1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection, Preparation and Analysis

2.1.1. Water Samples Data Collection and Analysis Method

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) 100K stream shapefile (USGS 2007-2014), HUC10 watershed polygons (USGS 2007-2014), and stream reach watersheds (Kentucky Division of Mine Permits 2004) were used to determine watershed boundaries and water sample locations. Three field trips were conducted to collect water samples: 15 May 2017 (spring), 21-24 July 2017 (summer), and 21-25 October 2017 (fall). Weather was stable and there was no surface runoff for any of the sampling days. During the first two trips, 9 (spring) and 14 (summer) water samples were collected at drainage exit points. Any water sample collected from the watersheds’ exit points represented the watersheds according to their geological structures and land cover types [26]. Under dry (no precipitation) conditions, a perennial stream in a watershed is recharged by groundwater and all stream water exits through the lowest elevation point within the watershed. Three water samples were collected from each exit point at five-meter intervals towards the headstream.

This study followed Kentucky ambient/watershed water quality monitoring procedures for collecting water samples [42]. Water samples were collected in high density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles that were cooled to 4°C. The samples collected in the spring and summer were sent to the West Virginia University National Research Center for Coal and Energy Water Analysis Lab for analysis. The samples were filtered at the laboratory through 11-micron filter paper (Whatman 1001-125, Pennsylvania, USA) to separate the sediments from the water. The samples then were analyzed for SO4²-, alkalinity, conductivity, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Mn²+, Al³+, and Fe^2+,Fe3+. In the fall, the third water sampling analysis was conducted for in situ conductivity measurements with a larger sample size (n = 58) using a Hydrolab Quanta Water Probe (OTT Hydromet, Kempten, Germany). The conductivity levels were measured at the drainage exit points during the sampling. Data from the spring and summer sampling were used for bivariate correlation analysis. Data from the fall visit, which had the largest sample size, were used in the regression models. Figure 6 is the schematic of water quality data preparation and analysis steps.

2.1.2. Vegetation Cover Change Data Collection and Analysis Method

We used ArcGIS Desktop 10.5 for all GIS analyses [43]. Landsat and National Aerial Imagery Program (NAIP) images, and Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle images acquired between 1986 and 2017 (NASA Landsat Program 1986-2017; Kentucky Geography Network 1990-2016). Additionally, the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) was downloaded from Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC 1992-2011). These images were compiled for the mined and unmined boundaries to derive the vegetation cover data and accuracy assessment. Spectral reflectance values of near infrared (NIR) wavebands are commonly used in combination with other spectral bands to detect different land cover classes [44,45,46,47]. Satellite images are particularly beneficial for detecting land cover conversion from natural vegetation cover (e.g., deforestation; [48,50–54].

[55,56] compared four different vegetation indices (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index [NDVI], Normalized Difference Moisture Index [NDMI], Normalized Burn Ratio [NBR], and Tasseled Cap Green-Blue [TC G-B]) for known land covers (barren, vegetation), to delineate coal mine disturbed areas; NDVI provided the most accurate results (Equation 4).

NDVI = (NIR - RED)/ (NIR + RED)

Eq. 4

We followed this methodology to derive the NDVI maps between 1986 and 2017 for vegetation cover change analysis. NDVI measures vegetation greenness by computing the proportion of visible red and NIR spectral reflectance [57,58].

We studied unmined (mining percentage ≤5%) and mined sites covered with undisturbed forest, reclaimed land (reclaimed forest, reclaimed woods, and reclaimed grass/pasture land), and barren ground. We extracted NDVI maps from Landsat 5 and 8 clear images (<10% cloud coverage), which were taken between 1986 and 2014.

Using the Image Analysis tool of ArcMap (ArcGIS Desktop) 10.5 and Equation 4, time series NDVI maps were derived from each Landsat images acquired in 1986, 1990, 1994, 1999, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2017 since RGB-NDVI produces the most accurate results [59]. The NDVI data were further grouped into five classes: 1) barren (active mine); 2) reclaimed grassland; 3) reclaimed woodland (<50% forest cover); 4) reclaimed forest (>50% forest cover); and 5) undisturbed forest using the [3,59] framework. Assigning years to the barren pixels with con tool and running cell statistics tool created a composite map (Figure 7). The resulting map displayed the location of barren (active mine) areas with the latest mining year. Afterwards, we compared barren areas with 2017 vegetation classifications. For instance, we compared an area that was mined in 1994 and then later converted to reclaimed forest and was reclaimed woods in 2017. Consequently, temporal NDVI class change within a specific area was considered to be vegetation cover change for that specific area and time. For instance, forest that was converted to barren ground during the coal mining activity in a particular year was expected to be converted to reclaimed forest after several years. Vegetation cover change was estimated based on vegetation improvement from no vegetation (barren) to final vegetation cover type (reclaimed grass, reclaimed woods or reclaimed forest). We evaluated the classified pixels from National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle (DOQ), and NAIP imageries. If more than half of a pixel contained trees, they were classified as forest, if less than half they were classified as woods regardless of the remained class or classes in a pixel.

Vegetation cover change was evaluated from the latest barren land to the current (2017) vegetation cover. The Zonal histogram tool of ArcMap 10.5 produced counts of the classified pixels (barren, grass, woods, forest) in each watershed.

Figure 7. Active mining areas by years between 1986 and 2017.

Figure 7. Active mining areas by years between 1986 and 2017.

We conducted an accuracy assessment to evaluate and validate the land cover or NDVI classes derived from the satellite images using ancillary or secondary or in situ (ground truth) data [60]. NAIP, digital orthophoto quadrangle images, and NLCD were used to assess classification accuracy. Randomly selected (a total of 200 points, 50 for each class) stratified points were used for data from 1990, 2002, and 2014 [3]. We used NLCD (1992) and Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle (DOQ) (1985) images for accuracy assessment of data from 1990, NLCD (2004), DOQ (2000-2001), and NAIP (2004) images for data from 2002; NLCD (2011), and NAIP (2014) for data from 2014. The criteria used for separating reclaimed woods from reclaimed forest was visual inspection of the abundance of trees in a pixel. If a pixel contained more than 50% trees, it was classified as reclaimed forest. The accuracy assessment results provided overall accuracy of 79.5%, 80.5%, and 89.5% for 1990, 2002, and 2014, respectively. We obtained the following Kappa () for the same time periods: 67.6%, 73.1%, and 83.1%, respectively. Overall accuracy exceeded the target threshold accuracy (80%) as assumed high accuracy by [3]. The overall accuracy and Kappa statistics suggest that the vegetation cover change data were valid and usable for further statistical analysis. Accuracy assessment results are reported in Tables 3a, 3b, and 3c.

Table 3a. Accuracy assessment for land cover classes for 1990.

Table 3a. Accuracy assessment for land cover classes for 1990.

		Producer
	Classification	Barren	Grass	Woods	Forest	Row Total
User	Barren	21	1	0	2	24
	Grass	0	39	5	14	58
	Woods	0	2	11	4	17
	Forest	1	8	4	88	101
	Column Total	22	50	20	108	200
	Omission Error (%)	4.5	22	45.00	18.51
	Producer Accuracy (%)	95.5	78.0	55.0	81.5
	Commission Error (%)	12.5	48.7	35.3	12.9
	User Accuracy (%)	87.5	51.3	64.7	87.1
	Overall Accuracy (%) =	79.5	Kappa (%) =		67.6

Table 3.b. Accuracy assessment for land cover classes for 2002.

Table 3.b. Accuracy assessment for land cover classes for 2002.

		Producer
	Classification	Barren	Grass	Woods	Forest	Row Total
User	Barren	42	0	0	2	44
	Grass	1	41	5	19	66
	Woods	0	1	19	7	27
	Forest	0	1	3	59	63
	Column Total	43	43	27	87	200
	Omission Error (%)	2.3	4.6	29.60	32.1
	Producer Accuracy (%)	97.7	95.4	70.4	67.9
	Commission Error (%)	4.5	37.9	29.6	6.3
	User Accuracy (%)	95.5	62.1	70.4	93.7
	Overall Accuracy (%)	=80.5	Kappa (%)	=73.1

Table 3.c. Accuracy assessment for land cover classes for 2014.

Table 3.c. Accuracy assessment for land cover classes for 2014.

		Producer
	Classification	Barren	Grass	Woods	Forest	Row Total
User	Barren	5	0	0	0	5
	Grass	2	39	2	3	46
	Woods	4	0	35	5	44
	Forest	0	1	4	100	105
	Column Total	11	40	41	108	200
	Omission Error (%)	54.5	2.5	14.60	7.4
	Producer Accuracy (%)	45.5	97.5	85.4	92.6
	Commission Error (%)	0	15.2	20.4	4.8
	User Accuracy (%)	100	84.8	79.6	95.2
	Overall Accuracy (%)	=89.5	Kappa (%)	=83.1

NDVI-based land cover classes provided an opportunity to compute average reclamation age (Equation 5 and 6); mining percentage (Equation 7); reclaimed forest percentage (Equation 8); and reclaimed woods percentage (Equation 9) for each watershed area studied. Many of the watersheds were mined multiple times in different years; therefore, average reclamation year for the watersheds was calculated by taking the weighted average of the initial reclamation year (latest mining year) and pixel counts (Equation 5).

$$Avg.Rec.Year=\frac{1986*\left(BarrenPixelCount\right)+\dots \dots .+2017*\left(BarrenPixelCount\right)}{TotalBarrenPixelCount}$$

Eq. 5

Subtracting the average reclamation year from 2017 (Equation 6) provided the reclamation age (years).

$$AverageReclamationAge=2017-avgrecyear$$

Eq. 6

Mining percentage was defined as ratio of sum of active years’ pixel values to total pixels counted for a watershed, multiplied by 100:

$$MiningPercentage\left(\mathrm{\%}\right)=\frac{\left(MinedPixelsof1986\right)+\dots .+\left(MinedPixelsof2017\right)}{TotalCountofPixelsforawatershed}*100$$

Eq. 7

Equation 8. was used to calculate reclaimed forest percentage:

$$ReclaimedForest(\mathrm{\%})=\frac{ReclaimedForestPixelCount(1986\dots 2017)}{TotalCountofPixelsforawatershed}*100$$

Eq. 8

Reclaimed woods percentage was calculated as follows:

$$ReclaimedWoods(\mathrm{\%})=\frac{ReclaimedWoodsPixelCount(1986..2017)}{TotalCountofPixelsforawatershed}*100$$

Eq. 9

Four variables were derived for further analysis: (1) Mined (mining percentage); (2) Reclamation Age (average reclamation age); (3) Reclaimed Forest; and (4) Reclaimed Woods.

2.1.3. Topographic Data

KYAPED DEM (5 ft.) aggregated to 30 m. horizontal spatial resolution was used to derive topographic variables. Then, mean elevation and mean slope for each watershed were calculated with the zonal statistics tool. Drainage density (density of streams in length in a watershed) was computed using the following equation [61].

$$D_d=(\sum L)/A$$

Eq. 10

• D_d: Drainage density
• ∑L: Total length of streams within the watershed
• A: Area of the watershed

The NHD 100K stream shapefile was extracted with the identity and intersect tools and all streams were assigned to their watershed using the spatial join tool. Next, total stream length was calculated with the summary statistics tool for each watershed. Then, drainage density was obtained for each watershed using Equation 10.

Hydrologic Soil Group maps were created with the Soil Data Viewer [62] tool. Hydrologic Soil Group maps comprise soil infiltration rates with seven ordinal categories.

Hydrologic Soil Group Classification

Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.

The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential)

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate

Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential)

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Source: USDA NRCS, 2015

These categories were translated to numbers. Based on categories and their representative scores, mean infiltration was calculated for each watershed with zonal statistics.

3. Results and Discussion

3.2. Bivariate Correlations

Among all variables, reclaimed forest and drainage density variables were transformed using square root transformation to gain normal distribution. Linearity between independent and dependent variables were checked by using scatter plots prior to running bivariate correlations and Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression models. Pearson bivariate correlation matrixes for all sampling dates and variables were employed to find significant correlations among variables (Table 6a, 6b, 6c).

There was no linear or curvilinear relationship between reclaimed forest and conductivity variables; however, the remaining scatter plots displayed linear relations between independent and dependent variables. Subsequently, another variable was created to test reclaimed forest influence on conductivity, i.e., mined without reclaimed forest (mined without RF or mined w/o RF). This variable represented the numerical difference between mined and reclaimed forest. We expected a potential influence on reclaimed forest from mined and reclamation age variables. While checking the data assumptions, a curvilinear relationship was discovered between mined and reclaimed forest variables. However, log transformation of the mined variable yielded linearity between the variables. We did not find any correlation among vegetation cover, mining percentage, conductivity and Al³⁺, Fe^2+,Fe³⁺, Mn²⁺. We concluded that either metals were not dissolved and filtered out during the filtering process or Al³⁺, Fe^2+,Fe³⁺, Mn² levels were not sufficient to detect the correlations.

Comparisons between independent and dependent variables are displayed visually with maps and symbols on Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, and Figure 13. LogMined (Independent V.) versus normalized reclamation forest percentage (Dependent V.) values (n=58, R=0.45, p< 0.01). Bivariate correlation matrix results were consistence with linearity validation results. Linear relationships that were observed in scatterplots were significant at the p≤0.05 or p≤0.01 level (Table 6a, 6b, 6c). Bivariate correlation analysis demonstrated that conductivity was strongly related to CMRSC variables [39,68], except for Fe^2+,Fe3+, Al³⁺, and Mn²⁺. An in-depth literature review also suggested conductivity was highly associated with surface coal mining in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia [26,39,41]. Based on this information, we decided to use conductivity as a representative variable for CMRSC variables in multivariate regression models.

We did not find significant correlation between topographic variables and conductivity (fall) except infiltration. There was a strong correlation between infiltration and conductivity.

Table 6.a. Pearson correlation matrix for spring field study results (n=9).

Table 6.a. Pearson correlation matrix for spring field study results (n=9).

	Mined (%)	Mined w/o RF (%)	Reclaimed Forest (%)	Reclaimed Woods (%)	Reclamation Age (Years)	Alkalinity (mg/L)	Conductivity (µS/cm)	SO42- (mg/L)	Ca2+ (mg/L)	Mg2+ (mg/L)
Mined (%)	1	0.980**	0.886**	0.920**	0.255	0.751*	0.761*	0.749*	0.776*	0.791*
Mined w/o RF (%)	0.980**	1	0.775*	0.940**	0.155	0.785*	0.794*	0.775*	0.797*	0.837**
Reclaimed Forest (%)	0.886**	0.775*	1	0.726*	0.443	0.553	0.563	0.568	0.601	0.558
Reclaimed Woods (%)	0.920**	0.940**	0.726*	1	0.338	0.907**	0.884**	0.843**	0.903**	0.914**
Reclamation Age (Years)	0.255	0.155	0.443	0.338	1	0.241	0.158	0.182	0.218	0.159
Alkalinity (mg/L)	0.751*	0.785*	0.553	0.907**	0.241	1	0.985**	0.897**	0.993**	0.962**
Conductivity (µS/cm)	0.761*	0.794*	0.563	0.884**	0.158	0.985**	1	0.933**	0.987**	0.969**
SO4 (mg/L)	0.749*	0.775*	0.568	0.843**	0.182	0.897**	0.933**	1	0.921**	0.964**
Ca (mg/L)	0.776*	0.797*	0.601	0.903**	0.218	0.993**	0.987**	0.921**	1	0.974**
Mg (mg/L)	0.791*	0.837**	0.558	0.914**	0.159	0.962**	0.969**	0.964**	0.974**	1

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).

Table 6.b. Pearson correlation matrix for summer field study results (n=14).

Table 6.b. Pearson correlation matrix for summer field study results (n=14).

	Mined (%)	Mined w/o RF (%)	Reclaimed Forest (%)	Reclaimed Woods (%)	Reclamation Age (Years)	Alkalinity (mg/L)	Conductivity (µS/cm)	SO42- (mg/L)	Ca2+ (mg/L)	Mg2+ (mg/L)
Mined (%)	1	0.940**	0.125	0.616**	-0.340	0.467*	0.734**	0.715**	0.769**	0.727**
Mined w/o RF (%)	0.940**	1	-0.221	0.495*	-0.627**	0.614**	0.838**	0.787**	0.867**	0.833**
Reclaimed Forest (%)	0.125	-0.221	1	0.320	0.847**	-0.450	-0.336	-0.243	-0.323	-0.342
Reclaimed Woods (%)	0.616**	0.495*	0.320	1	0.017	0.294	0.508*	0.485*	0.483*	0.504*
Reclamation Age (Years)	-0.340	-0.627**	0.847**	0.017	1	-0.534*	-0.603*	-0.514*	-0.610*	-0.599*
Alkalinity (mg/L)	0.467*	0.614**	-0.450	0.294	-0.534*	1	0.705**	0.604*	0.666**	0.760**
Conductivity (µS/cm)	0.715**	0.787**	-0.243	0.485*	-0.514*	0.604*	0.980**	1	0.972**	0.960**
SO4 (mg/L)	0.734**	0.838**	-0.336	0.508*	-0.603*	0.705**	1	0.980**	0.988**	0.992**
Ca (mg/L)	0.769**	0.867**	-0.323	0.483*	-0.610*	0.666**	0.988**	0.972**	1	0.967**
Mg (mg/L)	0.727**	0.833**	-0.342	0.504*	-0.599*	0.760**	0.992**	0.960**	0.967**	1

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 6.c. Pearson correlation matrix for fall field study results (n=58).

Table 6.c. Pearson correlation matrix for fall field study results (n=58).

	Mined (%)	Reclaimed Forest (%)	Reclaimed Woods (%)	Reclamation Age (year)	Conductivity (µS/cm)	Log Mined	Mined w/o RF (%)	Infiltration
Mined (%)	1	0.223	0.831**	-0.496**	0.863**	0.908**	0.965**	-0.678**
Reclaimed Forest (%)	0.223	1	0.246	0.500**	-0.072	0.451**	-0.032	-0.048
Reclaimed Woods (%)	0.831**	0.246	1	-0.329*	0.720**	0.796**	0.799**	-0.591**
Reclamation Age (year)	-0.496**	0.500**	-0.329*	1	-0.672**	0.294*	0.636**	-0.396**
Conductivity (µS/cm)	0.863**	-0.072	0.720**	-0.672**	1	0.726*	0.904**	-0.676**
Log Mined	0.908**	0.451**	0.796**	0.294*	0.726**	1	0.823**	0.580**
Mined w/o RF (%)	0.965**	-0.032	0.799**	0.636**	0.904**	0.823**	1	-0.681**
Infiltration	-0.678**	-0.048	-0.591**	0.396**	-0.676**	-0.580**	-0.681**	1

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at level 0.01.

3.3. Multivariate Regression Models Results

3.3.1. Effects of mined and reclamation age parameters on conductivity

Multivariate regression test results predicted conductivity (R²=0.825, adjusted R²=.818, F(2,55) = 129.213, p < 0.01). The regression model accounted for 81.8% of variance in conductivity prediction (Table 7a). Mined and reclamation age were significant (p < 0.01; Table 7b). Standardized beta (Β) for mined and reclamation age coefficients were 0.70 and -0.32, respectively (Table 7b), which indicate that the mined parameter was positively and strongly correlated with conductivity whereas reclamation age was significantly, but negatively, related to conductivity. Partial correlations for coefficients also confirmed that the mined parameter was more influential on conductivity than reclamation age. Infiltration was not a significant factor so it is excluded from the model. The following regression equation was predicted for conductivity:

Conductivity = 16.96*Mined-30.86*Reclamation Age+610.713

Eq. 14

We found, for this model, that the constant value was higher than [26,40], suggesting that it might have been due to inadequate control sites. However, the coefficients were comparable to those found by [26,40]. This supports the hypothesis that reclamation age has less influence on conductivity and that conductivity was best predicted with mining percentage [26,40,41]; however, none of these studies reported a correlation between reclamation age and conductivity.

Table 7.a. Regression Model A summary.

Table 7.a. Regression Model A summary.

Regression Model A Summary –Conductivity Prediction
Step	R	R2	R2 adj	Δ R2	Fchg	p	df1	df2
Mining Percentage	0.863a	0.745	0.741	0.745	163.98	<0.01	1	56
Reclamation Age	0.908b	0.825	0.818	0.08	129.21	<0.01	1	55

Table 7.b. Regression Model A coefficients.

Table 7.b. Regression Model A coefficients.

Coefficients for Final Model-Conductivity Prediction
Model	β	Β	t	p	Bivariate r	Partial r
(Constant)	610.732		4.303	<0.01
Mining Percentage	16.956	0.703	10.804	<0.01	0.863	0.610
Reclamation Age (year)	-30.860	-0.324	-4.979	<0.01	-0.672	-0.281

3.3.2. Effects of vegetation cover change on conductivity

Bivariate Pearson correlation analysis between mined without RF and conductivity was very strong and positive (R=0.90; Table 6c). Multivariate regression test results indicated significant overall goodness of fit for two predictors (mined without RF and reclamation age) that significantly predict conductivity (R²=0.832, adjusted R²= 0.826, F(2,55) =136.659, p < 0.01). The regression model accounted for 82.6% of the variance in the conductivity prediction (Table 8a). The model showed mined without RF (p < 0.01) and reclamation age (p < 0.026) were significant coefficients (Table 8b). Unstandardized beta coefficients (β) were 0.799 (mined w/o reclaimed forest) and -0.164 (reclamation age). Pearson bivariate correlation results suggested a strong positive correlation between reclaimed woods, infiltration, and conductivity. Conversely, the model showed that reclaimed woods and/or infiltration was not a significant contributor for predicting conductivity. P values were higher than 0.05 and t values were smaller than 1 for reclaimed woods; therefore, reclaimed woods was excluded in both steps. Multivariate analysis yielded the following equation for predicting conductivity:

Conductivity= 19.54*(Mined-Reclaimed Forest)-15.64*Reclamation Age+429.20

Eq. 15

The model had a slightly higher adjusted R2 value (0.826) than Regression Model A (0.818). There was no difference between undisturbed forest and reclaimed forest from a land cover standpoint, suggesting that reclaimed forest areas can be assumed as not disturbed. Comparing the coefficients of mined and mined without RF parameters, the mined without RF was a better predictor of conductivity.

We were able to improve the model by removing the reclaimed forested areas. The result indicated a positive correlation between reclaimed forest and conductivity mitigation [16]. Our findings agree with [7], who showed that there is a potential for total dissolved solids-source-control practices that incorporate FRA to improve mine-water discharge quality. The vegetation data covered a 31-year period (1986-2017) since data prior to 1986 were not reliable. Measurements of the geographic region of the reforested areas for the entire 31-year period have proven challenging due to data inconsistency. It should be noted that reclaimed forest percentage range was relatively low within the given time interval (1986-2017). This might have caused the nonexistence of a direct relationship between reclaimed forest and conductivity. However, recent improvements in Landsat imagery will likely provide more reliable data. In addition, forest recovery is expected to increase in future. This experiment should be repeated to obtain a clear idea about the influence of reclaimed vegetation on conductivity and water quality.

Table 8.a. Regression Model B summary.

Table 8.a. Regression Model B summary.

Regression Model B Summary – Conductivity Prediction
Step	R	R2	R2 adj	Δ R2	Fchg	p	df1	df2
Mined w/o RF (%)	0.904	0.816	0.813	0.816	249.09	<0.01	1	56
Reclamation Age (years)	0.912	0.832	0.826	0.016	5.26	<0.026	1	55

Table 8.b. Regression Model B coefficients.

Table 8.b. Regression Model B coefficients.

Coefficients for Final Model - Conductivity Prediction
Model	β	B	t	p	Bivariate r	Partial r
(Constant)	429.20		2.85	<0.01
Mined w/o RF (%)	19.54	0.799	11.17	<0.01	0.904	0.617
Reclamation Age (years)	-15.64	-0.164	-2.29	<0.026	-0.672	-0.127

3.3.3. Effects of reclamation age and mined operation (mining percentage) on reclaimed forest

We used multivariate regression to predict the relationship between the dependent variable reclaimed forest and the independent variables of reclamation age and mining percentage. The results indicated that the model was significant (R²=0.641, adjusted R²=0.628, F(2,55)=49.02, p < 0.01). The regression model accounted for 62.8% of variance in the reclaimed forest prediction (Table 9a), and mined and reclamation age were significant coefficients (p < 0.01 for both; Table 9b). Adding the mined parameter improved the reclaimed forest prediction greatly (R² changed from 0.250 to 0.641). Standardized beta coefficients (B) showed that log mined (0.692) and reclamation age (0.654) were positive and had similar effects in the reclaimed forest prediction (Table 9b). None of the topographic variables were added to the model because no significant correlations were found between reclaimed forest percentage and topographic variables. Multivariate regression analysis yielded the following equation for the prediction of reclaimed forest:

Reclaimed Forest= [(1.833*log₁₀Mined)+(0.121*Reclamation Age)-1.953]²

Eq. 16

Table 9.a. Regression Model C summary.

Table 9.a. Regression Model C summary.

Regression Model C Summary – Reclaimed Forest Prediction
Step	R	R2	R2adj	Δ R2	Fchg	p	df1	df2
Reclamation Age (years)	0.500	0.250	0.236	0.236	18.61	<0.01	1	56
Log Mined	0.800	0.641	0.628	0.392	35.65	<0.01	1	55

Table 9.b. Regression Model C coefficients.

Table 9.b. Regression Model C coefficients.

Coefficients for Final Model Reclaimed Forest Prediction
Model	β	B	t	p	Bivariate r	Partial r
(Constant)	-1.953		-4.037	<0.01
Reclamation Age (years)	.121	0.692	8.185	<0.01	0.500	0.741
Log Mined	1.833	0.654	7.735	<0.01	0.451	0.722

[69] reported that coal surface mine reclamation efforts in the southeastern USA are usually assessed after five years of mining activity. Conversely, the model estimates 25 years is necessary for 10% of a mined watershed to be converted to a reclaimed forest (Equation 16). These results suggest that five years may not be enough time to assess reclamation success. Many scientists have studied effective techniques to reclaim forests in areas impacted by coal mining by species composition, comparing mined and unmined sites, hydrologic properties, or best revegetation practices [7,19,70,71]. Conversely, not many studies measured the quantity of reclaimed forest in relation to reclamation age at the watershed level.

4. Conclusions

References

1. Energy and Environment Cabinet (EEC). 2016. History of Coal in Kentucky. http://energy.ky.gov/Coal%20Facts%20Library/Kentucky%20Coal%20Facts%20-%2016th%20Edition%20(2016).pdf (Accessed on August 19, 2017).
2. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2018. Kentucky Coal Facts. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=KY#tabs-3 (Accessed on July 20, 2018).
3. Townsend, P. A., D. P. Helmers, C. C. Kingdon, B. E. McNeil, K. M. de Beurs, and K. N. Eshleman. Changes in the extent of surface mining and reclamation in the Central Appalachians detected using a 1976–2006 Landsat time series. Remote Sensing of Environment 2009, 113, 62–72. [CrossRef]
4. Palmer, M. A., E. S. Bernhardt, W. H. Schlesinger, K. N. Eshleman, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, M. S. Hendryx, A.D. Lemly, G.E. Likens, O. L. Loucks, M.E. Power, P. S. White, and P.R. Wilcock. Mountaintop mining consequences. Science 2010, 327, 148–149.
5. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE). 2017. Laws, Regulations and Guidance. https://www.osmre.gov/lrg.shtm (Accessed on August 19, 2017).
6. Negley, T. L. and K. N. Eshleman. Comparison of stormflow responses of surface mined and forested watersheds in the Appalachian Mountains, USA. Hydrological Processes 2006, 20, 3467–3483. [CrossRef]
7. Zipper, C. E., J. A. Burger, J. G. Skousen, P. N. Angel, C. D. Barton, V. Davis, and J. A. Franklin Restoring forests and associated ecosystem services on Appalachian coal surface mines. Environmental Management 2011, 47, 751–765.
8. US EPA. 2005. In Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia; report # EPA 9-03-R-05002; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/tiff2png.cgi/20005XA6.PNG?-r+75+-g+7+D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C00THRU05%5CTIFF%5C00000722%5C20005XA6.TIF (Accessed on November 15, 2017).
9. US EPA. 2011. In The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian Coalfields; EPA/600/ R-09/138F; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2011. https://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=501593 (Accessed on November 15, 2017).
10. Hooke, R. Spatial distribution of human geomorphic activity in the United States: comparison with rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 1999, 24, 687–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Riitters, K.H., J. D. Wickham, R. V. O’Neill, K. B. Jones, E. R. Smith, J. W. Coulston, T. G. Wade, and J. H. Smith. Fragmentation of continental United States forests. Ecosystems 2002, 5, 815–822. [CrossRef]
12. Wickham, J. D., K. H. Riitters, T. G. Wade, M. Coan, and C. Homer The effect of Appalachian mountaintop mining on interior forest. Landscape Ecology 2007, 22, 179–187. [CrossRef]
13. Erener, A. Remote sensing of vegetation health for reclaimed areas of Seyitömer open cast coal mine. International Journal of Coal Geology 2011, 86, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Demirel, N., M. K. Emil, and H.S. Duzgun. Surface coal mine area monitoring using multi-temporal high-resolution satellite imagery. International Journal of Coal Geology 2011, 86, 3–11. [CrossRef]
15. Zourarakis, D. P. 2013. Meeting Environmental Challenges with Remote Sensing. Remote Sensing Monitors Vegetation Change Over Time. Alexandria, VA, USA: American Geoscience Institute.
16. Wei, X., H. Wei, and R. C. Viadero Jr. Post-reclamation water quality trend in a Mid-Appalachian watershed of abandoned mine lands. Science of the Total Environment 2011, 409, 941–948. [CrossRef]
17. Phillips, J. D. Impacts of surface mine valley fills on headwater floods in eastern Kentucky. Environmental Geology 2004, 45, 367–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Evans, D. M., C. E. Zipper, E. T. Hester, and S. H. Schoenholtz. Hydrologic effects of surface coal mining in Appalachia (US). Journal of the American Water Resources Association 2015, 51, 1436–1452. [CrossRef]
19. Clark, E. V., and C. E. Zipper. Vegetation influences near-surface hydrological characteristics on a surface coal mine in eastern USA. Catena 2016, 139, 241–249. [CrossRef]
20. US EPA. 2017. History of Clean Water Act. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act (Accessed on August 19, 2017).
21. Neuzel, S. G., F. T. Dulong, C. B. Cecil, N. Federko, J. J. Renton, and D. K. Bhumbla. 2007. Selenium concentrations in Middle Pennsylvanian coal-bearing strata in the Central Appalachian Basin. Open-File Report 2007-1090. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA.
22. Agouridis, C. T., P. N. Angel, T. J. Taylor, C. D. Barton, R. C. Warner, X. Yu, and C. D. Wood. Water quality characteristics of discharge from reforested loose-dumped mine spoil in eastern Kentucky. Journal of Environmental Quality 2012, 41, 454–468. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Bryant, G., S. McPhilliamy, and H. Childers. 2002. A survey of the water quality of streams in the primary region of mountaintop/valley fill coal mining. Appendix D: Stream chemistry. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia: Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (US Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia) EPA 9-03-R-00013. http://www.cet.edu/pdf/mtmvfchemistry.pdf (Accessed on December 10, 2017).
24. Hartman, K.J., M. D. Kaller, J. W. Howell, and J.A. Sweka. How much do valley fills influence headwater streams? Hydrobiologia 2005, 91–102. [CrossRef]
25. Pond, G. J., M. E. Passmore, F. A. Borsuk, L. Reynolds, and C. J. Rose. Downstream effects of mountaintop coal mining: Comparing biological conditions using family – and genus level macroinvertebrate bioassessment tools. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 2008, 27, 717–737. [CrossRef]
26. Hopkins, R. L., B. M. Altier, D. Haselman, A. D. Merry, and J. J. White. Exploring the legacy effects of surface coal mining on stream chemistry. Hydrobiologia 2013, 713, 87–95. [CrossRef]
27. Green, J., M. Passmore, and H. Childers. 2000. A survey of the conditions of stream in the primary region of mountaintop mining/valley fill coal mining. Mountaintop mining/valley fills in Appalachia. Final programmatic environmental impact statement. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA. Appendix D. http://www.epa.gov/Region3/mtntop/pdf/appendixs/d/streams-invertebrate-study/FINAL.pdf (Accessed on August 15, 2017).
28. Caruccio, F.T., J. C. Ferm, and J. Horne. 1977. Paleoenvironment of coal and its relation to drainage quality. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Industrial Environmental Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA 600/7-77/067. Available online from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, USA PB-270 080/5. https://ofmpub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=501593 (Accessed on May 5, 2018).
29. Altschuler, Z.S., M.M. Schnepfe, and C.C. Silber, F. O. Simon Sulfur diagenesis in Everglades peat and origin of pyrite in coal. Science 1983, 221, 221–227. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Casagrande, D. J. Sulphur in peat and coal. Geological Society Special Publication 1987, 32, 87–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Hower, J. C., and A. E. Bland Geochemistry of the Pond Creek coal bed, Eastern Kentucky coalfield. International Journal of Coal Geology 1989, 11, 205–226. [CrossRef]
32. Younger, P. L. Environmental impacts of coal mining and associated wastes: A. Geochemical Perspective. Journal of Geological Society 2004, 236, 169–209. [CrossRef]
33. Stumm, W., and J. J. Morgan. 1996. Aquatic chemistry: chemical equilibria and rates in natural waters. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
34. Rose, A.W., and C. A. Cravotta III. 1998. Geochemistry of coal mine drainage. In: Brady, KBC; Smith, MW; Schueck, J; eds. Coal mine drainage prediction and pollution prevention in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection: 1.1−1.22. http://www.techtransfer.osmre.gov/nttmainsite/Library/pub/cmdpppp/chapter1.pdf (Accessed on July 5, 2017).
35. Haidary, A., B. J. Amiri, J. Adamowski, N. Fohrer, and K. Nakane. Assessing the impacts of four land use types on the water quality of wetlands in Japan. Water Resources Management 2013, 27, 2217–2229. [CrossRef]
36. Chen, J., and J. Lu. Effects of land use, topography and socio-economic factors on river water quality in a mountainous watershed with intensive agricultural production in East China. PloS One 2014, 9, e102714. [CrossRef]
37. Merricks, T. C., D. S. Cherry, C. E. Zipper, R. J. Currie, and T. W. Valenti. Coal-mine hollow fill and settling pond influences on headwater streams in southern West Virginia, USA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2007, 129, 359–378. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Petty, J. T., J. B. Fulton, M. P. Strager, G. T. Merovich Jr, J. M. Stiles, and P. F. Ziemkiewicz. Landscape indicators and thresholds of stream ecological impairment in an intensively mined Appalachian watershed. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 2010, 29, 1292–1309. [CrossRef]
39. Lindberg, T. T., E. S. Bernhardt, R. Bier, A. M. Helton, R. B. Merola, A. Vengosh, and R. T. Di Giulio. Cumulative impacts of mountaintop mining on an Appalachian watershed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011, 108, 20929–20934. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Merriam, E. R., J. T. Petty, M. P. Strager, A. E. Maxwell, and P. F. Ziemkiewicz. Landscape-based cumulative effects models for predicting stream response to mountaintop mining in multistressor Appalachian watersheds. Freshwater Science 2015, 34, 1006–1019. [CrossRef]
41. Bernhardt, E. S., B. D. Lutz, R. S. King, J. P. Fay, C. E. Carter, A. M. Helton, D. Campagna, and J. Amos. How many mountains can we mine? Assessing the regional degradation of central Appalachian rivers by surface coal mining. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46, 8115–8122. [CrossRef]
42. Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW). 2005. Kentucky Ambient/Watershed Water Quality Monitoring Standard Operating Procedure Manual. http://water.ky.gov/Documents/QA/Surface%20Water%20SOPs/Historic%20SOPs/ambient_SOP.pdf (Accessed on June 11, 2017).
43. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) ArcGIS Desktop. 2016. Version 10.5, ESRI, Redland, CA, USA.
44. Cohen, W. B., and M. Fiorella. 1998. Comparison of methods for detecting conifer forest change with Thematic Mapper imagery. In: Remote Sensing Change Detection: Environmental Monitoring Methods and Applications, ed. R. S. Lunetta and C. D. Elvidge, pp. 281–308. Chelsea, MI, USA: Ann Arbor Press.
45. Coppin, P., I. Jonckheere, K. Nackaerts, B. Muys, and E. Lambin. Digital change detection methods in ecosystem monitoring; a review. International Journal of Remote Sensing 2004, 25, 1565–1596. [CrossRef]
46. Lu, D., P. Mausel, M. Batistella, and E. Moran. Comparison of land-cover classification methods in the Brazilian Amazonia basin. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 2004, 70, 723–731. [CrossRef]
47. Martinez B., and M. A. Gilabert. Vegetation dynamics from NDVI time series analysis using the wavelet transform. Remote Sensing of Environment 2009, 113, 1823–1842. [CrossRef]
48. Griffith, J. A. Geographic techniques and recent applications of remote sensing to landscape-water quality studies. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 2002, 138, 181–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. Griffith, Michael B., Susan B. Norton, Laurie C. Alexander, Amina I. Pollard, and Stephen D. LeDuc. The effects of mountaintop mines and valley fills on the physicochemical quality of stream ecosystems in the central Appalachians: a review. Science of the Total Environment 2012, 417, 1–12. [CrossRef]
50. Miller, S. N., W. G. Kepner, M. H. Mehaffey, M. Hernandez, R. C. Miller, D. C. Goodrich, K. K. Devonald, D.T. Heggem, and W. P. Miller. Integrating landscape assessment and hydrologic modeling for landcover change analysis. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 2002, 38, 915–929. [CrossRef]
51. De Fries, R., and K. N. Eshleman. Land-use change and hydrologic processes: a major focus for the future. Hydrological Processes 2004, 18, 2183–2186. [CrossRef]
52. De Smedt, F., Y. B. Liu, S. Gebremeskel, L. Hoffman, and L. Pfister. 2009. Application of GIS and remote sensing in flood modeling for complex terrain. In E. R. Babble, ed. The Practice of Social Research. 12th ed. 426-433. Independence, KY, USA: Wadsworth Publishing.
53. Genxu, W., W. Yibo, Q. Ju, and W. Qingbo. Land cover change and its impacts on soil C and N in two watersheds in the center of the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau. Mountain Research and Development 2006, 26, 153–162. [CrossRef]
54. Foley, J. A., G. P. Asner, M. H. Costa, M. T. Coe, R. DeFries, H. K. Gibbs., E. A. Howard, S. Olson, J. Patz, N. Ramankutty, and P. Snyder. Amazonia revealed: forest degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and services in the Amazon Basin. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2007, 5, 25–32. [CrossRef]
55. Sen, S., C. E. Zipper, R. H. Wynne, and P. F. Donovan. Identifying revegetated mines as disturbance/recovery trajectories using an interannual Landsat chronosequence. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 2012, 78, 223–235. [CrossRef]
56. Li, J., C. E. Zipper, P. F. Donovan, R. H. Wynne, and A. J. Oliphant. Reconstructing disturbance history for an intensively mined region by time-series analysis of Landsat imagery. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2015, 187, 557. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Lunetta, R. S., J. F. Knight, J. Ediriwickrema, J. G. Lyon, and L. D. Worthy. Land-cover change detection using multi-temporal MODIS NDVI data. Remote Sensing of Environment 2006, 105, 142–154. [CrossRef]
58. Bakr, N., D.C. Weindorf, M.H. Bahnassy, S.M. Marei, and M. M. El-Badawi. Monitoring land cover changes in a newly reclaimed area of Egypt using multi-temporal Landsat data. Applied Geography 2010, 30, 592–605. [CrossRef]
59. Hayes, D. J., and S. A. Sader. Comparison of change-detection techniques for monitoring tropical forest clearing and vegetation regrowth in a time series. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 2001, 67, 1067–1075.
60. Jensen, J. R. 2015. Introductory digital image processing: a remote sensing perspective. 4^th edition. Glenview, IL, USA: Pearson Education.
61. Horton, R. E. Drainage-basin characteristics. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 1932, 13, 350–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
62. USDA NRCS. 2015. Soil Viewer Tool. Hydrologic Soil Group Classification.
63. Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3^rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage publications.
64. George, D. 2011. SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update. 10^th ed. Delhi, India: Pearson Education India.
65. Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham. 2013. Multivariate Data Analysis: Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
66. Rogerson, P. 2001. Statistical Methods for Geography. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage publications.
67. Niresh, A., and T. Velnampy. Firm size and profitability: A study of listed manufacturing firms in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Business and Management 2014, 9, No 4.
68. Bernhardt, E. S., and M. A. Palmer The environmental costs of mountaintop mining valley fill operations for aquatic ecosystems of the Central Appalachians. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2011, 1223, 39–57. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. McElfish, J. M., and A. E. Beier. 1990. Environmental Regulation of Coal Mining: SMCRA's Second Decade. Washington, DC, USA: Environmental Law Institute.
70. Holl, K. D. Long-term vegetation recovery on reclaimed coal surface mines in the eastern USA. Journal of Applied Ecology 2002, 39, 960–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
71. Groninger, J., J. Skousen, P. Angel, C. Barton, J. Burger, and C. Zipper Mine reclamation practices to enhance forest development through natural succession. Forest Reclamation Advisory 2007, 5, 1–5.