Tug Fork Watershed a Summary of the Watershed Assessment Section’S 1998 & 2003 Monitoring Efforts

west virginia department of environmental protection Tug Fork Watershed A summary of the Watershed Assessment Section’s 1998 & 2003 monitoring efforts

INTRODUCTION The West Virginia Department of was commonly called. Near starvation, the Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Water- men boiled their rawhide “tugs” (straps/ shed Assessment Section (WAS) assesses laces) used for tying gear to their packs watersheds of the state by monitoring and drank the soup (Brown 1851). This biological integrity, water quality, and fork became known as the “Tug” Fork, to habitat condition. Each watershed is distinguish it from the Dry Fork. Eventu- monitored on a five-year cycle. Tug Fork ally, the name also was applied to that por- watershed was monitored in 1998 and tion of “Sandy Creek” downstream of the again in 2003. This summary report is forks all the way to the confluence with based upon data generated from these Levisa Fork. efforts. The portion of the Tug Fork watershed that lies within West Virginia drains DESCRIPTION lands in McDowell, Mingo, and Wayne The Tug Fork of Big Sandy River re- counties, and it encompasses a 932 square ceived its name during the 1756 winter mile area (Figure 1). Steep-sided hills and campaign of Cherokees and Virginians mountains with numerous rock cliffs make against the Shawnees during the French & this watershed one of the most rugged in Indian War. A few companies of soldiers West Virginia. Photo by Doug Wood returning home against orders followed the Almost all the rock strata exposed in north fork of “Sandy Creek,” as the stream the watershed are classified as Pennsylva-

Figure 1. Location map nian Age. The alkaline nature of most of the strata has resulted in soils and streams well-buffered against acidic atmospheric deposition. Wayne County Streams of the Cumberland Moun- tains Subecoregion of the Central Appala- chians Ecoregion (Omernik, et. al. 1992) typically have moderate to steep gradients and substrates composed of significant Mingo County amounts of sand. The streams within the Tug Fork watershed are no different than Williamson Y# other streams in this subecoregion, with alternating riffle/run/pool habitats sporting sand deposits in the pools and slower runs. Welch In the early part of the 20th Century, railroads opened up the watershed for ex- Y# tensive coal mining (Williams 1976). Hu- Y# Major cities man population increased dramatically Major roads McDowell County during the first coal boom period and in- Tug Fork adequate sewage disposal has contributed County lines to water quality degradation ever since. Metal-laden mine water from deep and surface mines continues to impact the An Ecological Assessment of... EPA’s RBP II with some modifications. Be- cause the vast majority of stream miles in SAMPLING SUMMARY the state have riffle/run habitat, the “Single Named streams in watershed ..... 522 Habitat Approach” was the benthic collection method adopted by the Watershed Named streams visited ...... 119 Assessment Section. In each stream with Sites visited ...... 207 adequate riffle/run habitat, the Watershed Assessment Section used a rectangular- Habitat assessment sites ...... 174 frame kick-net to capture organisms dis- Water quality sampling sites ...... 176 lodged by kicking and brushing substrate objects in a specified area (two square Benthic sample sites ...... 173 meters in 1998 and one square meter in Comparable benthic sites ...... 167 2003). Determining the biological condition Random sites ...... 63 of each site involved calculating and sum- Reference sites ...... 6 marizing six community metrics based upon the benthic macroinvertebrate data: ♦ Total taxa ♦ EPT index (See glossary) Photo by Mike Sovic streams of the Tug Fork watershed. The ♦ % 2 dominant taxa Tug Fork watershed has numerous valley ♦ % EPT (See glossary) fills (Fig. 16), some represented well in the ♦ % Chironomids DEP database, some under-represented mals, but snails, mussels, aquatic worms, ♦ Hilsenhoff’s biotic index (modified) (Shank 2004). and crayfish are also members of the benthic community. These animals are im- The six benthic community metrics ECO-ASSESSMENT portant in the processing and cycling of were combined into a single index, the The watershed was assessed in nutrients, and are major food sources for West Virginia Stream Condition Index 1998 and 2003 using biological, water qual- fish and other aquatic animals. In general, (WVSCI) developed by Tetra Tech Inc. ity, and habitat evaluation techniques. a clean stream has a diverse array of (Gerritsen et. al. 2000) using the DEP’s The evaluation of these three key ecologi- benthic organisms that occupy a variety of watershed assessment data. The WVSCI cal components allows the agency to gen- ecological niches. Polluted streams gener- has proven itself a useful and cost effec- erate a clearer picture of stream health ally have a lower diversity and often are tive tool for assessing the health of West than single component assessment would devoid of pollution sensitive species. Virginia’s streams. The impairment cat- allow. The sampling techniques and as- Benthic macroinvertebrates can be egories developed within the WVSCI are sessment methods for each of the compo- collected using several techniques. The important tools the Watershed Assessment nents are presented in the following para- Watershed Assessment Section used the Section uses in making management deci- graphs. These techniques and methods sions and in allocating limited resources to are based upon Rapid Bioassessment Pro- the streams that need them most. tocols (RBPs) developed for the U.S. Envi- Photo by Karen Maes ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) and published in a document titled Rapid Photo by Ashley Thomas Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers - Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish (Plafkin et al. 1989). An updated version of this document can be viewed and downloaded from the following website: http:// www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/ download.html. The diversity of applica- tions provided by the RBPs was the primary reason they were adopted by the Watershed Assessment Section for use in assessing watersheds.

BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING Benthic macroinvertebrates are small animals without backbones that live on the bottoms of streams and lakes. Insects comprise the largest diversity of these ani-

2 ...the Tug Fork Watershed WATER QUALITY thropogenic activities and disturbances. They also recorded observations about the SAMPLING SUMMARY OF KEY Numerous disease-causing organ- substrate, water, and riparian zone. isms may accompany fecal coliform bacte- STRESSORS An important part of each assess- ria, which are released to the environment ment was the completion of a two-page in feces. Therefore, the presence of such Alkaline mine drainage (metals & rapid habitat assessment form, which produced a numerical score of the habitat bacteria in a water sample indicates the dissolved solids). potential presence of human pathogens. A conditions most likely to affect aquatic fecal coliform bacteria sample was col- Acid mine drainage (pH & metals). life. The following 10 parameters were lected at nearly every assessment site dur- evaluated: Inadequately treated sewage. ♦ ing this study. Epifaunal substrate/fish cover ♦ Physicochemical samples were col- Excess sediment deposition. Riffle frequency ♦ lected at each site to help determine what Embeddedness Inadequate riparian buffer zone. ♦ types of stressors, if any, were negatively Channel flow status ♦ impacting each benthic community. The Dredging & channelization. Velocity/depth regimes ♦ physicochemical data were helpful in pro- Bank stability ♦ viding clues about the sources of stressors. Channel alteration ♦ Some of the more important physico- Bank vegetative protection ♦ chemical parameters studied are found in streamside habitat conditions. The teams Sediment deposition ♦ the tables at the back of this document. recorded physical stream measurements, Width of undisturbed vegetation zone Assessment teams measured stream erosion potential, possible point and flow when field readings indicated there nonpoint sources of pollution, and any an- While all the parameters measure was mine drainage impacting the stream. important aspects of stream habitat, some Photo by Maggie Montali These measurements helped in the calcu- affect the benthic community at the spe- lation of total maximum daily loads cific location more than others. (TMDL) of mine pollutants in a subse- Embeddedness is the measurement of the quent study. amount of silt and sand surrounding the larger substrate particles (cobbles and boulders). Embedding limits the interstitial space (areas between and below cobbles and boulders) that benthic organisms depend on for shelter and for finding food. Figure 2 illustrates stream substrate embeddedness. Another important habitat parameter is the width of undisturbed vegetation zone. The condition of the land next to a stream has an important effect on the instream conditions (see Figure 3). An intact riparian zone, (i.e., one with a combi- nation of mature trees, saplings, and ground cover), serves as a buffer to pol-

Figure 2. Illustration of embeddedness (cross section) The view on the left is heavily embedded with sand and silt. Notice the different amounts of interstitial space (the space between the rocks and gravel).

Photo by Doug Wood

HABITAT EVALUATION Heavily embedded Lightly embedded An eight-page stream assessment form was completed at each site. At most water sites, a 100-meter section of stream and sand & silt rocks the land in its immediate vicinity were qualitatively evaluated for instream and

3 An Ecological Assessment of...

Figure 3. Stream with and without riparian buffer zone Fig. 5. Relative rank of Avg. WVSCI of subwatersheds

Worst

Mate Creek Best lutants entering a stream from runoff, con- Fig. 4. % sites in WVSCI Panther trols erosion, and provides habitat and Creek slow-release nutrient input into the stream. ranges, Tug Fk., 98 & 03

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

This section discusses the results of scored in the unimpaired category. The the three ecological components assessed Unimpaired “gray zone” is the range in which a defini- at each stream sampling site within the 33% Impaired tive call cannot be made because the vari- Tug Fork watershed. A variety of tech- 45% ability in results found in duplicate sam- niques were used to evaluate the results of pling indicates that, within this range, cer- the sampling efforts. Essentially, three tainty of impairment status is low. Further data sets were used in this evaluation: (1) Gray Zone sampling is often conducted on streams 22% data from all comparably sampled sites with gray zone sites. The remaining 20 (targeted and randomly selected) within (approximately 16%) samples had WVSCI the Tug Fork watershed for the years 1998 scores in the “gray zone.” and 2003, (2) data from only randomly In 2003, only 43 comparable benthic selected sites within the Tug Fork water- samples were collected. Of these, nine shed for 1998, and (3) data from all BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING (approximately 21%) scored in the unim- Of the 124 comparable samples col- randomly selected sites statewide (includ- paired category, and 25 (approximately lected in 1998, 59 (approximately 48%) ing Tug) for the years 1997 through 2001. 58%) fell within the impaired category. had WVSCI scores of 60.6 or lower, thus Differences in stream site selection criteria Those samples within the gray zone com- placing them in the impaired category. (e.g., criteria for targeted site selection or prised approximately 21% of the total. Forty-five (approximately 36%) samples criteria for random site selection) require Figure 5 illustrates the ranges of the separate consideration of individual sampling sites if detailed analyses are to Fig. 6. Random data,% stream miles in WVSCI ranges, be performed. Such detailed, individual Tug Fork vs. statewide analyses of each data set have been performed in the development of 100% (TMDL’s), 303(d) impaired stream reach 90% lists, stream protection category lists (such as Tier 2.5), and 305(b) water quality 80% assessments. 51 70% Greater confidence in data evalua- 63 tion can be achieved by selecting sam- 60% pling sites in a random fashion. Several of 50% the charts and graphs in this report compare the results of data analyses 40% 14

between the random samples collected . miles stream % 30% 15 from the Tug Fork watershed in 1998 and those collected statewide (including Tug 20% 35 Fork in 1998) within the five-year cycle 10% 22 (1997-2001). These analyses are identified in the graphs as random data and in 0% the text as either random data or random Statewide Tug weighted data. Impaired Gray Unimpaired

4 ...the Tug Fork Watershed WVSCI score averages by subwatershed were found near residential areas. It is for the combined 1998 and 2003 data. The sometimes difficult to determine the HABITAT EVALUATION Panther Creek subwatershed had the sources of bacterial contamination. The average scores for most RBP highest average score (approximately However, the Tug Fork watershed hosted habitat parameters were in the good range. 73.13) and the Mate Creek subwatershed very little farm livestock (and that mostly One parameter, riffle frequency, was in the had the lowest average score (46.08). in the northwestern one-fifth of the very good range and another, width of Figure 6 contrasts the Tug Fork watershed) and wildlife populations were undisturbed vegetation zone was in the watershed’s showing in the WVSCI cat- not considered overabundant. Therefore, fair range. Ten sites had very good total egories relative to the statewide random untreated and inadequately treated sewage habitat scores (160 or greater out of a total dataset. A greater percentage of stream were the most likely primary sources of of 200). Twenty-six sites had total habitat miles in the Tug Fork watershed were im- high bacteria concentrations. Many scores in the fair range (below 100) and the paired than statewide. assessment forms’ notes support this rest (171 sites) had totals in the good reasoning. range. Figure 8 illustrates the percentages WATER QUALITY In 1998, 56 of the specific conduc- of total habitat scores within the four SAMPLING tance readings (approximately 42%) from ranges. Water was collected from 129 sites all sample sites were greater than 500 At each site, field crews noted the in 1998 and 41 sites in 2004 to measure µmhos/cm, and only 13 (approximately 9%) produced values below 100 µmhos/ fecal coliform bacteria concentrations. Fig. 8. % sites in RBP habitat Many sites had very high levels, 12 with cm. These percentages were approxi- 20,000 or more/100mL. The majority of mately 60% and 2%, respectively, in 2003. ranges, Tug Fk., 98 & 03 In 1998, approximately 9% of the sites (nearly 57%) in 1998 had levels Poor samples had iron concentrations greater above 400/100mL, which is a flag value Very good Fair 0% than the acute criterion for warmwater based upon the state's water quality 11% 8% standard for contact recreation. In order fisheries of 1.5 mg/L, and approximately for a stream to meet the water quality 4% had manganese levels above the standard, bacteria cannot exceed this level human health criterion of 1.0 mg/L. in more than 10 percent of all samples However, this criterion is only applicable in taken during a month. In 2003, approxi- stream reaches extending five miles above mately 48% exceeded this flag value. drinking water source points. No samples Good The percentage of stream miles that were collected for dissolved aluminum in 81% exceeded this bacteria threshold in the Tug 1998, but in 2003, 26 samples (see table 12), Fork watershed was greater than that in including two duplicates, were analyzed the statewide random data set (Fig. 7). for that constituent. None violated the Note also the higher percentage in the Tug chronic water quality standard for µ Fork watershed over even higher levels of warmwater fisheries (not to exceed 750 g/ presence of activities and disturbances bacteria concentration (1,000/100mL and L). In 2003, only approximately 3% of the that could have been affecting the streams. 2,000/100mL). iron samples exceeded the water quality The type of disturbance observed most Most of the high bacteria levels standard and none violated the human often was roadways. Other fairly common health standard for manganese. disturbances, in descending order, were power lines, residences, and lawns. Coal Fig. 7. Random data,% stream miles in various FC bacteria mines or preparation plants were located categories, Tug Fork vs. statewide near a few sites. Many streams were 80 physically altered by channelization and 72.32 by the addition of riprap. None of the 70 sampling sites were adjacent to hayfields or pastures. 60 .61 Many environmentally-aware and 51 39 50 48. community-minded citizens within the watershed have formed civic organizations, 40 33.87 watershed associations, and other groups 68 30.65 30 27. to help solve environmental problems that plague the watershed. A notable problem % stream miles . % stream 56 20 15. these groups are currently tackling 9.98 through stream sweep cleanups, often in 10 conjunction with DEP’s and Division of 0 Natural Resources’ “litter gitter” enforce- < 400 > 400 > 1000 > 2000 ment efforts, is the illegal dumping of hu- Fecal coliform bacteria concentration in colonies/100mL man refuse. The extent of this problem is

Statewide Tug Fork reflected in the watershed’s aesthetic/trash

5 An Ecological Assessment of... visual rating compared to those in other Fig. 9. Random data, % stream miles with poor aesthetic/trash watersheds throughout the state (Fig. 9). In recent years, the actions of these visual rating for all watersheds statewide groups have shown hopeful outcomes. 18 15.9 It should be noted that the results of 16 non-random sampling are biased towards 14 more developed areas because of one of 11.9 12 the sample site selection methods used by 9.6 10 9.3 the Watershed Assessment Section. Many 8.7 streams were sampled at the road cross- 8 7.5 6.0

ings nearest to their mouths and upstream miles % stream 6 5.1 of bridges or culverts. Often, this practice 4 puts assessment teams in locations with a 2.6 2.6 2.5 1.9 good deal of human disturbances. This is 2 especially true in watersheds like Tug 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 l a c Fork’s where razor-backed ridges and a N la e io h lk S S w r k n e o e ole tt E o ie ley or o Co i h p o i Ne r ma p a Oh omac r F a Oh r t e Cheat c steep slopes limit residential, industrial, anaw p Gau Tug Fork yand we K Dunkard Ca yandott ower New r tomac D D Poto West Mid TwelveGu L Lo Mid OhioUpr OhUp Greenb Br Gu r we Tygart PoValley and business developments to the narrow Monong N Br Po Little Kanawha S wr Up Lo L stream valleys. However, the random weighted data Fig. 10. Random data,% stream miles in RBP habitat categories, do not have this bias. Figure 10 indicates Tug Fork vs. statewide that the Tug Fork watershed fared slightly 80 4 better in the RBP categories than did the 1 8 .1 . 69 statewide data set. A slightly higher 70 69 percentage of Tug Fork stream miles had total RBP habitat scores in the very good 60 range and a slightly lower percentage had scores in the fair range. 50 The random data set also shows 40 slightly better conditions overall in the combined habitat parameter category of 30 2.22 embeddedness plus sediment deposition. % stream miles . 2 .87 7 Figure 11 indicates that the percentage of 20 1 12.86 Tug Fork watershed stream miles in the 9 .7 very good category was less than that per- 10 7 .15 .15 centage statewide (approximately 10% 0 0 less). However, nearly 20% more Tug Fork 0 stream miles than statewide stream miles Poor Fair Good Very good scored in the good category. In addition, Statewide Tug Fork nearly 9% fewer Tug Fork stream miles than statewide stream miles scored in the Fig. 11. Random data,% stream miles in categories of fair category. embeddedness + sediment Figure 12 shows the relationship be- 80 2 .0 tween the WVSCI scores and the total 73 scores from the RBP Habitat Assessments 70 for all comparably sampled sites in 1998 6 60 .9 and 2003. There is only a weak positive 3 correlation between the two scores (R = 5 +0.3793341 at the 95% confidence inter- 50 val). In most ecological assessments this usually indicates that factors (e.g., water 40 8 quality or unusual climatological events) .9 5 30 2

other than habitat quality are determining % stream miles . 7 .2 8 the condition of many biological communi- 1 5.87 20 1 ties within the study area. In the Tug Fork 9.52 watershed, water quality is probably the 10 9 9 .7 .5 driving force behind benthic community 1 1 conditions at most of the sites sampled. 0 Poor Fair Good Very Good

Statewide Tug Fork

6 ...the Tug Fork Watershed

Fig. 12. Tug Fork 1998 & 2003 data, WVSCI scores vs. RBP habitat scores 100

WVSCI 60

40 Impaired Gray Unimpaired . Impaired Gray

20 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 Fair Good Very Good RBP Scores

IMPLICATIONS The study pointed out, “Sulfate and random weighted data set (Fig. 15). Numerous sites sampled during this conductivity is probably the most useful Mountaintop removal, and other, watershed assessment provided evidence chemical indicator of the condition of a older forms of mining are the primary of negative impacts to benthic stream in mined watersheds in the contributors of dissolved solids to streams macroinvertebrate communities from coal ECF...and its concentration reflects the throughout the Tug Fork watershed. The mining activities, both past and ongoing. extent of watershed disturbance.” (Pond watershed has hosted large-scale mining Even mine drainage recipient sites with pH 2004:6-7). activities since the beginning of the 20th values well within the range required by Similar effects of coal mining were Century (see Fig. 16). This has resulted the state’s water quality standards pro- seen on streams in the Tug Fork watershed not only in water quality alterations due duced impaired WVSCI scores. during this study period. Figure 13 shows directly to mining waste, but also to Similar results were found in three that of the 59 comparably sampled sites changes due to the presence of mining independent studies of other watersheds in that scored in the unimpaired WVSCI communities. A typical mining town in the southern Appalachian coalfields (Cham- range and at which specific conductance watershed concentrates residences and bers and Messinger 2001; Green et. al. was measured, only 10 (approximately businesses in a narrow river bottom that is 2000; and Pond 2004). 17%) had conductivities greater than 500 frequently flooded and has little room for µ A succinct explanation of the basis mhos/cm. Compare this to approxi- expansion without negative impacts to the for the physicochemical impacts of mining mately 56% of impaired and gray zone near stream environment. Many of the upon streams is found in the Chambers WVSCI sites in the same specific conduc- communities have sewers that carry storm and Messinger report of the Kanawha tance range. runoff along with household wastes. The River watershed (borders Tug Fork Figure 14 shows the average great bulk of these combined storm watershed on the southeast) study by the conductivity of random sites in the Tug overflows carry wastes to the lower ends Fork watershed compared to the statewide U. S. Geological Survey. of the towns they serve, where there is The Kentucky Eastern Coal Field random data. The Tug Fork data indicate inadequate treatment, if any treatment at (ECF) study reported by Greg Pond that there were likely higher averages of all, before discharging into a stream. revealed, “Dissolved solids emanating certain dissolved solids, including metals Within the watershed there are 149 from hollowfills are a primary cause of and sulfate, in the Tug Fork watershed communities identified by name in General biological impairment because of their than in the statewide data set. Indeed, the Highway County Maps West Virginia severe impact to mayflies (a key compo- Tug Fork watershed had a higher percent- produced by the West Virginia Department nent of headwater stream communities) age of stream miles with sulfate concen- of Transportation. There are only 10 and other sensitive taxa.” (Pond 2004:2). trations indicating mine drainage (> 50 publicly owned wastewater treatment mg/l) when compared to the statewide facilities and one of these is merely a

7 An Ecological Assessment of...

Fig. 13. Tug Fork 98 & 03 data, WVSCI vs. specific conductance In 1998, the DEP placed 64 streams 100 from the Tug Fork watershed on the 303(d) list of impaired streams because of violations of water quality standards for Maximum Value Line certain metals. Total maximum daily loads

80 were developed for these streams in 2002. The TMDL document implicated coal mining as a major source of these violations. The document indicated that most

60 of the primary point sources of metals

WVSCI impairments were mining-related (U.S. EPA 2002:1.11). It also explained that abandoned mine lands represented a significant 40 nonpoint source of water quality impairments. Sediment produced from mining and other land-based activities (e.g., harvested forest, oil and gas operations, 20 and roads) was identified as a potential 0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 source of high metal contamination (U.S. Specific conductance, micromhos/cm . EPA 2002:3.9, 3.10, & 3.12). Only one non- sewage collection system with no treat- to be the primary reason why approxi- mining, permitted point source was ment. Only a fraction of the 149 communi- mately half of the fecal coliform bacteria considered in the wasteload allocation ties are served by these treatment facilities. samples collected in both 1998 and 2003 calculations. All others were not expected Inadequate sewage treatment is believed exceeded the state water quality standard. to be significant sources of metals (U.S. EPA 2002:4.8). Although there were many streams The aquatic integrity of the Panther Creek negatively impacted by coal mining and subwatershed is relatively intact. Photo by Doug Wood other activities within the Tug Fork watershed during the currently reported ecological assessment, there were also some streams with few impacts. Refer- ence streams are considered the least impacted by human disturbances. None of the sites sampled in 2003 met the criteria established for reference streams, but six met those criteria in 1998 (see Fig.17). Four of the six are in the Panther Creek subwatershed. The Panther Creek subwatershed, which had the highest average WVSCI score (Fig. 5) and the lowest average specific conductance (Fig. 18), also had one of the lowest percent land coverages by mining activities (less than 1%).

Fig. 14. Random data, average conductivity Fig. 15. Random data, % stream miles with sulfate 420 >50 mg/L 412 60

47.62 400 40

379 21.98 380 20 Conductivity (uS/cm) % stream miles . % stream

360 0 Statewide Tug Fork Statewide Tug Fork

8 ...the Tug Fork Watershed

r r

r Fig. 16. Tug Fork Watershed mining influences r r r rrr r r r r rrrrr rr r r r r r$ r r rrr r$rrr r rr r rr r r $$ rrrrrr r r rr rrr r r r r rr r rr r r r rr r r r r rr rr r rr r r r rr$rrrrr rrrr rrrr r rrrr r r$ rr r r r rr 303(d) listed streams . rrrrrr rrr r r rrrrrr rrr r r r r r rrrr rrrrr$$r Mining valley fills rr rr rr rrrrr rrr r rrrrrrrrrrr r rr rr$ rrrr rr rrrr rrrrrr rr r r rr rr Augered mines r r r rr rrrr r r Abandoned mine strips rr rr rrr rr r r $ rr r r r r r Mine dams r r rr$ r r r r r rr rr rr rr rr r rr rr rrr rr rr r r r rr r rrr rrrr r r r rrrrrrrr rrrrrrrr rr Recent mine permits r r r r rr rr rrr rrr r r r r r rrr rr$$ r rr r r r r rrrr$r r r$r r r r r r r r rr rrrrrrr r r r rr r r rr rr rr r r r r Predicted zone of mtntop mining rr rrrrr rr rr rrr rr r rr rr$ rr rr rr rr r rr rrrr r Tug Fork watershed boundary r rrrrr rrr$ r rr rrrr r$ rr r rrrr rr rr r r rr r r r rrrr rr rr r rr r rr r r r r rr r rrrr r rr rr r r r r$ r rr r r r rr r $r r rrrr r rrr rrr r rr r r r rr rrr #S rrrr $ #S#S #S

#S #S Fig. 17. Tug Fork Watershed sample sites with #S $T unimpaired WVSCI scores #S $T

#S $T$T #S#S $T $T#S $T $T$T $T #S#S ÚÊ Reference sites $T$T $T $TÊÚÊÚÊÚ#S #S $T $T Very good WVSCI (>78) ÊÚ ÊÚ $T #S $T#S #S #S$T$T $T Good WVSCI (>68-78) $T$T#S $T#S Tug Fork $T #S$T#S ÊÚ$T#S Tugsubshedspoly.shp

Fig. 18. Average conductance in micromhos/cm of subwatersheds ranked

Tug Fork 0 - 200 201 - 500 501 - 800

9 An Ecological Assessment of...

GLOSSARY DEP - West Virginia Department of Gerritsen, Jeroen, June Burton, and Williams, John Alexander. 1976. West Environmental Protection. Michael T. Barbour. 2000. A stream Virginia and the Captains of Industry. EPA - Environmental Protection Agency. condition index for West Virginia West Virginia University Library, EPT - Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, & wadeable streams. Tetra Tech, Inc. Morgantown, West Virginia. Trichoptera taxonomic orders of Owings Mills, Maryland. insects generally considered sensitive DEP. 2003. Watershed Assessment to pollution. Green, Jim, Maggie Passmore, and Hope Section’s 2003 Standard Operating parameter - a factor that restricts what is Childers. 2000. A Survey of the Procedures. West Virginia Department possible or what results. Condition of Streams in the Primary of Environmental Protection, Division RBP - Rapid Bioassessment Protocol. Region of Mountaintop Mining/Valley of Water and Waste Management, TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load. Fill Coal Mining. U.S. Environmental Watershed Assessment Section. WVSCI - West Virginia Stream Condition Protection Agency, Region III, Aquatic Index. Biology Group. Wheeling, West U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Virginia. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. REFERENCES Department of the Interior’s Office of Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, Surface Mining and Fish & Wildlife S. K. Gross and R. M. Hughes. 1989. Brown, Henry. 1851. The Virginia Service, and the West Virginia Depart- Rapid bioassessment protocols for use Historical Register, And Literary Note ment of Environmental Protection. in streams and rivers: Benthic Book. Vol. IV, Nos. II & III. 2003. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill macroinvertebrates and fish. United Draft Environmental Impact Study. States Environmental Protection Caudill, Harry M. 1962. Night Comes To Agency. EPA/444/4-89-00. The Cumberlands. Little, Brown and U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Company. Boston, Massachusetts and Agency), Region 3. 2002. Metals and Pond, Gregory J. 2004. Effects of Surface Toronto, Canada. pH TMDLs for the Tug Fork River Mining and Residential Land Use on Watershed, West Virginia. Philadel- Headwater Stream Biotic Integrity in Chambers, Douglas B. and Terence phia, Pennsylvania. the Eastern Kentucky Coalfield Region. Messinger. 2001. Benthic Invertebrate Kentucky Department of Environmen- Communities and Their Responses to tal Protection, Frankfort, Kentucky. Selected Environmental Factors in the Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Shank, Michael. 2004. Development of a Virginia, and North Carolina. Water Funding for this watershed assess- Mining Fill Inventory from Multi-date Resources Investigations Report 01- ment was provided by the U.S. Environ- Elevation Data. A paper presented at 4021. U. S. Department of the Interior mental Protection Agency and by the West the 2004 Advanced Integration of U. S. Geological Survey. Denver, Virginia Department of Environmental Geospatial Technologies in Mining and Colorado. Protection. This report was compiled by Reclamation, Dec. 7-9, 2004, Atlanta, staff of the West Virginia Department of Georgia. Cunningham, Rodger. 1987. Apples on Environmental Protection’s Watershed the Flood: the Southern Mountain Assessment Section and was published Smithson, Janice. 1998. Watershed Experience. University of Tennessee November 2006. The primary author is Assessment Program, Standard Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. Doug Wood, Environmental Resource Operating Procedures. West Virginia Specialist. The report can be viewed and Division of Environmental Protection, Dix, Keith. 1988. What’s a Coal Miner to downloaded from the internet at Office of Water Resources, Watershed Do?: The Mechanization of Coal www.wvdep.org Assessment Program. Mining. University of Pittsburgh Press, The DEP is an equal opportunity/ Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. affirmative action employer.

10 ...the Tug Fork Watershed

Figure 19. Tug Fork Subwatersheds The following data tables Miller Creek are organized by the subwatersheds shown below.

Subwatershed borders Tug Fork mainstem Major tributaries

Pigeon Creek Tug 5

Tug 4 Tug 2 Mate Creek Elkhorn Ck.

Tug 3

Panther Creek

Clear Fork Tug 1 Dry Fork

11 An Ecological Assessment of...

TABLE 1. Tug Fork 1 Subwatershed Fecal Mile Sp Cond Sulfate TSS Total Al Total Fe Deate Setream Nam ANCod WPVSCI RHB p (col./ Point (umhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 100mL) 7r/6/1998 TTug Fork Rive W2VBS 1004. 462.1 101 84.4 602 260 03.05 00.11 440 6k/17/1998 L0ittle Indian Cree W8VBST-10 479.7 102 74.8 325 55<50.0 00.0 7 6h/23/1998 R3ock Narrows Branc W3VBST-10 426.9 104 78.9 407 175 07.14 00.65 130 6h/18/1998 H4arris Branc W4VBST-10 763.4 104 83.0 801 350 <40.0 00.20 4 7h/1/1998 M5itchell Branc W3VBST-10 691.3 101 78.6 500 158 09.14 00.30 17 6k/17/1998 S9andlick Cree W03VBST-10 593.2 100 72.2 603 275 06.12 00.25 29 7k/1/1998 S9andlick Cree W7VBST-10 19. 594.6 102 77.8 801 228 09.20 00.2 16 7k/1/1998 RAight Fork/Sandlick C W4VBST-109- 422.5 101 79.7 309 160 03.40 00.28 29 7k/1/1998 LBeft Fork/Sandlick Cree W5VBST-109- 504.7 102 77.5 708 324 07.53 07.35 1 6h/17/1998 A0dkin Branc W6VBST-11 547.4 101 76.2 300 150 <50.0 07.0 2 6h/17/1998 B1elcher Branc W1VBST-11 601.3 105 73.4 606 252 <50.0 04.0 6h/30/1998 T2urnhole Branc W9VBST-11 606.6 103 73.8 809 371 09.12 00.47 48 6h/30/1998 H3armon Branc W8VBST-11 533.4 102 80.1 804 252 <40.0 01.25 2 6h/30/1998 H3armon Branc W6VBST-11 451.6 102 250 <80.0 01.28 2 7k/6/1998 S5outh Fork/Tug For W3VBST-11 627.7 102 88.2 502 158 <20.0 00.14 410 7h/1/1998 TAea Branc W7VBST-115- 830.1 102 70.6 110 25<20.0 00. 190 6h/25/1998 MBcClure Branc W2VBST-115- 808.7 104 79.2 881107.5 00.96 20 6h/25/1998 JDump Branc W2VBST-115- 797.5 101 78.3 170 3904.15 00.39 120 6k/24/1998 SEpice Cree W8VBST-115- 759.9 103 73.4 405 158 <50.0 07.22 1 7h/6/1998 LFaurel Branc W6VBST-115- 831.3 103 74.9 123 3108.61 16.1 1 6k/25/1998 RGoad For W3VBST-115- 764.2 102 75.6 604 244 07.65 10.4 70 6h/24/1998 L7oop Branc W5VBST-11 598.5 103 88.0 505 134 05.074 04.29 6h/24/1998 M8ill Branc W1VBST-11 769.2 105 70.9 510 8401.11 00.39 4 6h/24/1998 D9ry Branc W7VBST-11 912.2 105 66.7 280 5305.18 00.47 130 6k/23/1998 L0ittle Cree W01VBST-12 470.3 103 72.2 257 35<60.0 00.25 60 6k/23/1998 L0ittle Cree W29VBST-12 857.8 104 62.6 114 25<70.0 00.16 20 6h/23/1998 IAndian Grave Branc W7VBST-120- 653.2 103 71.1 334 5809.11 00.53 670 6h/16/1998 PBuncheoncamp Branc W0VBST-120- 743.1 100 79.2 270 3301.33 00.48 360 6h/24/1998 M1illseat Branc W9VBST-12 849.0 103 64.7 120 15<50.0 00.28 223 5k/14/2003 RAight Fork/Sandlick C W3VBST-109- 01. 512.2 172 76.5 369 1622 03.1 02.2 8 5h/14/2003 LFaurel Branc W2VBST-115- 14. 649.2 145 78.4 480 124 <10.0 03. 9r/17/2003 TTug Fork Rive W3VBS 1822. 513.2 134 81.4 701 120 9r/17/2003 TTug Fork Rive W3VBS 1822. 513.2 134 81.4 701 120 9r/16/2003 TTug Fork Rive W9VBS 1039. 607.2 152 88.2 701 58 9r/16/2003 TTug Fork Rive W8VBS 1758. 403.3 102 86.4 308 150 9k/16/2003 S5outh Fork/Tug For W5VBST-11 06. 746.6 185 81.1 605 75 9k/18/2003 L0ittle Cree W00VBST-12 468.5 121 83.4 302 220 9k/18/2003 L0ittle Cree W01VBST-12 442.3 122 83.4 302 280 9k/18/2003 L0ittle Cree W01VBST-12 442.3 122 83.4 302 80

12 ...the Tug Fork Watershed

TABLE 2. Tug Fork 2 Subwatershed Fecal Mile Sp Cond Sulfate TSS Total Al Total Fe Deate Setream Nam ANCod WPVSCI RHB p (col./ Point (umhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 100mL) 7k/7/1998 H3orse Cree W2VBST-6 13. 737.8 103 86.5 156 25<10.0 00.16 65 6h/25/1998 L1ick Branc W7VBST-7 380.6 102 75.7 705 290 6h/25/1998 H2armon Branc W1VBST-7 841.4 101 73.4 8048 7k/7/1998 C6lear For W05VBST-7 766.0 105 78.3 404 113 02.17 00.4 2 7k/7/1998 C6lear For W04VBST-7 812.8 107 134 05.15 09.45 1 7h/8/1998 SBhabbyroom Branc W6VBST-78- 596.4 101 83.0 287 4209.10 00.33 >2000 7h/9/1998 HDoneyCamp Branc W0VBST-78- 724.3 103 72.6 304 150 <50.0 00.77 30 7h/9/1998 CEoontree Branc W0VBST-78- 521.4 104 84.4 802 192 05.31 00.83 300 6h/30/1998 SFtonecoal Branc W0VBST-78- 735.7 105 85.2 701 253 <20.0 00. 48 7h/1/1998 BGadway Branc W2VBST-78- 552.1 101 88.0 442 95<40.0 00.68 300 6h/24/1998 NHewson Branc W0VBST-78- 273.8 103 88.1 601 152 <90.0 00.26 470 6h/24/1998 MIoorecamp Branc W6VBST-78- 626.4 104 86.3 700 255 <50.0 02.16 6h/23/1998 LAeft Fork/Davy Branc W1VBST-85- 643.6 102 82.1 304 6908.16 00.51 >2000 6h/23/1998 LAeft Fork/Davy Branc W8VBST-85- 04. 837.5 106 76.9 321 5903.18 00.68 6h/17/1998 S4hannon Branc W1VBST-9 860.5 101 79.4 114 45<50.0 00.071 27 6h/17/1998 U5pper Shannon Branc W6VBST-9 278.5 102 71.7 204 55<50.0 00.0 380 6h/17/1998 PAuncheoncamp Branc W2VBST-98- 611.7 103 77.3 130 2306.5 00.20 12 9r/24/2003 TTug Fork Rive W9VBS 731. 761.5 154 86.1 674 187 1203.5 06.9 11 9k/17/2003 C6lear For W1VBST-7 00. 675.6 154 82.3 403 3 5h/15/2003 J7enny Branc W9VBST-8 12. 951.6 143 66.3 54111. 1205.1 0.2 200

TABLE 3. Tug Fork 3 Subwatershed Fecal Mile Sp Cond Sulfate TSS Total Al Total Fe Deate Setream Nam ANCod WPVSCI RHB p (col./ Point (umhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 100mL) 7r/8/1998 TTug Fork Rive W4VBS 417. 733.0 106 85.3 600 114 04.056 00.21 16 6k/16/1998 S1ulphur Cree W6VBST-4 372.8 102 75.4 302 18 6k/16/1998 T2hacker Cree W9VBST-4 307.7 104 40.5 604 267 35.2 00.0 31 6h/16/1998 SAcissorsville Branc W4VBST-42- 597.3 102 75.3 809 443 05.92 02.62 2 6h/16/1998 MBauchinville Branc W6VBST-42- 494.1 103 43.8 605 258 13.7 05.15 6k/16/1998 G3rapevine Cree W3VBST-4 522.4 104 72.3 701 381 17.1 00.29 560 6k/16/1998 LAick For W4VBST-43- 427.4 104 38.7 700 320 45.3 05.0 < 7k/7/1998 B7ull Cree W6VBST-5 03. 674.7 100 83.4 256 65<20.0 00.15 250 7k/7/1998 LBeft Fork/Bull Cree W5VBST-57- 337.7 101 80.8 209 <1 9k/17/2003 B6eech Cree W1VBST-4 01. 668.3 184 70.1 1607 4557 04.0 00.1 620 9k/23/2003 B2en Cree W2VBST-5 02. 512.7 174 83.2 944 3573 01.0 08.2 11

TABLE 4. Tug Fork 4 Subwatershed Fecal Mile Sp Cond Sulfate TSS Total Al Total Fe Deate Setream Nam ANCod WPVSCI RHB p (col./ Point (umhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 100mL) 6k/17/1998 M7iller Cree W5VBST-2 28. 657.8 103 77.4 125 3808.83 10.5 18 6k/17/1998 MCill For W6VBST-27- 707.1 106 71.9 263 5109.29 09.69 9 6k/23/1998 B1uffalo Cree W18VBST-3 672.5 101 74.5 304 142 06. 00. 940 6k/15/1998 SBouth Fork/Buffalo Cree W5VBST-31- 771.9 103 74.5 109 81 6k/15/1998 S2ugartree Cree W3VBST-3 529.3 103 70.2 256 8702.29 10.6 49 6k/17/1998 W3illiamson Cree W8VBST-3 433.4 100 79.3 298 9603.070 00.13 2800 6k/22/1998 S4ycamore Cree W8VBST-3 637.1 104 80.1 503 152 <30.0 00.12 24 6k/15/1998 L5ick Cree W8VBST-3 563.2 105 78.8 407 57 6h/22/1998 D6ick Williamson Branc W7VBST-3 383.1 100 74.5 909 454 <70.0 00.09 580 7k/1/1998 S8prouse Cree W6VBST-3 551.9 6085.1 1031 427 09.4 08.5 1 5k/7/2003 L5ick Cree W2VBST-3 24. 694.6 173 79.8 1603 4678 05.1 06.3 8

13 An Ecological Assessment of...

TABLE 5. Tug Fork 5 Subwatershed Fecal Mile Sp Cond Sulfate TSS Total Al Total Fe Deate Setream Nam ANCod WPVSCI RHB p (col./ Point (umhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 100mL) 6h/25/1998 P3owderMill Branc W6VBST- 348.1 7074.1 618 1702.058 10.7 80 6h/30/1998 PAainter Branc W6VBST-10-0.5 768.0 101 78.4 6070 7k/7/1998 B4ull Cree W3VBST-1 649.5 100 77.8 300 280 6k/24/1998 RBight Fork/Bull Cree W6VBST-14- 782.6 102 74.8 100 350 6k/30/1998 S6ilver Cree W6VBST-1 599.3 9074.8 104 140 6k/30/1998 J7ennie Cree W7VBST-1 20. 503.8 103 70.6 167 1506.1 00. 76 7k/7/1998 M9arrowbone Cree W9VBST-1 00. 650.8 9073.9 508 155 <90.0 00.57 48 7k/6/1998 M9arrowbone Cree W87VBST-1 758.2 100 83.1 508 262 08.2 00.1 47 9k/22/2003 L7ost Cree W7VBST- 15. 581.5 9563.6 102 460 9k/16/2003 J7ennie Cree W7VBST-1 04. 554.9 9271.4 454 5570. 06.0 10.5 37 9k/17/2003 M9arrowbone Cree W1VBST-1 31. 434.0 114 83.1 708 237 <209.0 04.1 4

Miller Creek

NO BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED

TABLE 6. Clear Fork Subwatershed Fecal Mile Sp Cond Sulfate TSS Total Al Total Fe Deate Setream Nam ANCod WPVSCI RHB p (col./ Point (umhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 100mL) 7k/1/1998 C6lear For W2VBST-7 160. 480.1 102 86.1 319 95<40.0 00.23 360 6k/24/1998 C6lear For W6VBST-7 54. 633.6 105 80.0 305 75<90.0 00.46 86 6h/24/1998 DEaycamp Branc W4VBST-76- 832.2 105 73.7 168 2604.29 05.71 4

TABLE 7 Mate Creek Subwatershed Fecal Mile Sp Cond Sulfate TSS Total Al Total Fe Deate Setream Nam ANCod WPVSCI RHB p (col./ Point (umhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 100mL) 6k/15/1998 M0ate Cree W8VBST-4 316.0 102 72.9 504 254 <40.0 00.1 150 7h/1/1998 RButherfork Branc W5VBST-40- 479.6 101 50.2 709 356 13. 25. 13 6h/16/1998 MCitchell Branc W3VBST-40- 392.9 103 74.9 809 340 07.30 00.37 140 6h/15/1998 CDhafin Branc W1VBST-40- 476.3 101 64.6 706 357 <90.0 00.15 12 6k/15/1998 DHouble Camp For W4VBST-40- 645.4 101 77.6 304 58 9k/24/2003 M0ate Cree W5VBST-4 34. 569.5 163 72.8 904 3356 02.1 00. 6

TABLE 8. Panther Creek Subwatershed Fecal Mile Sp Cond Sulfate TSS Total Al Total Fe Deate Setream Nam ANCod WPVSCI RHB p (col./ Point (umhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 100mL) 7k/7/1998 P0anther Cree W7VBST-6 540.1 103 70.9 222 25<90.0 00.16 300 7k/7/1998 P0anther Cree W1VBST-6 601.7 134 25<70.0 00.14 600 7k/7/1998 GAreenbrier For W28VBST-60- 340.9 102 77.4 237 1126.4 30.4 11000 6h/17/1998 CDub Branc W4VBST-60- 878.6 101 78.5 611207.13 00.35 52 7h/7/1998 GEeorge Branc W2VBST-60- 804.8 106 73.5 4609.095 405.32 4 7k/7/1998 CFrane Cree W6VBST-60- 877.6 105 73.3 8415<30.0 02.15 1 6h/17/1998 HGurricane Branc W9VBST-60- 05. 889.7 107 76.2 49<50.0 505.11 5 7h/8/1998 W1hite Oak Branc W8VBST-60-I- 981.2 106 72.3 4608.55 200.80 10 9k/23/2003 P0anther Cree W8VBST-6 29. 750.4 185 73.8 300 24 5k/28/2003 SIlaunch For W3VBST-60- 27. 661.8 146 73.4 151 1311. 07. 02.1 <

14 ...the Tug Fork Watershed

TABLE 9. Dry Fork Subwatershed Fecal Mile Sp Cond Sulfate TSS Total Al Total Fe Deate Setream Nam ANCod WPVSCI RHB p (col./ Point (umhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 100mL) 7k/7/1998 D0ry For W3VBST-7 16. 636.0 104 81.4 610 85<60.0 00.12 15 7k/6/1998 D0ry For W4VBST-7 198. 515.8 104 85.1 607 150 <50.0 00.0 47 7k/7/1998 D0ry For W4VBST-7 72. 605.4 104 82.6 588 85<60.0 02.097 3 7h/2/1998 MCile Branc W8VBST-70- 860.2 102 70.8 203 3900 7h/2/1998 GFrapevine Branc W7VBST-70- 583.2 101 74.6 142 25<80.0 00.13 300 7h/2/1998 BIeartown Branc W9VBST-70- 780.5 103 72.5 342 9306.71 0.16 7k/9/1998 BMradshaw Cree W8VBST-70- 13. 525.1 102 75.8 156 214414.6 1.7 7h/9/1998 G1roundhog Branc W5VBST-70-M- 382.1 102 73.8 104 3800 7h/8/1998 W3olfpen Branc W3VBST-70-M- 640.3 102 78.6 100 >2000 7k/6/1998 LNittle Slate Cree W5VBST-70- 47. 889.8 105 71.3 79<50.0 508.18 6 7k/8/1998 LNittle Slate Cree W07VBST-70- 353.6 9076.8 149 43643 175. 106. <2000 7k/8/1998 LNittle Slate Cree W7VBST-70- 25. 898.4 103 77.5 103 255922.3 30.1 360 7h/8/1998 AOtwell Branc W8VBST-70- 659. 100 80.0 214 59156 66.7 70.0 >2000 7k/9/1998 BQartley Cree W1VBST-70- 676. 104 89.2 297 405305.26 00.3 300 7k/1/1998 C2lear For W8VBST-70-T- 238. 104 78.1 701 140 7h/6/1998 B1ig Branc W2VBST-70-U- 896. 105 71.1 69<70.0 507.47 2 6k/30/1998 JWacob For W8VBST-70- 08. 658.4 104 72.7 500 152 <20.0 00.16 16 7k/1/1998 JWacob For W8VBST-70- 75. 508.5 103 88.1 508 155 <20.0 00.092 280 7k/2/1998 MAountain For W8VBST-70-W-1- 09. 597.5 103 78.8 226 6508.089 00.32 12 7k/1/1998 VZall Cree W09VBST-70- 778.0 103 75.7 143 25<70.0 00.12 320 7k/1/1998 VZall Cree W3VBST-70- 26. 877.6 105 79.5 35<60.0 500.22 15 5k/13/2003 D0ry For W3VBST-7 159. 563. 104 85.4 760 131 08.0 609.1 3 9k/17/2003 D0ry For W2VBST-7 09. 696.4 145 84.3 679 9485. 01.0 06.2 8 9k/16/2003 D0ry For W4VBST-7 375. 515.6 133 78.7 766 724. 1706.09 00.3 50 9k/17/2003 BMradshaw Cree W1VBST-70- 06. 666.7 174 83.3 304 185 9k/17/2003 LNittle Slate Cree W5VBST-70- 16. 625.1 182 78.9 207 125 9k/16/2003 WUar Cree W1VBST-70- 01. 714.4 102 86.1 204 25 9k/16/2003 B1ig Cree W2VBST-70-W- 02. 636.9 195 72.6 571 134 04.0 908.3 11 9k/16/2003 B1ig Cree W2VBST-70-W- 05. 648.2 154 154 08.09 708.2 9

TABLE 10. Elkhorn Creek Subwatershed Fecal Mile Sp Cond Sulfate TSS Total Al Total Fe Deate Setream Nam ANCod WPVSCI RHB p (col./ Point (umhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 100mL) 6k/22/1998 E9lkhorn Cree W4VBST-9 186. 579.3 104 76.8 393 55<80.0 00.26 130 6k/22/1998 NLorth Fork/Elkhorn Cree W08VBST-99- 580.5 103 88.3 404 95<70.0 00.27 >2000 6k/16/1998 NLorth Fork/Elkhorn Cree W2VBST-99- 67. 305.4 105 77.6 254 35<60.0 00.088 560 6h/22/1998 B1uzzard Branc W6VBST-99-L- 603.7 103 88.0 600 154 <50.0 00.0 460 9k/16/2003 E9lkhorn Cree W5VBST-9 26. 555.5 194 78.8 509 200 9k/17/2003 E9lkhorn Cree W6VBST-9 186. 586.4 105 89.3 409 1100 9h/17/2003 LEaurel Branc W05VBST-99- 223.1 131 85.7 338 >1200 0 9k/15/2003 NLorth Fork/Elkhorn Cree W3VBST-99- 07. 511.8 131 81.2 502 >1200 6h/5/2003 W4indmill Gap Branc W7VBST-99-L- 13. 832.9 182 79.6 370 608. 8502.6 0.8

15 The Tug Fork Watershed

TABLE 11. Pigeon Creek Subwatershed Fecal Mile Sp Cond Sulfate TSS Total Al Total Fe Deate Setream Nam ANCod WPVSCI RHB p (col./ Point (umhos/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 100mL) 7k/6/1998 P4igeon Cree W05VBST-2 513.1 103 85.1 509 124 02.3 00.6 60 6k/22/1998 P4igeon Cree W96VBST-2 582.0 9083.3 502 151 <80.0 00.32 130 6k/23/1998 P4igeon Cree W3VBST-2 229. 305.6 102 84.4 903 212 16.2 10.6 640 6k/23/1998 P4igeon Cree W8VBST-2 351. 899.7 101 76.3 195 25<20.0 07.085 1 6k/24/1998 S2pruce For W1VBST-24-E- 04. 469.7 100 89.1 701 280 09.17 00.57 23 6k/22/1998 S8immons For W5VBST-24-K- 394.6 8077.9 202 45<60.0 00.15 80 6k/16/1998 ENlk Cree W9VBST-24- 478.8 104 77.8 178 3101.12 00.43 46 6h/16/1998 MOillstone Branc W7VBST-24- 771.2 104 75.1 5315<10.0 00.076 300 6k/16/1998 PPigeonroost Cree W3VBST-24- 873.4 104 77.2 502200 6h/16/1998 S7pring Branc W0VBST-24-Q- 600.5 106 79.5 702 297 05.11 06.14 6 9k/16/2003 P4igeon Cree W5VBST-2 28. 654.9 113 88.3 881 232 <704.0 00.2 195 5k/7/2003 P4igeon Cree W5VBST-2 193. 416. 152 86.2 619 1437 01.2 00.4 105 9k/22/2003 P4igeon Cree W8VBST-2 156. 524.5 174 84.4 937 2522 04. 00.2 23 9k/16/2003 P4igeon Cree W8VBST-2 261. 595.9 123 83.5 1627 235 <109.2 06.2 7 9k/16/2003 P4igeon Cree W8VBST-2 261. 508.6 124 83.5 1627 246 09.19 600.2 6 9k/17/2003 LEaurel Fork/Pigeon Cree W8VBST-24- 19. 589.2 103 87.2 645 235 <2<60.0 04.1 7 9k/17/2003 TKrace For W5VBST-24- 04. 411.1 121 84.3 1715 431 <2<40.0 00.2 19 9k/17/2003 ENlk Cree W6VBST-24- 05. 593.6 133 87.6 777 133 <50.0 200.1 190 9k/23/2003 RQockhouse For W5VBST-24- 03. 467.9 183 77.8 701 234 <803.1 10.0 26

Jacobs Fork, a trout stream in McDowell County in the Tug Fork watershed.

TABLE 12-A. Tug Fork watershed dissolved Al samples. TABLE 12-B. Tug Fork watershed dissolved Al samples. Mile Diss Al Mile Diss Al Deate Setream Nam ANCod Deate Setream Nam ANCod Point (mg/L) Point (mg/L) 9r/24/2003 TTug Fork Rive W9VBS 731. 0.0 9k/24/2003 M0ate Cree W5VBST-4 31. 0. 9k/16/2003 J7ennie Cree W7VBST-1 02. <0.0 9k/17/2003 B6eech Cree W1VBST-4 02. <0.0 9k/17/2003 M9arrowbone Cree W1VBST-1 32. <0.0 9k/23/2003 B2en Cree W2VBST-5 02. <0.0 5k/7/2003 P4igeon Cree W5VBST-2 113. 0. 5k/28/2003 SIlaunch For W3VBST-60- 22. <0.0 9k/16/2003 P4igeon Cree W8VBST-2 261. 0.1 9k/17/2003 D0ry For W2VBST-7 02. <0.0 9k/22/2003 P4igeon Cree W8VBST-2 156. 0.1 9k/16/2003 D0ry For W4VBST-7 325. <0.0 9k/16/2003 P4igeon Cree W5VBST-2 23. 0.0 5k/13/2003 D0ry For W3VBST-7 129. <0.0 9k/17/2003 LEaurel Fork/Pigeon Cree W8VBST-24- 12. <0.0 9k/16/2003 B1ig Cree W2VBST-70-W- 02. 0.0 9k/17/2003 TKrace For W5VBST-24- 02. <0.0 5h/15/2003 J7enny Branc W9VBST-8 12. <0.0 9k/17/2003 ENlk Cree W6VBST-24- 02. <0.0 6h/5/2003 W4indmill Gap Branc W7VBST-99-L- 12. <0.0 9k/23/2003 RQockhouse For W5VBST-24- 08. 0.0 5k/14/2003 RAight Fork/Sandlick Cree W3VBST-109- 02. <0.0 5k/7/2003 L5ick Cree W2VBST-3 22. <0.0 5h/14/2003 LFaurel Branc W2VBST-115- 12. <0.0