1. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute1 Optimizing Resources for Restoring Streams Impaired by Acid Mine Drainage Paul Ziemkiewicz Todd Petty Rick Herd Jen Fulton Jim Stiles West Virginia Water Research Institute West Virginia University

2. Water Research Institute2 Program Scope: Stream segments impaired by historic acid mine drainage Program Objective: To restore fisheries in the maximum number of stream miles

3. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute3 Treatment Options At source lime dosing with sludge collection and disposal At source lime dosing with sludge collection and disposal In stream dosing: In stream dosing: Limestone sand dump stations Limestone sand dump stations Pebble lime dosers Pebble lime dosers At source passive treatment At source passive treatment

4. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute4 WVDEP On Site Doser: Construction

5. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute5 Charging the Lime Bin

6. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute6 Sludge Cleanout

7. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute7 In Stream Dosing: Middle Fork Limestone Sand Station

8. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute8 In Stream Dosers: Maryland Boxholm Pumpkonsult Aquafix

9. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute9 WVDEP: In Stream Lime Dosing

10. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute10 North Branch: pH Before Doser Project

11. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute11 North Branch: pH After Doser Installation

12. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute12 On Site Passive Treatment: Open Limestone Channel

13. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute13 Ohio DNR: Slag Leach Bed

14. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute14 Ohio DNR: LCD-Lime-Cored Dam

15. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute15 Conclusions: Acid removal efficiency ($/ton of acid load removed) All three of the most efficient sites were in stream dosing units. All three of the most efficient sites were in stream dosing units. In-stream: $175 to $1,478 In-stream: $175 to $1,478 At source: $2,200 to $272,000 At source: $2,200 to $272,000 Or between 12 and 180 times more efficient In-stream efficiencies similar to on site passive In-stream efficiencies similar to on site passive

16. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute16 In-stream dosers vs. at-source passive In Stream Dosing In Stream Dosing Positives: Positives: High stream recovery High stream recovery Alkalinity export Alkalinity export Minor pre-design monitoring Minor pre-design monitoring Adjustable feed rate Adjustable feed rate Reliable performance Reliable performance Few treatment units Few treatment units Low cost Low cost Low capital cost Low capital cost High/predictable O&M cost High/predictable O&M cost Works under most site conditions Works under most site conditions At Source Passive Positives: No in stream impacts Minimal maintenance Low cost High capital cost Low/variable O&M

17. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute17 In-stream dosers vs. at-source passive In Stream Dosing In Stream Dosing Negatives: Negatives: Stream impacts-sludge Stream impacts-sludge Extent of mixing and precipitation zone Extent of mixing and precipitation zone Regular maintenance Regular maintenance At Source Passive Negatives: Low stream recovery Little if any alkalinity export Numerous treatment sites Access agreements Roads/maintenance Site-limited treatment options Water quality Space Flows

18. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute18 With In-Stream Treatment We Need to Know: How many miles of stream are actually restored to biological health with in stream treatment? How many miles of stream are actually restored to biological health with in stream treatment? How quickly metal floc comes out of the water column How quickly metal floc comes out of the water column Effects of metal loading, stream hydraulics: oxidation and floc settlement Effects of metal loading, stream hydraulics: oxidation and floc settlement

19. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute19 Restore sustainable fisheries in the majority of WV stream miles lost to historic, pre-law coal mining. Restore sustainable fisheries in the majority of WV stream miles lost to historic, pre-law coal mining. ~2,775 AMD impaired stream miles ~2,775 AMD impaired stream miles 114 10 digit HUCs (~500 streams) 114 10 digit HUCs (~500 streams) Reauthorized AML Set Aside Program

20. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute20 Apply a landscape scale, interdisciplinary watershed approach integrating proven state of the art technologies to produce the most cost effective and ecologically beneficial outcome(s). Apply a landscape scale, interdisciplinary watershed approach integrating proven state of the art technologies to produce the most cost effective and ecologically beneficial outcome(s). Technically sound, transparent and defensible process Technically sound, transparent and defensible process Provide for adaptive management and partnerships Provide for adaptive management and partnerships Planning and Analysis

21. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute21 Stream Restoration Steering Committee- Key stakeholders (DEP, DNR, watershed/conservation orgs.,etc) Stream Restoration Steering Committee- Key stakeholders (DEP, DNR, watershed/conservation orgs.,etc) Immediately implement several low risk, high profile restoration projects (Abram, Paint, Three Fork, Cheat…) Immediately implement several low risk, high profile restoration projects (Abram, Paint, Three Fork, Cheat…) Planning and Analysis (cont)

22. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute22 Technical Approach Collect, compile and evaluate data Collect, compile and evaluate data Develop GIS-based decision support system Develop GIS-based decision support system Develop economic benefits framework Develop economic benefits framework Evaluate and establish restoration priorities Evaluate and establish restoration priorities Develop watershed restoration plans Include restoration alternatives evaluation (active and passive at source, in-stream, in-situ) and predicted benefits and associated costs Develop watershed restoration plans Include restoration alternatives evaluation (active and passive at source, in-stream, in-situ) and predicted benefits and associated costs Monitor and document reach and watershed scale environmental benefits Monitor and document reach and watershed scale environmental benefits Adapt restoration process as necessary Adapt restoration process as necessary

23. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute23 Case Study: Abram Creek 44.2 sq mi., ~20 miles long 44.2 sq mi., ~20 miles long Elevation: 3,4941,693 ft. MSL Elevation: 3,4941,693 ft. MSL 23 subwatersheds-10 impaired 23 subwatersheds-10 impaired Largest sub watersheds-Laurel, Glade, Emory and Johnnycake Largest sub watersheds-Laurel, Glade, Emory and Johnnycake TMDL- 27 AMLs, 1 Bond Forfeiture TMDL- 27 AMLs, 1 Bond Forfeiture

24. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute24

25. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute25 Abram Creek Water Quality Stations

26. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute26 Average Net Acid Loading

27. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute27 Treatment Alternatives Treatment Sites1234567 Abram HW, Little Ck. ISDISDISDISDPISDASD DS Morgan 25 ISDISDISDPPISDASD Laurel Run PLSSASDPPISDASD Emory Run LSSLSSISDPPISDASD Glade Run PPPPPPP ISD = in stream dosers ASD = at source dosers P = passive LSS = limestone sand Abram Creek Treatment Alternatives

28. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute28 Expected Acidity (mg/L) Treatment Alternative Abram Creek Location 1234567 DS Little Ck -186-155-104-4576-104-104 DS Morgan 25 US Laurel Run -234-188-112-32717-112-112 DS Laurel and US Glade Run -145-136-132-20413-132-132 DS Glade and US Johnnycake Run -78-73-711108-71-71 DS Johnnycake and US Emory Ck -59-57-54-80-3-54-54 DS Emory Ck -54-52-51-74-4-51-51 near Oakmont WV -51-50-50-500-50-50 US Mouth of Abram -50-50-50-500-50-50 North Branch Potomac DS Abram -19-19-19-19-13-19-16

29. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute29 Treatment Alternative Costs Total Cost over Project Lifetime* (2007 dollars, discounted at 3%) AlternativeTotal 1 YearTotal 5 YearTotal 10 Year Total 20 Year 1$815,959$1,172,501$1,562,797$2,189,888 2$534,207$810,043$1,111,993$1,597,137 3$873,387$1,294856$1,756,227$2,497,513 4$2,868,074$3,789,240$4,979,617$6,417,780 5$2,879,005$3,826,044$4,862,743$6,528,410 6$865,532$1,257,805$1,687,217$2,377,153 7$2,325,786$3,289,276$4,005,918$5,416,656

30. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute30 Ecological Benefits

31. West Virginia University Water Research Institute 31 Recoverable EcoUnits (Miles) AlternativeDiversity Brook Trout Stocked Trout Overall Fishery 111.1110.5111.8714.19 210.9710.3411.8514.03 311.1110.5111.8714.19 412.6812.2511.9815.93 54.763.465.11 610.9710.3411.8514.03 715.6216.2312.8819.91

32. West Virginia University Water Research Institute 32 Net Present Value of Alternatives (2007 dollars, discounted at 3%) Alternative1 Year5 Year10 Year20 Year 1(804,389)(28,466)1,244,5033,296,170 2(555,719)167,9371,379,8023,333,234 3(876,926)(222,094)918,3192,757,009 4(2,642,806)(1,500,992)225,4563,006,527 5(2,645,138)*(2,329,712)(1,831,562)(1,028,878) 6(907,524)(230,247)987,6862,951,723 7(2,325,786)(1,739,902)(558,897)1,346,761

33. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute33 45.7 miles 16.7 miles (36%)27.0 miles (59%) Historic EUsCurrent EUs Expected EUs Brook Trout Habitat Futures in Abram Creek: Alternative 2

34. West Virginia University Water Research Institute 34 Why Brook Trout? Because We Care!

35. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute35 And yes, I know that was a carp

36. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute36 49.5 miles18.4 miles (37%)32.3 miles (65%) Historic EUsCurrent EUsExpected EUs Overall Fisheries Futures in Abram Creek: Alternative 2

37. West Virginia University Water Research Institute 37 Summary We recommend implementation of Alternative 2 We recommend implementation of Alternative 2 Three dosers-Little Ck, Head of Abrams, UNT @ Morgan 25Three dosers-Little Ck, Head of Abrams, UNT @ Morgan 25 Limestone sand in Emory and Laurel CksLimestone sand in Emory and Laurel Cks Passive treatment at Glade RunPassive treatment at Glade Run Lowest cost/nearly highest ecological benefit Lowest cost/nearly highest ecological benefit Capital cost: $534,207Capital cost: $534,207 Annual cost: $ 53,147Annual cost: $ 53,147 Highest efficiency: $/ton of acid load removed.Highest efficiency: $/ton of acid load removed. Alternative 2 will restore main stem of Abram Ck Alternative 2 will restore main stem of Abram Ck

38. West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute38 Summary (continued) Further improvements in headwaters possible through watershed organizations and other programs: WCAP, Sec. 319, etc Further improvements in headwaters possible through watershed organizations and other programs: WCAP, Sec. 319, etc This would enable full recovery of these small tributaries and link with high quality brook trout habitats in the Abram Creek main stem Johnnycake Run This would enable full recovery of these small tributaries and link with high quality brook trout habitats in the Abram Creek main stem Johnnycake Run It is unlikely that the Abram Creek headwaters and Emory Creek will ever fully recover as brook trout habitat It is unlikely that the Abram Creek headwaters and Emory Creek will ever fully recover as brook trout habitat