West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute1 Optimizing Resources for Restoring Streams...

West Virginia University Water Research Institute 1

Optimizing Resources for Optimizing Resources for Restoring Streams Impaired by Restoring Streams Impaired by

Acid Mine DrainageAcid Mine Drainage

Paul ZiemkiewiczTodd PettyRick HerdJen FultonJim Stiles

West Virginia Water Research Institute

West Virginia University


Program Scope:

Stream segments impaired by historic Stream segments impaired by historic acid mine drainageacid mine drainage

Program Objective:

To restore fisheries in the maximum To restore fisheries in the maximum number of stream milesnumber of stream miles


Treatment Options

►At source lime dosing with sludge At source lime dosing with sludge collection and disposalcollection and disposal

► In stream dosing: In stream dosing: Limestone sand dump stationsLimestone sand dump stations Pebble lime dosersPebble lime dosers

►At source passive treatmentAt source passive treatment


WVDEP On Site Doser:WVDEP On Site Doser: ConstructionConstruction


Charging the Lime BinCharging the Lime Bin


Sludge CleanoutSludge Cleanout


In Stream Dosing:In Stream Dosing: Middle Middle Fork Limestone Sand StationFork Limestone Sand Station


In Stream Dosers:In Stream Dosers: Maryland Maryland

Boxholm Pumpkonsult Aquafix


WVDEP: WVDEP: In Stream Lime In Stream Lime DosingDosing


North Branch: pH North Branch: pH BeforeBefore Doser Doser ProjectProject


North Branch: pH North Branch: pH AfterAfter Doser Doser InstallationInstallation


On Site Passive Treatment:On Site Passive Treatment:Open Limestone ChannelOpen Limestone Channel


Ohio DNR:Ohio DNR: Slag Leach Bed Slag Leach Bed


Ohio DNR:Ohio DNR: LCD-Lime-Cored LCD-Lime-Cored DamDam


Conclusions: Acid removal Conclusions: Acid removal efficiencyefficiency

($/ton of acid load removed) ($/ton of acid load removed)

► All three of the most efficient sites were in All three of the most efficient sites were in stream dosing units. stream dosing units.

► In-stream: $175 to $1,478 In-stream: $175 to $1,478 ► At source: $2,200 to $272,000At source: $2,200 to $272,000► Or between 12 and 180 times more efficient► In-stream efficiencies similar to on site In-stream efficiencies similar to on site

passivepassive


In-stream dosers vs. at-source In-stream dosers vs. at-source passivepassive

► In Stream DosingIn Stream Dosing Positives:Positives:

► High stream recoveryHigh stream recovery Alkalinity exportAlkalinity export

► Minor pre-design Minor pre-design monitoringmonitoring

Adjustable feed rateAdjustable feed rate Reliable performanceReliable performance

► Few treatment unitsFew treatment units► Low costLow cost

Low capital costLow capital cost High/predictable O&M High/predictable O&M

costcost► Works under most site Works under most site

conditionsconditions

► At Source PassiveAt Source Passive Positives:Positives:

► No in stream impactsNo in stream impacts► Minimal maintenanceMinimal maintenance► Low costLow cost

High capital costHigh capital cost Low/variable O&MLow/variable O&M


In-stream dosers vs. at-source In-stream dosers vs. at-source passivepassive

► In Stream DosingIn Stream Dosing Negatives:Negatives:

► Stream impacts-sludgeStream impacts-sludge Extent of mixing and Extent of mixing and

precipitation zoneprecipitation zone

► Regular maintenanceRegular maintenance

► At Source PassiveAt Source Passive Negatives:Negatives:

► Low stream recoveryLow stream recovery Little if any Little if any

alkalinity exportalkalinity export► Numerous treatment Numerous treatment

sitessites Access agreementsAccess agreements Roads/Roads/

maintenancemaintenance► Site-limited Site-limited

treatment optionstreatment options Water qualityWater quality SpaceSpace FlowsFlows


With In-Stream TreatmentWith In-Stream TreatmentWe Need to Know:We Need to Know:

►How many miles of stream are actually How many miles of stream are actually restored to biological health with in restored to biological health with in stream treatment?stream treatment?

►How quickly metal floc comes out of How quickly metal floc comes out of the water columnthe water column

►Effects of metal loading, stream Effects of metal loading, stream hydraulics: oxidation and floc hydraulics: oxidation and floc settlementsettlement


► Restore Restore sustainable sustainable fisheries in the fisheries in the majority of WV majority of WV stream miles lost stream miles lost to historic, pre-law to historic, pre-law coal mining.coal mining.

► ~2,775 AMD ~2,775 AMD impaired stream impaired stream milesmiles

► 114 10 digit HUCs 114 10 digit HUCs (~500 streams)(~500 streams)

Reauthorized AML Set Aside Reauthorized AML Set Aside ProgramProgram


►Apply a landscape scale, Apply a landscape scale, interdisciplinary watershed approach interdisciplinary watershed approach integrating proven state of the art integrating proven state of the art technologies to produce the most technologies to produce the most cost effective and ecologically cost effective and ecologically beneficial outcome(s).beneficial outcome(s).

►Technically sound, transparent and Technically sound, transparent and defensible processdefensible process

►Provide for adaptive management Provide for adaptive management and partnerships and partnerships

Planning and AnalysisPlanning and Analysis


►Stream Restoration Steering Stream Restoration Steering Committee- Key stakeholders (DEP, Committee- Key stakeholders (DEP, DNR, watershed/conservation DNR, watershed/conservation orgs.,etc)orgs.,etc)

► Immediately implement several low Immediately implement several low risk, high profile restoration projects risk, high profile restoration projects (Abram, Paint, Three Fork, Cheat…)(Abram, Paint, Three Fork, Cheat…)

Planning and Analysis Planning and Analysis (con’t)(con’t)


Technical ApproachTechnical Approach

► Collect, compile and evaluate dataCollect, compile and evaluate data► Develop GIS-based decision support systemDevelop GIS-based decision support system► Develop economic benefits frameworkDevelop economic benefits framework► Evaluate and establish restoration prioritiesEvaluate and establish restoration priorities► Develop watershed restoration plansDevelop watershed restoration plans

Include restoration alternatives evaluation Include restoration alternatives evaluation (active and passive at source, in-stream, in-(active and passive at source, in-stream, in-situ) and predicted benefits and associated situ) and predicted benefits and associated costs costs

► Monitor and documentMonitor and document reach and watershed reach and watershed scale environmental scale environmental benefitsbenefits

► Adapt restoration process as necessaryAdapt restoration process as necessary


Case Study: Abram CreekCase Study: Abram Creek

►44.2 sq mi., ~20 miles long44.2 sq mi., ~20 miles long►Elevation: 3,494—1,693 ft. MSLElevation: 3,494—1,693 ft. MSL►23 subwatersheds-10 impaired 23 subwatersheds-10 impaired ►Largest sub watersheds-Laurel, Largest sub watersheds-Laurel,

Glade, Emory and JohnnycakeGlade, Emory and Johnnycake►TMDL- 27 AMLs, 1 Bond ForfeitureTMDL- 27 AMLs, 1 Bond Forfeiture


Abram Creek Water Quality StationsAbram Creek Water Quality Stations


104 t/yr

81 t/yr

457 t/yr

363 t/yr

37 t/yr85 t/yr

2 t/yr

- 40 t/yr

- 52 t/yr

1037 t/yr

Average Net Acid LoadingAverage Net Acid Loading


Treatment Alternatives

Treatment Sites 11 22 33 44 55 66 77

Abram HW, Little Ck.Abram HW, Little Ck. ISDISD ISDISD ISDISD ISDISD PP ISDISD ASDASD

DS Morgan 25DS Morgan 25 ISDISD ISDISD ISDISD PP PP ISDISD ASDASD

Laurel RunLaurel Run P P LSSLSS ASDASD PP PP ISDISD ASDASD

Emory RunEmory Run LSSLSS LSSLSS ISDISD PP PP ISDISD ASDASD

Glade RunGlade Run P P PP PP PP PP PP PP

ISD =ISD = in stream dosersin stream dosers

ASD = ASD = at source dosersat source dosers

P =P = passivepassive

LSS = LSS = limestone sandlimestone sand

Abram Creek Treatment AlternativesAbram Creek Treatment Alternatives


Expected Acidity (mg/L)Expected Acidity (mg/L)

Treatment AlternativeTreatment Alternative

Abram Creek LocationAbram Creek Location 11 22 33 44 55 66 77

DS Little CkDS Little Ck

--118866 -155-155 -104-104 -457-457 66 -104-104 -104-104

DS Morgan 25 US Laurel RunDS Morgan 25 US Laurel Run

--223344 -188-188 -112-112 -327-327 1717 -112-112 -112-112

DS Laurel and US Glade RunDS Laurel and US Glade Run

--114455 -136-136 -132-132 -204-204 1313 -132-132 -132-132

DS Glade and US Johnnycake RunDS Glade and US Johnnycake Run -78-78 -73-73 -71-71 110110 88 -71-71 -71-71

DS Johnnycake and US Emory CkDS Johnnycake and US Emory Ck -59-59 -57-57 -54-54 -80-80 -3-3 -54-54 -54-54

DS Emory CkDS Emory Ck -54-54 -52-52 -51-51 -74-74 -4-4 -51-51 -51-51

near Oakmont WVnear Oakmont WV -51-51 -50-50 -50-50 -50-50 00 -50-50 -50-50

US Mouth of AbramUS Mouth of Abram -50-50 -50-50 -50-50 -50-50 00 -50-50 -50-50

North Branch Potomac DS AbramNorth Branch Potomac DS Abram -19-19 -19-19 -19-19 -19-19 -13-13 -19-19 -16-16


Treatment Alternative CostsTreatment Alternative Costs

Total Cost over Project Lifetime*

(2007 dollars, discounted at 3%)

Alternative Total 1 Year Total 5 Year Total 10 YearTotal 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


Ecological BenefitsEcological Benefits

West Virginia UniversityWest Virginia University Water Research InstituteWater Research Institute 3131

Recoverable EcoUnits (Miles)

Alternative

Diversity

Brook Trout

Stocked Trout

Overall Fishery

1 11.11 10.51 11.87 14.19

2 10.97 10.34 11.85 14.03

3 11.11 10.51 11.87 14.19

4 12.68 12.25 11.98 15.93

5 4.76 3.46 5.11 5.11

6 10.97 10.34 11.85 14.03

7 15.62 16.23 12.88 19.91


Net Present Value of Alternatives(2007 dollars, discounted at 3%)

Alternative 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20 Year

1 (804,389) (28,466) 1,244,503 3,296,170

2 (555,719) 167,937 1,379,802 3,333,234

3 (876,926) (222,094) 918,319 2,757,009

4 (2,642,806) (1,500,992) 225,456 3,006,527

5 (2,645,138)* (2,329,712) (1,831,562) (1,028,878)

6 (907,524) (230,247) 987,686 2,951,723

7 (2,325,786) (1,739,902) (558,897) 1,346,761


45.7 miles 16.7 miles (36%) 27.0 miles (59%)

Historic EUs Current EUs Expected EUs

Brook Trout Habitat Futures in Abram Creek: Alternative 2


Why Brook Trout?

Because We Care!Because We Care!


And yes, I know that was a carpAnd yes, I know that was a carp


49.5 miles 18.4 miles (37%) 32.3 miles (65%)

Historic EUs Current EUs Expected EUs

Overall Fisheries Futures in Abram Creek: Alternative 2


Summary•We recommend implementation of We recommend implementation of Alternative 2Alternative 2

•Three dosers-Little Ck, Head of Abrams, UNT @ Three dosers-Little Ck, Head of Abrams, UNT @ Morgan 25Morgan 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 Lowest cost/nearly highest ecological benefitbenefit

•Capital cost: Capital cost: $534,207$534,207•Annual cost: Annual cost: $ 53,147 $ 53,147 •Highest efficiency: Highest efficiency: $/ton of acid load $/ton of acid load removed.removed.

•Alternative 2 will restore main stem of Alternative 2 will restore main stem of Abram CkAbram Ck


Summary (continued)

• Further improvements in headwaters Further improvements in headwaters possible through watershed organizations possible through watershed organizations and other programs: WCAP, Sec. 319, etc and other programs: WCAP, Sec. 319, etc

• This would enable full recovery of these This would enable full recovery of these small tributaries and link with high quality small tributaries and link with high quality brook trout habitats in the Abram Creek brook trout habitats in the Abram Creek main stem Johnnycake Run main stem Johnnycake Run

• It is unlikely that the Abram Creek It is unlikely that the Abram Creek headwaters and Emory Creek will ever fully headwaters and Emory Creek will ever fully recover as brook trout habitatrecover as brook trout habitat

West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute1 Optimizing Resources for Restoring Streams...

Documents

Transcript of West Virginia UniversityWater Research Institute1 Optimizing Resources for Restoring Streams...