This is a text-only version of the document "Spruce No 1 Mine - Recommended Determination - Appendix 1 - 2010". To see the original version of the document click here.

---






APPENDIX 1
Macroinvertebrates iii? 24 QE!




Abstract


Multiple analyses of macroinvertebrate data predict that the Spruce 1 project Will have
significant effects on stream biotic communities. This appendix reviews the available
evidence concerning the expected effects of the proposed Spruce No. 1 mine project on
the macroinvertebrate community of receiving streams. The biota of streams draining the
proposed Spruce No. 1 site were compared with those draining the similar and nearby
completed Dal-Tex operation. The results showed that some naturally-occurring taxa
will be locally extirpated in the receiving streams and likely be replaced by pollution-
tolerant taxa if mining and filling proceed. This conclusion is supported by direct
comparison of mined and un-mined streams and using a regionally-derived
observed/expected index. The appendix also includes a discussion of appropriate
invertebrate metrics and data collection and analysis methods and explains Why the
Agency focuses on changes to sensitive taxa and community composition. These results
are supported by the State of West Virginia’s multimetric index (WVSCI), which also
indicates that the magnitude and extent of degradation is likely to increase.




A1.1 Introduction


As previously described in the RD, macroinveitebrates are diverse in streams near the
Spruce _No. 1 project area. This appendix focuses upon survey results from streams
directly affected by the project and includes Gldhouse Branch, Pigeonroost Branch,
White Oak Branch, and Seng Camp Creek. Comparative data from adjacent mined
streams including Beech Creek, Left Fork Beech Creek, Rockhouse Creek, and Spruce


Fork are also discussed


Because of their productivity and intermediate position in the aquatic food web,
macroinvertebrates in small streams and headwaters play a critical role in the delivery of


energy and nutrients downstream (Vannote et al. 1980). Most macroinvertebrate taxa
complete 99% of their life cycle as immature larvae in streams. The Spruce No. l mine
project will likely impact most of the sensitive species, as well as several common
species, of mayflies (Ephemeroptera, or “E”), stoneflies (Plecoptera, or “P”), and
caddisflies (Trichoptera, or “T”) currently inhabiting the proposed impact streams
through direct burial, as well as chemical loading of pollutants to receiving waters. These
“EPT” taxa, as a group, are often considered sensitive to pollutants. Data from other
mountaintop mining/vallyiills (MTM/VF) related studies (Green et al. 2000, Howard et
al. 2001, Pond et al. 2008, Pond 2010) within this subecoregion show that many of these
taxa will be extirpated, that is, become locally extinct. EPA (Pond et al. 2008, Appendix
3) reported that at least 10 different genera of mayflies were commonly extirpated from
receiving streams of MTM/VF operations, as well as several common stonefly and
caddisfly genera. Previous studies revealed strong negative relationships between
macroinvertebrates, particularly mayflies, and surface coal mining in southern West
Virginia and eastern Kentucky (Chambers & Messinger, 2000; Pond 2004; Hartman et
al., 2005; Merricks et al., 2007; Pond et al., 2008, Pond et al., 2010).


















































._ __"~
\ .
\ d \ Q
Beane Q0
S vqw O M ’s,¥<~»¢¢
Dal Tex
Mme Complex   \~
évlfyeg fa ""`»»~f J"\
-»f ~f,¢=‘-=f/>§§>< 4
W fees!///v / 5
_a #;f'%"‘i ‘ ee? \
<1 Q "»\§f""`
MQ? W ,z%,; e w %“ P
ze  <»,~»2f,/”§,.,~>;¢_{,f »‘ ,*;§§§» /”“§§ £7
  ° eff ex/% °i¢ ‘
£5 jg §,f;@_?ef,»%z  ar#
gm   .ee   eg ’ “m \
Me eeee $ee%%§§%e ee
f ““""“?”~ W?" fwgf” a e '~ "QQ f gf ‘ ” #V
,e¢§§<£@;f~,ze;;§;  2 YQ/  Q W My ew” ~ em e
;,%§;~¢;§@;;,é’2§;ef§ Wwe gf:  ee » , ,, Q/  @%*e;»»~ ‘*‘
\ ‘<>,,‘*s= J
efee e § “ee ~~eeee§ ee e»ei\
ff
»~   wee;    ` ff »
Qu 2-‘ie ye  We/ Q
Me# Spruce
2% ee e '» ~ e »m~ Q  Plge
~»§i§,?» M _,X ,   , \ °"m¢ No 1 IVl|ne
We Qe Sis
f~   (55% "arm
_M  e
e Q” eg Ofdh
X <~ ace"§§ran¢h °Use Branch
,_,
White Oak Brarich H
§`Dq,ce F
\f
Q Dal Tex Mme Corrplex
\ 1 \ ,~
Spruce No 1 Mme / » NH \ ;\ \ \ 0 U 5 1 2
NHD24k H dro “ \ ‘
v_ _ Miles
_/   » , / h / _M
      A ~- _ \ -      
  ...,._,.....,..__._ . _..__ . _...,...._.   ,,.,__,.____,   "‘~"~~-‘-~~-»~--~--~~».--~.m....._..,_.........1~M..-»--»._ `; /"M -"' """" ’   'N/"
; ;¢/ _¢,,; __ x\ \_ _MM , ,M ___e ew,
5 ;» - ._ ‘ ‘w _W g   .... ..», ~ x,.,.__ '
  ' ? X     `~~\   \ =   ."  
  _ s `     _..,._____   / ,,__\ V \._,,i; \ ,,\ ; '\ ~
  \ '\     fire’ \ ~'"'> “W 2 ,E < ,»
  f   e p ~~ .   ‘ 2 "
_ .__.._._________..__.   ..,_ ,,,_ ._.,,. _ ,   ...,, ,.,, _ __ _,___,,_ ; ;\\\m _  A 0 Q59 X  ~\\ 4,   \,.e,,{,     __,_ if
-Q ,Q  »    5%     / Q Q/ ‘M ""p i  
    _   " iw   ----- f~\   `>. , -~ '*~f=~=~:=:-~~»»,  
  /_..   ,  ._ __ , ,  .V    M  M ._   _  ,W   ,MM_k_____... /   _M / , em _
@ » M   ;» f‘ f~ ~    '  ~'~'   » zf fa ~<> ` "" ~   I '\,_
       =e   £2 '  e    ~ X _f W, ,Mg   __,_,_._\ .
      ` f    { °'  \.,, _ ,Y ’ ’     ,; , l § ,W  ( x;»'<@`_m§§ 0 `fj'JQ'
  V N '               \ “90   1
  __ @ 1 ,M . _ f       ,> 52 \_ .9     u
        '   ,              Q30   \
_ . ~@ _ »_~. me - fefw   , . » _ __   Wzfw W ~ f _W " Mem -     \____ . -ef -_ _ f.
  ~        1 éafe ,5»“~\ ,-   _ __4_. _/<
\ ~\       ee “ef  'fe  1:    ,W \ 12 gg?   QQ   2
\ ,..\ 5  f ~~.=7A=/» if?  . - `     ~;ff” ' /~'~»-\ ‘ M   V.,   \\ 4'  
;    _' we _ 2      i   ' »-1--W , §*¢¥~`»§ 2   Q
' H ‘ew  ,f ' '  ¢ ;3° J' ,W f   y, » ,_   ‘ `~ yyv f; - i',~,,¢' 591,  E   ‘~. ; ffy ....... 5. ........................... , .....,,. ,,,,, .,..,.,... _ _ `;
`~ ‘\   _.Ay V » fe  Q'  y  ,  ' ee »»f>~'»_; ». 1 ~ ' _ ‘\ ,/ <   3 5 i,
- f f’ *~\        »~ 5 __ \ ' R   -  
_S   1 £e,?<     _ »‘¥ \   ‘_  ;»“~»_"', ~f*'é J . C; ai.- 1   __ /ff” ' ~ " " _ _ Cf/  
W § f . ,ff     f   . ~< my   3 , »~-.,,-~,,,.;~`_,._._. .._._... ,M 3% I  
M J /_f ge,   <\ 4  _          _V  - i  rf/ V <   <   / ,   _ ~<5.,A_;\ h ff =, ..,.,..................._. , .....,......___,._ :_ _,..,,,,,, ,,¢
I 1 _1 .M  -~    ' ~ fi »h er§“§;»-_';,¢.;~ ,"‘  1 f- _ ` ~       -@,..__ ` '  
3 \., ; W   f     "@» ,, %5°’ >>ef zi§ Y ~ _ _ \   _   f /’
I   ..,.....,,,,.. ,\ N/   _;_  " ,,<"_ 6 _,s, x\ ‘ , ”€:~`_____A < ___,/  
\ _   ,_,_` __A,A,.. ,_ _ A _N ,_ /,
I J/ H   _l /{ . ., ,.,,   \`\ I I /I ----- ~~ If 3;~.,_` ~    
1 ; ,, .... ,f Q” ; » 1 -   _,___   ff a ,,   '
~ "---~-   ..___._ ,   \»»..<'   ' \ ~ ~-~`. ' H f ----  
_,,./ N  X/   \m_ X/ _ _ _ » f     L ..-»   5, ,___   ,
  /» _g   M ,,f   ; I __   -‘I 5, ,
  _____.     _,__ I     _   _ ,. _ I   \ /,
,I/’ , "" \~ , »" _ `   "
4`   W/f ~_\ \ "_ _»   *~-\__w__,W.__\       1,
  J__N,...~   \ -~-' ee( -\ _,-.,,._K<` ~~;»-»‘ ru I - /
"°,. _./" § "~~   .M ` I , .- ' - /"
  `~~--~f~ \ "'~~ '\ \._,_,,_.,...,_"_/-"' \~\W_,_» \ 3 1 K' ‘ \».\\ _/Mm __A X | .- §
  \ »_\_"` (f ~ ; ok: /. \ .... . W K   , ,A //ex
  , \ »~~~-M _ \ _ U( f ‘ 5/W” <\ Q '
  ~ \._ `- x 2     ' *
_   A =,_ , 3 ,f \ 0 0.5 1 2
  _ \-WW. ,‘ _ 1* L gf _ ___V_ 0 ~-- Iélumelers N
Figure el. Map of Spruce No. 1 project area and adjacent Dal-Tex operation.




















Table l. List of all macroinvertebrate taxa identified from EPA samplmg efforts at the
Spruce project and Dal-Tex.
Order r Family Genus Spruce No Nh
Ollgochaeta Ollgochaeta Ollgochaeta
Nematoda Nematoda Nematoda
Proserlataoela Plagiostomidae Hydrolimax
Trlcladida Planarildae Planarlldae ~
Basommatophora Lymnaeidae Lymnaeldae
Basommatophora Physldae Physella
Basommatophora Planorbidae He/isoma
Coleoptera Dryopidae He/ichus
Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia
Coleoptera Elmidae Macronychus
Coleoptera Elmidae Microcylloepus
Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus
Coleoptera Elmidae Ou/imnius
Coleoptera Psephenidae Ectopria
Coleoptera Psephenidae Psephenus
Decapoda Cambarldae Cambarus
Diptera Ceratopogonidae Atrichopogon
Diptera Ceratopogonldae Bezzia/Palpomyia
Diptera Ceratopogonidae Dasyhe/ea
Diptera Chironomidae Acricotopus
Diptera Chironomidae Chaetocladius
Diptera Chironomidae Corynoneura
Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus
Diptera Chironomidae Diamesa
Diptera Chironomidae Eukiefferiella
Diptera Chironomidae Metriocnemus
Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra
Diptera Chironomidae Microtendipes
Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladius
Diptera Chironomidae Parachaetocladius
Diptera Chironomidae Parametriocnemus
Diptera Chironomidae Paraphaenoc/adius
Diptera Chironomidae Paratanytarsus
Diptera Chironomidae Polypedi/um
Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus
Diptera Chironomidae Smittia
Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella
Diptera Chironomidae Stenochironomus
Diptera Chironomidae Stilocladius
Diptera Chironomidae Sympotthastia <
Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus
Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannie//a
Diptera Chironomidae Thienemannimyia
Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia
Diptera Chironomidae Zavrelimyia
Diptera Empididae Chelifera/Metachela
Diptera Empidldae C/inocera
Diptera Empidldae Hemerodromia
Diptera Slmuliidae Prosimulium
Diptera Slmulildae Simulium
Diptera Tabanidae Tabanidae
Diptera Tlpulldae Antocha
Diptera Tlpulidae Crypto/abis
Diptera Tipulidae Dicranota
 
4










Table 1. Continued


Oldhouse Beech+Left


Continued +Pi eonroost Fork Beech
DaI~Tex


'X Genus Sgruce No 1 Mme
Order Famrl
Diptera Tipulidae
Diptera Tipulidae
Diptera Tipulidae
Diptera Tipulidae
Ephemeroptera Ameletidae
Ephemeroptera Baetidae
Ephemeroptera Baetidae
Ephemeroptera Baetiscidae
Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae
Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae
Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae
Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae
Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae
Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae
Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae
Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae
Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae
Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae
Megaloptera Corydalidae
Megaloptera Corydalidae
Odonata Aeshnidae
Odonata Gomphidae ’
Plecoptera Capniidae
Plecoptera Chloroperlidae
Plecoptera Leuctridae
Plecoptera Nemouridae
Plecoptera Nemouridae
Plecoptera Nemouridae
Plecoptera Peltoperlidae
Plecoptera Perlidae
Plecoptera Perlodidae
Plecoptera Perlodidae
Plecoptera Perlodidae
Plecoptera Pteronarcyidae
Plecoptera Taenioptexygidae
Plecoptera Taeniopterygidae
Trichoptera Glossosomatidae
Trichoptera Glossosomatidae
Trichoptera Goeridae
Trichoptera Hydropsychidae
Trichoptera Hydropsychidae
Trichoptera Hydropsychidae
Trichoptera Hydropsychidae
Trichoptera Hydroptilidae
Trichoptera Limnephilidae
Trichoptera Philopotamidae
Trichoptera Philopotamidae
Trichoptera Polycentropodidae
Trichoptera Psychomyiidae
Trichoptera Rhyacophijidae
Trichoptera Uenoidae
Tricladida Planariidae
L/mnophila
Limonia
Pseudolimnophila
Tipula
Ameletus
Acentre/la '
Baetis
Baetisca
Drunella
Ephemere/la
Eurylophel/a
Ephemera
Cinygmu/a
Epeorus
Stenacron
Maccaffertium/Stenonema
lsonychia
Paraleptoph/ebia
Corydalus
Nigronia
Boyeria
Lanthus
Capniidae
Hap/operla
Leuctra
Amphinemura
Ostrocerca
Prostoia
Pe/toper/a
Acroneuria
/soperla
Remenus
Yugus
Pteronarcys
Taenionema
Taeniopteryx
Agapetus
Glossosoma
Goera
Ceratopsyche
Cheumatopsyche
Diplectrona
Hydropsyche
Hydropti/a
Pycnopsyche/Hydatophy/ax
Chimarra
Dolophi/odes
Polycentropus
Psychomyia
Rhyacophila
Neophy/ax
Planariidae
 


Total Distinct Taxa
Total EPT Taxa
 














Mayfly (Ephemeroptera) data from EPA, WVDEP, and the applicant’s consultants
(DEIS-Sturm Env. Services, BMI, Inc.) revealthat collectively, Pigeonroost Branch,
Seng Camp Creek, and Oldhouse Branch contain a high ntunber of sensitive mayfly taxa
and individuals. A total of 20 taxa (Table 2) have been identified from these three
headwater streams indicating these systems offer high water quality and optimal habitat.
Many of these maytly genera have not been collected in Spruce Fork, making these
headwater streams distinctive in the permit area (those few taxa shared with Spruce Fork
are generally facultative genera (not sensitive) such as Baetisca, Baetis, Isonychia). This
list represents only an estimate of maytly richness in these streams; several other genera
have been found by WVDEP in other Spruce Fork tributaries and are potentially present
in the project area. '


Oldhouse Branch and Pigeonroost Branch represent an exceptionally high quality
resource within the Spruce Fork watershed, providing refugia for aquatic life and
potential sources for recolonizing nearby waters, which are experiencing significant
stream degradation. As many as 9 mayfly taxa have been collected by EPA in Oldhouse
Branch in any one season-specific sample (based on a random subsample of 200
organisms), with an average of 7 genera across multiple samples. This former observation
ranks in the 95th percentile of 937 samples taken by WVDEP in the Central Appalachian
ecoregion (also based on 200 organism subsamples). These data, given above, are
significant and indicate that only 5% or less ofthe total ntunber of streams in this
ecoregion have more mayfly taxa than Oldhouse Branch. On a statewide scale (greater
than 4000 samples), Oldhouse ranks in the 90th percentile. Pigjeonroost Branch contained
8 genera in a season-sdpecific sample, ranking it among the 90t percentile in the Central
Appalachians and 83' percentile statewide for single-sample observations indicating that
these streams are refugia for aquatic life and potential sources for recolonizing nearby
waters, and an exceptional, high quality resource within the Spruce Fork Watershed which
is experiencing significant stream impairment.


A recent study (Pond et al. 2008) found that mayfly richness is significantly reduced to a
few or zero genera when conductivity exceeds 500 uS/cm below mining operations in
West Virginia that are similar to the proposed action at Spruce No. l. Table 2 shows
which individual mayfly genera are found infrequently or are absent from MTM streams
having greater than 500 uS/cm. The same mining~induced pattern was documented in
the eastern Kentucky coalfields (Pond 2Ol0).


















Table 2. Presence/absence of maytly genera in the permit area. Oldhouse, Pigeonroost
and Seng Camp Creeks will be exposed to operations from the Spruce No. 1 Mine.
Frequency of occurrence of particular maytly taxa across 20 similar WV mine sites is
presentedfor comparison. NA indicates that the taxon was not collected in Pond et al.
<2<><>8> Study
r i‘si   i»ii i   iis@ii S ssrsi sis i 15 ail’     lsics TIF  T gyfiff sssi   El         J   iFf¢<1U¢`=*"¢Y Qi
  iisf   cicl   icnpl f ffl cllisi 1;f;¥f;T; sicl   lsscsgr fsr 1 ui<‘ll § _l%!*f7 iill fffilg pir‘l 7  'r‘i‘”rl 1 ff;f`_ P `ni~ '     5 rls iiii ;   V   fQGGUff€fU¢€
    ;i,<   s =i T ifiiif cii if;  lifif 5 iilr S   si;'c ffiiilf’ »cn~, iii Q f  siii T   ‘lsi   iirrcls     S is 1`§»|3€|0W\i
“i}f$f57'1`;fGfdéf3§';¢~   S   ~_i‘1  Fémii  if" ‘ J ?1'fiPSfl.,¥WGer§uS:§7‘ _ilf   ’O|dhbu'se »._' ° '°Pi eo`rirOo§t~"¥`5 f'Cam f¢ 1_>500~ S/Cm*
Caenidae  H- 
Note: Szphlonurus and Pseudocloeon reported by Sturm Env. are likely erroneous identifications _ These
genera have been excluded from this list. * Based on samples from 20 MTM/VF sites Pond et al. (2008)


Stonetly data compiled from EPA, WVDEP, and the applicant’s consulting finns show
that Oldhouse, Pigeonroost, and Seng Camp collectively yielded 16 genera of stonetlies
(Table 3). Oldhouse and Pigeor1roost both had ll total stoneily genera. A single
collection in Oldhouse by EPA (Spring 2000) had 9 genera of stonetlies which ranks
greater than the 98th percentile of all Central Appalachian streams sampled by WVDEP






2 Region III conservatively excluded two mayfly genera from Table 2 which were identified by the permittee’s
consultant. Szphlonurus is exceedingly rare in this ecoregion and can be confused with Amelerus, a much more
common inhabitant, The Region believes the identification may have been in error. Also, older taxonomic sources
placed Pseudocloeon as Acentrella (formerly of the genus Baetis), and was eventually placed in the genus Labiobaetis
This genus does not frequent headwater streams like those in Oldhouse, Pigeonroost, and Seng Camp. The Region
believes that it is most probable that previous records of Pseudocloeon are in fact, Acentrella.
















(937 samples). This means that only 2% of stream samples in this ecoregion had more
stonefly taxa than Oldhouse Within a single sampling event. This makes Oldhouse
remarkably diverse and distinctive in a Watershed that has significant impairment.
Pigeonroost Branch had 6 stoneily genera in any one season-specific sample (Spring
2000), ranking it at the 83rd percentile among 937 Central Appalachian streams. Similar
to mayllies described above, stonefly survey data showed that stonelly richness is
significantly reduced when conductivity exceeds 500 },LS/cm in mining operations similar


to Spruce No. 1. (Table 3)


Table 3. Presence/absence of stonelly genera in the permit area. Oldhouse, Pigeonroost
and Seng Camp Creeks will be exposed to operations from the Spruce No. l Mine.
Frequency of occurrence of particular stonelly taxa across 20 similar mine sites is
presented for comparison. NA indicates that the taxon was not collected in Pond et al.
(2008) study.
                              ¢ 
  tttti i ..ta    sttsl atts e t7 tis»isis1 1 S ritrr   ire   
  srrsri     ttsts     steris    
  1 t1tr Qrderi orsi   niit rsiiss~s     .rl.. .;1¥armi|   lstlt     ltlftl ;2f1eenus§.f sssr   E0 r_lr ndnouser;;:








     





          						



			


































 















	
Breathe Theme |