revising the Fishes of
Pennsylvania. He has published some 140 articles in referred journals and is currently Professor of Ichthyology at
the Pennsylvania State University.
Bernard Sweeney is presently Director, President, and Senior Scientist at the Stroud Water Research Center in
Avondale, Pennsylvania, and an adjunct Professor at the University of Pennsylvania. The Stroud Center was
founded in 1967 and is focused on producing new knowledge, greater understanding, and better appreciation of
streams, rivers, and their watersheds through programs emphasizing basic and applied research and environmental
education. Bernard has a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania (1976) in Zoology and has published research
papers on the following topics: Population and community ecology of aquatic invertebrates, the role of streamside
forests in the structure and function of stream and river ecosystems, the effects of global warming on stream
ecosystems, genetic variation and gene flow among populations of stream insects, factors affecting the growth and
development of aquatic insects, bioenergetics and secondary production of aquatic insects, and the bioassay of toxic
materials in aquatic systems.
J. Bruce Wallace received his B.S. from Clemson University, and M.S. and Ph.D. from Virginia Tech. He is
currently Professor of Entomology and Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, where he teaches courses
in stream ecology, aquatic entomology, and immature insects. He has served as major professor of some 38 graduate
students at Georgia. Dr. Wallace is author, or co-author, of some 150 scientific papers, including book chapters
concerned with various aspects of stream ecology, or aquatic entomology. Much of his research during the past 25
years has been conducted on southern Appalachian streams at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory (U.S. Forest
Service) in western North Carolina and supported primarily by the National Science Foundation. His primary
research areas include: linkages between streams and terrestrial ecosystems; role of aquatic invertebrates in stream
processes; effects of disturbance and recovery of streams from disturbance; secondary production and aquatic food
webs and energy flow; and organic matter dynamics in headwater streams. Dr. Wallace is a past president (1991-
1992) of the North American Benthological Society. He was the recipient of the 1999 Award of Excellence in
Benthic Science from the North American Benthological Society.
IV
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mountaintop mining is a form of strip mining that uses large equipment to access multiple coal seams across large
tracts of land. The terrestrial landscape is dramatically altered, and streams are filled with overburden material.
Over the last approximately 20 years, the size of individual operations has increased, as has the number of
mountaintop removal mines, leading to public concern over the cumulative environmental and social impacts of this
mining method across Appalachia.
To help assess the potential impact of stream filling activities on the aquatic ecosystem, a one-day invitational
meeting was organized by the Pennsylvania Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss the value of
headwater streams. The speakers focused on the description of the mining method and the headwaters environment
in which it is carried out. Special emphasis was placed on the ecological context and importance of headwater
streams within the larger aquatic ecosystem.
Larry Emerson (Arch Coal) provided an overview of large-scale mountaintop mining as it is practiced in West
Virginia. The demand for low-sulfur coal is the purely economic force driving the increase in mountaintop mining.
This mining method allows companies to recover 85 to 90 percent of the coal resource. Companies are able to use
large-scale mining because of their ability to put together large, contiguous tracts of land in West Virginia.
Production costs are primarily in moving rock. This mining method is best employed on coal seams within the
Stockton level and above, in southern West Virginia. These areas have already been deep- and contour-mined in the
past, so there are few untouched coal reserves remaining. The estimated life of large-scale mining in the state is
about 15 more years.
Mr. Emerson stated that, in the creation of the post-mining topography, there is real potential for water resources to
be maximized so that wetlands and stream channel areas with biotic communities can be created. In addition, there
is a great potential for re-mining pre-SMCRA mine sites, reclaiming them and bringing them up to today's standards
in the process.
Bruce Wallace (University of Georgia) has been studying headwater streams at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory
in western North Carolina for 30 years. He has conducted a number of experiments that demonstrate the reliance of
stream biological communities on inputs from the surrounding forests. For example, when leaf litter was excluded
from a stream, the primary consumer biomass in the stream declined, as did invertebrate predators and salamanders
(there are no fish in these small streams; salamanders are the only vertebrate predators). Overall, leaf litter exclusion
had a profound effect on aquatic productivity, illustrating the direct importance of terrestrial-aquatic ecotones. Other
experiments illustrated the fact that, while invertebrates and microbiota in headwater streams are only a minute
fraction of living plant and animal biomass, they are critical in the export of organic matter to downstream areas by
converting leaf litter to fine particulate organic matter, which is much more amenable to downstream transport than
the leaves themselves are. Organic matter transport to downstream reaches totals about 1 kg of export per meter
length of stream on an annual basis, and comprises a large proportion of the food supply for invertebrate populations
downstream, which in turn become food for fish populations.
Dr. Wallace raised the concern that stream thermal regimes, which can have important influences on microbial
activity, invertebrate fauna and fish egg development, larval growth, and seasonal life cycles, may be affected by
valley fills and sedimentation ponds at the base of the valley fills. In addition, with the documented increases in
nitrogen deposition that are occurring in eastern North America, we need to understand what is happening to nitrate
concentrations in streams emerging from valley fills.
Dr. Wallace expressed concern that this mining practice is eliminating first order streams with no requirement for
pre-impact biological inventories. Streams in the southern Appalachian region have been found to harbor
outstanding biological diversity, with rare species known to occur in only one or two springbrooks or seepage areas.
Bernard Sweeney (Stroud Water Research Center) provided insights into the value of headwater streams based on
research in southeastern Pennsylvania that has been ongoing since 1968. The Center's Robin Vannote formulated
v
-------
what has become known as the "River Continuum Theory," which views the stream ecosystem as a continuum from
the first order headwater streams down through the larger order rivers. Results from the first few years of research at
the Center demonstrated that first order streams are both abundant and crucial to the overall function of the
ecosystem.
Dr. Sweeney emphasized the relationship between streams and the surrounding terrestrial environment. As wet
depressions in the landscape, leaves tend to blow across the forest floor and get stuck in the streams. Very little of
this coarse organic material (leaves) is transported downstream; most is processed by living organisms. Streams
flowing through grassy areas have much lower inputs of coarse organic material than streams flowing through
forests; this is a concern regarding the concept of reconstructing streams in grassy reclamation areas. Different kinds
of leaves (from different species of trees) affect the production and biomass of invertebrates. In addition, as
precipitation percolates through leaves on the forest floor, it extracts organic compounds from the leaves, similar to
the effect of steeping a tea bag in hot water. These dissolved organic compounds - "watershed tea" — are carried to
the stream by groundwater and drive a major portion of the aquatic system's productivity.
The stream bottom is the crucial site of biological and biochemical activities in stream systems. About 32 percent of
the total bottom area in the White Clay Creek watershed is in first order streams. High species diversity is typical of
benthic invertebrate populations in small headwater streams. Densities of invertebrates are similar in small, first
order streams and larger streams, but the fact that there is so much benthic area available in small streams, and there
are so many of them, mean that collectively the headwaters account for abundant production in the system.
The turnover of benthic invertebrate species is high as you travel down through the river continuum; there are few
species in the headwaters that also occur downstream in a large river. This raises the question of what happens if
headwater streams are eliminated. If a species occurs only in first, second and third order streams, and the first and
second order streams are eliminated, how long can the third-order population persist? Because human developments
typically concentrate along third, fourth, and fifth order streams, this is where accidents will happen that destroy
aquatic life. Recolonization would occur through organisms moving in from the upstream, smaller tributaries - but
only if the tributaries still exist.
Dr. Sweeney cautioned that the area of eastern West Virginia and western Virginia are hotspots of new species
discovery, due to thermal diveristy, and the lack of glaciation which allowed time for species to evolve. The aquatic
insects of this area haven't even been fully characterized yet, and we can't afford to destroy what we don't know.
Denis Newbold (Stroud Water Research Center) discussed Webster and Wallace's concept of nutrient spiraling,
which is a way of assessing the effectiveness of an ecosystem at processing nutrients. The tighter the nutrient spiral,
the more effective the ecosystem is at trapping and reusing organic matter and nutrients as you move downstream.
The spiraling length is relevant to the mountaintop removal issue, because it gets at the question of where, if you're
an organism living in a downstream ecosystem, your nutrients originated.
In a typical stream carbon cycle, much of the dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in a stream is refractory (it doesn't get
used very fast, and is transported great distances downstream). On the other hand, a significant portion of the DOC
is labile, and it cycles within the stream ecosystem. About half of the labile DOC produced within any given reach
of stream will be utilized within that reach, while the remainder is passed to a larger downstream reach. The next
reach (the next order stream) will have a proportionately longer turnover length. Each downstream reach uses a
portion of the labile DOC passed from upstream, and passes the remainder downstream. The downstream transfer
and utilization of carbon successively cascades downstream. Turnover lengths also vary depending on the type of
material being transported. Very fine particulate organic matter can move 10,000 km downstream, generally putting
it into the ocean; refractory can move even farther, and on its way it feeds larger streams, rivers, and estuaries.
While there is a wide range of stream ecosystem efficiency, the median is about 50% regardless of the size of the
watershed.
Dr. Newbold discussed a possible scenario for the organic content of streams emerging from the toe of a valley fill.
Precipitation will pick up organic matter from the revegetated valley fill surface, percolate through the fill, and
eventually emerge below the fill as water with low-concentration refractory, possibly even at concentrations similar
to what would have been there without the fill. However, the stream emerging from the fill will be missing the labile
VI
-------
dissolved and participate organic matter that would have been produced by the stream that is now buried, and it is
this labile portion, produced by the stream itself, that supports downstream metabolism.
Summarizing, Dr. Newbold explained that a significant portion of exported organic matter originates within the
stream and is labile. Soil and riparian areas next to the stream are major sources of carbon, and the decomposition of
litter and the primary production of material in the stream are also important sources of organic matter that get
exported downstream. Most of the organic matter inputs to mid-order streams originated from first and second order
streams; between 60 and 80% of the water feeding a fourth-order stream came from first and second order streams.
If you're in a fourth order basin, and you eliminate the first and second order streams, you eliminate half of the water
and drainage area and stream bed area to the downstream larger order.
Jay Stauffer (Pennsylvania State University) discussed eliminating headwater streams from the standpoint of fish
populations that occur in these areas.
Dr, Stauffer discussed many factors that lead to speciation in fish in headwater streams. It is a common
misconception that fish fauna are well-known, and that there are no unique fish present in the coalfields' headwater
streams. In fact, many headwater streams have fish populations that have become isolated due to any number of
causes, and minimal gene flow with the main population results in the development of new species. These species
may occur only in one or two small streams, and nowhere else.
These streams may even support populations of migratory fish, such as lampreys. Other species may move into
headwater streams at certain times of the year, but won't be found there at other times.
Dr. Stauffer discussed the concepts of ecosystem inertia and elasticity. Inertia concerns the ability of a stream to
withstand stress before structural components of the ecosystem change. Headwater streams may only have two or
three species of fish, so there is little functional redundancy built into the fish community. The loss of one species
would mean the loss of one-third of the fauna, which is a structual change. This causes a more drastic impact on the
ecosystem than it would if a species were lost in a larger stream that supported many species. Other factors, such as
buffering capacity, or how close the stream is to a major ecological threshold - such as thermal limits - are involved
in determining a stream's inertia.
The elasticity of the system considers such factors as whether or not there are epicenters nearby that could provide
organisms to reinvade a damaged ecosystem. In many headwater streams with unique fish or invertebrate species,
there simply are no epicenters from which recolonization can take place — these organism may only occur in one
place. These headwater streams are very fragile and have very low inertia, and their ability to recover from stress is
probably compromised because they are so unique and so different. Dr. Stauffer argues that we should not be taking
chances with streams that support genetically unique aquatic life, because we can't risk losing that genetic diversity.
Dr. Stauffer discussed the possibility of "recovery" of stream ecosystems by trying to recreate streams on the mine
benches, stressing that the goals of the recovery effort must be clearly articulated in advance: Do we want the stream
or ecosystem back to the way it used to be? Is it satisfactory if something can just live in the system? If something
different lives in the system, is it satisfactory if it serves the same basic functions as the original?
Vll
-------
Larry Emerson, Arch Coal, Inc., Huntington, West Virginia
I'd like to first, illustrate in schematics and photos the process of large-scale mountaintop mining as it's practiced
today in West Virginia, with particular emphasis on valley fills, which seem to be the focus of all these efforts.
Secondly, to point out the relative value of some of these reclaimed sites with respect to water resources, and also to
emphasize the potential of some of these post-mining sites to have some water resource value. Also, to touch on the
reality that some mountaintop mining operations in existence today are going in and remining previously-mined, pre-
law sites, and there is yet additional potential to remediate past mining scars from back in the '40's and '50's. I also
have a slide on the areal extent of mountaintop mining in West Virginia from the West Virginia Geological and
Economic Survey. Also, I can offer some of our mines for consideration as sites to be studied during the process.
Should they fit the criteria, we offer them for consideration.
With respect to Arch's West Virginia operations, we have four of the six largest mining complexes in West Virginia.
These four sites have walking draglines — the large-scale equipment which allows us to compete under today's
economic conditions. Just so everyone understands, the reason for mountaintop mining in West Virginia today is
purely economics and markets. Demand for low sulfur coal is driving the eastern coal market. The other large
deposits of low-sulfur coal are in the Powder River Basin which is very cheap to produce, due to thick coal seams,
some reaching 68 feet. West Virginia's seams are more like 4-6 feet. With mountaintop removal, we can recover
85 to 90 percent of that coal resource, whereas with other mining methods it's sometimes significantly less than that.
It is the large-scale ability to put together contiguous leased tracts of land in West Virginia (and there are historical
reasons for that) that have allowed this type of large-scale mining to take place.
This is a schematic showing a typical dragline operation in West Virginia. The analogy I like to make is with a layer
cake. If you take a slice through these mountains, it's like a layer cake with the fudge icing being the coal seams and
the sandstone and shale strata in between the coal seams representing the cake. Some of these mountains contain 11
- 12 coal seams, mostly oriented horizontally, but there is some localized roll and dip in the seams. The first stage in
the mining operation is to clear the area of vegetation (usually the landowner is responsible for this stage). The
upper elevations of the mountain are then drilled, blasted, and excavated to recover the first coal seam. That
overburden is deposited in the only available, stable place to put it, which is in the adjacent valley. That process
proceeds downward to the lower elevations until you reach a certain coal seam elevation where the dragline is then
deployed. The dragline then excavates down to the bottom two coal seams. The function of the dragline is basically
to pick up the rock strata from point A and moves it to point B. The dragline excavation moves laterally through the
mountain, uncovering these coal seams. Smaller equipment extracts the coal. Reclamation follows with bulldozers,
resculpting the area to its post-mining topography with some rolls and undulations. It is possible to do a fair amount
of creation in terms of how you re-grade to the post-mining topography. There's real potential here for post-mining
water resources to be optimized so that there can be some addition of stream channel areas with which there could be
some biotic communities restored.
Here's how it works operationally, at the Catenary Mine in Kanawha County: The upper horizons are excavated with
smaller equipment, such as loaders and trucks. Then the electric shovel excavates down through the middle
horizons, uncovering one or more coal seams from the top downward. Finally the dragline is utilized to uncover the
lower coal seams. The dragline and shovel only move rock. We're basically rock miners, because we move multiple
cubic yards of rock to recover one clean ton of coal, so our production costs are mainly in moving rock. Finally, the
overburden is re-graded and shaped to its post-mining topography, which can be gently rolling with undulations and
watercourses that approximate the pre-mining topography. So it's in this post-mining topography where we have a
real potential to put in basins, check dams, stream channels, to recreate water areas where you can capture rainwater,
allow it to accumulate or pool up, and there's potential to create wetland resources.
Now for an explanation of valley fill construction, the first order of business is sediment control. You go into your
permitted valley fill area and construct the sediment control structure, which is designed on the maximum amount of
the disturbed watershed behind it. West Virginia requirements are 0,125 acre-feet of sediment storage capacity for
each acre disturbed. The actual construction of the fill begins at the headwaters; the excavated rock material is
placed first at the headwater areas, then progresses downstream. Proceeding on, this is your classic end-dump valley
fill, where the larger rock, just by shear gravity and segregation, rolls down to the bottom, creating internal drainage
through the fill. There are still going to be some perched aquifers on either side of the hollow, and there will also be
-------
some surface runoff — this reality is accounted for in the design process and the result is that these structures are
somewhat porous and there's a fair amount of infiltration. The big rocks that roll down to the bottom provide void
spaces and places for water to be stored. When you reach the permitted extent of the valley fill, you put in post-
mining sediment control and drainage ditches. These are generally 50-foot vertical lifts with 20-foot horizontal
benches, with a certain percentage grade down to the center (this is the center core fill). Some fills are side drained
fills, with groin ditches on each side (different fill design). The final stage requires certification by a registered
professional engineer and revegetation.
During the active phase of mining, the area is open to the elements and weathering. This phase can run from 6 to 18
months in length. However, all surface runoff is channeled through a sediment control structure and regulated as a
point source under the Clean Water Act. After final reclamation, the post-mining topography lends itself to re-
creation of water resources. Ponds, basins, check dams, and bench sediment control structures are all designed to
handle the surface runoff from predetermined rain events under the Surface Mining Act. It is with these structures
that wetland resources could be created on the mine site.
There's also a lot of potential to remine previously mined areas (pre-law) — these can be reclaimed and brought up to
current standards. These examples are from the Catenary site. Old refuse fills that have been abandoned prior to
1977 can be capped over and reclaimed using modem mining methods [showed slide of reclaimed area]. Old slurry
impoundments have been eliminated as part of the mitigation process; when some of these sites are reclaimed,
current law allows mitigation credits. There are opportunities for creating wetlands for treating pre-law discharges.
There's a substantial body of knowledge out there on re-creating wetlands, and there's lots of potential to do this on
older mine sites.
This slide is another illustration of some of the post-mining water resources suitable for aquatic life. Some of them
are even flowing. The top of a valley fill is shown on the slide, with a wide bench on the perimeter. SMCRA does
not allow standing water on valley fills, but there are a lot of other areas of the reclaimed site that lend themselves
very well to wetland resources. We can construct basins and settling ponds to capture rainfall, and over time
infiltration occurs through the backstack that ultimately can provide a post-mining spring in certain limited
circumstances. Another example is a perimeter ditch around the periphery of the mine site.
The Hobet 21 site was the first area to use a walking dragline in West Virginia, in 1983. We've had 15 years of
large-scale mining at that site. The area now has over 50 valley fills. It lies in the upper Mud River drainage. This
site may provide opportunities for study.
This overhead (Figure 1) reinforces the concept of back-filled areas and valley fills to present opportunities for post-
mining water resources. We have found through experience that valley fills are porous in nature and water becomes
stored within the fill. This stored water is continuously released to the receiving stream, and provides significant
flow during extended dry periods.
This overhead (Figure 2) shows a typical cross section of a valley fill, using center core construction method, where
you're dumping from the headwaters and on each side laterally as this is constructed from the headwaters on down to
the mouth. As you can see, the larger rocks roll to the center and to the bottom and creates that porous area. There
is water flowing from the toe of these areas. With regard to the backfill areas, this overhead represents the
undisturbed solid area just below the lowest coal seam that was mined. This barrier acts as an aquaclude and
prevents the downward infiltration of water. As we construct basins, channels, and ponds on top, some water
infiltrates, reaches the shale underlying the lowest coal seam, and stops there and flows down-gradient and pops out
at the toe of one of the outslopes, and in several occasions there is flowing water coming out of these sites. -
KINKAID - DEFINE BACKFILL. EMERSON - BACKFILL is ROCK STRATA THAT is REMOVED DURING THE MINING
PROCESS TO UNCOVER THE COAL SEAM, AND IS DEPOSITED ON TOP OF THE SOLID BENCH WHICH IS REPRESENTED AS THE
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM ONE SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN TO THE OTHER. BY CONTRAST, THE VALLEY FILL MATERIAL
IS DEPOSITED ADJACENT TO THE BENCHED BACKFILL AREA (SEE DRAWING). BACKFILL IS COMPOSED OF SANDSTONE,
SHALE AND OVERBURDEN, OR INTERBURDEN WHICH IS ROCK FROM IN BETWEEN COAL LAYERS. THIS MATERIAL IS
PICKED UP BY THE DRAGLINE AFTER IT'S BEEN DRILLED OR BLASTED, THE DRAGLINE TURNS AROUND 90 DEGREES, AND
DEPOSITS THE MATERIAL SOME 200 FEET TO THE SIDE. THIS "SPOIL PILE" IS THEN RESCULPTED TO ITS POSTMINING
-------
EXPLANATION
Backfill Material
Water Percolation Path
Undisturbed Rock Strata (barrier to downward percolation of water)
Direction of Groundwater Flow
REGRADED SECTION OF BACKFILL ON SOLID BENCH
Backfilled rock material is very permeable and allows rainwater to percolate through and become stored as
groundwater. This new recharge area then becomes the source of water for post mining streams and seeps.
FIGURE 1.
-------
Typical Cross Section Of Finished Valley Fill
Center Praln
Keck Channel
Piner Mat
-------
TOPOGRAPHY. KlNKAID - IS IT COMPACTED OR JUST DROPPED? EMERSON - IN THE CASE OF THE DRAGLINE
EXCAVATION, IT'S JUST DROPPED. WITH RESPECT TO COMPACTION, THERE'S SOME COMPACTION GOING ON WHEN
YOU'RE RESCULPTING THIS, WHEN YOU PUT A DOZER ON THERE. REMEMBER THE SPOIL PILES ARE FAIRLY SHARP WHEN
YOU FIRST DEPOSIT THEM, THEN YOU PUT BULLDOZERS ON THEM TO SHAPE THEM OFF, MAKE THEM SMOOTHER, AND
PREPARE THE SEED BED. THERE'S AT LEAST SOME COMPACTION THAT GOES ON THERE WHEN YOU HAVE THE
BULLDOZERS RESHAPING.
KlNKAID - WITH SANDSTONE AND SHALE, THERE IS SOME POTENTIAL FOR ACID LEACHING, GIVEN THE COMPOSITION OF
THE 5 BLOCK COAL. WHAT is PUT ON THE SURFACE FOR REVEGETATION? EMERSON - SOMETIMES, TO THE EXTENT
NATIVE SOILS CAN BE SALVAGED AND REDISTRIBUTED, THAT HAPPENS, BUT THAT'S MORE AN EXCEPTION RATHER THAN
THE RULE. THERE is A PROVISION IN THE REGULATIONS THAT ALLOWS FOR AN ALTERNATE TOPSOIL MATERIAL TO BE
USED IF CAN BE TESTED AND SHOWN TO BE THE "BEST AVAILABLE" THAT IS WITHIN THE STRATA. IF IT'S TESTED AND
SHOWN TO HAVE GOOD SOIL MEDIUM CHARACTERISTICS AND YOU PUT TOGETHER A HANDLING PLAN THAT SHOWS HOW
YOU RECOVER THOSE PARTICULAR STRATA AND USE THEM AS SOIL MEDIUM, THIS TENDS TO BE THE RULE: WE'RE
BASICALLY CREATING NEW TOPSOILS FROM SHALE AND SANDSTONE THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE MOUNTAIN PRIOR TO
MINING. IT'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THAT IT'S VERY CALCAREOUS IN NATURE (PASTE PH BETWEEN 6.5-7.5), WITH A
FAIR AMOUNT OF CALCIUM AND MAGNESIUM, WHICH DOES CERTAINLY INCREASE THE TDS OF POST-MINING WATER
QUALITY. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. IT DOES INCREASE THE BUFFERING CAPACITY AS WELL.
KINKAID - YOU'RE PLACING SOIL OVER THE VALLEY FILL AND BACKSTACK MATERIAL? EMERSON - You MEAN
SALVAGING NATIVE TOPSOILS? KlNKAID - I'M WONDERING WHAT'S ON TOP OF THE BACKSTACKED MATERIAL AND
VALLEY FILL FOR THINGS TO GROW? EMERSON - IT'S GENERALLY A MIXTURE OF SANDSTONE AND SHALE THAT'S IN
THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE 5 BLOCK AND STOCKTON FORMATIONS WHICH IS A MIXTURE THAT WINDS UP ON TOP OF
THE SPOIL PILE AS A RESULT OF THE EXCAVATION. WE HAVE FOUND THAT SINCE PH IS FAIRLY HIGH AND THE MATERIAL
WEATHERS FAIRLY READILY, THAT PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION, ALTHOUGH FAIRLY SANDY, STARTS TO APPROACH
LOAM IN MOST CASES. WE ADD NITROGEN, PHOSPHOROUS, AND POTASSIUM AND SEED MIXTURE, MOSTLY THROUGH
HYDROSEEDING. IT ACTUALLY GROWS HERBACEOUS COVER VERY WELL. WHAT GOES ON THERE IS PART OF THE
PROCESS OF EXCAVATING THE MATERIAL. AFTER THE STRATA HAS BEEN BLASTED AND RE-HANDLED, YOU PUT THE
BULLDOZERS ON TO RE-SCULPT IT, YOU GET A FAIR AMOUNT OF FINE MATERIAL DURING THE PROCESS. WE THEN SPRAY
OUR MIXTURE OF GRASSES, LEGUMES, FERTILIZERS AND MULCH AND IT GROWS THAT GRASS/LEGUME MIXTURE VERY
WELL. SO OVER TIME YOU'RE BASICALLY CREATING A NEW SOIL AS A RESULT OF USING THIS BRAND-NEW PARENT
MATERIAL. KlNKAID - DO TREES GET ESTABLISHED? TREES ARE HAND-PLANTED AFTER HERBACEOUS COVER IS
ESTABLISHED, BECAUSE OF EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. THAT DOES PRESENT SOME PROBLEMS IN GETTING
TREES ESTABLISHED QUICKLY. WE HAVE FOUND THAT PIONEER SPECIES TEND TO COMPETE WELL WITH GRASSES AND
THEY HAVE AN EDGE OVER NATIVE HARDWOODS. GENERALLY POPLARS, MAPLES, ASH, BIRCH, BLACK CHERRY, ETC.,
WILL GROW FAIRLY WELL AND COMPETE WITH THE GRASSES AND LEGUMES THAT ARE ALREADY ESTABLISHED. IT'S
GENERALLY MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH HARDWOODS. WE HAVE FOUND THAT BY GOING TO OLDER SITES
THAT WERE MINED IN THE MID-70S, ON THE OUTSLOPES WHERE MATERIALS WERE PUSHED OVER AND NOT COMPACTED,
AND NOT ANY KIND OF POST MINING SEEDBED PREPARATION TOOK PLACE, WHERE IT'S LEFT LOOSE AND ROUGH --
THOSE GENERALLY WERE MUCH MORE CONDUCIVE TO NATURAL SUCCESSION OF HARDWOODS ONTO THESE SITES. ON
TOP OF THE OLDER 20-YEAR OLD SITES, WHERE THERE WAS A FAIR AMOUNT OF COMPACTION, NATIVE TREES HAD A
HARDER TIME. SO COMPACTION PLAYS IN A ROLE IN THAT.
KINCAID - WHEN MATERIALS ARE RELOCATED TO VALLEY FILL AND BACKSTACK LOCATIONS, HOW ARE THEY
CHARACTERIZED AS TO ACID-BASE ACCOUNTING AND THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROCK - WHAT ABOUT
THE MATRIX WHICH CEMENTS THE SANDSTONE. IS THE MATRIX SUBJECT TO ATTACK BY NATURAL WATERS OR WATERS
THAT MAY BE ALTERED AS A RESULT OF FLOW-THROUGH? EMERSON - THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF PREMINING
GEOLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS. CORES ARE DRILLED PRIOR TO MINING, AND ALL OF
THE ROCK STRATA GO THROUGH AN ACID-BASE ACCOUNTING TO DETERMINE THE ACID-PRODUCING POTENTIAL FOR
EACH STRATA. THERE IS A NET BALANCE DETERMINED TO DETERMINE WHETHER STRATA IS A NET NEUTRALIZER OR NET
ACID PRODUCER. IF YOU FIND AREAS THAT ARE NET ACID PRODUCERS, YOU HAVE TO SPECIAL HANDLE THOSE LAYERS
OF ROCK AND SEGREGATE THOSE AND HANDLE THEM THROUGH A SPECIAL HANDLING PLAN. GENERALLY, IN SOUTHERN
WEST VIRGINIA, THESE HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED BY GEOLOGISTS AS MARINE DEPOSITS AND IN MOST CASES ARE
CALCAREOUS. THE MATRIX IS CALCIUM CARBONATE BASED; NOT LIMESTONE, BUT IT DOES HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF
CALCAREOUS MATERIAL AS A CEMENTING AGENT. THE SHALES TEND TO BREAK DOWN READILY WITH WEATHERING
-------
AND ARE ALSO CALCAREOUS IN NATURE, SO IN MOST CASES THERE IS RAPID DETERIORATION OF THE STRUCTURE,
FORMING A FAIR AMOUNT OF SAND- AND SILT-SIZE MATERIALS FOR PLANT GROWTH.
KlNKAID - IT WOULD SEEM THESE MATERIALS COULD CRUMBLE IN A WAY THAT COULD AFFECT SLOPE AND STABILITY
OF THE FILL. POLITAN - WE HAVE DURABLE ROCK TESTS, TOO. FOR DURABLE ROCK FILLS, THEY HAVE TO PASS
CERTAIN TESTS TO BE PLACED IN A VALLEY FILL. EMERSON - SLAKE DURABILITY TESTS ARE DONE ON MATERIALS
THAT ARE GOING TO BE PLACED IN THE VALLEY FILLS; THEY HAVE TO STAND UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ABRASION
AND WEATHERING. IF THEY PASS THE SLAKE TEST, YOU'RE ALLOWED 80% DURABLE ROCK IN FILLS. REGARDING
STABILITY OF THE BACKFILL, THE SLOPES ARE NO GREATER THAN 2:1 AND IN MOST CASES ARE MORE GENTLE SLOPES
POST-MINING THAN PRIOR TO MINING. KlNKAID - SO VALLEY FILLS HAVE STEEPER SLOPE? EMERSON - THE FACES OF
THE VALLEY FILL ARE STAIR-STEPPED, AND THERE ARE ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS WHICH GO INTO SAFETY FACTORS
WHICH DETERMINE THE FINAL SLOPE OF THE FACE, AND FOUNDATION STUDIES ARE DONE PRIOR TO MINING, YOU KNOW
WHERE THE VALLEY FILL IS GOING, YOU KNOW WHAT THE SUBSOILS ARE IN THE CRITICAL AREA DOWN AT THE TOE,
WHICH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AREA TO BE AWARE OF, AND THERE ARE SOIL TESTS DONE THERE TO MAKE SURE IT HAS
THE BEARING CAPACITY TO SUPPORT THESE STRUCTURES. INTERNAL DRAINAGE OF THESE STRUCTURES IS ALSO
DESIGNED INTO THEM. ALL THAT IS LOOKED AT IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS AND REVIEWED, AND IF IT MEETS
CERTAIN SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS, THEN THAT PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION IS PERMITTED. KlNKAID - ARE TESTS
DONE THAT RELATE TO LONG-TERM GEOCHEMICAL STABILITY OF THE FILL MATERIAL? EMERSON - IF IT MEETS THE
SAFETY FACTORS, IT IS PRESUMED IT WILL BE STABLE LONG-TERM. (CONCERNING REFUSE FILLS AND SLURRY
IMPOUNDMENTS, ADDITIONAL SAFETY FACTORS ARE ENGINEERED, E.G., EARTHQUAKE FACTORS.) VALLEY FILLS HAVE
BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE STATE FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE HAS
NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENTED FAILURE OF ANY OF THESE STRUCTURES. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A FEW MINOR
SLUFFS AT THE FACE OF THE FILLS, BUT NO DOCUMENTED FAILURES, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY FACTORS
INVOLVED IN THE ENGINEERING AND FEE-MINING PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. KlNKAID - SO IT WOULD BE FAIR TO
SAY THAT THE EXISTING REGULATIONS ADDRESS THE PHYSICAL, MECHANICAL STABILITY. EMERSON - THAT WOULD BE
A FAIR STATEMENT, YES.
With respect to the areas in West Virginia that are susceptible to, or available for large-scale mining, the West
Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey has issued a report to the Governor's Task Force last October that indicated
that most of the large-scale mountaintop mining takes place in the Allegheny and upper Kanawha formations, which
have a geographic extent within the State where the coal seams lie relatively close to the top and are conducive to
this type of mining (Figure 3). With respect to what can be mined using these methods, it's generally from the
Stockton level up. In a few cases you can surface mine the Coalburg, but generally it's a deep mine. Everything
below that is either below drainage or too deep to be economically recoverable with large-scale surface mining.
Regarding the areal extent, the Geologic Survey mapped southern West Virginia - the elevation of coal seams are
proximate enough to the top of the mountains so it's potentially viable economically (Figure 4). Keep in mind these
areas have been extensively deep-mined and contour-mined in the past. Over the long run, there are not many
untouched coal reserves remaining; we think existing operations could go for another 15 to 20 years and then large-
scale mining, by economic forces and depletion of reserves, will cease to exist as viable mining method.
DENSMOKE - THE AREA YOU SHOW THERE is AREAS OF MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING PRIMARILY? EMERSON -
THAT'S CORRECT. DENSMORE - IF YOU LOOKED AT ALL SURFACE MINING (NOT JUST MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL) THAT
MIGHT INVOLVE VALLEY FILLING AND THEREFORE HEADWATER STREAMS/AQUATIC IMPACTS, HOW BIG AN AREA WOULD
WE BE TALKING ABOUT? EMERSON - IF YOU LOOK AT CONTOUR MINING, WHERE YOU JUST TAKE A SLICE OUT OF THE
SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN AND FOLLOW THE OUTCROP AROUND THE MOUNTAIN, YOU COULD GO MUCH FARTHER INTO THE
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN AREA OF STATE, PERHAPS AS FAR NORTH AS CLAY AND BRAXTON COUNTIES. BUT BEAR IN
MIND THAT THE "HINGE LINE," NORTHERN PART OF THE STATE HAS HIGHER-SULFUR RESERVES, WITH SOUTHERN WEST
VIRGINIA HAVING THE LOW-SULFUR RESERVES. So MOST OF THE DEMAND is IN SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA BECAUSE OF
THE CLEAN AIR ACT, OTHERWISE THE COAL NEEDS TO GO TO PLANTS WITH SCRUBBERS.
ROBINSON - DOES ARCH HAVE LONG TERM PLANS ON RESERVES FOR THIS IS-YEAR PERIOD? Is THERE DATA TO
SUPPORT THIS? EMERSON-WE DON'T OWN THE LAND, IN MOST CASES WE LEASE. THESE ARE LARGE TRACTS OF
-------
0~-
CO
D
O
DC
LU
LL
—
Z
O
m
GC
<
O
cc
LU
Q_
Q.
^~
0--
c
CO
'E
CO
Q.
&
CO
—
.2
co
1
1
Z
Z
^
_
z
>-
CO
z
z
LU
Q.
c-
J^
CD
a
ID
CD
1
^
CD
1
1
C
Q
—
CD
^
s>
\Jl
^
2
O)
ffl
E
CD
O
O
—
>»
CD
Ol
V
CB
1
•^
L_
d>
>
CC
0>
Z
(O
2
.c
a.
Middle Pennsylvanian Series
Lower Pennsylvanian Series
Allegheny
Formation
Kanawha Formation
o
CO
>
T5
'•3
03
-a
•a
E
o
•35
°>
TJ
o>
XXXXXX
xxxxxx
XXXXXX
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
No. 7 Block/Upper Freeport coal*
Lower Freeport coal*
Upper Kittanning coal*
Middle Kittanning coal*
No. 6 Block/Lower Kittanning coal
Upper No. 5 Block coal
(Lower) No. 5 Block coal
Little No. 5 Block coal
Stockton "A' coal
Kanawha Black Flint of White, 1891
Stockton Rider coal
Stockton coal
Coalburg coal
Little Coalburg
Arnett Member
Winifrede coal
Winifrede Shale
Chilton Rider
Chilton coal
Little Chilton
unnamed marine zone
Fire Clay coal
Cedar Grove coal
Dingess Shale Member
Williamson coal
Campbell Creek Ls and Shale of White, 1885
Peerless coal
No. 2 Gas coal
Powellton coal
Crummies Member
Eagle "A"
Eagle coal
Betsie Shale Member
Matewan coal
Middle War Eagle coal
Bens Creek
unnamed coal
Bolt Mountain Member
Lower War Eagle coal
Oceana Limestone of Hennen and Gawthrop, 1915
Glenalum Tunnel coal
Gilbert "A' coal
Gilbert Shale of Hennen and Gawthrop, 1915
Gilbert coal
unnamed marine zone
Douglas coal
McClure Sandstone
Aily coal
Douglas Shale of Hennen and Gawthrop, 1915
Lower Douglas coal
* Northern West Virginia Coal Field only
FIGURES.
-------
IN
10 0 10 20 30 40 Miles
Approximate Region of Present and Projected
Major Mountaintop Removal Mining Activity
in
West Virginia
| | Counties
Primary MTRM Region
-"* **
West Virginia Geological
and Economic Survey
October, 1998
FIGURE 4.
-------
10,000 -15,000 ACRES. WE HAVE SOME CORE DRILLING DATA ON RESERVES THAT INDICATE 10 TO 15 YEARS OF
RESERVES USING LARGE-SCALE EQUIPMENT UNDER PRESENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.
POMPONIO - ARE SEAMS BENEATH THE STOCKTON BEING MINED? EMERSON - YES, DEEP, CONTOUR AND AUGER
MINING ARE ALSO GOING ON.
HARTOS - WHAT TYPE OF SITE CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA GO INTO PLANNING A VALLEY FILL? EMERSON - THAT'S A
VERY LARGE QUESTION AND WOULD TAKE LOT OF TIME. I COULD IDENTIFY THOSE AREAS FOR YOU LATER.
-------
Dr. Bruce Wallace, Department of Entomology and Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens,
Georgia
The problem here, as I see it, is that it is a difficult question how much headwaters need to be protected to really
ensure integrity of downstream reaches (Figure 1). The problem is that we stream ecologists study one or two
streams, maybe adjacent waters, or streams in longitudinal linkage. Rarely do we look at drainage networks. I have
been working for 28 to 30 years at the Coweeta Natural Research Laboratory in western North Carolina. The
Coweeta basin is slightly larger than the controversial Pigeonroost watershed. Over the years we've studied a
number of things at Coweeta, such as replacing hardwoods with conifers; we've done some clearcutting experiments
to study the response of the stream to clearcutting.
One of the things that I hope to convince you is that there are some things happening in headwater streams that are
important, some of the processes there are important, some invertebrates are important and some of the things they
do are important. First of all, is the reliance of the stream community on inputs from surrounding forests. One of the
ways we've been testing this hypothesis for a number of years is by a litter exclusion project, where we've
constructed a canopy over an entire reach of a headwater stream which excludes terrestrial litter inputs so we can see
what happens to stream productivity. We also have lateral fences along the sides to keep lateral movement of
terrestrial organic matter out of the stream. So we're looking at linkages between invertebrates and what's happening
in the stream with detrital inputs from the forest. These detrital inputs are very important to the biology of the
stream. The question we're testing is: What happens if this linkage is broken or severely curtailed (we can't
eliminate all inputs to the stream). How dependent are these headwater stream invertebrates on detrital inputs? Are
detritivores, as a group, food limited (Figure 2).
This slide shows the standing crop of detritus in the stream from the start of treatment (litter exclusion) over 1,460
days (Figure3). The treatment stream has a large amount of stored detritus in it, and has been losing detritus at a rate
of about 0.8 grams/mVday for the first 4 years of this experiment. So these streams are very retentive, they have a lot
of detritus in them and store a lot of material.
This slide shows a reference stream with a lot of leaf material. The next slide shows a litter-exclusion stream, where
we've actually excluded the terrestrial inputs to the stream. There's little, in fact hardly any, litter in the stream. We
still have large, woody debris in the stream which we removed last summer, so I don't have all those data complete
for the past year. However, I do have the results of four years of litter exclusion (Figure 3) which included one year
A difficult question: How much
headwaters need to be protected to
ensure sustained integrity of
downstream reaches?
Stream ecologists primarily study
single streams, few streams, or a few
streams along a continuum.
How do we incorporate the branching
pattern into large-scale patterns and
non-linear aspects of the basin?
FIGURE 1.
10
-------
Nutrients
CO,
Microbes
Detritus
Standing Crop
J
Invertebrate
Detritivores
Detrital
Inputs
Detritivores may influence
standing crop of their resource
however they have no effects on
detrital inputs or rate of supply
Predator 2
What if this linkage is broken or severely curtailed?
How dependent are headwater stream invertebrates on detrital inputs?
Are detritivores as a group, food limited?
What type(s) of currency do we use to measure invertebrate response?
FIGURE 2.
-
CD
o cCT 6000-
"c E
cc •$
o> j£
5 9 5000 H
g ^ 4000H
'•£ "S
a Reference: r2 = 0.06, n.s.
• Treatment: r2 = 0.330, P < 0.001
365 730 . 1095 1460
Elapsed d from start of treatment (exclusion)
RGURE3.
11
-------
of removal of small woody debris, which decomposes very slowly. What we found was, after we excluded the litter
input, that we still had this woody debris which still served as a food resource to certain invertebrates; a few of them
were able to switch over to use the biofilm which accumulates on the wood as a food resource.
This slide shows total primary consumer biomass for the first 365 days (pretreatment), during three years of litter
exclusion, and during the period of small woody debris removal plus litter exlusion (Figure 4). You can see what's
happening to invertebrate biomass: the primary consumer biomass is going down whereas the reference stream
biomass remained basically the same. (There was one treatment stream and one reference stream used in this study.
We can get away with that by using a randomized intervention analysis technique which uses extensive pretreatment
period data compared with post-treatment.)
We also saw a decrease in invertebrate predators and salamanders over time (Figure 5). (There are no fish in these
streams; salamanders are the only vertebrate predators.)
I want to point out that there are a couple of functional groups of invertebrates that are very directly dependent on
this allocthonous input. One is the shredders, another the gatherers, in fact the primary consumers as a group,
invertebrate predators, and this carries all the way up to the salamanders - significant decreases.
These data are for the mixed substrate habitat, which represents about 87% of the stream area. On the other hand,
you have high gradient bedrock substrates, which are dominated primarily by scrapers, filterers, some gatherers,
some shredders (Figure 6). No change in abundance or biomass over time occur on the bedrock habitat, suggesting a
somewhat different food web that relies on transported organic matter rather than on material that's actually stored
there as benthic organic matter through time.
CM
Q
LJ_
<
cn
E
O)
o
Primary consumer biomass - mixed substrates
D Reference » Treatment
3.5-
3.0 1
2.5-
2.0-
1.5-
1 n-
D
QEDD -o
^r5.&V
A A ij
*•
• '
Q
^"n0"^"^""""3"^""""^
A LJ A V A
V - * . .V.
1 • *•*
*.*••• '
PD^D D
n _
D
''•>
• *
l
365 730 1095
Elapsed day
1460
1825
FIGURE 4.
12
-------
-------
We had a period of five pre-treatment years, and if we examine total secondary production vs. predator production in
that pre-treatment period, you can still see a relationship (Figure 7). A lot of that is related to nothing more than the
storm hydrograph in a particular year. In those years with many storms, we found that storms remove a lot of leaf
material from the stream bed; it's not all exported downstream, but a lot is deposited laterally onto the stream banks,
not downstream. Those are years when we see some of the lowest levels of secondary production.
We can show through studies that you can have many anthropogenic disturbances such as clearcutting, fire,
agriculture, and mining that disrupt detrital inputs to streams. Assessing the significance for the stream community is
difficult in the face of multiple effects that confound the analysis; e.g., with clear-cutting, you can get altered
hydrology, altered thermal regimes, enhanced sediment, nutrient and solar inputs, and shifts in the relative
importance of detrital inputs and within-stream primary production.
These studies show that litter exclusion alone, without considering the multitude of potential direct and indirect
effects, has a profound effect on aquatic productivity. Litter inputs alone influence abundance, biomass, and
production of invertebrates. This emphasizes the direct importance of the terrestrial-aquatic ecotones. Therefore,
maintaining or reestablishing riparian inputs are an important aspect to consider in the conservation and restoration
of streams.
Here's a myth we need to discuss - "Invertebrates and microbiota in these headwater streams represent a minute
fraction of living plant and animal biomass (true); therefore, they are not important in the export of organic matter to
downstream areas (myth)". We tested this at Coweeta through the application of pesticides to a headwater stream.
We found we had to treat seasonally (every 3 months) because there's a lot of recolonization. This slide shows
shredder production vs. insecticide treatment (Figure 8). The pre-treatment production of shredder biomass was
3.5 g/m2 for the year. Following the first year of insecticide treatment, this dropped to 0.4 g/m2. Most of the
Plectopterans and caddisflies were eliminated. Tipulids are very resistant (you have to kill them with rocks); even
with litter exclusion they were the last shredders to leave. They switch over and start eating the wood.
This is a slide of a leaf (Figure 9) that had been fed on by a shredding insect, a peltoperlid stonefly. One of the ways
you can follow leaf decomposition in streams is to put known amounts of leaf material in a bag — coarse-meshed,
that allows animals to colonize the leaves. Then you can follow the rate of loss of that leaf litter in the stream
through time. We did mat in the stream that we treated with insecticide. (We also looked at microbial respiration
rate on leaves in insecticide-treated and untreated streams. There was absolutely no difference in microbial
respiration; therefore, differences in decomposition of leaves were due strictly to the animal community.) Our results
"D CM
6 IP
sZ
OS LL
"O «£
2 o> 0
3-
2-
•1 —
Mixed substrate production
y = 0.350x-0.164 i2 = 0,969
* = pretreatment years
2 4 6 8 10
Total secondary production
(gAFDMm-2-yr1)
12
FIGURE?
14
-------
C54
FIGURE 8.
1985 (Pre-treatrnent year) = 3.5 g / m'
1500 •
0
P ?
o 3
HREDDER PRODI
(mgAFDM/m2/
CO
• = 1986 (IsHreatment year) = 0.^
^
i
m
m,
m Wfa w,
PEL LEU LEP PYC TIP
PEL - PELTOPERUDAE, LEU = LEUCTRA, LEP =
LEPIDOSTOMA, PYC -PYCNOPSYCHE, TIP -77POM
FIGURE 9.
-------
are based on 11 years of data for untreated
streams, with 95 to 100 litter bags per year, so
this is a pretty extensive study. The average
breakdown time for red maple leaves where
invertebrates were present (untreated) was 275
days (Figure 10). On the other hand, if you treat
and remove most of the invertebrate shredders
(with the exception of Tipulids!), you end up with
about 575 days. In other words, it takes much
longer to break that material down when you
remove the invertebrates.
These data show the same for rhododendron
(Figure 11). Rhododendron is a thick, leathery
leaf, very resistant to decomposition. It takes
about 750 days to break down with invertebrates.
With removal of large shredding invertebrates, it
takes almost 1,800 days. The point is that the
invertebrates are very important in the breakdown
of some of this material.
Another thing to keep in mind is that invertebrates
tend to have very low assimilation efficiencies —
about 90% of everything that enters the anterior
end of the body (through the mouth) comes out the
rear end as fine particles. In other words, they
will assimilate about 10% of material intake and
90% is egested as fine particles. So they are
actually grinding up this material into small
particles which are more amenable for
downstream transport. This slide on seston
(organic matter suspended in the water column)
concentration shows the effect of insecticide
treatment (removal of most of the invertebrates)
(Figure 12). During a three-year treatment with
insecticides, seston was very low. It increased
again after treatment ended, but it took about one
year to recover.
Red Maple Leaf Litter Processing
Treated (invertebrate
reduction) n = 4 years
100 200 300
Days to 95% loss
400
500
600
FIGURE 10.
Rhododendron Leaf Processing
n Processing
Untreated
n = 1 1 years
••:•••&
Treated (invertebrate
reduction) n = 4 years
400
1600
2000
FIGURE 11,
800 1200
Days to 95% loss
Problem: We know a large amount of export
occurs with individual storms. If you do
continuous export as opposed to grab samples of
export, you will find that continuous export is
usually 30 to 40% higher, because with grab samples you're missing the little storm events (Figure 13) that transport
much of the organic material. We also know there's a strong relationship between the amount of organic matter
exported (coarse particulate organic matter or CPOM, or fine paniculate organic matter, or FPOM), with maximum
discharge during a given sampling interval. Export of material (Figure 14) is greater with high discharge.
Based on secondary production, the benthic macroinvertebrate production in the insecticide-treated stream was
reduced by 1.2 kg/year for the entire stream. Also, the loss of invertebrate production over three years is 3.6 kg. We
constructed models of FPOM export, incorporating discharge during each sampling interval, for each of the two
reference streams and the treatment stream during the pretreatment year. Based on three-year treatment periods, we
saw a reduction of 170-200 kg of FPOM export to downstream reaches in the insecticide-treated stream. With
recovery of invertebrate populations (about 1.5 to 2 years), FPOM export approached pre-treatment levels.
16
-------
] INSTANTANEOUS (= GRAB) SESTON
CONCENTRATIONS IN EACH OF THE
THREE STUDY STREAMS FROM LATE
SEPTEMBER, 1984, TO mid-DECEMBER,
1989. BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF 6
SAMPLES FOR EACH STREAM AT C3 2 WK
INTERVALS FOR PERIOD.
soo
tooo
ELAPSED DAYS
taoo
ELAPSED DAYS
FIGURE 12,
TiaV C 55, 1988
FIGURE
17
-------
10.0-.C 55
8.0-
•c
o
§ 6-OH
O
S 4.0 H
_co
t 2.0-
£ 0.0-
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
In (X+1) Maximum Discharge (Us)
FIGURE 14.
I also want to emphasize that this is invertebrate reduction, and not complete extirpation, as animals recolonized
between treatments or survived treatments. For example:
• Scrapers production reduced by = 71%
• Shredders production reduced by = 88%
• Gatherers production reduced by = 21%
• Filterers production reduced by = 98%
• Predators production reduced by = 71 %
So the roles for invertebrates in forested headwater streams are:
a) processing of CPOM to FROM
b) increase downstream breakdown rates of leaf material
c) enhance downstream transport of organic matter as FPOM is more amenable to downstream
transport than CPOM.
Leaves are not very amenable to downstream transport because of high retention of large particles.
Here is a quote from a consultant's report: "As a general rule, most small headwater streams have their organic
import equal to their organic uptake, allowing the system to exist in a relatively steady state. The energy used just
maintains the status of the existing benthics leaving little or no material for active transport (as averaged on an
annual basis)." I'm not aware of any stream that works that way. In fact, it would not be a stream if it did.
Example: At Coweeta, Catchment 55, 1 want to point out that about 80% of the total input of that stream is CPOM
from the surroundinu forest. You can net about 10%; as dissolved orizanic matter: vou szet a certain amount ot
18
-------
through-fall as well as paniculate inputs from the soil, which we have measured. There is very little primary
production in these headwater streams as they are usually heavily shaded. The total annual input of organic matter is
about 720 g/m2 or so; keep in mind that 80% is CPOM input, and only 2 to 5% of the output is CPOM (Figure 15),
Most of the material, about 56 - 62%, is exported as FPOM, and 30-40% as dissolved organic matter. So, these
headwater streams are very important as sites of deposition, transformation, and subsequent export to downstream
reaches.
If we look in terms of the total export (in terms of ash-free dry mass, kg/year; Figure 16) (Remember that these are
extremely small streams , 0.035 cfs to 0 .061 cfs), the total export is 145 -167 kg/year. Another way to look at this
is annual export per m length of stream. We get about 1 kg of export per m length of stream. Looking at total
lengths of first and second order streams found in the Coweeta basin, there are about 44.7 km. You can estimate
values of the export of this organic matter to downstream reaches: 44 to 45 metric tons, or 50 U.S. tons, per year.
And this estimate is low because of underestimation of stream length from maps.
I did a similar analysis for all the streams I could find in the eastern U.S. (Appalachian, ridge and valley, piedmont
(White Clay); Figure 17). Note that none of the streams on the slide approach 5 cfs. As you see, by examining total
annual organic matter export, with increasing discharge and increasing stream length, there's a general tendency
toward more annual organic export per linear m as you go into larger streams. Not surprising - discharge increases,
stream width increases, and stream power increases, but certainly there is this tremendous increase as you go
downstream. So headwater streams can be very important sites of organic matter deposition and subsequent export
to downstream reaches.
Is this stuff important downstream? You bet. Example: For a fifth order reach of Coweeta Creek, amorphous
detritus makes up the large portion of flow of food through different groups of aquatic invertebrates (Figure 18).
Some other concerns from the point of view of stream ecologist: We are seeing increased nitrogen deposition in
eastern North America (Figure 19); it's a major problem in some of the forests. What's happening to nitrate
concentrations in streams coming out of valley fills, where you no longer have some of these forest activities and
microbial populations that might be playing a very important role in the nitrogen cycle?
Annual sources and input (g m"2 yr"1) of organic matter
to the stream draining Catchment 55 at Coweeta (prior
to litter exclusion).
Allochthonous sources g m"2 yr"1 % of total
Direct fall1 492 68.6 %
Lateral movement1 137 19,1%
Dissolved organic matter
([DOM] soil water) 62* 8.6%
Throughfall (DOM) * 16* 2.2%
Particulate input from soil ~ 4* 0.5%
Total allochthonous = 711 99.2%
Autochthonous sources
Primary production (algae) ~ 3.8
Aquatic moss = 2
Total autochthonous = 5.8 0.8%
Total annual input = 716.8
1 primarily leaves and woody debris
FIGURE 15 * inputs not curtailed by litter exclusion, in addition the
efficiency of exclusion of the direct fall canopy and lateral
movement fence was = 95%.
19
-------
How much organic matter is exported from forested headwater
streams in the southern Appalachians? Data are based on 9-y of
continuous measurements at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in western
North Carolina,
Watershed area ha (acres)
Stream length (m)
Avg, discharge L/s (CFS)
Annual range (L/s) *
Years of data
Export mg AFDM/L (total)
CPOM(% of total expt.)
FROM (% of total expt.)
DOMb(% of total expt)
Avg. export (g AFDM/d)
Export (kg AFDM/y)
Annual export (kg AFDM)
per m length of stream
1st - 2nd order streams (m)c
Total estimated annual
organic export (kg AFDM/y)
Export (metric tons/y)
Export (U.S. Tons/y)
WS53
Reference
5.2 (12.9)
145
1.06(0.035)
0.33 to 1.56
9
4.358
0.106 (2.4%)
2.452 (56.3%)
1.800(41.3%)
399.1
145.7
1.004
44,700
44,979
-45
-49.6
WS55
Reference
7.5 (18.6)
170
1.72(0.061)
0.52 to 2.48
9
4.06
0.159 (5.2%)
1.904(61.7%)
1.023(33.9%)
458.6
167.4
0.985
44,700
44,030
-44
-48
a Includes record drought and wet years (65 years of record)
b DOM = assumes dissolved organic carbon (DOC) = 50% of DOM
c Includes a conservative measure of only total length of 1st and 2nd order
streams in Ball Creek and Shope Fork Basins (1,483 ha or 3,673 acres) and
does not include an additional 11 km of 3rd and 4th order streams.
FIGURE 16,
20
-------
What are some other measures of export per length of stream channel in
eastern North American Streams?
Stream and Location
Physiographic Avg. Stream Total Annual Annual Organic
Region Annual Order Organic export
Flow Export (kg/linear m)
L/s (kg AFDM)
(CFS)
Catchment 53, NC
Satellite Branch, NC a
Walker Branch, TN b
Hugh White Creek, NC c
White Clay Creek, PA d
Appalachian
Appalachian
Ridge & Valley
Appalachian
Piedmont
1.1
(0.04)
1.7
(0.06)
12
(0.43)
19
(0.67)
115
(4.06)
1st
1st
1st
2nd
3rd
399
459
2,010
6,122
83,200
1.0
0.99
5.9
5.4
6.6
Sources; a Wallace et al. (1997); b Mulholland (1997); ° Webster et al. (1997);
and d Newbold et al. (1997) in: Webster, J. R., and J. L. Meyer (editors). 1997.
Stream organic matter budgets: Journal of the North American Benthological
Society 16:3-161.
FIGURE 17.
Acroneuria
Hydropsyche
Setratella
Isoperla
/
EphemerellaBrachycentnis
'enonema
Amorphous Animal Diatoms Fungi Leaves HI. algae
detritus
FIGURE 18.
Acroneuria Hydropsyche
Pteronarcys
Serrate/la
Amorphous
detritus
Brachycentrus
•tenonem
Animal
Diatoms Fungi Leaves Fit. algae
Amount of food consumed
. < 0.1 g m -2 yr-1
• 0.1-0.5 g m -2 yr-1
• 03-1 g m -2 yr-1
. l-5gm-2 yr-1 •
•5-10 gm -2 yr-1
• 10-20 g m -2 yr-1
|>20gm -2- yr-1
21
-------
Harvest and ^
Erosion losses
N Fixation
I
.Organic
N Biotic
Uptake
.Streamwater
losses
N?0
Denitrification
losses
Atmospheric
Deposition
* Primarily as a consequence of fossil fuel combustion, nitrogen deposition is
increasing in much of eastern North America.
• Biotic uptake by vegetation, transformation by microbes in soils, riparian zones and
streams, especially in the presence of available carbon are important
mechanisms controlling the export of nitrogen from watersheds.
•How does mountain top removal and valley filling influence downstream nitrate
concentrations?
FIGURE 19,
Another myth is that only flows greater than 5 cfs are streams. Only a lawyer would debate this question. How
much is 5 cfs? - over 1 billion gallons of water per year. The average city in the U.S. uses 100 gal/day/per capita for
personal use. In other words, if you looked at this in terms of how many people's water needs this could supply in a
year, it's 32,300 people. Or, it would supply the personal and industrial needs of 16,000 people. If you could sell
this water in Saudi Arabia, you'd be well off!
Another important point of concern: Stream thermal regimes can have important effects on microbial activity,
invertebrate fauna, and fish. For example, for invertebrates these effects include eggs, larval growth, life histories,
and seasonal cycles. What are the effects of valley fills and sediment ponds at the base of valley fills on
downstream temperature regimes with respect to annual degree days, daily max-min (diel fluctuation), or seasonal
temperature patterns? These things have a very important influence on the life cycles of aquatic insects.
Another myth - There are so many kilometers of first order streams in Appalachia that destroying a small portion
does not represent any potential threat to biodiversity. In fact if you look at papers by Morse, Stark and McCafferty -
they make a point that the southern Appalachian region and the Appalachians in general are regions of outstanding
biodiversity. Morse et al. (1997) consider 19 species of mayflies, seven species of dragonflies, 17 species of
stoneflies, and 38 species of caddisflies to be vulnerable to extirpation at present in the southern Appalachians. They
suspect the numbers may be considerably higher than these; why? Many of the rare species are known from only
one or two locations in springbrooks or seepage areas. Furthermore, many small streams, seeps, and springbrooks
have been poorly explored. To add to the problem, immature (aquatic) stages usually cannot be readily identified to
species; adult (aerial-terrestrial) males are often required for accurate identification. There are few taxonomic
specialists for various groups. Knowledge of their distribution, ecology, life history, and habitat requirements is
sorely lacking.
22
-------
As a closing thought to this biodiversity question, especially because of the potential importance of small
springbrooks and spring seeps to southern Appalachian biodiversity, I would like to leave you with a question: Can
we continue to destroy and entomb, forever, potential important habitats for life on this planet - without requiring
extensive pre-impact inventories by competent biologists? I think it's a very dangerous thing for life on this planet to
do that, and to destroy streams where there is no complete biotic inventory.
I realize that valley fills by coal mining is not the only process that eliminates streams. This overhead shows the
effect of urbanization on Rock Creek in Washington, D.C., 1913 to 1964, as you vary and extirpate first and second
order streams (Figure 20). We need to be considering some of the hydrologic consequences downstream. It's not
fair to equate these [valley fills] to what happens with urbanization, but with Rock Creek, the creek became muddy
and silty, there was an increase in annual flood frequency (it's increased 10 to 20 times since about 1913), and
downstream increase in channel width and depth associated with increased peak discharge.
PASSMORE - A LOT OF STREAMS DOWNSTREAM OF VALLEY FILLS HAVE RIPARIAN ZONES, so LEAF LITTER is PRESENT IN
LOT OF CASES. BECAUSE OF THAT, HOW DO YOU ESTIMATE WHAT'S LOST FROM WHAT'S NO LONGER THERE, HOW
IMPORTANT IS THAT FOR THE DOWNSTREAM REACHES, AND HOW DO YOU MEASURE IT? WALLACE - IT WOULD DEPEND
ON THE SITE, AND YOU NEED TO MEASURE EACH ON ITS OWN. DOWNSTREAM OF WHERE WE'VE BEEN EXCLUDING LEAF
LITTER AT COWEETA, WITHIN 100 M WE CAN FIND A FULL COMPLEMENT OF INVERTEBRATES AGAIN. TlBBOTT --
MAGGIE, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING is, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE IMPACT is ON THE DOWNSTREAM AREA FROM
THE LOSS OF ALL THOSE TONS OF FINE PARTICULATE ORGANIC MATTER PRODUCTION IN THE BURIED REACH, RIGHT?
PASSMORE -- WELL, I GUESS YOU'RE MOVING EVERYTHING DOWNSTREAM. WALLACE -- WELL, IF YOU MOVE
EVERYTHING DOWNSTREAM, OVER THE LONG HAUL YOU GREATLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF EXPORT TO DOWNSTREAM
REACHES IN TERMS OF PARTICULATE ORGANIC MATTER AND DOM, BUT I HAVE NO DATA ON DISSOLVED ORGANIC
MATTER.
HANDEL - To TIE IN WHAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE PREVIOUS TALK ABOUT CURRENT PRACTICE AND HOW
THESE LANDS ARE REVEGETATED: THE COMMON PRACTICE IS TO REPLACE MATURE HARDWOOD FORESTS WITH
GRASSLANDS, WITH AN OCCASIONAL SMALL SEEDLING, AND THIS HAS ENORMOUS IMPACT ON PRIMARY PRODUCTION.
AS WE LEARNED AT THE KENTUCKY MEETING SPONSORED BY OSM A FEW WEEKS AGO [THE TECHNICAL INTERACTIVE
FORUM ON ENHANCEMENT OF REFORESTATION AT SURFACE COAL MINES, MARCH 23-24,1999, IN FORT MITCHELL,
KENTUCKY], THESE LANDS UNDER CURRENT PRACTICE RARELY DEVELOP INTO A FOREST -- THE PRODUCTIVITY RATE is
MUCH, MUCH LOWER BECAUSE OF COMPACTION, ETC. THE LINKS BETWEEN UPLAND PRACTICE AND STREAM BIOTA:
SOIL REPLACEMENTS WHICH ARE PUT ON THESE MINES ARE TYPICALLY ENGINEERED FROM SUBSOILS, AND EVEN
Drainage basin of Rock Creek upstream of the District of
Columbia in 1913 (left) before extensive urbanization and
again in 1964 (right)(USGS, Dept. Interior 1964).
Note extirpation of many first and second order channels.
FIGURE 20.
23
-------
THOUGH THEY HAVE SOME OF THE IONS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE, PARTICULARLY FOR GRASSLAND GROWTH, THEY LACK
INTO THE STREAM. So I WOULD HOPE THAT THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES PAY ATTENTION TO THE QUALITY OF SOIL
ABOVE AND BEYOND PH AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS. YOU'VE CLEARLY SHOWN THAT WITHOUT PROCESSING OF
THE ORGANIC PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY, THE EVENTUAL BIODIVERSITY WILL BE AFFECTED. ALSO, THERE HAVE BEEN
MANY ATTEMPTS IN RESTORATION OF COMMUNITIES NEAR STREAMS. IT'S BEEN SHOWN WITH SOME WONDERFUL
STUDIES THAT THE KIND OF VEGETATION PUT NEAR STREAMS - WETLAND SHRUBS AND HERBS - REALLY AFFECTS THE
KINDS OF ORGANISMS THAT LIVE IN THE STREAMS. EVEN THE SPECIES OF WILLOW THAT WILL GROW NEXT TO THE
STREAM AND WHEN THEY LEAF OUT WHAT KIND OF INSECTS LIVE ON ITS NEW LEAVES AFFECTS THE FOOD WEB FURTHER
ON. SO THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF SUBTLETY ABOVE AND BEYOND JUST HOW MUCH PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY
IS THERE. ARE THERE ORGANISMS IN THE SOIL THAT CAN ILLUMINATE A TRUE BIODIVERSITY IN THIS REGIONAL AREA?
WALLACE (TO HANDEL) - ANOTHER POINT OF CONCERN -- DO YOU HAVE ANY FEEL, AS A TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGIST,
FOR WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH NITROGEN? HANDEL - THE BEST STUDIES ARE IN WATERSHEDS THAT ARE HIGHLY
DISRUPTED. I BELIEVE CLEARCUTS ARE MUCH MORE BENIGN THAN 5,000 ACRES OF SURFACE-MINED LAND, IN THE
SENSE THAT SOIL STRUCTURE IN A CLEARCUT IS RELATIVELY UNIMPACTED COMPARED TO ENGINEERING A WHOLE
BASIN. WALLACE - CLEARCUTTING IN COWEETA SAW INCREASES IN NITROGEN FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, UNTIL
REGROWTH, SO YOU HAVE NITROGEN UPTAKE WITH NEW GROWTH; BUT I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH
VALLEY FILLS; I HAVEN'T SEEN THE DATA. HANDEL - BASED ON INFORMATION IN THE FORT MITCHELL SYMPOSIUM,
PRE-SMCRA PRACTICES MAY BE MORE EFFECTIVE FOR NATURAL REINVASION. BUT MOST OF THE NATURAL
REINVASION WAS ON THE EDGES, WITHIN 100 YARDS OF THE EDGE - IT'S VERY UNCLEAR WHAT'S HAPPENING MORE
TOWARDS THE CENTER OF VERY LARGE, ENGINEERED SITES.
HABTOS - How ACTIVE ARE BENTHIC CRITTERS IN EPHEMERAL OR INTERMITTENT PARTS OF STREAMS? WALLACE -1
WOULD QUESTION, LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE CALLED "INTERMITTENT," LOOKING AT WHAT
THEY'VE DONE WITH SOME OF THE PIGEONROOST SURVEYS. THE FAUNA THERE ARE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE
AT COWEETA. THESE AREN'T WHAT I'D CALL INTERMITTENT TAXA; THEY HAVE LIFE CYCLES IN SOME CASES THAT ARE
UP TO 18 MONTHS OR LONGER, WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THERE'S WATER THERE FOR AT LEAST 18 MONTHS, OR THEY
WOULDN'T BE THERE. HARTOS - SO THE LIMITING FACTOR ISN'T WATER, SO LONG AS THEY CAN BE INUNDATED AT
CERTAIN PARTS OF THE YEAR? WALLACE - NO, THEY NEED CONTINUOUS WATER.
POMPONIO - YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING THE PROCESSES, ETC. MY PROBLEM IS YOU DON'T GO FROM
BUGS TO FISH. WALLACE - IT'S OBVIOUS! I CAN GO ON DOWN TO THE LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER, DOWNSTREAM OF
COWEETA, AND SHOW THAT 60% OF THE TOTAL INVERTEBRATE CONSUMPTION is ATTRIBUTED TO AMORPHOUS
DETRITUS (Q - WHAT'S AMORPHOUS DETRITUS? WALLACE - ORGANIC MATTER OF UNRECOGNIZABLE ORIGIN - OFTEN
HAS MICROBES ASSOCIATED WITH IT; MAY HAVE BEEN LEAF MATERIAL, ALGAL, WOOD, ETC.). A LARGE PORTION OF THE
LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER BUG PRODUCTION is MADE UP OF AMORPHOUS DETRITUS. IT'S ONE OF THE MOST
PRODUCTIVE LOCATIONS I'VE SEEN FOR A LARGE RIVER ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. IT ALSO HAS 44 SPECIES OF FISH, A
VERY PRODUCTIVE FISH COMMUNITY, INCLUDING A RIVER REDHORSE THAT'S THE LARGEST NEW SPECIES OF FISH
DESCRIBED IN RECENT YEARS FROM NORTH AMERICA. POMPONIO - ....FEEDING OFF THE BUG COMMUNITY PRODUCED
BY THE AMORPHOUS DETRITUS? WALLACE-YES. POMPONIO - THAT'S THE WHOLE THING!
KlNKAID - IS IT YOUR SENSE THAT AS MATERIALS EVOLVE TOWARDS SOILS, ORGANIC MATERIALS WOULD BUILD UP?
WALLACE - As HANDEL JUST SAID, THERE'S VERY LITTLE ORGANIC MATTER, KINCAID - As SOILS FORM AND
WEATHER, THEY WILL BECOME INHABITED BY PLANTS AND MICROORGANISMS AND AS THESE MATERIALS BUILD,
THEY'LL PROVIDE A SOURCE OF CARBON WHICH CAN INTERACT WITH RAINWATER PERCOLATING THROUGH. MY
OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, AND THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN TERMS OF STABILITY.
HANDEL - EARLIER, THE IDEA OF CREATING ENGINEERED STREAMS ON TERRACES WAS BROUGHT UP. WHAT MIGHT THE
QUALITY OF STREAMS ON TERRACES BE VS. NATURAL? WALLACE - YOU COULD MAKE SOMETHING DIFFERENT; YOU
COULD CONSTRUCT A WETLAND THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT BUT CONSTRUCTING A STREAM, SOMETHING THAT
RESEMBLED THE ORIGINAL -- I DON'T SEE IT. HANDEL - THE STRUCTURAL COMPLEXITY IS SO DIFFERENT ...
24
-------
WALLACE - IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING LIKE WHAT YOU STARTED OUT WITH; I'M NOT SURE IT'S FEASIBLE TO
EXPECT SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES THE ORIGINAL STREAM.
HANDEL - WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE BIODIVERSITY OF AN ENGINEERED STREAM ON A MINING SITE COMPARED
WITH A FORESTED NATURAL STREAM. WALLACE - IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT, IT MIGHT BE FAIRLY DIVERSE, BUT
IT MIGHT BE EXOTIC SPECIES COMPARED TO WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE THERE,
References
Morse, J, C,, B. P. Stark, and W, P. McCafferty. 1993, Southern Appalachian streams at risk: Implications for
mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, and other aquatic biota. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
3:293-303.
Morse, J. C., B. P. Stark, W. P. McCafferty, and K. J. Tennessen. 1997. Southern Appalachian and other
southeastern streams at risk: implications for mayflies, dragonflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies. Pp. 17-42 in G. W.
Benz, and D. E. Collins (eds.), Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special Publication 1,
Southeastern Aquatic Research Institute, Lenz Design and Communications. Decatur, GA. 554 pp.
25
-------
Dr. Bern Sweeney, Stroud Water Research Center, Avondale, Pennsylvania
The Stroud Center has been studying the structure and function of stream ecosystems since 1967. During the first
five years after opening its doors, the research team at the Center completed an intensive study of White Clay Creek,
a small piedmont stream in a quasi-natural state. From those data, Robin Vannote, the Director and team leader at
the time, formulated what has been referred to as the "River Continuum Hypothesis" - a conceptual model viewing
the stream ecosystem as a continuum from the first order headwater streams down through larger order rivers
(Figures 1 and 2). One of the important things that impressed the team early on was the relationship between the
stream and the terrestrial environment. This slide (Figure 3) shows leaf litter on a square meter of forest floor; the
leaves were taken out of the square meter and weighed, and found to weigh 203 g. Leaf litter blows across the forest
floor and into the streams. Because our streams are wet depressions in the landscape, you get a lot more organic
matter in the stream than on the terrestrial floor. The leaves tend to accumulate behind things in the stream and don't
go far in the stream; what does go far is the processed leaves. This slide (Figure 4) shows the standing stock of
coarse paniculate organic matter (CPOM) in a wooded area of our stream. Remember that the forest floor had
around 200 g/m2; in the stream in November we have a standing stock of about 800 to 1,000 g/m2, about four times
more in the stream channel than on forest floor, because as the leaves blow across the forest floor, they hit the
stream, and they stay, and they accumulate in the stream channel.
WHJTI CIAY CRIEK'N
DRAINftGl BASIN
A8E««I74 ken-Z SCAll! lira =O.783k-
/5«b ORDER
FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 2. FIRST ORDER STREAMS ONLY.
26
-------
FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 4.
27
-------
Notice that this stream is flowing [from the forest towards a
meadow (no animals in the meadow)] (Figure 5), and standing
stock estimates were made in a downstream direction. The
wooded section is very retentive; there is very little export of
the coarse leaf litter down to the meadow. So you have two
orders of magnitude lower leaf litter standing stock in the
meadow. We just don't get the input of coarse organic matter
in our grassy meadows that we do in our wooded areas. This is
a concern regarding reconstructing streams in grassy
reclamation areas.
HARTOS - How DOES LEAF LITTER CHANGE OVER TIME?
SWEENEY - THIS TIME OF YEAR (APRIL/MAY) THERE'S VERY
LITTLE OF THIS COARSE PARTICULATE ORGANIC MATTER IN THIS
WOODED REACH OF STREAM. IT'S ALL BEEN PROCESSED.
HARTOS - DOES IT SEEM TO WEIGH OUT WITH THE MEADOW
BEING MORE CONSTANT? SWEENEY - I DON'T KNOW THAT.
BASICALLY, THE PROCESSING OF THIS MATERIAL OCCURS IN THE
FALL AND WINTER MONTHS BY INVERTEBRATES; BY THIS TIME
YOU'RE LUCKY TO FIND A LEAF PACK, LET ALONE A SINGLE LEAF,
IN THE STREAM.
This slide (Figure 6) shows leaf litter that's been processed by
a lot of invertebrates. We measured production in our stream
as Wallace did at Coweeta, and got the same kinds of values.
We're getting about 5 g/m2 (dry biomass) for this one species
of stonefly on a mixed deciduous diet. We've also done
exclusion experiments in our small, first order streams. We've
shown that if you change the kind of tree species that go into
the first order stream, you can dramatically affect the production and biomass of various invertebrates. For a
particular stonefly, with a mixed deciduous leaf diet, we got about 5 g/m2 of production, but when fed only on red
oak leaves in a first order stream, we got only 1-2 g/m2. So, the type of tree species growing next to these streams
is really very critical to many of these invertebrates.
FIGURES.
Soyedina carofinensls
2 4000.
MIXED
DECIDUOUS
RED OAK
FIGURE 6.
28
-------
The next slide (Figure 7) is an analysis of
how much area there is in different order
streams in our White Clay Creek basin.
The slide shows how many streams of
each type we have in the basin: 147 first,
47 second, 9 third, 2 fourth. It also shows
the average width of the streams in a
forested condition, and also the average
lengths of tributaries in general in the
United States. This is an attempt to try to
calculate how much benthic area is
available for production for biological
and biochemical activities, because in
streams a lot of the biological or
biochemical action is taking place on the
bottom substrates. This is very different
than in a lake ecosystem or marine
environment where there's a lot of water
WHITE CLAY CREEK
OBDEE NUMBER WIDTH LENGTH AREA
1,609 704,838 (32,5%)
3,701 520,055
8,529 369,988
TOTAL
FIGURE?.
19,312 568,545
2,163,426
column processes. In a stream it's on the bottom — benthos — that's where the action is. So how much benthic area
you have per unit length of stream makes a big difference per unit order of stream. You can see from this analysis
that about 32% of total bottom area in our watershed available for macroinvertebrate production or any kind of
production is in first order streams; this is a striking thing. First order streams are the heart and soul of a watershed.
They're the place where the groundwater interfaces with the surface water. They're the collectors of materials on the
landscape. First order streams are scattered all over the landscape. They're the first places where the terrestrial and
the aquatic environment interface. (Q: How DID YOU MEASURE THE WIDTH? SWEENEY - THE WIDTHS SHOWN HERE
ARE THE AVERAGE BASE-FLOW WETTED PERIMETER OF THE STREAMS.)
In our experimental watershed, we have a lot of forest canopy which restricts light levels in the system, but in our
first and second order streams we still get some significant primary production going on, because at certain times of
year, especially this time of year, before leaf-out, when stream temperatures are high enough, we have enough light
levels, we can get significant primary production. We can get up to 100-150 species of diatoms living on the surface
of a rock in these smaller streams, tens of thousands of individuals, in this kind of area of stream bottom. Most of
these algal species are diatoms because they can live at this time of year and under low light conditions in summer
when the trees are shading the stream. This kind of algae is very important in these small-order streams because this
was the dominant kind of algae, at least in our area, because it's a shade-loving kind of algae — it competes well in
shaded conditions — and historically most streams were shaded in our region because it was part of the eastern
deciduous forest biome. Consequently, most native species in our small streams that eat algae have mouth parts and
digestive systems that are adapted to eating this type of algae (as opposed to filamentous green algae).
This slide (Figure 8) shows some
old data (1972-1973) that are
some of the first stream
metabolism measurements ever
made on a stream anywhere. The
data are of dissolved oxygen
measurements on small-order
streams. You can see that in
April and May, you have a time
where you get a pulse of primary
production. During shaded
months, the streams are
heterotrophic, but in late
fall/early winter, when the
canopy is gone and you have
high sunlight, the temperatures
FIGURE 8.
29
-------
are suitable and you get more primary production. Consequently, even in these small-order streams, besides the
detritivores, you have a lot of herbivores. We have species that go through their life cycles that are timed very
specifically to the availability of this primary production. So species like this will put on most of their biomass at a
very narrow time of year and it has to coincide with that period of maximum primary production.
The next slide shows again that 203 g of leaf litter on the forest floor. One of the things that was recognized by our
organic chemists after the first year or two of study on the White Clay was the importance that this leaf litter plays in
the export of dissolved organic carbon to our low-order streams. When rainfall percolates through this leafy matrix
on the forest floor, enters the ground as groundwater, and then flows to the stream, it picks up a lot of the organic
compounds out of the leaves; at the Stroud Center, we call this "watershed tea." Just like the dark color you get
when you steep a tea bag in hot water is the release of dissolved organic compounds that are food - we drink it as
food — in a watershed, instead of having tea leaves you have hickory leaves, beech leaves etc., but it's the same thing.
You have materials coming out of the leaf litter, and the leaves don't have to fall into the stream directly. These
compounds go into the groundwater and are carried to the stream by the groundwater. We estimate in our system
that this dissolved organic carbon fraction in our low-order streams represents a tremendous piece of the total food
pie in the system (Figure 9). This is something which has to be looked at carefully in the mountaintop
removal/valley fill situation.
This dissolved organic carbon drives a
tremendous amount of productivity in the system.
Our microbiologist tells us that in 1 square inch of
stream bottom of the White Clay Creek, we have
about 6.6 billion bacteria being fed by that
dissolved organic carbon, 6 million flagellates
(little microscopic animals), and 64,000 ciliates.
Of course, this provides the basis for a good part
of the food web that in turn gets exported up to
larger invertebrates and fish.
The next slide (Figure 10) shows a schematic of a
cross-section through a stream channel to show
that streamside areas (wetland areas) along first
and second order streams are extremely important
not only for the dissolved organic carbon which comes through them, but also because they are zones of nutrient
processing. Groundwater brings with it not only dissolved organic carbon, but also nitrogen and other types of
nutrients. In our wetland areas, especially the wet soils in first and second order streams, we get a significant amount
of denitrification going on. Shallow groundwater is moving through the streamside wetlands and into our streams.
The next slide (Figure 11) shows an
analysis of nitrate levels in deep wells,
surface springs, in the stream itself, and in
shallow streamside wells. You can see
that a lot of the nitrogen is being removed
in shallow streamside wetland areas
before it gets to the stream. This is
another issue we've talked about this
FIGURE 9.
FIGURE 10.
30
-------
RGURE 11.
morning: How different will these systems be without these kinds of processing areas for nutrients? We certainly
have a lot of atmospheric nitrogen loading on our watersheds.
The next slide (Figure 12) is a schematic illustrating the connectivity between what's going on on the surface with
water percolation and the dynamics of small streams. These small first order streams are really tightly connected to
what's going on on the landscape through this internal plumbing network.
FIGURE 12.
The next point concerns the biota of these systems. The Center has been running Malaise nets which collect adult
flying aquatic insects. It's the way that you inventory what species you have there. (You can't tell the species apart
from the aquatic larvae for most taxa - you need to get the adults.) We've been at this for 32 years, and have found
up to 304 species in these small streams (Figure 13). We've done a poor job with dipterans, and I suspect that triple
these numbers are really there, and the actual total species number will be over 600 when we're done. So we have a
tremendous number of species brought in a very small linear length of stream channel.
The next slide (Figure 14) shows the Breitenback Creek in Germany. They've been working on this stream for about
50 years, and they're up to 881 species of macroinvertebrates. So high species diversity in these small streams is not
uncharacteristic — 1 think it's the norm.
31
-------
SPICES RICHNESS OF AQUATIC INSECTS
insect Ordor
Odonala (dragan/damsaltllas)
Ephomoroptera (maylllosj
Placoptera (sionellios)
Titehoptera (caddtefiles)
Maptoptera/Nsuroptara
(haOgramndtas. sponglllallles}
Hemlpiera (water teatmen.siriden)
Lepldoptera (aquatic moths)
Colcople/a (aquatic beetles)
Dfptora (mtdges, crsneflies, blackfiies)
Total
* Siroud Water Research Center Survey
While Clay Creek'
FIGURE 13.
BRBTENBACH CREEK, GERMANY*
Macroinvertebrates
No. Species
% of Total
Non-Insect*
* Cited In Allan 1995; non-lnsec! macrolnvertebratas include Mollusca, Annelida,
Crustacla, Hydracarlna, Nomstoda
FIGURE 14.
32
-------
One thing we and others have discovered Is that not only do you have high alpha diversity (that is, diversity at a
given point in stream, so there's high diversity in first order streams, high diversity in sixth order streams, there's high
diversity in the big river) but there's high beta diversity — the turnover of species as you go down through this river
continuum. It's extensive enough that there are very few species that you would find up in the headwaters of a
system that also live downstream in the big river — in fact, I can't even think of any. This is true for invertebrates and
somewhat true for fish. My point is there's a continuum of species that have distinct distributions within the river
continuum. In other words, a headwater species may only occur in first, second, and third order streams; you don't
find it in fifth, sixth or seventh order streams. It doesn't have the right habitat, the right food, whatever. Also, there
are species in a big river that you don't find in the headwaters. The point is - what happens when you clip off the top
part of this continuum? What happens to a species that happens to only have a distribution in first, second, and third
orders? You clip off first and second orders, and you have a much more affected population, restricted only to the
third order. How long can that population persist? What happens if there's disturbance in middle of this continuum,
say in a third or fourth order stream? What happens to the recolonization process? Are you going to get taxa from
downstream going upstream? I don't think so, because organisms in the higher orders probably don't want to live in
the lower orders. A lot of third, fourth and fifth order streams are where people like to live and develop the land --
this is where the housing developments are, this is where there's disturbance, and this is where accidents are going to
happen — this is where you'll need recolonization. Recolonization is going to come in from these smaller tributaries,
if they exist. We need to think about these things in terms of the persistence of the system as a whole, not just as
individual tributaries.
We haven't talked much about densities of invertebrates - we've talked about production. In this system and others
that we've studied, there's a tremendous density of macroinvertebrates and algae on the bottom of the streams. The
density isn't really that size dependent. In these small first order streams, we get macroinvertebrate densities of
8,000 - 20,000 individuals per m2. Down in our bigger watersheds, we get the same densities. So it's not the case
that if you have a bigger stream you have more bugs per unit area. The kind of bugs are very different downstream
(species are different), but the densities are pretty equal. So, a lot of people think of first order streams as a lot of
"nothing" — not much water in them, probably not much living in them. But in fact, the amount of organisms living
per unit area is just as much as down in the bigger system. And the fact is that there is so much benthic area in these
small streams, and there's so many of them, that collectively a lot of this "nothing" is worth something, and it's
something very special — it's very abundant.
This slide shows a first order stream bordered by grass. We've been studying paired reaches of these low order
streams, reaches bordered by forest compared to reaches bordered by grass. In the grass section, the stream is not
functionally as well off; the stream is only one-third as wide as the forested reach. A terrestrial forest will shade out
grasses; if there is sunlight enough for grasses, they'll put roots in the stream which trap sediments, narrowing the
stream bed in two to three years. Because organisms live on the stream bottom, and the productivity and
biochemical processing is associated with the bottom area, narrowing will have a tremendous impact on stream
productivity.
The last slides show the quality of the populations in a given stream and in broad sense. We have some genetic data
published on mayflies in eastern North America. We're one of the few labs to study the genetic structure of aquatic
insects. This slide (Figure 15) shows one of the species, which shows very different genes, moving from north to
south. These data tell us that there's not a lot of gene flow occurring on a big scale. Gene flow in these insect
populations occurs in a stepping stone fashion, as insects fly from one stream to another. What that means is that
species like this which are occurring in first and second order streams need to have streams nearby for genetic
exchange. So if there are gaps in the network, what are the implications for gene flow across the whole population?
What we don't know may be very important. We don't even know what species are in these first order streams in the
area [the mining region] we're talking about. The area of eastern West Virginia/western Virginia is a real hotspot of
new species discoveries (Figure 16). It's unusual, non-glaciated, there's been a lot of time for populations to persist
and evolve. Thermally, it has lot of diversity. We don't know what's in this area yet, and we don't know its
importance to stream ecology.
We can't afford to destroy what we don't know. As a professional who has worked for 30 years in this field, should
we be concerned about first and second order streams? We don't draw the line anywhere - we can't sacrifice a single
first order stream (Figure 17).
33
-------
ROURE 15.
FIGURE 16.
RGURE 17.
KlNCAID - GIVEN THE SHORT TIME FOR E1S STUDIES, AND THE
CURRENT DROUGHT SITUATION, DO YOU HAVE ADVICE ON
THINGS NOT TO DO? SWEENEY - GO ABOUT DATA COLLECTION
VERY CAREFULLY, IF A STREAM IS DRY, DON'T ASSUME NO DATA
CAN BE GATHERED. THERE ARE SOME GOOD PAPERS ON THIS
REGION AND HOW TO SAMPLE QUANTITATIVELY. I THINK WE
HAVE TO RELATE NUMBERS WITH PRODUCTION. YOU ALSO NEED
SOME DATA FROM SOME OF THE ALREADY-DISTURBED SITES,
SUCH AS THE TEMPERATURE REGIME FROM VALLEY FILLS AND
HOW THEY ARE LIKE OR DIFFERENT FROM NATURAL STREAMS.
TEMPERATURE DRIVES THE LIFE CYCLE OF MANY OF THESE
SPECIES; MANY SPECIES HAVE EVOLVED SOPHISTICATED
RESPONSES TO TEMPERATURE CHANGES. ALSO CHEMISTRY
DATA ON WHAT IS BEING EXPORTED - NITROGEN, DISSOLVED
ORGANIC CARBON.
Q: IF ONE WOULD RANDOMLY SAMPLE 20 STREAMS IN AN AREA,
HOW DIVERSE DO YOU THINK THESE STREAMS WOULD BE ONE TO
ANOTHER? SWEENEY - I'M NOT SURE WE KNOW. THE
POTENTIAL IS TREMENDOUS. FOR EXAMPLE, BILL KAUFFMAN
HAS DONE STUDIES WITH US IN COSTA RICA ON TWO LOW-
ORDER STREAMS THAT ARE SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER BY
ONLY A KILOMETER. IN ONE, THERE WERE 200 SPECIES OF
CHIRONOMIDS, IN THE OTHER THERE WERE 200 SPECIES OF
CHIRONOMIDS, BUT THE DEGREE OF OVERLAP WAS LESS THAN
34
-------
50 PERCENT. Q - SO THE UNIQUENESS THAT EACH OF THESE STREAMS REPRESENTS IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE
ADDRESSED, SWEENEY - I THINK SO. THE PROBLEM, THAT I'VE TRIED TO CONVEY AND THAT BRUCE HAS TRIED TO
CONVEY, IS THAT IT'S NOT EASY TO DO A TAXONOMIC INVENTORY OF THESE SYSTEMS. BUT JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING
ISN'T EASY DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE, OR THAT YOU SHOULD ALLOW SOMETHING ELSE TO HAPPEN
BEFORE IT'S DONE.
POMPONIO - IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR STUDIES WHICH HAS LOOKED AT THE USE OF THOSE SYSTEMS BY
TERRESTRIAL CRITTERS LIKE BIRDS? SWEENEY - YES, WE HAVE SOME DATA ON EXPORT OF AQUATIC LIFE. THE
MALAISE TRAPS WOULD GIVE YOU DATA ON WHAT'S EXPORTED. ALSO WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF
INTERACTION BETWEEN BIRDS AND INSECT POPULATIONS IN TERMS OF MAINTAINING SOME OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE
LIFE HISTORIES, FOR EXAMPLE, EMERGENT SYNCHRONY. YOU HAVE A SPECIES THAT LIVES IN THE STREAM FOR A
WHOLE YEAR, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT EMERGES ON APRIL 10, AND ONLY APRIL 10-15 AND REPRODUCES.
WHAT MAINTAINS THAT KIND OF SYNCHRONY? WE PUBLISHED INFORMATION SHOWING THAT TERRESTRIAL BIRDS
EMERGE TOO EARLY OR TOO LATE. THERE'S A LOT OF THAT KIND OF THING THAT GOES ON. POMPONIO - I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO FOCUS NOT ONLY ON THE AQUATIC SPECIES, BUT ALSO WHAT'S USING THEM THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART
OF LANDSCAPE -- THE WHOLE INTERACTION. SWEENEY - WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN YOU GO OUT COLLECTING
EMERGENT MAYFLIES AT CERTAIN TIMES OF THE YEAR, YOU'RE REALLY COMPETING WITH THE BIRDS.
[Note; Dr. Sweeney sent a letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service after the symposium,
summarizing many of the points in his presentation. The letter is reproduced on the following
pages.]
35
-------
STROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER
970 Spencer Road
Avondale, Pennsylvania 79312
610-268-2153 610-268-0490 F™™*
-•
May 11, 1999
Mr. David Densmore
Supervisor
Pennsylvania Field Office
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Suite 322, 315 South Allen Street
Sate College, PA 16801
Dear Mr. Densmore:
One of the key issues with respect to the Mountain Top Mining debate is whether small (first and
second order) streams are important and worthy of unconditional protection and preservation? I offer
the following thoughts in an attempt to convince you and others associated with the debate that the
answer is an emphatic and unqualified YES!
The Stroud Water Research Center has been studying the structure and function of small tributaries
of the White Clay Creek (WCC) Watershed since 1968. Results from the first few years of study
quickly established the tiniest of streams (first order) as being both abundant and crucial to the overall
function on the ecosystem. Vannote's "River Continuum Theory," which was first developed out of
the early studies on the WCC, made special note of the importance of first order streams and their
physical, chemical, and biological connectivity to the larger downstream tributaries.
Numerous studies over the years at the Center have shown that first order streams occur throughout
the watershed, interface clearly with the landscape, and are the primary collectors of material and
energy for the stream ecosystem. Under natural conditions, small streams receive leaf litter directly
from the forest canopy and, because they are wet depressions in the landscape, often trap leaves
blowing across the forest floor. Thus, small streams in WCC can have an average 800-1000 g/m2
standing stock leaf litter in November even though the surrounding forest floor only averages about
200 g/m2. These leaves are processed (eaten) by a variety of aquatic macroinvertebrate species and
converted to animal biomass by some species at a rate of 5-8 g/m2/year. Given that the WCC
watershed contains about 147 first order streams which collectively contain about 700,000 m2 of
bottom area for macroinvertebrate production, the amount of animal biomass and smaller particles of
food produced from leaf litter processing alone is staggering. Over 32% of the total benthic surface
area in WCC is represented by first order streams. This is especially important because most of the
structural and functional activity in a stream ecosystem is associated with benthic substrata (bottom
areas) as opposed to water column processes.
Although small, natural streams in the WCC often flow through forest, seasonal openings in the
canopy (Spring and Fall) and the occurrence of shade tolerant algae (diatoms) enable significant levels
of primary production to occur. Studies at the Center have not only documented that each square
meter of first order stream bottom is capable of producing significant levels of algae (-0.2 - 0.4 g C
m~2 d'1), but that individual rocks can often contain over 100 species of algae (diatoms) representing
thousands of individuals.
Significant biological productivity in tiny first order streams of WCC is also associated with bacterial
communities which are feeding on large amounts of dissolved organic compounds (DOC) carried to
the stream by groundwater. The DOC, which effectively can represent up to 60% or more of the total
May 11, 1999 3:31 PM 1
36
-------
food base of a small stream, originates from rainwater percolating through the organic matter (leaves,
twigs, etc.) of the floor of the watershed. A square centimeter of stream bottom substrata in a small
tributary of WCC can support a community consisting of about 1 billion bacteria being fed on by 1
million microflagellate and 10,000 ciliated invertebrates — all supported to a large extent by DOC.
Thus, the in-stream biological productivity of first order streams is significant and certainly non-trivial
compared to larger streams. In fact, widely accepted models of ecosystem structure and function
(e.g. River Continuum, nutrient spiraling) strongly connect the productivity and structure of
downstream communities with their smaller upstream tributaries.
In similar fashion, the chemical fingerprint of downstream reaches is determined in large part by the
fingerprint of upstream tributaries. In WCC, for example, the wetland areas adjacent to first order
streams are critical areas of denitrification for groundwater flowing into the system. Thus, despite
high levels of nitrate in watershed groundwater (e.g. > 5-6 mg/1), nitrate levels in low order streams
average < 3 mg/1.
The unique physical, chemical and biological conditions of low order streams supports not only a
productive fauna and flora but a high level of diversity. In WCC, well over 300 species of aquatic
insects alone co-exist in a small tributary. Both alpha and beta diversity are high in the system.
Thus, species occurring in the small tributaries typically do not occur in the larger downstream
reaches and vice versa. This means that eliminating first order streams greatly jeopardizes the ability
of certain species to maintain local populations and provide propagules for recolonizing disturbed
areas. In Appalachian mountain watersheds, the biological diversity of small order streams has not
been studied extensively. Recent studies, however, indicate a substantial level of endemism and a
disproportionately high level of species new to science associated with these small stream systems.
The abundance and proximity to one another of first order streams have also been shown to have
important implications with respect to maintaining levels of genetic diversity in natural populations.
For example, a comparison of the genetic structures of certain WCC populations with populations
elsewhere (north or south) in their geographic range suggest that gene flow occurs in a "stepping
stone" fashion (i.e. occasional short distance migration as opposed to long distance genetic
exchange). Elimination of first order steams, or a portion of the "stepping stones", has obvious
negative consequences for dispersal and gene flow of species uniquely adapted to these systems.
In conclusion, small first order streams form the heart and soul of the functional stream ecosystem in
WCC and every watershed that has been carefully studied. They are small but numerous and
collectively represent a significant part of the system with respect to its physical, chemical and
biological characteristics. They support a wide variety of unique species that do not occur in larger
streams. The structure and function of small streams is not only important locally (to the reach itself)
but critical to the productivity of larger downstream tributaries. Clearly, any discussion of destroying
even one first order stream is out of order. Rather, first order streams should be placed on a pedestal,
protected at all cost, and treated with reverence in the sense of respect co-mingled with awe.
I hope that these comments are helpful to you and your staff.
Sincerely,
Bernard W. Sweeney
Director and Curator
May 11, 1999 3:30 PM 2
37
-------
Dr. Denis Newbold, Stroud Water Research Center, Avondale, Pennsylvania
This slide (Figure 1) shows the conceptual diagram of nutrient spiral in the stream. That concept was developed by
Jack Webster of VPI, who published it with Bruce Wallace. The spiral tells you how effective the ecosystem is at
processing nutrients. The tighter the spiral, the more effectively the ecosystem is trapping and reusing organic
matter and nutrients as you go downstream stream. But there's another side of this: The tightness to the spiral which
we measure with length (the distance something has to move downstream in order to be processed in some way)
(Figure 2). This spiraling length (or "turnover length" when referring to carbon) has particular relevance to the
question we face. If you're sitting in a downstream ecosystem, where did your nutrients come from — how far
upstream did they come from?
The original work on spriraling looked at the cycling of phosphorus. This slide (Figure 3) shows an upstream and a
downstream caddisfly. In these original examinations of nutrient cycling, we could see evidence of spiraling taking
place: a downstream caddisfly that collects particles in its net is actually getting labeled with radioactive phosphorus
relative to the one upstream, providing the evidence that this downstream animal is depending on an upstream
source.
I'm going to focus mostly on carbon, and shift to what we've learned in studies of White Clay Creek (but there have
been a lot of studies at Coweeta and elsewhere showing similar things). A simple carbon cycle here (Figure 4)
involves algae on the stream bottom, and/or microbes. As microbes decompose organic matter, or as algae produce
organic matter through photosynthesis, they release a lot of dissolved organic carbon to the water column, which
then moves downstream. Traditionally we viewed the organic matter in the stream, the dissolved organic matter
especially, as refractory (i.e., it doesn't get used very fast; it eventually gets to the ocean where it may last a hundred
years) (Figure 5), Much of the dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is, in fact, refractory, but there's also a significant
labile component to that carbon which cycles within the stream ecosystem.
This slide (Figure 6) shows dissolved organic carbon cycling in White Clay Creek; it shows the fate of dissolved
organic matter (in this case produced by algae, but it would be similar to that produced by microbes decomposing
litter that falls into the stream). Based on our experimental results, the labile component of the DOC produced by
the algae will travel 2 km downstream before being taken up and utilized by the streambed microbes. The refractory
component will travel much farther. The estimate shown here of 144 km actually means that it would travel an
average of 144 km downstream if the stream were not to grow any larger. But of course, the stream — in this case,
the White Clay Creek — does grow larger, and in fact enters the Delaware Estuary in much less than 144 km. Thus,
the 144 km actually means that nearly all of the refractory component will reach either the estuary or the ocean
before being utilized. These estimates were based on the third order reach of the White Clay, and the 2-km turnover
length for the labile DOC is about the same length as the reach. In fact, it turns out that the way these distances
scale, the turnover length for labile DOC in a reach of any given order, will be comparable to the average length of a
segment of that order (Figure 7). Thus in a first order reach, which is typically about 1 km long, the turnover length
for labile DOC would be about 1 km. This means that we can normally expect about half of the labile DOC
produced within any given reach to be utilized within the reach, while the remainder will be passed to a larger
downstream reach. The next reach, which is typically second order with a length of 2 to 3 km, will have a
proportionately longer turnover length, so the downstream transfer and utilization successively cascades downstream.
Each downstream reach will utilize a portion of the labile DOC passed from upstream, and pass the remainder
downstream.
The next slide (Figure 8) emphasizes the production of dissolved organic phosphorous, which has a lot of the same
characteristics as dissolved organic matter.
Now I want to discuss the transport of fine paniculate organic matter, or seston. We've been involved in a number of
studies of how particles move downstream through a system. This is a diagram (Figure 9) of how particles might
settle and be resuspended in the water column. We put radioactively-labeled particles in streams, along with red
dyes to serve as tracers, and then sampled over several months after that in the sediments. From this work you get a
picture of how much of these particles that are in the water column are settling, how long they stay on the bottom,
and when they come back up, how far downstream they go. In a third order stream (Smiley Creek) in Idaho the
38
-------
FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 2.
39
-------
.f 0.015
S 0010
" 0005
0
"l ooe
i
*
0
«- a°4
I DOS
«f OX>2
P
JL 001
0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
TIME(d> TIME(d)
FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 4.
40
-------
STREAM GENERATES BOTH LABILE AND REFRACTORY
DOC, WITH SOME RECYCLING OF LABILE FRACTION
LABILE
REFRACTORY
GROUNDWATEH
FIGURE 5.
DOC CYCLING IN WHITE CLAY CREEK
THIRD-ORDER REACH:
DEPTH, da 0.2 m
VELOCITY, vw a 0.12 m/soc
LENGTH, L ~ 4 km
LABILE REFRACTORY
Mass transfer coefficient for
uptake (from chambers) v<-
Turnover time, Tsd/vt
Turnover Length, 5= vw7"
EOC Utilized within
3rd order reach
labile + refaclory
Theoretical peak EOC
Concentrations
0.0006 n
144 km
0.4 mgrt.
RGURE 6.
-------
FIGURE 7.
FIGURE 8.
42
-------
FIGURE 9.
DEPOSITION - SMILEY CR JULY 1990
C=0.11
0.06g/m/h
Vw=17n*,ln
TIME IN SUSPENSION : T = deplhWs = 24 m!n
TRANSPORT DISTANCE: S e T x Vw = 620 meters
DEPOSITION FLUX:
FcU CxVs = 0.06 g/m2/h
STOKES SETTLING VELOCITY
170 mm/mln
FIGURE 10.
43
-------
transport distance for seston was 620 m (Figure 10). Again, this distance is on a scale with the length of stream we're
talking about. By following these particles, we can say that a particle moves downstream 620 m, sits on the bottom
for a period of 24 minutes (part of the fraction stays much longer), then it's resuspended and moves downstream
another 620 m. So this material can move downstream great distances.
We know that downstream waters in estuaries are heavily dependent upon allochthonous carbon from upstream.
This slide (Figure 11) shows a summary way of looking at turnover length concept. We can look at how long
something lasts (wood lasts a long time, labile dissolved organic carbon may last only a few minutes, everything else
is somewhere in between), vs. how fast it moves downstream; wood doesn't move very fast, both kinds of dissolved
organic matter move downstream just as fast as the water moves. Different kinds of materials show tremendous
ranges of turnover lengths. Drifting maeroinvertebrates tend to stay put. Very fine paniculate organic matter can
move 10,000 km downstream, generally putting it into the ocean, refractory even farther, and on its way it feeds
larger systems, rivers and estuaries.
[Overheads]:
1.
Stream Ecosystem Efficiency = Inputs - Outputs = Respiration
Inputs Inputs
This reiterates some of the material Bruce was talking about. This is a basic way that we have of looking at
processing in headwater systems: Stuart Fisher's concept of stream ecosystem efficiency.
2, The interesting thing is that while stream ecosystems tend to have a range of efficiencies, the basic median stream
ecosystem efficiency is about 50% regardless of the size of the watershed. Stream ecosystem efficiency is not
terribly dependent on size. We don't see a real trend, which is counter to what a lot of us thought earlier on... some
thought that the bigger the stream, the more efficient.
3. As a general rule of thumb, about half of all the inputs to any stream get exported downstream, although it does
have a range of 10 to 80 percent at the extremes. Q - AND IT CHANGES OVER THE YEAR, RIGHT? NEWBOLD - THIS is
AN IDEALIZED, LONG-TERM AVERAGE. THE NUMBER MAKES NO SENSE ON AN INSTANTANEOUS BASIS, BECAUSE YOU
HAVE STORAGE, ETC. IT ONLY MAKES SENSE ON A 10-YEAR TIME SCALE. UNFORTUNATELY IT HASN'T BEEN MEASURED
ON A 10-YEAR TIME SCALE; THESE ARE APPROXIMATIONS.
FIGURE 11.
44
-------
4. This is something Bruce laid out, and I want to make a point on the issue of the inputs. We have litterfall,
primary production (which now that we know how to measure it, can be more important in shaded streams than we
had thought), and groundwater dissolved organic matter. Deep groundwater sources almost everywhere have low
concentrations of dissolved organic matter, and that tends to be highly refractory because it's already been processed;
it's been through the ground and there's not much left. But when you look at a stream, it has lots more kinds of
dissolved organic matter, there's what's coming from the stream bed and the soil and riparian drainage that tends to
be higher concentration and labile.
I don't know much about these fills, but when you think about a fill, you can think about rain coming onto the
ground, picking up organic matter from grasses leaching down through, going through the standard process that
happens to organic matter as it goes through the ground; it becomes this low-concentration refractory. Even though
there's not a stream there, it will go through the ground, and eventually it will emerge below the fill, yielding low
concentration refractory; it might be at about the same concentration it would have been without the fill. Yet the
water emerging from the fill would be missing the labile dissolved and paniculate organic matter, that would have
been produced by the stream that is now buried, and it is this labile portion, produced within the stream itself, that
supports downstream metabolism. We've calculated in the White Clay Creek that this labile fraction can account for
about 20-30% of the metabolism of the stream in the reach.
5. Turnover length and stream organic matter budgets. As you get into larger and larger streams, the turnover length
increases. In the smallest streams (10 liters per second down to 1 liter per second), turnover length tends to be about
1 kilometer. This material, even from these smallest streams, tends to move downstream about a kilometer, and feed
the downstream reach. In terms of budgets, about half of it makes it that far down.
6. Turnover length of carbon is 1 kilometer or longer in first and second order streams. Turnover length increases
with stream size. Organic matter cascades in increasingly larger systems.
7, Summary: A significant fraction of exported organic matter '(OM) originates within the stream ecosystem and is
labile. This is a combination of the point that says that the soil and the riparian areas next to the stream are a major
source of organic carbon. And also, the decomposition of the litter and the primary production of material are also
important sources of organic matter that get exported downstream. Most of the OM inputs to mid-order streams
originated from first and second order streams. Based on these concepts, Bruce and Bern showed some data
showing the frequency of first and second order streams. Between 60 and 80% of the water feeding a fourth-order
stream came from first- and second-order streams. You can work this math out for any drainage basin. If you go all
the way back to the geomorphology text of Leopold et al., and work out their miles of stream length against the
stream sizes, each order has about the same bottom area and drains about the same drainage area as every other
order. First, second, and third order streams are all roughly equivalent, to within an order of magnitude. So, if
you're looking at fourth order basins, and you're potentially eliminating the first and second order streams, you find
that they are contributing at least half of the water and drainage area and stream bed area to the downstream larger
orders. Through this "50 percent rule" they are fully contributing their share, if not more, of the carbon in the
system (it tends to be a little more because of the specialized habitat of the first-order systems). So we can calculate
what this carbon influence is - it's large —a large amount of the carbon is delivered downstream. We know that it's
labile. There are some missing links — such as exactly how that feeds back up into the food web in the downstream
waters. But we can come to reasonable conclusions about the likely importance on all these points.
45
-------
Dr. Jay Stauffer, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
I'd like to talk about freshwater fishes and their role in headwater streams. Most of the time we're talking about
brook trout, and Cottus (sculpins). We look at these as species that are common throughout their range, and in fact a
lot of fish and game commissions will stock brook trout. In work that we did in the Potomac River in Maryland, we
found brook trout in first and second order streams feeding the Potomac River (which had a pH of 4 or 5 on good
days) that had been isolated populations for 150-200 years. We could distinguish these brook trout populations -- we
could tell which stream a brook trout came from with about 98% probability. At the time I thought it was because
they were isolated by the main channel Potomac River and its low pH. Now I think there are a lot of headwater
streams that maintain discreet populations. There was discussion about reduction in genetic flow among aquatic
insect populations. For fish, that reduction is even exacerbated because they do not have an aerial stage to their life
histories -- they must migrate through water to get from one stream to another — they can't fly over land barriers. So
I think a lot of these populations are very much isolated. A former student of mine, Rich Raisley, who is now at
Frostburg State University (University of Maryland) is describing many species of Cottus - sculpins -- from many of
the headwater streams in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. At one time we thought all of these
populations were conspecific, but it turns out they're not. So I'd like to talk about these fishes and ways of evaluating
the potential for these stream systems to be harmed and then their potential to recover.
A lot of fishes that live in riffles are darters (Etheostoma or Percina spp.) - they seem to be unique to particular
stream systems. We've done a lot of instream, behavioral studies (many funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) looking at the impact of introduced species on these darter communities - where they breed, where they
live, and what they eat.
The banded darter (Etheostoma zonale) was introduced into a headwater stream, Pine Creek in Pennsylvania, about
1950, and stayed there for a long time. It wasn't until Hurricane Agnes hit in the '70's that this fish was distributed
throughout the Susquehanna River. When this happened, the other fishes (e.g., tesselated darter, Etheostoma
olmstedi), hybridized with fishes all through the system. Many of you might be familiar with the Maryland darter
(Etheostoma salare), which occurred in Deer Creek and Swan Creek in the Susquehanna River drainage, just over
the Pennsylvania border. This species now, I'm confident, is extinct. We last had a siting of that fish about 10 years
ago and we haven't found it since then. Its disappearance was coincident with the introduction of E. zonale into Deer
Creek and Swan Creek by Hurricane Agnes. Once it got into that part of the Susquehanna, E. salare, the Maryland
darter, disappeared.
These headwater streams are particularly important, because if you study evolution and are familiar with the work of
Mayr and some other people, you find a founder effect, which is very important in the evolution of species. In many
of these headwater streams we have isolated populations that are separated, or sometimes disjunct, sometimes with
minimal gene flow with the main body of the population. So these fish are a little bit different anyway, they're on the
edge of their range. So they're very much subject to natural selection, and different forces which probably drive
speciation and evolution of these fishes. So these headwater areas contain what Mayr and others have called "semi-
species," or "incipient species." There might be a population where some taxonomists would not give it species
status at the time, but maybe 10 years from now, 100 years from now, or 1000 years from now the speciation process
would take place. So these fishes are very important, because they're slightly genetically distinct, they're certainly
phenotypically distinct - they look different ~ because they're under different selection pressures and environmental
pressures that cause phenotypic plasticity.
So these fishes are a little bit different, and they need to be preserved. I think we need to look very carefully at
what's in these headwater streams. One of the speakers this morning talked about it's a mistake to go in and alter
these things before we know what's in them, We think fish fauna are well-known, and I'll talk about that more later.
We have other fish species that have pockets in headwater streams -- they're just isolated in these headwater streams,
and there's probably very little gene flow that takes place from one headwater stream to another headwater stream,
even within the same drainage area. Even in the White Clay Creek basin, you'll find populations in first order
streams that don't exchange gene flow with similar fishes in first order streams in the same drainage basin.
Not all headwater streams are fast-moving, high gradient; we have pools, wetlands areas, we have mud minnows and
sticklebacks in there. We have them in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. These are very cold, slow-moving pools
46
-------
where fish live. We talked about differences and comparisons. Many of these fish are the same species that occur at
other end of drainage, where they go into the Chesapeake Bay or the Gulf of Mexico - forms which are sort of
saltwater forms but their cousins or brothers or maybe even the same species occur at other end of the drainage. But
again, there's very little gene flow or no gene flow from one population that lives in the first order stream and the
population living near the Bay or Gulf.
We also find fishes in these headwater streams that are migratory. A lot of the lampreys, for example, occur in these
small streams. In doing surveys in Pennsylvania, we're finding that a lot of lamprey populations have been deleted
or extirpated — some because of lampricide, some because of habitat changes that have occurred. We may not find
adults there, but ammoeoetes, which bury into the mud banks, are present. You'll find the adults there at certain
times of the year when they migrate to breed. Some of the redhorse suckers you would also find in small headwater
streams, especially those streams that empty directly into large rivers. We're doing some surveys of small streams
that empty directly into the Allegheny, and the redhorse suckers, even the juveniles, are out of there by June or July.
But early in the Spring, you can go to these streams that you wouldn't think would harbor fishes, and you'll find very
large redhorse suckers, white suckers, hogsuckers, whatever,
We also have a series of madtoms. These are small catfish (Noturus sp.), and these fishes are unique and a lot of the
populations are isolated from one another and are genetically and morphologically distinct — we can tell them apart;
and if they are isolated in these headwater streams they become particularly important.
This slide shows a Phoxinus species, a dace that appears in headwater streams. This form occurs in Tennessee, in
just two small tributaries. Last week somebody sent me a Phoxinus from Virginia to identify, and it turned out to be
an undescribed new species. A lot of us have spent a lot of time studying the fish in streams all over Virginia. You
take a State with a well-described fish fauna like Virginia, and all of a sudden you come up with a whole new
species! It was from a second-order stream. It's probably confined to that second-order stream, it probably occurs in
no other second-order stream in the Clinch River.
We also have a series of dace - Clinostomus spp., a species that is found in first, second, and third order streams.
Many of the populations are disjunct; you'll find them in one stream and you don't find them in another stream. So,
there are a lot of fishes that are unique to these areas and we're making a mistake deciding to go into these areas and
alter these streams until we have a really good knowledge what the fauna is, not just the insects but the fish. Fish are
thought to be better known (fewer species, there's not so many life stages, it's easier to identify juveniles, etc.), and so
on the surface you think, Oh, the fish fauna's pretty well known, and so if we wipe out this headwater stream we're
not doing anything we're not going to be able to live with; we're not going to extirpate a species; and I just ask you to
be a little cautious when you make that decision, because there are a lot of these unique populations that are called
the same species but are different phenotypically, different genetically, and may in fact be a semi-species or even
have achieved specific status at some point, maybe not in your lifetime but maybe in your grandchildren's lifetime.
So it's something we need to preserve and something we need to examine.
I mention that and you might think, "Things don't evolve that fast." I also do a lot of work in Lake Malawi in Africa,
and I'll tell you this quick story just to drive home my point. There's an island in Lake Malawi about 500 m from
where my research station is. There are women in the village that talk about their fathers farming the land between
where my research station is and that island. The island isn't very old; the lake water came up and made it an island.
There are species of fish that occur at that island that occur nowhere else in Lake Malawi. We're talking about
speciation that occurred within two generations of humans. So these things can happen very quickly.
When we look at assessment of ecosystems, the evolution assessments went from species/area curves, diversity
indices, oligotrophic/heterotrophic ratios, Karr's biotic indices, etc.. When we look at flowing systems, we classify
based on calcium content, distribution of fauna. First order streams generally have higher gradients than other
orders, but we find exceptions. I studied a stream in the Conowingo Creek basin where the highest gradient was just
where it went into the Susquehanna. We found headwater-type organisms ~ so gradient has had a profound effect on
the fauna found.
Why use fishes for study? Factors: they occupy the top of the food chain; they pass through other trophic levels;
they are taxonomically well studied; there's generally more information available on life history.
47
-------
Species succession in stream fishes is usually a factor of species addition rather than one of replacement.
I have been studying common shiners and striped shiners in headwater streams, in an area where there has been quite
a lot of stream capture events among Atlantic Slope, Allegheny river, and Great Lakes drainages. In these areas I
postulated that there would have been mixing of the populations and subsequent gene flow among them. I also found
some other areas where we find a sibling species (one that morphologically resembles the common or striped shiner)
where none of these so-called intergrades occur; thus, a distinct form is present. I have what I think is a new species
where none were ever caught before. This occurred in headwater streams.
When looking at streams, as we go down through the drainage basin, we talk about the potential recovery of systems
that have been damaged. I was successful in implementing such a program when I was at the University of
Maryland, relative to giving mine permits. I persuaded the Maryland Bureau of Mines to give permits for one
headwater area, and insisted that it be reclaimed, before a permit in an adjacent headwater area was granted, so we
could save refugia in the system.
Cairns and Dickson proposed the concept of inertia - how hard could we shove this system in terms of stress before
structural components of the ecosystem change. They also talk about elasticity: How many times can we shove a
system, how will that system recover. Another term is resiliency, defined as a rubber band snapping back. We can
stretch the rubber band many times and it comes back; but we get to a point where the band breaks. Do streams act
the same way? We don't understand that very well.
Considerations associated with the concept of "inertia":
1. Are the indigenous organisms accustomed to variations? Headwater streams are fairly stable, compared, for
example, to estuarine environments. Estuarine organisms would be more used to varying conditions, and thus
perhaps contribute more inertia to the system.
2. Structure - is there a lot of structural redundancy in the stream? I've been studying French Creek, a fourth order
stream in northwestern Pennsylvania, one of the most diverse streams in the State. There's a lot of structural
redundancy. In a particular riffle there are thirteen species of darters. There's a lot of functional redundancy - they
overlap a lot, do a lot of the same things. If you lose one species, it would probably not be as critical to French
Creek as it would be to a headwater stream. A lot of these headwater streams (first and second order) have only two
or three species of fish ~ if you lose one of those species, you lose a third of your fauna, which is a structural change,
and you lose a lot of functions as well, because there's not a lot of overlap. There's only one species of darter, or
only one Cottus — there's not thirteen of them. So it makes a more drastic impact,
3. The presence of buffered water antagonistic to toxic substances. Headwater streams don't have nearly the built-in
protection - physically or environmentally - as fourth or fifth-order streams. A lot of these streams don't have the
safeguards built into them to resist a functional or structural change.
4. How close the system is to a major ecological transitional threshold. We have a lot of headwater streams where
the canopy has been removed, where the temperature in summer gets close to the lethal limit for brook trout; the
winter limit gets close to the upper limit of egg production and embryo development. So that stream is close to a
transitional threshold, and it won't take a lot of environmental change to push it over the edge.
5. The presence of a drainage basin management group with a water quality monitoring program. Headwater
streams are vulnerable because they don't get a lot of attention from fishermen, biologists, etc., compared with larger
downstream areas. A fish kill could happen in a headwater stream, and no one would know or call for remediation
action,
Considerations associated with the concept of "Elasticity" (the parameters that play an important role in the ability
of an ecosystem to recover once it's been damaged.)
1. Existence of nearby epicenters for providing organisms to reinvade a damaged ecosystem.
48
-------
We can say that the Atlantic Ocean has a lot of inertia — it's so big, it's well buffered, it can take a lot of stress
without showing a change. What happens if the Atlantic Ocean is damaged - if it shows a structural and functional
change? Where are the epicenters from which recolonization would take place? There aren't any. Take a headwater
stream where Phoxinus cumberlandensis occurs. Talk about the unique insects that were talked about today -- they
only occur in one place. There aren't other epicenters from which recolonization can take place if that stream is
shoved functionally or structurally. Look at Pennsylvania, look at the stream maps. Some have dendritic networks;
it looks like there are a lot of streams that could be a source for recolonization to take place. But what if that new
species of mayfly only occurs in two of them? Where's recolonization going to take place? These streams are very
fragile and have very low inertia, and I would also argue that their ability to recover is also compromised because
they're so unique and so different.
2. Another thing that affects elasticity is mobility of any disseminules (life stages) of the organisms present. As I
alluded to earlier, in those streams that were clearcut and flowing into the Potomac River in Maryland and West
Virginia, the fish fauna was eliminated and so were aquatic insects. You can go back today and can find good
aquatic insect populations, but they're still devoid of fish. Aquatic insects can fly and recolonize to some extent and
even some of them are confined. Recolonization of fish could not take place, because they had to come up from one
headwater stream to another and migrate through the Potomac River. With a pH of 4, that didn't happen very often.
So, you have to look at the mobility of the life stages of the critters that inhabit these streams and the potential for
them to get from one stream to another.
3. We have to look at the condition of the habitat following the stress. Question: if you put a stream on one of these
benches, is it going to be the same? The condition of the habitat is going to be different — you're not going to have
the canopy, the gradient, the soils that you had. If you're a fish, you're not going to have the insects to support you --
it's going to change. So, those kinds of changes make a big difference on this recovery. And so, people say
"recovery": Are we satisfied if something can live in the system? Are we satisfied if something different lives in the
system but serves the same basic functions? Or do we want to define recovery as putting that stream or that
ecosystem back to the way it used to be? These are several different levels that have quite different answers.
4. Elasticity — The presence of residual toxicants. If you change the substrate, the soils, does that affect the ability
of a particular stream to recover to the way it was before?
5. Chemical, physical environmental quality after the stress: How did we alter the system, and how is it physically
or chemically different from the way it used to be?
6. Management or organizational capabilities for immediate control of the damaged area. Are there organizations
there that will reintroduce the fauna? Are there organizations that know enough about how to introduce the native
fauna? If we take brook trout and scatter them all over Pennsylvania and they interbreed with native brook trout
populations, have we somehow diluted the gene pool of the native brook trout? Have you changed the ability of the
native trout to inhabit that particular system?
These are all things that need to be considered in making a decision about the EIS, about recovery. You need to
define recovery, and put in your minds "What kind of chance am I going to take with this ecosystem if I structurally
or functionally change it?" and if I get to the probability where I do change it, no matter how small that probability
may be, are there other refugia or other ways I can rehabilitate the system or reintroduce the fauna and flora to bring
it back to its natural condition, or isn't this even an important question to ask? It makes a big difference if there are
unique fauna in that stream, I would argue that, if there's-a headwater stream that's the only stream in the world that
contains this particular species, we're not going to take any chance with it. And if you want to mine coal or gold or
silver or whatever under that stream, we're not going to allow you to do that, because we're not going to take a
chance that we're going to lose that genetic diversity of this fish, this mayfly, or this stone fly, or whatever.
WALLACE -1 WOULD ADD ANOTHER VERTEBRATE TO THAT GROUP - SALAMANDERS. THEY ARE VERY LIMITED TO A
FEW LOCATIONS IN THE APPALACHIANS. STAUFFER - RIGHT. A LOT OF HELLBENDER POPULATIONS ARE REALLY
ISOLATED AND DISJUNCT FROM ALL OTHER POPULATIONS.
49
-------
HANDEL - Is THERE A MINIMUM SIZE STREAM THAT CAN SUPPORT A FISH COMMUNITY? STAUFFER - No. THERE ARE
SOME SMALL STREAMS THAT DON'T SUPPORT FISH COMMUNITIES, BUT I'VE FOUND FISH COMMUNITIES IN BASICALLY
SINKHOLES. WE WERE SPEAKING OF INTERMITTENT STREAMS, WHERE THE STREAMS DRY UP AND YOU THINK THERE'S
NO FISH IN THEM, BUT YOU KEEP GOING BACK YEAR AFTER YEAR, AND YES THERE ARE, THERE ARE SOME FISHES IN
FLORIDA (JORDANELLA) THAT HAVE -- FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM ~ ANIMAL SEED, AND CAN LIVE FOR ONE YEAR IN
TRULY INTERMITTENT STREAMS. THEY LAY THEIR EGGS, THE EGGS SINK DOWN INTO THE MUD, THEY AESTIVATE AND
DRY UP. WHEN THE RAINS COME AGAIN THE EGGS HATCH, AND JORDANELLA ARE BACK IN THE STREAM. SOME OF THE
WORK THAT WE DID IN DROUGHT PERIODS, WHERE WE FOUND RIFFLE SECTIONS IN WEST VIRGINIA, WE FOUND A
STREAM THAT HAD A POOL HERE, AND A POOL THERE, BUT NO RIFFLE CONNECTING THE POOLS. I THOUGHT THE
DARTERS HAD TO BE IN THE POOLS. WE SAMPLED AND WE DIDN'T FIND THEM. I THOUGHT SURELY THE DARTERS
HADN'T BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE SYSTEM, AND OUT OF DESPERATION I STARTED SHOVELING RIFFLES: ABOUT 5
HOURS AND 2 FEET LATER, I FOUND THE DARTERS AMONG THE GRAVEL. HANDEL - WOULD YOU POINT-BLANK SAY
THAT IN APPALACHIA THERE is NO STREAM SYSTEM TOO SMALL TO BE IMPORTANT FOR FISH CONSERVATION?
STAUFFER -YES, I WOULD MAKE THAT STATEMENT.
50
-------
DISCUSSION: WHAT is A STEEAM. WHAT KIND OF INPUT DO THE REGULATORY AGENCIES NEED FROM THIS
ASSEMBLED GROUP TO MAKE THE DECISIONS THEY NEED TO MAKE ON PERMITS IN THE INTERIM WHILE THE EIS
IS BEING DEVELOPED?
PASSMORE - FOR OUR WORK THAT WE'VE DONE IN PERMIT REVIEWS AND PRELIMINARY DATA COLLECTION THAT WE'VE
DONE, WE'VE USED WEST VIRGINIA'S DEFINITION IN THEIR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS WHEN THEY DEFINE
INTERMITTENT AND PERENNIAL. WE KNOW THAT FLOW ALONE IS NOT A GOOD INDICATION OF THE FUNCTION OF
STREAMS. WEST VIRGINIA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS DEFINE INTERMITTENT STREAMS AS STREAMS WHICH HAVE NO
FLOW DURING LONG PERIODS OF NO PRECIPITATION, AND DO NOT CONTAIN AQUATIC ORGANISMS WHOSE LIFE HISTORIES
REQUIRE MORE THAN 6 MONTHS IN FLOWING WATER, FOR ONE OF THE PERMITS, WE LOOKED AT A LOT OF STREAMS
THAT WERE INTERMITTENT IN TERMS OF FLOW, WITH A FEW RESIDUAL POOLS AND THERE, BUT WE DIDN'T
CLASSIFY ONE OF THOSE AS INTERMITTENT UNDER WEST VIRGINIA STANDARDS. THEY ALL CONTAINED MANY AQUATIC
ORGANISMS, AND CERTAINLY MANY WHOSE LIFE HISTORIES REQUIRE MORE THAN 6 MONTHS OF FLOWING WATER. THE
WEST VIRGINIA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HAVE AN ECOLOGICAL CONNECT TO THEM.
TlBBOTT - IS THAT CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL OF THE STATES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IN THIS EIS?
HANMER - No. THE WEST VIRGINIA AND THE PENNSYLVANIA STANDARDS ARE THE ONES WE FOUND THAT TRY TO
MIX FLOW REGIME AND BIOLOGY, AND WHAT THEY'VE WOUND UP DOING IS BASTARDIZING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE,
BECAUSE BY TRYING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PERENNIAL AND INTERMITTENT -- FOR EXAMPLE, THE SURFACE MINING
REGULATIONS ARE THE ONES THAT MAKE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PERENNIAL, INTERMITTENT, AND EPHEMERAL. NOW
HOW THESE DEFINITIONS AFFECT THE REGULATORY REGIME IS UNKNOWN. MOST WATER QUALITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS DON'T USE THESE TERMS IN A REGULATORY SENSE. SO, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE
STRUGGLING WITH IS, RATHER THAN TRY TO SAY THAT SOMETHING IS "PERENNIAL AND THEREFORE . . .," MEANING
ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT SAYS IN THE DICTIONARY, WHICH IS THAT IT FLOWS ALL THE TIME, IS TO FIND
ANOTHER WAY OF TALKING ABOUT THE BIOLOGICAL VALUES THAT DON'T TRIP OVER THESE OLDER TERMS AND OLDER
WORDS. SO, I THINK WE DO NEED TO LOOK FOR SOME LANGUAGE.
TENNESSEE is INTERESTING BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY DEFINITION, OTHER THAN "WATERS." THEY'RE TRYING TO
DEFINE SOMETHING CALLED A "DE MINIMIS" STREAM, AND TRYING TO DEFINE THAT RIGHT NOW. THEY'RE THINKING OF
IT IN TERMS OF HAVING A DRAINAGE AREA OF 20 ACRES.
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE 404 PROGRAM AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO DESCRIBE
THE FUNCTIONAL VALUES, RATHER THAN TRYING TO PUT A NAME ON IT LIKE PERENNIAL OR INTERMITTENT. FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF REVIEWING REGULATIONS, WE DON'T HAVE GOOD DEFINITIONS. IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE AN
"APPALACHIAN COAL FIELD" DEFINITION, OR A COMMON SENSE DEFINITION BASED ON SOME OTHER GEOGRAPHIC
SCALE. IN KENTUCKY, ACCORDING TO PEOPLE WE TALKED TO, THEY DEFINE REGULATED SURFACE WATERS OF THE
COMMONWEALTH AS THE BLUE LINE STREAMS ON A USGS TOPO MAP, OR A DISCRETE CONVEYANCE WITH A DEFINED
CHANNEL, FIELD-CONFIRMED. STATISTICAL RECURRENCE OF LOW FLOW DOES NOT ENTER INTO THE DEFINITION OF A
STREAM. SO, THERE'S NOT A SINGLE STATE IN THIS REGION THAT DOES IT THE SAME WAY [AS ANOTHER STATE].
WALLACE - DOES EPA HAVE A DEFINITION OF A STREAM, OTHER THAN ARMY CORPS STANDARDS? HANMER - WE
HAVE A DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES IN CORPS AND EPA REGULATIONS. BUT, YOU HAVE TO GO OUT
AND DEFINE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT ON AN AREA BY AREA BASIS. OUR DEFINITIONS TENDED TO BE BROAD,
TO ALLOW FOR GOING OUT AND MAKING MORE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS.
WALLACE - LUNA LEOPOLD IN 1994 POINTED OUT IN HIS BOOK "A VIEW OF THE RIVER" THAT ALL OF THESE BLUE
LINES ON USGS MAPS ARE MUCH SMALLER THAN ACTUAL STREAM FLOWS, ACTUALLY MUCH SMALLER THAN
PERENNIAL FLOW. THEY WERE NOT DONE BY FIELD WORK, THEY WERE DRAWN IN THE LABORATORY. THEY BASICALLY
ASSIGNED "WHAT IS A STREAM" TO SOMEONE SITTING INSIDE IN A LABORATORY DRAWING A MAP.
HANMER -1 THINK YOU DO WANT TO SAY WHAT is THE IMPACT? BEFORE YOU DEFINE "WHAT is A STREAM," YOU ASK
"WHY DO I CARE?" AND THE REASON YOU CARE, FROM A REGULATORY STANDPOINT, IS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
51
-------
FIGURE OUT HOW TO REGULATE SOME KIND OF PERTURBATION. MINING COMPANIES ARE IRRITATED THAT SOME OF THE
SAME PERTURBATIONS ARE DEFINED AS NON-POINT SOURCES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THEREFORE NOT
REGULATED, AND ARE DEFINED AS POINT SOURCES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND ARE REGULATED, AND IT
SEEMS ARBITRARY. AND IT IS, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, ARBITRARY. HERE WE'RE TRYING TO DISCUSS PHYSICAL
PERTURBATIONS. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS WERE DEVELOPED WITHOUT MUCH CONSIDERATION FOR PHYSICAL
IMPACTS, THEY WERE DEVELOPED TO CONTROL CHEMICAL INPUTS, AND THEY WERE MOSTLY CONCERNED WITH
DEFINING LOW FLOW FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAYING WHEN STANDARDS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE VIOLATED. So THE
HISTORY OF THIS WAS A DEVELOPMENT UNDER A "LOGIC STREAM" FOR A PURPOSE. NOW WE NEED A NEW "LOGIC
STREAM" THAT SAYS WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT PHYSICAL PERTURBATIONS, PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION, AND THEREFORE,
YOU SAY WHAT KIND OF LOGIC, WHAT KINDS OF DEFINITIONS DO YOU WANT TO CONSTRUCT IN A CASE LIKE THAT. AND
THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR US IN TERMS OF MITIGATION AND PREVENTION IS THE WORD "SIGNIFICANCE" -- IN
OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT THE MERE EXISTENCE, IT'S ALSO THE SIGNIFICANCE, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY IF YOU
WANT TO STOP SOMETHING FROM HAPPENING, THEN YOU HAVE TO TALK ABOUT SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT.
PASSMORE - IN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, THERE ARE FOUR COMPONENTS: NARRATIVE CRITERIA (SEDIMENTS,
SOMETIMES TOXICS), NUMERIC CRITERIA (MORE TRADITIONALLY WHAT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT AS WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS, FOR EXAMPLE DISSOLVED OXYGEN CAN'T BE LESS THAN 5 MG/L), AND DESIGNATED USES, WHICH IS VERY
IMPORTANT AND OFTEN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT AND MOST STATES HAVE A BLANKET DESIGNATED USE FOR
ALL OF ITS WATERS THAT SAYS THAT THE STREAM HAS TO SUPPORT THE AQUATIC LIFE THAT SHOULD BE THERE. THE
AQUATIC LIFE DESIGNATED USE IS OFTEN THE STANDARD WE USE WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
PROTECT. IF THE AQUATIC LIFE IS THRIVING AND DOING WELL, WE FEEL THAT THE OTHER PARAMETERS ARE PROBABLY
DOING WELL. AND THE FOURTH IS ANTIDEGRADATION. SO, THERE ARE AT LEAST FOUR ELEMENTS OF WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS, AND THE TRADITIONAL CHEMISTRY IS ONLY A TINY PART OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
QUESTION - WHAT ARE SOME OF THE CRITERIA THE EPA USES FOR THE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT? A SIGNIFICANT
CHANGE FROM WHAT WOULD BE NORMAL? THERE REALLY AREN'T ANY ESTABLISHED BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA.
PASSMORE - MOST OF THE STATES HAVE SOME TYPE OF NARRATIVE CRITERIA THAT COVERS AQUATIC LIFE.
HANMER - WHEN YOU ARE CONTEMPLATING THE PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION OF A STREAM, WHICH is WHAT YOU HAVE
WHEN YOU HAVE A FILL, THERE'S ANOTHER SECTION OF THE LAW WHICH CONTAINS THE RULES, AND IT'S SECTION 404.
THE FIRST THING YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER ARE THE 404(B)(1) GUIDELINES, WHICH ARE AVOIDANCE- OR TECHNOLOGY-
BASED: WHY IS IT THAT YOU HAVE TO FILL IN THE STREAM? WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES? WHAT CAN YOU DO TO
AVOID THE IMPACT? SO YOU DRIVE MINIMIZE, MINIMIZE, MINIMIZE AS FAR AS YOU CAN GO, AND THEN YOU SAY
WELL, THIS ACTIVITY HAS TO TAKE PLACE HERE (FOR EXAMPLE, THIS IS WHERE THE COAL SEAM IS), AND THIS IS THE
SIZE OF THE OPERATION YOU GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ECONOMICS OF THE OPERATION
WOULD NOT TAKE PLACE BUT FOR THE FILL, AT THAT POINT, YOU'VE FINISHED THE MINIMIZATION JOB, AND YOU SAY
WHAT CAN BE DONE TO AMELIORATE THE IMPACTS TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE LONG-TERM, PERMANENT
IMPACT HERE (WHICH GIVES YOU AN INTENSE INTEREST IN QUESTIONS LIKE WHAT IS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LONG-TERM
RESTORATION TECHNIQUES). AND THEN FINALLY, ONCE AN APPLICATION PASSES THROUGH ALL OF THOSE TRIGGERS,
WHERE YOU GO TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL TRIGGER, AND THAT TRIGGER HAS THE WORD "SIGNIFICANT" IN IT, AND NO
ONE KNOWS HOW TO DEFINE IT EXCEPT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. THIS IS WHY WE'VE BEEN ACCUSED OF NOT CARING
ENOUGH ABOUT INSECTS, BUT GENERALLY "SIGNIFICANCE" IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TERM; IT'S A VALUE-LADEN, PUBLIC-
RELATIONS... IT HAS A LOT IN IT BESIDES SCIENCE. BUT THE KIND OF CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD THIS MORNING IS
INFORMING THE WHOLE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT SIGNIFICANCE IS. BUT THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
BASICALLY GO AWAY, ONCE YOU HAVE SAID "YES" UNDER 404(C), YOU'VE TURNED A WATER OF THE UNITED STATES
INTO A LAND OF THE UNITED STATES - IT NO LONGER IS A WATER OF THE UNITED STATES - AND THEN THE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS PICK UP BELOW. THERE'S ONLY ONE CIRCUMSTANCE UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT WHERE
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS CEASE TO EXIST, AND THAT'S WHEN WATER CEASES TO EXIST, AND IT'S ONLY SECTION 404
WITH ITS OWN SET OF REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES, THAT DEFINES THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES WILL BE ALLOWED TO DISPLACE A WATER. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS MUCH OF THIS
GOING ON THAT'S UNREGULATED, BECAUSE IT'S CALLED NON-POINT SOURCE, THERE ARE LOOPHOLES UNDER THE LAW
WHERE STATES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REGULATING, FOR EXAMPLE AGRICULTURE OR OTHER ACTIVITIES - BUT THEY
AREN'T. THERE ARE LOSSES - DRAINAGE is OCCURRING IN NORTH CAROLINA ON AN ABSOLUTELY AWESOME SCALE —
52
-------
AND THAT'S LOSS BY SUCKING IT OUT RATHER THAN FILLING IT IN. IT'S OFFENSIVE, BUT UNDER THE LAW YOU'RE
SUPPOSED TO GET A 404 PERMIT AND IF YOU GET ONE YOU COULD BE ALLOWED TO FILL AND THEREFORE IT BECOMES A
LAND OF THE UNITED STATES.
WALLACE -EXPLAIN NATIONWIDE 26? HANMER - ALL OF THE REGULATORY AGENCIES, THE CORPS AND EPA,
BEGAN TO LOOK FOR WAYS TO PERMIT LARGE GROUPS OF WHAT WE CONSIDERED DE MINIMIS ACTIVITIES, OR ACTIVITIES
ISSUE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUAL PERMITS. THE CORPS STARTED OUT WITH 5 CFS, BY TRYING TO
DEFINE DE MINIMIS IN TERMS OF THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA AFFECTED, WHICH COULD BE AFFECTED BY A VARIETY OF
DIFFERENT FILLING TYPES OF ACTIVITIES. NATIONWIDE 21 IS FOR SURFACE MINING ACTIVITIES REGULATED UNDER
SMCRA. IT WAS DONE WHEN SMCRA WAS STILL LARGELY A FEDERALLY-REGULATED PROGRAM. THE RATIONALE
WAS THAT THE SMCRA PROCESS AND NEPA SHOULD INCORPORATE ALL THE TYPES OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT WERE
RELEVANT TO PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT, AND IF IT DID, THEN THE CORPS WOULD NOT IMPOSE A SECOND NEW
NEPA REVIEW ON EVERYTHING, BUT WOULD ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF THE SMCRA PROCESS AND AUTOMATICALLY
PERMIT. NP 21 SEEMS TO BE A MOSTLY AUTOMATIC PERMIT THAT WAS TACKED ONTO THE END OF A SMCRA PERMIT.
THE PROBLEM WAS (THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM OF THE STATES) THAT AS WE DELEGATED TO THE STATES, SOME OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH NEPA "FELL OFF," AND A FEW QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES
OCCURRED, AND THE FEELING WAS THAT WE WERE LOSING SOMETHING, PERHAPS.
POLITAN - BEFORE A SECTION 404 PERMIT is VALID, A STATE MUST ISSUE 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION FOR
THE PROJECT, AND CERTIFY THAT THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. SO EACH STATE
CAN MANAGE ITS RESOURCES THAT WAY. THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO THE DIFFERENT TERMS, DOES IT COMPLY WITH
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS?
HANMER - ONE OF THE FACTORS WITH SECTION 404 is THAT THE STATE HAS AN EFFECTIVE VETO OVER THE ISSUANCE
OF A 404 PERMIT. TAKE TROUT STREAMS ~ FOR EXAMPLE, IF STATES TRY TO USE THEIR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
TO SAY NO TO ALL TYPES OF FILL, THE STATE LEGISLATURE PROBABLY VERY QUICKLY DOES SOMETHING TO THAT STATE
AGENCY. BUT THE STATES ARE EXPECTED TO IDENTIFY SPECIAL WATERS, AND YOU GET INTO WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY
THAT, TROUT STREAMS? WHAT HAVE PEOPLE BEEN WILLING TO DESIGNATE IN THEIR STANDARDS AS SPECIALLY-
PROTECTED WATERS.
AS A REGULATOR, THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DO BIOLOGISTS HAVE TO TELL US THAT CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE
SIGNIFICANCE OR VALUES THAT NEED TO BE PROTECTED? SO IT'S A WAY OF DEFINING, BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME THING AS
A DEFINITION.
QUESTION - Is THERE AN UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION IN THIS APPLICATION OF THE LAW THAT HEADWATER STREAMS
ARE LESS IMPORTANT THAN LARGER STREAMS? HANMER - YES, IN MY EXPERIENCE OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS, I
WOULD SAY THAT IS DEFINITELY THE CASE. COMMENT - IN WEST VIRGINIA, UNTIL RECENTLY, THOSE HEADWATER
STREAMS WERE ALSO GIVEN A DIFFERENT DESIGNATED USE (THEY WERE CALLED "BAIT MINNOW STREAMS") WHICH
DIMINISHED THEIR IMPORTANCE. PASSMORE - BUT, THEY STILL HAD TO MEET ALL THE AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA.
QUESTION - So IF THERE WERE A PERMIT APPLICATION TO DESTROY A FOURTH-ORDER STREAM, THERE WOULD BE A
DIFFERENT SET OF CRITERIA APPLIED? HANMER - I WOULD SAY AUTOMATICALLY YES, BECAUSE THE NATIONWIDE
PERMIT ORIGINALLY SAID THAT IF THE WATER BODY FLOWED LESS THAN 5 CFS, IT WAS A DE MINIMIS WATER BODY, AND
A DE MINIMIS WATER BODY TRANSLATED INTO A DE MINIMIS EFFECT. I THINK THAT WAS SCIENTIFIC IGNORANCE -
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO TELL US. I MUST TELL YOU THAT HEADWATER STREAMS ARE BEING DESTROYED
EVERYWHERE ~ FOR WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS, EVER PLACE.YOU LOOK. IT'S AN AREA THAT BEGAN TO WORRY US
SOME YEARS AGO BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT. WE STILL HAVEN'T KNOWN QUITE WHAT TO DO WITH IT
UP UNTIL TODAY, WHICH IS WHY THIS MEETING IS A GOOD MEETING.
POMPONIO - A COUPLE OF POINTS: THE CORPS DID WHAT THEY DID BECAUSE THE VOLUME OF PERMITS THE CORPS
EXPECTED TO HAVE TO PROCESS IF THEY HAD TO DO PERMITTING WORK ON ALL THE LOCAL LITTLE THINGS THAT WENT
ON, AND THE CONCERN THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DIDN'T REALLY BELONG WAY UP IN THE LITTLE HEADWATER
STREAMS REGARDLESS OF THE ECOLOGICAL REASONS, BASED ON WHERE FEDERAL INTERVENTION SHOULD OCCUR. IT
WASN'T A TOTALLY ECOLOGICAL DECISION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER - IT WAS A PRACTICAL DECISION. ALSO, THE
NATIONWIDE PERMITS NEVER SAID THEY WEREN'T WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT THE CORPS COULDN'T
53
-------
REGULATE THEM, THE CORPS CAN TAKE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY ON ANY AREA. NP 26 GAVE EVERYONE CARTE
BLANCHE TO WORK ABOVE THE HEADWATERS, AND NP 21 GAVE MINING COMPANIES EVEN MORE OPPORTUNITY TO DO
THINGS IN EVEN LARGER STREAMS.
COMMENT - So IF THERE'S AN UNDERLYING BIAS AGAINST HEADWATER STREAMS THAT DOES NOT COME FROM A
SCIENTIFIC BASIS, THEN THIS ISN'T A SCIENTIFIC ISSUE SINCE DESTROYING THE WATERS OF A SMALL STREAM, FROM A
SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT, ISN'T ANY DIFFERENT THAN DESTROYING THE WATERS OF A LARGE STREAM. IN A SENSE,
WE'RE BEING ASKED AS SCIENTISTS TO COUNTERACT A MAJOR SOCIAL BIAS OR A BIAS CONSTRUCTED FOR PURELY
ECONOMIC REASONS, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SOCIAL VALUE OF THE SYSTEM, OR THE SCIENTIFIC VALUE.
HOFFMAN - BUT THE 404 PROGRAM WAS THOUGHT ORIGINALLY TO EXTEND ONLY TO NAVIGABLE WATERS, so THERE
WAS ALWAYS A BIAS AGAINST HAVING FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN THE UPPERMOST HEADWATER AREAS. THAT
COUPLED WITH THE WORK LOAD ISSUE, DROVE THE CORPS TO DEVELOPING NP 26. BUT NP 26 ALSO HAS THE
PROVISION OF BEING REVIEWED EVERY SO MANY YEARS, AND AS A RESULT OF THE AGENCIES PROVIDING INFORMATION
ON THE IMPACTS, AND DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY WERE CUMULATIVELY SIGNIFICANT, THAT'S WHY THEY WENT INTO
REVISING THE EXISTING NP 26 INTO THE FORM THAT IT HAS NOW, WHICH IS GOING TO BE ARGUED AGAIN. WHAT
THEY'RE DOING NOW IS CONSIDERING EXPANDING IT INTO ALL HEADWATER AREAS, BUT SAYING THAT ANYTHING LESS
THAN AN ACRE IS OK TO FILL.
POMPONIO- ONE OF THE REASONS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD GET AWAY WITH EXEMPTING ALL OF THAT
ACTIVITY ABOVE THE HEADWATERS IS THAT NO ONE CONVINCED THE DECISION-MAKERS WHO WERE NOT FIELD
BIOLOGISTS OR AQUATIC SCIENTISTS, THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THOSE AREAS. COMMON
KNOWLEDGE AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ALWAYS SEEMED TO BE FOCUSED ON THE LARGER WATERS. ALTHOUGH THEY
HAD AN INTUITION ABOUT THE VALUE OF THOSE AREAS, THEY COULD EASILY DISMISS AREAS ABOVE THE HEADWATERS.
NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF EXPLAINING WHY THEY'RE IMPORTANT. IF THERE'S MORE UNDERSTANDING OF THE
VALUE OF THESE AREAS, IT WILL EXTEND FAR BEYOND JUST MINING ISSUES.
HANMER - THERE'S UTILITY VALUE, TOO. ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS, OLDER ONES, EVEN GOT PAID FOR, MAYBE
EVEN STILL DO, GOT PAID FOR FROM SALES OF FISHING LICENSES. CORPS OF ENGINEERS BENEFIT STUDIES: YOU
WEREN'T JUST LOOKING AT FISH, YOU WERE LOOKING AT WHETHER THERE WAS FISHING; NOT JUST WHETHER IT WAS
SWIMMABLE, BUT WHETHER THERE WAS SWIMMING. COULD YOU ASSIGN ECONOMIC VALUES TO THESE WATER
BODIES THAT WOULD THEN INCREASE THEIR "VALUE" THAT WOULD THEN OFFSET THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS YOU
WOULD HAVE OF REFUSING TO ALLOW THEM TO BE EXPLOITED FOR MINING OR OTHER PURPOSES, BECAUSE A LOT OF
THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS IS SOCIO-ECONOMICS.
EVERY TIME WE GET CLOSE TO FARMING AND FORESTRY WITH THE CLEAN WATER ACT, WE FIND OURSELVES IN
POLITICALLY DANGEROUS TERRITORY, SO THESE HEADWATERS STREAMS PROBABLY LOOK LIKE SOMEBODY'S FARM OR
SOMEBODY'S SACRED PROPERTY.
DEFINITION. "A STREAM LOOKS LIKE A PILE OF WET LEAVES," RIGHT?
HARTOS - WHAT DOES THE CORPS RELY ON TO DEFINE A JURISDICTIONAL STREAM? Do YOU RELY ON THE STATE
STANDARDS? POLITAN - DON'T THEY USE THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK? [IN RESPONSE, CORPS PERSONNEL
INDICATED THAT THEY PERSONALLY ARE NOT INVOLVED WITH PERMITTING, AND COULDN'T REALLY ANSWER THE
QUESTION.]
HANDEL - WE HAVE FORMAL DEFINITIONS OF WETLANDS, A FEDERAL MANUAL THAT'S ENORMOUS THAT DEFINES
WETLANDS BY HYDROLOGY, VEGETATION, AND SOIL CHARACTERISTICS. MANY SMALL STREAMS HAVE WETLANDS
ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. ARE THERE STREAMS THAT DON'T HAVE WETLANDS? SO IS THE ISSUE REALLY TO DEFINE
THOSE HEADWATER STREAMS THAT DON'T HAVE WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM? HANMER - PROBABLY YES.
POMPONIO - IF WE CAN DEFINE WETLANDS BY SOILS, VEGETATION AND HYDROLOGY, is THERE AN ANALOGOUS SET OF
PARAMETERS WE CAN USE TO DEFINE A STREAM? SOMETHING ANALOGOUS TO AN OBLIGATE HYDROPHYTE? LIKE
FLOW REGIME, ETC.? WALLACE - THE WEST VIRGINIA DEFINITION IS VERY GOOD, IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, IT MAYBE
EVEN TOO RESTRICTIVE!
54
-------
HANMER - THE PROBLEM is THAT THEY USED IT IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE WORD INTERMITTENT -- KIND OF A NON-
DEFINITION, IT SAYS IT'S NOT INTERMITTENT, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY SAY WHAT IT IS.
TIBBOTT - SHOULD WE HAVE A BIOLOGICALLY-BASED DEFINITION? COMMENT - A FUNCTIONAL DEFINITION.
POLITAN - IF WE USE A BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION, WHAT HAPPENS TO STREAMS DEVOID OF LIFE DUE TO AMD?
ANSWER - THAT'S AN IMPAIRMENT. HANMER - ARE ANY OF THOSE SITUATIONS NATURALLY-OCCURRING? POLITAN-
I'VE NEVER SEEN A NATURAL AMD SITUATION THAT WIPED OUT A STREAM. POMPONIO - EVEN THE WETLANDS
DEFINITION INCLUDES THE PHRASE "UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES."
TIBBOTT -1 WOULD THINK THAT ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH COULD COME our OF THE EIS WOULD BE A
DEFINITION OF A STREAM ACROSS PROGRAMS AND ACROSS STATES. WALLACE - IT'S VERY DANGEROUS TO HAVE ONE
DEFINITION THAT COVERS ALL TYPES OF AREAS. THERE ARE SOME AREAS IN THE COASTAL PLAIN OF GEORGIA WHERE
STREAMS ARE DRY FOR PART OF THE YEAR. COMMENT - BUT IF WE'RE JUST DEVELOPING A DEFINITION FOR THE AREA
OF STEEP SLOPE MINING, IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO? HANMER - AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I CAN'T SEE HOW WE'RE GOING TO
GET ALL THE STATES IN THIS REGION TO CHANGE ALL THEIR REGULATIONS TO A CONFORMING DEFINITION. IT WOULD
BE A WASTE OF TIME TO TRY THAT, BUT IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO COME UP WITH A GUIDELINE FOR ALL THE STATES TO
DETERMINE WHEN THEY SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THESE STREAMS AND WHY. REOPENING THEIR WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS IS DANGEROUS. POLITAN - WE DO IT EVERY THREE YEARS ANYWAY. HANMER - YES, BUT YOU
DON'T OPEN UP THE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS A STREAM EVERY THREE YEARS.
ARWAY -1 DON'T KNOW WHY YOU CAN'T USE THE SAME SYSTEM AS WHEN REGULATING DISCHARGERS - THAT is, TO
ASSIGN THE "POINT OF FIRST USE" - WHEREVER THERE IS A USE IS WHERE THE STREAM STARTS FROM A REGULATORY
PERSPECTIVE. QUESTION - WHAT is THE "POINT OF FIRST USE" IN PENNSYLVANIA? ARWAY - IT'S A VERY SUBJECTIVE
JUDGEMENT TO ASSIGN WHERE A PERENNIAL STREAM STARTS AND WHERE THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ARE
APPLIED. RAMSEY - IN WEST VIRGINIA, THAT "BEST PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT" BECAME 250 ACRES, so THERE'S A
REAL DANGER IN DOING THAT. HANMER - AND IN KENTUCKY, IT'S THE BLUE LINE. SO, IF YOU WANT TO WORK ON THIS,
WHEN IS IT YOU KNOW YOU'RE SEEING SOMETHING YOU WANT? I DON'T THINK THAT ANY OF THESE DEFINITIONS IS THE
PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS ASSIGNING VALUE FOR MITIGATION AND FOR MAKING PERMITTING DECISIONS.
COMMENT - THERE ARE SCIENTISTS HERE THAT TALK ABOUT HEADWATER STREAMS DISTRIBUTING NUTRIENTS, ETC. -
THAT'S NOT A SOCIETAL VALUE JUDGEMENT ABOUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT. WE KNOW THINGS WILL CHANGE WITH THIS
TYPE OF ALTERATION OF THE LANDSCAPE, BUT WHETHER OR NOT SOCIETY WILL ACCEPT IT ... THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO
AS SCIENTISTS. HANMER - THAT'S RIGHT, BUT THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PRESENTED THIS MORNING IS NOT
GENERALLY KNOWN, SO THAT SIDE OF THE CONVERSATION NEEDS BEEFING UP, COMPARED TO PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY
OWN THE LAND AND SOMETIMES IT'S WET AND SOMETIMES IT'S DRY. THERE'S A RICH OPPORTUNITY TO INFORM THIS
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FROM THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.
COMMENT - WHY ARE INTERMITTENT STREAMS ASSUMED TO BE UNIMPORTANT? HANDEL - IT'S ANALOGOUS TO
VERNAL POOLS, WHICH HAVE CRITICAL ECOLOGICAL VALUE, BUT ONLY IN A CERTAIN SMALL TIME OF YEAR. THERE
ARE CERTAIN STREAMS WHICH ARE DRY FOR MANY MONTHS, BUT STILL HAVE BIOLOGICAL INTEREST. COMMENTER -
BUT IT'S AS IF WE'RE EXCLUDING INTERMITTENT AS BEING IMPORTANT, IN THESE DEFINITIONS. WHY ISN'T
INTERMITTENT AS IMPORTANT AS PERENNIAL? HANMER - THAT'S A MISUNDERSTANDING. MOST OF THE STATE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS DO NOT DISTINGUISH ~ THEY DON'T TRY TO DEFINE INTERMITTENT AND PERENNIAL AND
EPHEMERAL FOR PURPOSES OF THE REGULATORY EFFECT. THE SURFACE MINING REGULATIONS DO - I DON'T KNOW
WHAT EFFECT THEY GIVE THOSE DEFINITIONS, BUT THE CLEAN WATER ACT DEFINITIONS ARE NOT BASED ON THE FLOW.
MOST OF THE STATES DID NOT TRY TO DO THAT; WEST VIRGINIA IS ACTUALLY THE EXCEPTION IN THIS LIST OF STATES
THAT USE THE TERM "INTERMITTENT" IN THEIR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. THE REST JUST LEFT IT ALONE.
WALLACE - WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WEST VIRGINIA DEFINITIONS? HANMER - WHAT is THE DEFINITION USED FOR?
THE DEFINITION IS "STREAMS WHICH HAVE NO FLOW DURING SUSTAINED PERIODS OF NO PRECIPITATION AND WHICH DO
NOT SUPPORT AQUATIC LIFE WHOSE LIFE HISTORY REQUIRES RESIDENCE IN FLOWING WATERS FOR A CONTINUOUS
PERIOD OF AT LEAST 6 MONTHS." WHY DOES WEST VIRGINIA USE THAT DEFINITION? POLITAN - IT'S WHERE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS APPLY. HANMER - SO YOU START WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AT THAT POINT? POLITAN - NO.
55
-------
IF THERE'S AN AQUATIC INSECT THAT REQUIRES 4 MONTHS OP FLOWING WATERS, IT'S AN INTERMITTENT STREAM, THAT
MEANS THAT IF YOU DO SOMETHING TO THAT STREAM, WE CONSIDER IT A SIGNIFICANT LOSS TO THE STATE, WE WANT
COMPENSATION FOR IT, OR IT MANDATES PROTECTION ~ WE MAY DENY YOU DOING ANYTHING IN THERE. HANMER -
SO YOU USE IT KIND OF LIKE PENNSYLVANIA USES "POINT OF FIRST USE" - IT'S YOUR POINT OF FIRST USE? POLITAN -
KIND OF. WET WEATHER STREAMS ARE "STREAMS THAT FLOW ONLY IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO PRECIPITATION, OR
WHOSE CHANNELS ARE AT ALL TIMES ABOVE THE WATER TABLE." PASSMORE - AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE
STREAMS IN YOUR REGS AS OPPOSED TO INTERMITTENT? POLITAN - IF WE FIND AQUATIC LIFE ... PASSMORE - I THINK
PEOPLE IN THE ROOM ARE THINKING THAT THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTERMITTENT AND PERENNIAL, WHEN
THERE ISN'T - THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTERMITTENT AND EPHEMERAL, SO PEOPLE ARE MISUNDERSTANDING
THAT THEY'RE CUTTING OFF INTERMITTENT STREAMS, WHEN THEY'RE NOT. POLITAN - ... AT LEAST IN WEST VIRGINIA.
COMMENTER - WELL, IN THE CASE AT HAND, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PREVENT VALLEY FILLS IN ALL
STREAMS THAT ARE ACTUALLY CALLED STREAMS? MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS, BUT
WHAT WE CAN ACTUALLY DO . . . IT'S NOT QUITE CLEAR TO ME WHETHER WE'VE COMPLETELY GIVEN UP THE
PROBABILITY OF PUTTING AN END TO THIS PROCESS OF DESTROYING STREAMS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE HAVE A
REASONABLE CRACK AT MAKING A CASE, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE VALUES TO THE
ENVIRONMENT OF HEADWATER STREAMS, THAT THIS PROCESS SHOULDN'T OCCUR AT ALL. THAT'S THE FIRST STAGE. IF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CAN FIND THOSE RESULTS AND ACTUALLY MAKE A CASE THAT THIS
PROCESS SHOULD BE STOPPED, IT SHOULD BE STOPPED. OTHERWISE, THEN WE HAVE TO GET INTO ANOTHER LEVEL OF
DISCUSSION, OF HOW YOU SORT OF LET SOMEBODY ROB $10 FROM A BANK, BUT NOT $1,000.
HARTOS - IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN YOU NEED TO FILL IN STREAMS, FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES,
AND THAT'S UNDER THE 404 PROCESS. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO FILL STREAMS. THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT NEED
TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN YOU DO THAT - THE BIOLOGICAL WEALTH OF THE STREAMS AND OTHER FACTORS. THE
404(B)(1) GUIDELINES APPLY IN THOSE CASES. IT'S A DECISION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE. AN ARBITRARY "YOU CAN'T
DO IT ANYMORE" . .. YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING. HAMMER - YES, OF COURSE YOU CAN IF YOU GET A
404 PERMIT YOU CAN FILL IN WETLANDS. WALLACE - YOU COULD FILL IN WHITE CLAY CREEK! HAMMER - MINING IS
ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT ACTIVITIES TO REGULATE, BECAUSE IT'S GEOGRAPHICALLY RESTRICTED -- IN OTHER
WORDS, THE MINERAL RESOURCE SORT OF DICTATES WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING. USUALLY WITH
BRIDGES OR HIGHWAYS OR PARKING LOTS OR FLOATING CRAP GAMES ~ AND WE DO A LOT OF FILLING TO BUILD
FLOATING CRAP GAMES IN MISSISSIPPI - YOU TRY TO ARGUE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO PUT THEIR CASINO ON TOP OF
THAT WETLAND, OR THEY DON'T HAVE TO PUT THEIR HOTEL ON TOP OF THAT BEACH. THAT'S PART OF THE ARGUMENT
YOU HAVE UNDER 404(B)( 1) - WHY DO YOU HAVE TO DO IT THERE? YES, THE MINING COMPANY HAS TO SHOW YOU
THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE THAT VALLEY FILL IN ORDER TO EXPLOIT THAT RESOURCE. IF THEY WIND UP
SHOWING YOU THAT THEY'VE GONE AS FAR AS THEY CAN GO ON MITIGATION, THEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS BACK
TO SOCIETY TO SAY WHY IS THIS WATER BODY SO SIGNIFICANT THAT IT CAN'T BE SACRIFICED FOR THIS USE. AND
STATES TRY TO GET AHEAD OF THAT - WHICH WEST VIRGINIA HAS NOT — BY TRYING TO DEFINE "AREAS UNSUITABLE
FOR MINING" BASED ON SOME OTHER SYSTEM. BUT THAT'S HEAVY GOING. KENTUCKY HAS UNIQUE BIOTIC
COMMUNITIES ON BLACK MOUNTAIN, WHICH IS ALMOST A TEST CASE IN TRYING TO SET ASIDE A LARGE AREA AND SAY
"YOU CANNOT TAKE THIS RESOURCE." AND WHAT YOU GET BACK IS "BUT THERE'S A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS
WORTH OF COAL !"
STUMP - MAYBE WE SHOULD REORIENT OUR THOUGHTS TO THE DRAINAGE AREA IMPACTS vs. JUST THE STREAM
CHANNEL -- FROM HERE DOWN I HAVE A BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY, LOOKING AT A TYPE OF MINING FOCUSED ON
MOUNTAINTOPS, ON FILLING FIRST ORDER STREAMS. MAYBE INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON THE STREAMS WE SHOULD BE
FOCUSING ON AMOUNT OF DRAINAGE AREA VS. STREAM CHANNEL. AND IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A DRAINAGE AREA
IMPACTED BY MINING, AND THEN A POINT OF OBSERVATION OR EVALUATION DOWNSTREAM OF THAT, AND MAKING
DECISIONS, VS. TRYING TO DETERMINE WHERE THE STREAM STARTS AND WHERE THE STREAM ENDS. BECAUSE I SEE
THAT STARTING FROM THE RIDGETOP AND GOING ON DOWN, IT'S ALL A BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY, AND VEGETATIVE
COMMUNITY, ALL TOGETHER AND INTERRELATED, SO MAYBE WE SHOULD BE MAKING OUR CUTOFFS MORE ON A
DRAINAGE AREA, OR PERCENTAGE OF DRAINAGE AREA, OF THE TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA CUTOFF, IN EVALUATIONS, AND
POINTS OF OBSERVATION AND JURISDICTION. WALLACE -1 LIKE DENNIS1 ANALOGY - IS IT OK TO STEAL $1, $10, OR
$ 100 OR $ 1000 FROM A BANK? WHEN DO YOU DRAW THE LIMIT? STUMP - WELL, IN A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
WE'VE GOT LAWS THAT MINING IS ALLOWABLE WITH REGULATIONS, AND WE HAVE TO FIND THAT MIDDLE GROUND OF
56
-------
HOW MUCH CAN YOU IMPACT BEFORE YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ADDITIONAL IMPACTS? WE'RE NOT IN A
"PRESERVATIONIST" MODE, EXCEPT IN AREAS WHERE IT'S BEEN DETERMINED UNSUITABLE FOR MINING, DENSMORE -
IT'S AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM.
HANMER- No, I DON'T THINK IT is. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW CAN BIOLOGISTS BE THE MOST USEFUL? I THINK
THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO SIT AROUND AT THE END OF THE DAY MAKING DECISIONS, ECONOMIC,
POLITICAL, SOCIAL. BUT HOW IS THE BIOLOGIST'S VOICE BEST HEARD? HOW IS THE SCIENTIFIC INPUT THAT YOU HAVE
TO MAKE TO THIS DECISION MAKING PROCESS BEST EXPRESSED? UNKNOWN COMMENTER - FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
HANMER - To HELP us. MAYBE YOU'RE UPSET ABOUT THE WORD "VALUE." MAYBE IT'S ONLY PEOPLE LIKE us
REGULATORS OR MINING COMPANIES WHO USE THE WORD VALUE AND THAT "VALUE" IS ACTUALLY AN ANATHEMA
TYPE WORD TO YOU, FUNCTION - USE FUNCTION, BUT TO HELP US TO ENRICH THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE
FUNCTIONS, SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW THEY'RE GIVING UP SOMETHING, AND NOT NOTHING.
KlNCAID - WE DO FILL VALLEYS, WE FILL FOURTH ORDER STREAMS. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS HAS DONE A PRETTY
GOOD JOB OF IT, THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT, UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, USING TAXPAYER MONEY, WE HAVE TO DO
A COMPLETE, DETAILED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. I DON'T THINK IT'S HAPPENING, BUT ARE WE TRYING TO SWEEP
THE SENSITIVITY OF THESE HEADWATER AREAS AND THEIR IMPORTANCE UNDER THE TABLE, AT THE EXPENSE OF
RUBBER-STAMPING AN EIS? I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GET INTO THAT POSITION. WE NEED TO DO GOOD SCIENCE,
DESIGN THE EXPERIMENTS, COLLECT THE DATA, AND INTERPRET IT, BUT AS PART OF THAT INTERPRETIVE PROCESS WE
NEED TO INCLUDE THE UNIQUENESS OF THESE HEADWATER STREAMS.
HANDEL -1 THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT THE CORPS DOES SOMETIMES FILL FOURTH ORDER STREAMS, BUT
RECENTLY, SOME OF THE CORPS' OLD ACTIONS ARE BEING REVERSED, AS NEW KNOWLEDGE AND PUBLIC SENTIMENT
CHANGE. WHETHER IT'S PULLING OUT DAMS ON SALMON RIVERS our WEST TO THE REMARKABLE ACTION IN THE
EVERGLADES, THIS is ILLUMINATED BY NEW KNOWLEDGE AND NEW ATTITUDES. THIS GROUP is CHARGED WITH
DEVELOPING A MODERN UNDERSTANDING OF THESE LITTLE STREAMS TO SAY TO THE GOVERNMENT: "WELL, THESE
THINGS REALLY DO HAVE TO BE SAVED, EVEN THOUGH 25 YEARS AGO WE SAID, LOOK THEY'RE TOO SMALL TO EVEN
WORRY ABOUT, OTHER VALUES ARE MORE IMPORTANT. IS THIS PARTICULAR REGIONAL PROBLEM GOING TO BE LIKE
THE EVERGLADES AND SALMON STREAMS IN OREGON? I'M JUST A BOTANIST, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY
STRAIGHTFORWARD PROBLEM. ARE WE AT STATE WHERE WE SAY THE OLD LAWS WERE WELL-MEANING, OF COURSE,
BUT WE HAVE TO MOVE ON FROM THERE.
NEWBOLD - THE SENTIMENT OF PROBABLY MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM is THAT THIS VALLEY FILLING is A BAD
IDEA, AND THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ~ THE IMPACT YOU COULD DOCUMENT, ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT
BE A LOT OF PROBLEM TO DO IT ~ WOULD MAKE A STRONG CASE AGAINST DOING IT AT ALL. YET THE REALITY SAYS WE
CAN'T STOP IT, SO, WE HAVE TO STEP BACK AND TAKE A COMPROMISE APPROACH, IN WHICH INSTEAD OF DOCUMENTING
WHY IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE AT ALL, WE ARE IN A POSITION OF DECIDING WHICH WATERSHEDS TO SACRIFICE AND HOW
MANY, AND COMING UP WITH A SORT OF "CALCULUS" TO DO THAT. THAT CALCULUS IS WELL BEYOND THE FIRST STEP.
WE ARE. AS SCIENTISTS, IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO SAY THIS HAS A STRONGLY NEGATIVE IMPACT, AND LIST THE
IMPACTS, AND SAY THIS IS A PRACTICE THAT SHOULDN'T BE DONE. WE DON'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO CREATE A
CALCULUS TO DECIDE WHAT PERCENT CAN BE DESTROYED. WHERE YOU DO SEE THIS KIND OF REGULATION
DEVELOPED, WHERE THERE IS A CALCULUS, IT'S ALMOST ALWAYS A JOKE. IT TYPICALLY IS THE RESULT OF SOME KIND
OF POLITICAL COMPROMISE, AND BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T REALLY DO IT RIGHT YOU HAD TO COME UP WITH SOME
CRAZY OF ADDING A LOT OF DIFFERING COEFFICIENTS TOGETHER OR WORKING THROUGH SOME KIND OF A
MATRIX THAT EVERYONE REALIZES DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, BUT IT WAS COME UP WITH AS A COMPROMISE TO COME UP
WITH A SLIDING SCALE WHICH ENDS UP IN MIDDLE GROUND.
HANMER - Do YOU REMEMBER LEOPOLD'S "UNIQUENESS INDEX" FROM 1972? MY CHALLENGE TO YOU is THAT
CHANGES OCCUR. THAT DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, AND THAT EVEN BIOLOGISTS LIVE IN HOUSES AND BENEFIT FROM
DEVELOPMENT. So THEN, THE QUESTION FOR US IS, DO YOU WANT THAT TO JUST HAPPEN HELTER-SKELTER, OR DO YOU
WANT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT AND TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT? THAT'S THE DILEMMA YOU'RE IN. YOU'RE
SAYING "I DON'T WANT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY SAYING THAT FILLING 10% OF THE HEADWATER STREAMS IS OK" AND
I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULDN'T WANT THAT KIND OF RESPONSIBILITY. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, SOME OTHER
KIND OF INFORMATION THEY CAN GET.
57
-------
WALLACE -THERE'S ANOTHER DANGER HERE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER LONG-TERM NITRIFICATION OF
CATCHMENTS. THERE MIGHT BE THINGS HAPPENING HERE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE UNTIL 15 OR 20 YEARS DOWN
THE ROAD. ARE YOU GOING TO LET THESE PROCEED NOW, AND THEN FIND OUT 15 OR 20 YEARS LATER THAT THERE'S
SOMETHING AWRY HERE THAT YOU CANNOT CORRECT? AND I'M PARTICULARLY THINKING ABOUT POTENTIAL FOR
NITRATES IN THE SURFACE WATERS, THAT CAN BE PRETTY DANGEROUS, KlNCAID - THAT'S ALL THE MORE REASON
WHY WE NEED TO DESIGN GOOD EXPERIMENTS RIGHT NOW. WALLACE - EXACTLY, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. AND
THESE SHOULD BE MINIMIZED UNTIL WE SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND HAVE SOME IDEA OF THE WHAT KIND OF
DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS THEY HAVE. ROBINSON - THERE ARE SOME VALLEY FILLS WHICH HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR 15
YEARS, CAN'T THESE BE STUDIED?
KINKAID • WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROBLEMS THAT CAN COME TO GET us DECADES DOWN THE ROAD. WE NEED TO
DESIGN THE EXPERIMENTS NOW PROJECTING THE PROBABLE IMPACTS, AND DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
IMPACTS. I DON'T THINK RIGHT NOW, OR EVEN AFTER A YEAR'S WORTH OF DATA, WE'LL BE ABLE TO SORT OUT WHAT
WE FIND FROM ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE WELL ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THESE IMPACTS ARE GOING TO OCCUR NEVER,
TOMORROW, OR IN 2050. WE NEED TO BUILD INTO THE PROCESS SOME MEANS OF CONTINUING THIS EVALUATION
PROCESS, AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE MEET THE DEADLINE.
DENSMORE -1 WANTED TO BRING UP HERE, THAT GETS BACK TO THE SORT OF ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT WE GET INTO AS
LAWYERS AND REGULATORS - RIGHT NOW WE ARE LOOKING AT A 250-ACRE THRESHOLD FOR "MINIMAL" IMPACTS FOR
PURPOSES OF THE PERMIT SYSTEM. THAT IS A NUMBER THAT HAS A LONG HISTORY, AND RELATES HISTORICALLY TO
"AT WHAT POINT DO YOU REQUIRE COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES," BUT IT HAS NOW SORT OF JUMPED OVER AND BECOME
A THRESHOLD BELOW WHICH YOU DON'T HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE SYSTEM. THIS HAS THE DANGER OF
BECOMING LAW, THE WAY IT'S BEING USED RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT IS BEING USED AS A PRIMARY BASIS FOR
PROCESSING CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITS.
WALLACE - THIS MEANS THAT ON ANY GIVEN DRAINAGE BASIN, YOU COULD FILL IN A SERIES OF FIRST AND SECOND
ORDER STREAMS - YOU COULD RAID THE BASIN, BASICALLY, AS FAR AS THE HEADWATERS ~ EACH WITH SEPARATE
FILLS OF UP TO 250 ACRES. HANMER - YOU COULD. DENSMORE - IT'S BEING SO RIGIDLY ADHERED TO THAT YOU
COULD FILL 20 BASINS, SO LONG AS YOU KEPT THEM TO 249 ACRES OR LESS. I'D BE INTERESTED IN THE REACTION TO
THAT HERE.
STAUFFEB - DEPENDS WHICH 250 ACRES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. IF IT'S 249 ACRES OF WHITE CLAY CREEK WHERE
THIS ONLY MAYFLY OCCURS, SOMEONE'S GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM. IF IT'S THE 249 ACRES WHERE MY ONLY
PHOXINUS OCCURS, I'M GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM.
ROBINSON - IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE, BECAUSE THERE'S A CAVEAT THAT SAYS THAT IF WE CONSIDER THAT MULTIPLE 250
ACRES BECOME CUMULATIVELY SIGNIFICANT - AND WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. SO, HOW MANY 250'S DO
WE DO BEFORE ... HOFFMAN - OR, THE 249 ON YOUR SENSITIVE CREEK IS SENSITIVE. ROBINSON - OR THERE'S A
THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES OR A WETLAND OR A FEDERAL TRUST RESOURCE.
STAUFFER - SOMEBODY MIGHT NOT WANT TO WIPE OUT A SONGBIRD, SOMEBODY MIGHT NOT WANT TO WIPE OUT A
SALAMANDER, AND SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO PROTECT A FISH, WANT TO PROTECT A MAYFLY, THEN THE
DINOFLAGELLATE AND A BACTERIA, AND YOU'VE GOT A QUALITY JUDGEMENT THERE. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT ALL OF
THESE SYSTEMS HAVE SOME UNIQUE ORGANISMS AT SOME LEVEL OR ANOTHER ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. ROBINSON -
AND AS REGULATORS, WE LOOK FOR BLACK AND WHITE LINES, AND WE KEEP PUSHING PEOPLE TO TELL US WHERE THEY
ARE, AND IT DEPENDS ON YOUR INTEREST AND WHAT PART OF SCIENCE YOU COME FROM AS TO WHAT YOU CARE
ABOUT. STAUFFER - IT GETS BACK TO THE $10 OR $1,000: "I'M WILLING TO GIVE UP A FISH BUT NOT A SONGBIRD," OR
"I'M WILLING TO GIVE UP A MAYFLY BUT NOT A FISH."
TlBBOTT - WE'VE TRANSITIONED TO OUR NEXT QUESTION: HOW MUCH CAN WE GIVE UP? HOW MUCH CAN WE AFFORD
TO LOSE? THERE ARE 40 PERMITS THAT HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH. Six OF THE 40 HAVE MULTIPLE FILLS UNDER 250
ACRES. THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE is THE ONLY AGENCY AMONG THE FIVE AGENCIES THAT CONSIDERS THIS A
SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACT; ALL THE OTHER AGENCIES WOULD JUST AS SOON LET THEM GO AS NATIONWIDE
58
-------
PERMIT AUTHORIZATION. THE RSH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IS INTERESTED IN YOUR REACTION TO WHAT DO WE DO
WITH MULTIPLE FILLS?
ARWAY - JUST A COMMENT ABOUT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. THERE'S A PROVISION IN SMCRA THAT DEALS WITH
CUMULATIVE HYDROLOGIC IMPACT ASSESSMENTS. WHERE STATES HAVE DELEGATED PROGRAMS, THEY HAVE TO DO
CHIAS. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO PERMIT HAS EVER BEEN DENIED OR ALTERED BECAUSE OF CHIAS. WE'VE BEEN
DOING CHIAS FOR A LONG TIME, BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN ANY EFFECT ON THE PERMIT PROCESS. TlBBOTT - I DON'T
THINK THEY'VE REALLY BEEN DONE. ARWAY - THE OBLIGATION OF THE AUTHORITY IS THERE, AND THE STATE HAS TO
"CHECK THE BLOCK" WHEN IT ISSUES THE PERMIT THAT THE CHIA HAS DONE. TlBBOTT - ALTHOUGH THE BLOCK
IS CHECKED, THEY'RE NOT DONE. ARWAY - WELL, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BE DONE AND IN THEORY THEY ARE DONE.
HISTORY TEACHES us THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO BE DONE, BUT THEY'RE NOT DONE, AND PERMITS ARE STILL ISSUED.
NEWBOLD - CAN WE GO DOWNSTREAM AND IDENTIFY THE RESOURCES ON WHICH THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MIGHT
BE FELT; A SPECIFIC REACH OF STREAM, A LAKE, AN ESTUARY IF YOU GET FAR ENOUGH DOWN? Is THAT A USEFUL WAY
OF LOOKING AT THE QUESTION? ROBINSON - IT GOES BACK TO WHAT ARE THE VALUES THAT YOU ASSESS, AT WHICH
CUMULATIVE PROBLEMS START KICKING IN. NEWBOLD - IF WE GET IN A BOAT AND GO DOWNSTREAM, AND WE COME
TO THIS STRETCH OF RIVER THAT'S USED FOR FISHING OR WHITEWATER RAFTING, OR COME TO A LAKE THAT HAS A
FISHERY, THEN WE SEE THE RESOURCES AND WE SAY ARE THESE AT RISK OF BEING IMPACTED, SO INSTEAD OF WORKING
FROM, "WELL, WE COULD HAVE ALL THESE KINDS OF IMPACTS DOWNSTREAM," AND WORKING THROUGH THAT, WE GO
DOWNSTREAM AND SEE WHAT MIGHT BE VULNERABLE AND WHAT MIGHT BE THE IMPACTS. ROBINSON - REGULATORS
STRUGGLE WITH "HOW FAR DOWNSTREAM" YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DEFINE CUMULATIVE IMPACT AREAS. IS IT THE GULF
OF MEXICO OR THE CLINCH RIVER OR THE CHEAT RIVER OR SOME TRIBUTARY OF THE CHEAT RIVER. COMMENTER -
THE GULF OF MEXICO is A CANDIDATE BECAUSE THERE ARE NUTRIENT PROBLEMS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO IN REGARDS
TO NITRATES. ROBINSON - IF YOU CHOOSE THE GULF OF MEXICO AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WATER QUANTITY AND
QUALITY AND WELLS AND THINGS, THE POOR CITIZEN WHOSE WELL IS IMPACTED BY UNDERGROUND MINING OR
SURFACE MINING, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE GULF OF MEXICO THAT BECOMES AN INSIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND SO YOU
CAN WRITE IT OFF. SO WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE SO YOU CAN EVALUATE IMPACTS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE
DECIDED.
59
-------
A Review of Wetland Resources in the Steep Slope
Terrain of West Virginia
November 8, 2000
Prepared For:
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement
Prepared by:
David Rider
William Hoffman
USEPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
-------
A Review of Wetland Resources
in the Steep Slope Terrain of West Virginia
Introduction
Wetland resources can be of significant importance in protecting and improving water quality.
They can filter pollutants from the water column, provide habitat, and provide a food source for
many aquatic, avian, and terrestrial species. Wetlands can also provide significant sediment
trapping and flood control benefits.
A typical mountaintop mining/valley fill (MTM/VF) operation in the Appalachian coalfields
removes overburden and interburden material to facilitate the extraction of low-sulfur coal
seams, and has often required the placement of excess spoil into valleys containing first and
second order streams. While it is likely that few wetland resources exist naturally in the steep
slope terrain areas because of the topography, the actual impacts of MTM/VF operations on
these resources is largely unknown. Moreover, during scoping sessions and technical symposia
held for the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, it
was reported by industry representatives that new wetland communities are becoming
established at reclaimed mine sites, often within sediment retaining structures or in other basin
areas on the mined sites. The extent of these areas or the functions they are providing, however,
is also uncertain.
To evaluate these issues, a workplan was developed to assess the prevalence and functions of
wetland resources in the steep slope mining region. This workplan can be seen on EPA's
mountaintop mining web site at www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop.
Approach
To assess the degree to which wetland resources exist in the steep slope area, National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) maps were reviewed for the same five watersheds being evaluated under
workplans developed by the Stream and Fisheries Teams for the EIS (Twentymile Creek, Spruce
Fork, Mud River, Island Creek, and Clear Fork). NWI maps were developed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to identify natural and/or manmade wetland systems in existence at the time
of mapping, and can be used as a screening tool to assess the relative percent of wetlands in the
landscape.
To assess wetland functions typically found on reclaimed mine sites, a field team performed
functional assessments (water quality, wildlife, and sediment trapping) on November 16-17,
1999 at ten wetland sites suggested by coal companies. The Evaluation of Planned Wetlands
(EPW) technique, a rapid-assessment procedure developed by Environmental Concern, Inc., was
utilized to perform these field assessments. Three EPW functions were selected:
Sediment Stabilization- Capacity to stabilize and retain previously deposited sediments.
• Water Quality- Capacity to retain and process dissolved or particulate materials to the
-------
benefit of downstream surface water quality.
• Wildlife- Degree to which a wetland functions as habitat for wildlife as described by
habitat complexity.
The functional capacity is determined by comparing elements of physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics that demonstrate the wetland's capacity to perform a function. The
element score is a unitless number from 0.0 to 1.0, where 1.0 represents the optimal condition for
maximizing functional capacity and 0.0 represents an unsuitable condition. A high score implies
that, in comparison to the other conditions for that element, this particular condition has a greater
potential to increase the wetland's functional capacity. Conversely, a low score implies that
there is a low potential.
Results
As can be seen from the National Wetland Inventory maps (Attachment 1), the percentage of
vegetated wetlands (PF, PEM, PSS designations) existing in these watersheds is extremely low,
representing less than 1/10 of 1% of the watershed in all cases. The majority of the NWI
wetlands in these watersheds, furthermore, are unvegetated wetlands, and appear in most cases to
be sediment ponds (PUB designations) associated with mined sites. Unvegetated wetlands also
represent a very low percentage of the landscape in these five watersheds.
As can be seen from the results of the functional assessments performed at ten wetlands sites
located on reclaimed areas (Attachment 2), most of the sites functioned well as sediment
retention devices. Three of the ten sites scored a maximum of 1.0 and another three sites had
scores equal to or greater than 0.7. Wetlands at these sites had established persistent vegetation
that could trap and hold sediment. Only two of the ten sites (111699003 and 111799004) had a
high rating for the water quality function to retain and process dissolved or particulate materials
to the benefit of downstream surface water quality. At one site (111699003), this high rating
appeared to be as a result of sheet flow though persistent vegetation established on relatively fine
mineral soils. Another site (111799004) that ranked high for water quality was established on a
high-wall bench left from the pre-SMCRA mining period. Here, persistent wetland vegetation
was established on a broad area of side-slope seeps, probably without any intention to collect
water or provide sediment retention. Two sites rated highly for the wildlife function. One site
(111799003) was found on an older (20+ years) area and was characterized by a shallow pond
against a railroad crossing. Tree snags and a variety of vegetation layers characterized this old
sediment basin. The wildlife functional index provides a relative measure of the degree to which
a wetland functions as habitat for wildlife as described by habitat complexity. Disturbances
from past mining activities at this site were minimal and a wide range of cover types was
evident. Wildlife functions were low at most sites due to a lack of wildlife attractors such as
snags, dense brush, and fallen trees or logs. Multiple vegetation layers were not common.
Discussion
Wetland resources do not seem to be a major landcover type in the steep slope terrain of West
Virginia. The predominate class, further, appears to be unvegetated ponds associated with mined
sites. Vegetated wetland areas that do exist, even on mined sites, are generally small areas
-------
scattered throughout the landscape.
At the ten wetland sites studied (mainly linear drainage structures and basin depressions) on
mined areas, the functions being provided varied. Many of the wetland systems were providing
excellent sediment stabilization functions, and a few were providing good water quality (as
defined in EPW technique) and wildlife functions. These findings were not unexpected by the
field team conducting the survey. As these structures were designed to control sediment, we
expected them to score highly in this regard. The defined water quality function, on the other
hand, is very much dependent on vegetative cover within the wetland system, and the low
percentage of vegetative cover at these sites appeared to be the reason for their low scores in this
regard. Wildlife scores are also highly dependent on the vegetative communities present, the
degree of interspersion, and other physical and biological features of the system. Because these
sites were not designed for these purposes, it is not surprising that they did not score highly. The
areas that did score highly tended to be older systems where more complex structures were
permitted to develop. The conclusion is that although many of the sites evaluated did not score
highly for various wetland functions and values, opportunities do appear to exist for the creation
of functioning wetland systems on mined sites. Planned wetlands, if incorporated into the
restoration design, can provide valuable functions by enhancing sediment stabilization, water
quality improvement, and wildlife habitat on mined sites.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Watersheds and NWI Wetlands
West Virginia
•
111699001
111699C
-
11J699OO2
lit
111799003
*.
111799004
111799001
111799O02
111699003
_.' 111699O04
A
N
10
10 Miles
- a^jpfoximaft* rvgion of'prrsenJ ano1 pmfpctcd Mints,
major rrtwjitfitinhtp n^mwai
Hjthwt Wef/.ind tmwntory odbbiinerf from United Stales f «ft and W/cttfr Service tWV &<**« J"^ &WKWTIII: StrmyJ
f t'digit -.i^tcf^in-d />,is/jis ohtautvtf from UnitedSfatex Ceafogir &urvry ^P - IV''r,'.viij\ t !t-.ti'\i on nx'fcifntx/ r.-j/i,-.•.
Surfdirp miines anrf qudm"c*s obtained front the Oi/wjn VaWcy Institute (1999)
Area of Detail
Mud Rtve
X Island Ctwk
Twenty Mile Creek
Clear Fork
Spruce Fork
US tPA Reypun 3 CIS Team MFrank5IC85J 12-14-2000 *»tap#H70
-------
Mud River Watershed
National Wetland Inventory
island Creek
If ri'jjfuH of present JJic/ p
f VW t]«jftjt'PC tfnE r~ tt'Ofiunrrt
NWI Wetland
Classification
(system)
PU
PEM
PF
0
0
0
Percent Of
Watershed
Area (Acres)
0348 (21.42)
0170(10.42)
0050(3.1)
Minus, quarries
Surface minps
A
NWI Wetland Type
(System+Class)
PEM
PFO
N
4 Miles
t- Wetlands created on reclaimed mines
Njlinnjl Wfltjud tnvrnbiry nllteim-lt (rani UnitedSUtes fi\h anil Wildlid- Si-n
n-digit wjtershrd basins obtained from United States ijcnln^ii Survey
Suefat:c mines and nujrrirs obtained from the. Cjnjnn Valley Institute f1999)
US TPA ft-guni 1 CIS T™m M Tr.mt SirjS'H t J-11-JIXIO Ma[i#l 17 !
-------
Island Creek Watershed
National Wetland Inventory
A
NWi Wetland Type
(System+Class}
N
PEM
PUB
PUS
NWI Wetland
Classification
(system)
PU
PEM
Percent Of
Watershed
Area (Acres)
0.0597 (40.2)
0.0030 (2.05)
Mines, qLarries
NMitonAf Wftfanil invvnttiry tthfjint'd Titan tlnilt'it .SJjfi-.v fi\h^nd Wileitifa frrvu p
J J^digit watershed basins nbfaifKd from United Stafcs CjcotojfK1 Harvey
Sur/"Hif f mi fit'1* *"i d (jw
-------
Spruce Fork Watershed
National Wetland Inventory
11fa99006
111699005
NWI Wetland
Classification
(system)
R
PU
PF
PEM
PSS
Percent Of
Watershed
Area (Acres)
0.0949 (76.7)
0.0551 (44.4)
0.0103 (832)
0.0036 (2.89)
0.0002 (0.18)
NWI Wetland Type
(Systern+Class)
PCM
PFO
PSS
I HUB
PUS
I RUB
RUS
Mines, quarries
Surface mines (1999)
4 Miles
I - Wetlands created on reclaimed mines
H*ition,il Wfllmd Imriilar) iihtiim-tf Imm tlaiti-tt Sljlfx fiihjati WiMKfe Service
11-digit watershed basins obtained front United Sutes tjcotoflft'Survey
Surface mine* and fjfiarrie* nbijined from th? Lana,m Vaftey Institute 11199>
West Virginia
MudR;
Maud Creek
-- Twenty Mile Creek
—Cleai Fuik
Spruce Fofk
majormi.wnt,vnttip nmiivat
tWV fjiAi/jit .iruJfiuiMinc
Ui EPA Rt!g\nn 1 CIS Tram M F(,inkSICB5J 12-12-2OOO M,ip* 1172
-------
Clear Fork Watershed
National Wetland Inventory
N
1012 Miles
H
NW1 Welland
Classification
(system)
L
PU
PSS
PF
PEM
PA
Percent Of
Watershed
Area (Acres)
0.0619(25.7)
0.0693 (28.7)
0.0087 (3.6)
0.0012 (0.50)
0.0006 (0.26)
0.0007 (0.30)
NWI Wetland Type
(System+Class)
H-H
PAB
PEM
PFO
PSS
PUB
Mines, quorries
Surface mine* 11999)
Njlttntjl Wfltjttd litwntftry iibtjiiu'd fffint thtilt'J Stjlr\ Fisli and Wildlife Stwitp
II-digit wtlrrahttt ki*.im nhlMfH'tt fault llnitttl Hl£hi. Gmtii^ii Survey
Surface mine* jnil quarries obtained irtttn the Cjiujn Vilify Institute (1999)
US [PA Ri~gnn ! f,IS Ti'.irrl M rr
-1 i-JlllKl M.ip*l t7ri
West Virginia
'' T^stnty Mile Creek
-Clear F
-------
-------
Twenty Mile Creek Watershed
National Wetland Inventory
NWI Wetland Type
(System+Class)
4 Miles
West Virginia
Mud Ft
v tstand Creek
(WV Qf i/r.jgj< drtcf Fi tUtiNfln .5urtrtyJ
Miners quaffitrs
Surface mines (1999)
Njlifittjt Wi'tfanti lnVPtth>ry tihtoinptt fruai tJt)ilftiStJ!t>s fish Jni/ Wiltllifo Siwit-t>
J J-digit wjtr*r*h?d basin* ohijp'nerf from Unilrd 51 at<*s G'poto^r Survey
Siirfjfi' mint". Mid fjuarrii". ftlttjincn1 frttm thv Certain V.tHv) ln\titulv (I'WI)
NWI Wetland
Classification
(system)
PU
PF
PEM
R
PSS
Percent Of
Watershed
Area (Acres)
0.0480 (26.47)
0,0221 (12.3)
0.0152 (8.42}
0.0152 (8.40)
0.0010(0.57)
US EPA Region 3 CIS Ttam M Fran
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
ID#
111699001
111699002
111699003
111699004
111699005
111699006
111799001
111799002
111799003
111799004
Sediment
Stabilization
0.70
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.53
0.87
0.08
0.53
0.78
0.27
Water
Quality
0.50
NA
0.97
NA
NA
0.61
0.22
0.39
0.68
0.98
Wildlife
0.34
0.25
0.13
0.23
0.42
0.50
0.38
0.85
0.81
0.68
Description
Hobet 21, left Fork of Stanley Fork
S 5080-88
5,400' long x 14' long sediment ditch
Hobet 21 - isolated basin
Wylo Mine Complex - Pond F; 20
years old
Discharge to Buffalo Creek
sediment control - 800' x 50'
S0159-74
Wylo - Depressional wetland
not a drainage structure
no outlet exists
5-10 acres
Dal-Tex - Rockhouse
Robinson Run Pond
Dal-Tex -
Sediment Ditches (w/check dams)
pater-noster pond ~9 acres
Sediment ditches drain from 2
directions to underground mine - Pre-
law
-Beaver
S3068-88 Green Valley Coal Co.
with snags
ponds at foot of surface mine
Upper Brushy Meadow
Sediment
side-slope seeps to bench
S3075-87
Location
N38 04.987
W81 59.091
N38 06.736
W81 52.379
N37 46.199
W81 43.212
N37 46.238
W81 42.730
N37 55.638
W81 50.673
N37 56.017
W81 51.812
N38 09.112
W80 38.759
N38 09.150
W80 38.494
N38 09.274
W80 40.467
N38 08.935
W80 40.982
------- |