Bacterial water impairments in mining communities

1. Bacterial water impairments in mining communities Emily Sarver and Leigh-Anne Krometis February 21, 2013

2. Project Details • Sponsor • Appalachian Research Initiative for Environmental Science • Team • Emily Sarver – Asst. Prof., Mining and Minerals Engineering Mining engineering, environmental engineering, sustainability • Leigh-Anne Krometis – Asst. Prof., Biological Systems Engineering Biological systems engineering, microbiology, public health • Nick Cook – Doctoral student, Biological Systems Engineering Civil engineering, GIS, field monitoring • Support • Appalachian Technical Services • Alpha Natural Resources, Arch Coal and A&G Coal • VA DH, DEQ and DMME Data presented here have not yet been published. The following articles are currently submitted or in preparation: Cook, N., Krometis, L. and Sarver, E. Inventory of Bacterial and Biological Impairments in Central Appalachia, Proceedings of Environmental Considerations in Energy Production, Charleston, WV, April 14-18, 2013. (in revision) Cook, N., Sarver, E., Krometis, L., Sustainability and Water Quality: An Appalachian Case Study, International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, (in preparation)

3. Overview Bacterial impairments Project goals and context Research focus areas Findings to date Further research needs Sustainable solutions

4. Water resources in mining communities, opportunities for sustainable solutions

5. Bacterial impairments • Bacterial contamination remains the single largest identified cause of surface water impairments in the US • Identified by fecal indicator bacteria (FIB)  coliforms, E. coli • Typically associated with urban storm-water, municipal wastewater or agricultural discharges • Association with direct residential discharges is often locally understood, but neglected in terms of TMDL (or other mitigation) implementation • Human health risks due to potential spread of pathogens (particularly in cases of human sources) • Ecological health risks due to water quality deterioration (dependent on levels of bacteria and overall discharge makeup)

6. Project goals In Central Appalachia, plenty of anecdotal evidence suggests that bacterial water impairments are huge problem In terms of community wellbeing, we aim to: Understand just how big the problem is Understand what the primary contributors and potential effects are Put this problem into context with other “high priority” water quality issues Contribute to sustainable solutions

7. Research focus areas Regional-scale analysis of available data to assess the extent of bacterial impairments in Central Appalachia Local-scale analysis of field data to assess the specific impacts of bacterial impairments on water quality and benthic ecology

8. Assessing extent of problem • Currently, we’re conducting an inventory of FIB impairments in Central Appalachia • Challenges of GIS data include significant differences in state reporting • Published documentation of FIB contributors is very scarce – but if you get out and talk to folks, you can learn a lot

9. Assessing extent of problem Contribute to the problem Obstruct solutions • Lack of proper sewerage appears to be a significant contributor to this problem in Central Appalachia • Geology and topography • Population density • Lack of awareness and/or resources • Lack of stakeholder cooperation • Disabling/dis-incentivizing regulatory framework • Despite increasing rhetoric calling for “sustainable solutions” and “corporate social responsibility,” holistic management of water resources is incredibly difficult

10. Assessing extent of problem FIB impairments by watershed category Wetland Ag. Develop. Forest • Results indicate that in Central Appalachia • Somewhat higher FIB incidence in Appalachian counties vs. other counties in six states of interest • Significantly higher FIB incidence in watersheds which are predominantly forested and sparsely populated • Substantial number of watersheds with FIB impairments also have surface mining

11. Assessing extent of problem Recreation? Irrigation?

12. Field study *surveys at 9 locations are being conducted as part of this project; surveys results from approximately 24 other locations are being shared by industry • 2-year study of 5 paired watersheds • Water quality (monthly) • Benthic surveys (fall/spring)*

13. Field study n=54 n=135 n=48 n=36 n=54 Monthly data for July-Dec 2012

14. Field study n=54 n=135 n=48 n=36 n=54 Monthly data for July-Dec 2012

15. Reference Avg. SC (Log E. coli) Looney Creek, KY Specific conductivity (SC), μS/cm Log E. coli, MPN 198** (2.0) 194* (1.8) 183* (1.4) 314** (2.5) 194* (1.3) 156* (1.4) No significant trends observed for habitat, embeddedness or sediment scores * No mining or wastewater discharge upstream ** Significant population density in Lynch, KY; occasional E. coli presence

16. Mining + Wastewater Avg. SC (Log E. coli) Roaring Fork, VA Specific conductivity (SC), μS/cm Log E. coli, MPN 900 (0) 709 (3.8) 930 (0) 928 (1.3) 902 (2.6) 877 (2.1) 832 (2.5) 816 (2.4) 846 (2.1) No significant trends observed for habitat, embeddedness or sediment scores

17. Wastewater Avg. SC (Log E. coli) Yocum Creek, KY Specific conductivity (SC), μS/cm Log E. coli, MPN unidentified wastewater discharge 278 (3.0) 348 (3.8) 392* (2.2) 281 (2.9) 468 (4.4) 283 (3.4) 325 (3.0) No significant trends observed for habitat, embeddedness or sediment scores * No mining or wastewater discharge upstream

18. Field study n=8 n=13 n=5 n=2 n=4 Fall 2012 sampling season

19. Reference VSCI (Fall 2012) Looney Creek, KY 41** 74* No significant trends observed for habitat, embeddedness or sediment scores * No mining or wastewater discharge upstream ** Significant population density in Lynch, KY; occasional E. coli presence

20. Mining + Wastewater VSCI (Fall 2012) Roaring Fork, VA 66* 25 28 44 29 31 30 38 No significant trends observed for habitat, embeddedness or sediment scores * No mining or wastewater discharge upstream

21. Wastewater VSCI (Fall 2012) Yocum Creek, KY unidentified wastewater discharge 60* 66* 48 54 No significant trends observed for habitat, embeddedness or sediment scores * No mining or wastewater discharge upstream

22. Further research needs • Current project is set to continue for another 18 months • Field data critical to connecting water quality and benthic ecology with specific discharges • Statistical analyses of geospatial data at regional- and local-scale • Clear need for extended work • Scientific data – unambiguous links must be made between FIB impairments and ecological/human health and wellbeing • Policy – how can sustainable solutions be achieved given the current inventory of stakeholders and resources?

23. Further research needs • What is our project team doing? • Complementary research proposal just submitted to NSF • Exploring other funding opportunities to address • Regulatory barriers and more sustainable policy • Demonstration of near- and long-term impacts of FIB mitigation • Relative toxicity of wastewater discharges and assimilative capacity of receiving waters

24. Sustainable solutions? The problem must be widely recognized and documented Stakeholders must be identified and engaged Water resource services must be realistically assessed in terms of current status and attainability Local resources (social, technical, environmental, and economic) must be assessed and prioritized

25. Sustainable solutions? • What if the mining industry were incentivized to participate? Watershed Drainage Area “Community” Mine permit NHD 12-digit watershed FIB impairments FIB mitigation potential 25 km radius

26. Sustainable solutions? • What if the mining industry were incentivized to participate? % ofFIB impairments potentially addressed in Central Appalachia Based on analysis of available state data on FIB surface water impairments and mine permit locations; % represents (stream miles with FIB impairments and mine permits)/(stream miles with FIB impairments)

27. Thanks! Our team is greatly appreciative of any feedback Emily Sarver Assistant Professor Mining and Minerals Engineering Virginia Tech esarver@vt.edu 540-231-8139 Leigh-Anne Krometis Assistant Professor Biological Systems Engineering Virginia Tech krometis@vt.edu 540-231-4372 ARIES

29. Assessing extent of problem Total impaired stream miles in Central Appalachian counties: ~42,000 Total impaired stream miles in non-Central Appalachian counties: ~63,000

30. Assessing extent of problem Overall proportions (by land area) of watershed categories* in 6 states Proportions (by land area) of FIB-impaired watershed categories* in Central Appalachia *for a watershed to be categorized, the majority of its land area fell within the given category

31. Avg. SC (Log E. coli) Callahan Creek, VA Specific conductivity (SC), μS/cm Log E. coli, MPN 784 (0) 737 (3.4) 714 (2.9) 551 (3.4) 644 (3.4) 496* (0) 642 (3.1) 645 (4.3) 658 (3.0) 1144 (3.9) 613 (2.4) 607 (2.5) No significant trends observed for habitat, embeddedness or sediment scores * No mining or wastewater discharge upstream

32. Avg. SC (Log E. coli) Looney Creek, VA Specific conductivity (SC), μS/cm Log E. coli, MPN 670 (1.3) 572 (0.4) 652 (1.6) 674 (1.6) 686 (1.6) 666 (1.2) 651 (1.5) 38 No significant trends observed for habitat, embeddedness or sediment scores * No mining or wastewater discharge upstream

33. VSCI (Fall 2012) Callahan Creek, VA 43 56* 43 43 37 63* 57 38 48 39 40 46 48 No significant trends observed for habitat, embeddedness or sediment scores * No mining or wastewater discharge upstream

34. VSCI (Fall 2012) Looney Creek, VA 34 47 49* 29 26 38 No significant trends observed for habitat, embeddedness or sediment scores * No mining or wastewater discharge upstream