DOCSLIB.ORG

Tug Fork River Watershed Assessment Final Report December 31, 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tug Fork River Watershed Assessment Final Report December 31, 2013 West Virginia Watershed Assessment Pilot Project: Tug Fork River Watershed Assessment Final Report December 31, 2013 ©jonmac33 panoramio.com WVWAPP Tug Fork River Watershed Assessment Final Report West Virginia Watershed Assessment Pilot Project: Tug Fork River Watershed Assessment December 31, 2013 Report Prepared by The Nature Conservancy for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection and the United States Environmental Protection Agency Misty Downing Keith Fisher Diane Packett Ruth Thornton The Nature Conservancy 194 Airport Rd Elkins, WV 26241 Phone: (304) 637-0160 E-mail: Keith Fisher, [email protected] ii WVWAPP Tug Fork River Watershed Assessment Final Report Acknowledgments The project team would like to acknowledge the participation of several individuals and agencies who have contributed their time and expertise throughout the assessment process, from design to completion. Special thanks to our WVDEP Project Managers, Dennis Stottlemyer, Teresa Koon, and Christopher Harvey, for their ongoing support and enthusiasm. Thanks also to contributing USEPA staff: Joy Gillespie, Christine Mazzarella, and Tom DeMoss. Special acknowledgment to Terry Messinger (USGS), Greg Pond (USEPA), Michael Strager (WVU), Michael Whitman (WVDEP), and Mitch Blake (WVGES), who participated in our workshops, provided valuable datasets, and made themselves available to answer questions and provide technical expertise, even outside of the workshops. Additional thanks go out to all the participants of our technical advisory meeting, expert workshops, and end user workshops, as well as those who provided key datasets, including: Anne Wakeford (WVDNR) Larry Orr (Trout Unlimited) Nate Taylor (WVDNR) Danny Bennett (WVDNR) Frank Jernejcic (WVDNR) John Wirts (WVDEP) Tim Craddock (WVDEP) Charles Somerville (Marshall University) Martin Christ (WVDEP) Todd Petty (WVU) Michael Whitman (WVDEP) Eddie Grey (Triana Energy) Karen Miller (USACE) Michael Hatten (USACE) Rebecca Rutherford (USACE) Michael Schwartz (The Conservation Fund) Sherry Adams (USACE) Jackie Strager (WVU) Megan Rice (USACE) Braven Beaty (TNC) Herbert Andrick (NRCS) Analie Barnett (TNC) John King (WVDEP) Tamara Gagnolet (TNC) G. Paul Richter (Buckhannon River Watershed Mark Anderson (TNC) Association) Arlene Olivero (TNC) Paul & Fran Baker (Save the Tygart Watershed Association) iii WVWAPP Tug Fork River Watershed Assessment Final Report List of Tables Table 1. Tug Fork River Watershed Timeline ................................................................................................ 2 Table 2. Tug Fork River Watershed - Land Use/Land Cover 2009-2010 (Maxwell et al. 2011) .................. 11 Table 3. Rare Species in the Tug Fork Watershed (WVDNR 2005) ............................................................. 11 Table 4. Species Rankings Definitions (NatureServe 2012) ........................................................................ 13 Table 5. Invasive Species in the Tug Fork River Watershed (WVDA 2011) ................................................. 14 Table 6. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Wetland Types - Tug Fork River Watershed (USFWS 2010) . 16 Table 7. Northeast Terrestrial Habitat Types – Tug Fork River Watershed (TNC 2011c) ........................... 17 Table 8. Tug Fork River Watershed – HUC12 Watershed Information (NRCS 2009, USGS 2011) .............. 20 Table 9. Watershed Characterization Priority Models and Indices ............................................................ 22 Table 10. Definition of Objective Method Categories (Foundations of Success 2009) .............................. 26 Table 11. WVDEP Reference Stream Criteria (Pond et al. 2012) ................................................................ 27 Table 12. WVDEP Stressed Stream Criteria (Pond et al. 2012) ................................................................... 27 Table 13. Reference and Stressed Distribution Examples for Three Types of Metrics ............................... 30 Table 14. Critical Metrics for Priority Model Analysis ................................................................................. 31 Table 15. Principal Components Analysis of Streams Condition Metrics ................................................... 33 Table 16. Metrics Included in the Current Condition Analysis ................................................................... 34 Table 17. Example Values, Relative Scores, Objective Categories, and Objective Scores for Selected Catchments and Metrics ............................................................................................................................. 40 Table 18. Example Index Objective, Relative, and Combined Results for Selected Catchments for the Streams/Riparian Areas Model ................................................................................................................... 41 Table 19. Example Model Objective, Relative, and Combined Results for Selected Catchments for the Streams/Riparian Areas Model ................................................................................................................... 43 Table 20. Example Streams Water Quality Metrics for Catchment C1235 with Value, Objective Category, Objective Score, and Relative Score for Each Metric .................................................................................. 48 Table 21. Metrics Included in the Consolidated Analysis ........................................................................... 52 iv WVWAPP Tug Fork River Watershed Assessment Final Report List of Figures Figure 1. West Virginia Watershed Assessment Pilot Project HUC8 Watersheds (NRCS 2009) ................... 3 Figure 2. Tug Fork River Watershed Study Area (USGS 2005) ...................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Average Annual Temperature in the Tug Fork River Watershed (USDA/NRCS 2006a) ................. 7 Figure 4. Average Annual Precipitation in the Tug Fork River Watershed (USDA/NRCS 2006b) .................. 7 Figure 5. The Nature Conservancy Ecoregions – West Virginia (TNC 2009) ................................................. 8 Figure 6. USEPA Level III Ecoregions – West Virginia (USEPA 2011) ............................................................. 9 Figure 7. Tug Fork River Watershed – Land Use/Land Cover 2009-2010 (Maxwell et al. 2011) ................ 10 Figure 8. Tug Fork River Watershed – Impaired Streams ........................................................................... 15 Figure 9. Tug Fork River Watershed – NWI Wetlands (USFWS 2010) ........................................................ 16 Figure 10. Tug Fork River HUC12 Watersheds (NRCS 2009) ....................................................................... 19 Figure 11. Reference and Stressed Stream Catchments ............................................................................. 28 Figure 12. Threshold Definition Model ....................................................................................................... 29 Figure 13. Streams/Riparian Areas Priority Model Flowchart .................................................................... 45 Figure 14. Wetlands Priority Model Flowchart ........................................................................................... 46 Figure 15. Uplands Priority Model Flowchart ............................................................................................. 47 Figure 16. Consolidated Analysis Flowchart ............................................................................................... 50 Figure 17a. Streams Overall Results – HUC12 Level ................................................................................... 56 Figure 17b. Streams Overall Results – Catchment Level ............................................................................ 57 Figure 18. Tug Fork River Watershed - Mining Activity (Maxwell et al. 2011, WVDEP 1996, WVDEP 2011b, WVGES 2010) .............................................................................................................................................. 58 Figure 19a. Streams Water Quality Index Results – HUC12 Level .............................................................. 59 Figure 19b. Streams Water Quality Index Results – Catchment Level ....................................................... 60 Figure 20a. Streams Water Quantity Index Results – HUC12 Level ............................................................ 62 Figure 20b. Streams Water Quantity Index Results – Catchment Level ..................................................... 63 Figure 21a. Streams Hydrologic Connectivity Index Results – HUC12 Level .............................................. 64 Figure 21b. Streams Hydrologic Connectivity Index Results – Catchment Level ........................................ 65 Figure 22a. Streams Biodiversity Index Results – HUC12 Level .................................................................. 66 Figure 22b. Streams Biodiversity Index Results – Catchment Level ........................................................... 67 Figure 23a. Streams Riparian Habitat Index Results – HUC12 Level ........................................................... 69 Figure 23b. Streams Riparian Habitat Index Results – Catchment Level .................................................... 70 Figure 24a. Wetlands Overall Results – HUC12 Level ................................................................................. 72 Figure 24b. Wetlands Overall Results
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mcdowell County Comprehensive Plan
    MCDOWELL COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WVULAW Land Use and Sustainable Development Law Clinic ADOPTED _ WVULAW Land Use and Sustainable Development Law Clinic “McDowell County, West Virginia, a community on the rise, is INTRODUCTION rich in history, outdoor recreation, and friendly, hardworking, and ery few places in West Virginia have the history welcoming people. The county attracts visitors from all over the and mystique of McDowell County. The south- world to adventure, leading the way as the backbone of southern ernmost county in the Mountain State, McDow- Vell County has left an indelible mark on the region. West Virginia’s tourism industry.” With a past that often seems bigger than life, the tales of this beautiful and rugged place are now tempered by the challenges of today. Once the bustling epicenter —McDowell County’s Vision Statement of coal country, McDowell County now faces complex and longstanding issues. The vision statement serves as the foundation for Issues include high levels of substance abuse, lack future planning and decision-making in McDowell of infrastructure, a dwindling economy, lack of jobs, a County. The vision statement is forward-thinking and large number of abandoned and dilapidated structures, can help ensure that future decisions align with the and inadequate health care. While there are no easy goals and objectives set forth in the plan. Further- ways to address these issues, the community can de- more, recommendations and actions steps in the com- velop a plan that acknowledges the issues, identifies prehensive plan should be consistent with the vision methods to address the issue, and prioritizes the meth- statement.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Study of the Levisa Fork and Russell Fork Of
    A BRIEF STUDY OF THE LEVISA FORK AND RUSSELL FORK OF THE BIG SANDY RIVER by James B. Kirkwood INTRODUCTION The Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River arises in Buchanan County', Virginia, and flows northwestward through Pike County, Floyd County, Johnson County and into Lawrence County, Kentucky, where the direction of flow becomes northward. The confluence of the Levisa Fork and Tug Fork at Louisa, Kentucky, forms the Big Sandy River which flows into the Ohio River at Catlettsburg, Kentucky. The Big Sandy River drains parts of Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia. The basin covers an area of 4,281 square miles, of which 2,280 square miles are in Kentucky. Levisa Fork was chosen for study because of its importance as a fishing stream. Numerous centers of population are located along this stream. Accord- ing to the 1952 edition of the Rand McNally Reference Map, populations of the major centers were; Paintsville in Johnson County with a population of 4309, Prestonsburg in Floyd County with 3585 population, Pikeville in Pike County with 5154 population, and Elkhorn City, located on Russell Fork in Pike County, with 1349 population. The major tributaries of the Levisa Fork are: Paint Creek arising in Morgan and Magof fin Counties, Kentucky and entering Levisa Fork at Paintsville; John's Creek, on which Dewey Lake was formed, arises in Pike County and enters Levisa Fork near Prestonsburg; Beaver Creek begins in Knott County, Kentucky and enters Levisa Fork near Martin, Kentucky; Mud Creek is located entirely in Floyd County; Shelby Creek is located in Pike County; Russell Fork, which is reported on in this study, starts in Virginia and flows northwestward to its confluence with Levisa Fork at Millard, Kentucky.
    [Show full text]
  • Recognition, Carswell Eroding Refuse
    Carswell Eroding Refuse AML Project Location: Kimball, McDowell County, West Virginia Submitted by: Charles J. Miller Assistant Director WV DEP, Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation 601 57th St., S.E. Charleston, WV 25304 Phone: (304) 926-0499 Email: [email protected] Project start date: 1/16/2006 Project complete date: 5/15/2007 Construction cost: $2,542,182 Responsible agency for reclamation: WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Land Restoration Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation Contractor: Green Mountain Company Design Engineer: Ackenheil Engineers & Geologists Date Submitted: 5/12/2008 I. Background The Carswell Eroding Refuse project is located along Laurel Branch in the small coal mining community of Carswell Hollow, just north of the Town of Kimball, in West Virginia’s most southerly county of McDowell. This neighborhood is situated about 4 miles east of the City of Welch, the county seat, along US Route 52, and 12 miles north of Tazewell County, Virginia. The project area drains into Elkhorn Creek, which eventually flows into the Tug Fork River as it meanders its way westward to create the state boundary between Kentucky and West Virginia. Carswell, like so many other southern West Virginia communities, is inexorably linked to coal mining activities as they progressed throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. During these periods, many of the mining operators constructed company homes adjacent to or even on top of coal refuse areas due to the severe shortage of flat land in the steep hollows, so often found in this part of West Virginia. Gradually, however, problems began to develop that ultimately threatened both properties and lives.
    [Show full text]
  • POLREP Number 3: Martin County Coal Corp Coal Slurry Release
    Site: HGd'a '9. Break: _.f3g,·""'t,_,o__ _ Othcrr ----- POLREP NUMBER 3 KENTUCKY/WEST VIRGINIA COAL SLURRY SPILL MARTIN COUNTY COAL CORPORATION INEZ, KY EVENT: MULTI-REGIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE ATTN: DOUG LAIR, EPA REGION IV CHARLIE KLEEMAN, EPA REGION III I. SITUATION (1700 HOURS, THURSDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2000) A At approximately 0200 hours on Wednesday, 11 October 2000, an estimated 250 million gallons of coal mine fine refuse slurry were released from a 72-acre impoundment operated by Martin County Coal Corporation (MCCC). The release occurred as a result of a sudden and unexpected breach into an underground mine adjacent to MCCC's refuse impoundment. The slurry entered both the WolfCreek and Rockcastle Creek watersheds ofMartin County, Kentucky. The spilled material has impacted more than 75 miles of surface water downstream of the site, including both the Tug Fork and Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River, a tributary of the Ohio River. The Tug Fork and Big Sandy Rivers border both West Virginia and Kentucky. A Joint Information Center (JIC) has been established on site. The JIC serves to issue a joint press releases from EPA, the state of Kentucky and MCCC. The JIC will issue a press release by 1700 hours regarding analytical findings from samples collected by MCCC and Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (KYDNREPC). The OSC requests that all media inquiries be directed to the JIC at (606)395-0353. B. Several potable water and industrial intakes have been affected as a result of the spill. The following provides status and current activities being conducted regarding the affected systems: West Virginia: Fort Gay, WV, continues to conserve water by closing car washes and Laundromats.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of March 1964 Along the Ohio River
    Floods of March 1964 Along the Ohio River GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1840-A Prepared in cooperation with the States of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and with agencies of the Federal Government Floods of March 1964 Along the Ohio River By H. C. BEABER and J. O. ROSTVEDT FLOODS OF 1964 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1840-A Prepared in cooperation with the States of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and with agencies of the Federal Government UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 65 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract ------------------------------------------------------- Al Introduction.______-_-______--_____--__--_--___-_--__-_-__-__-____ 1 The storms.__---_------------__------------------------_----_--_- 6 The floods.___-__.______--____-._____.__ ._-__-.....__._____ 8 Pennsylvania.. _._-.------._-_-----___-__---_-___-_--_ ..___ 8 West Virginia.--.-._____--_--____--_-----_-----_---__--_-_-__- 11 Ohio.-.------.---_-_-_.__--_-._---__.____.-__._--..____ 11 Muskingum River basin._---___-__---___---________________ 11 Hocking River basin_______________________________________ 12 Scioto River basin______.__________________________________ 13 Little Miami River basin.__-____-_.___._-._____________.__. 13 Kentucky._.__.___.___---___----_------_--_-______-___-_-_-__
    [Show full text]
  • Data Sheet United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory -- Nomination Form
    Form No. 10-300 (Rev. 10-74) DATA SHEET UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOWTO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS ____________TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS______ [NAME HISTORIC The Hatfield-McCoy Feud Historic District_______________________ AND/OR COMMON Same _ LOCATION STREET & NUMBER See USGS Maps _NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY, TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT VICINITY OF 07 STATE CODE COUNTY CODE Kentucky 021 Pike 195 CLASSIFI CATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE ^DISTRICT —PUBLIC —OCCUPIED —AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM _BUILDING(S) —PRIVATE —UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL —PARK —STRUCTURE XBOTH —WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE —SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —OBJECT —IN PROCESS XYES: RESTRICTED ^GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED X.YES: UNRESTRICTED(cemeteries) . —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION NO v ' —MILITARY OWNER OF PROPERTY cemetery NAME Multiple Owners (see continuation sheet) STREET & NUMBER CITY. TOWN STATE VICINITY OF LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEDS.ETC. Pike County Courthouse STREET & NUMBER CITY, TOWN STATE Pikeville Kentucky REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE Survey of Historic Sites in Kentucky DATE 1975 —FEDERAL X.STATE —COUNTY _LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS Kentucky Heritage Commission CITY, TOWN STATE JTrankfort Kentuckv DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE —EXCELLENT X.DETERIORATED XuNALTERED ^ORIGINAL SITE _GOOD X.RUINS —ALTERED _MOVED DATE_______ _FAIR X.UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The Hatfield-McCoy Feud Historic District consists of three structures, three sites, and four graveyards in Pike County, Kentucky. The district is not contiguous, but in air distance spans approximately some 30 miles by 10 miles. Pike County is located in eastern Kentucky in the Cumberland Plateau region, an area characterized by sharp mountains and narrow, twisting valleys.
    [Show full text]
  • Shejedah Poster
    Martin County, Ky Effects Coal Slurry Spill Solutions The spill contained arsenic and mercury, Presented by Shajeda Uddin, Seton Hall University For nearly two decades, little has been which killed everything in the water. It done to resolve the issue with a was over five feet deep in places and On October 11, 2000, the bottom of a coal permanent effect. For short-term covered nearby residents' yards. The spill slurry impoundment owned by Massey solutions, residents have purchased polluted hundreds of miles (200–300 mi) bottled water and resort to tap only of the Big Sandy River and its tributaries Energy broke into an abandoned mine when necessary (e.g. showers). A lack of and the Ohio River. The water supply for underground. 306 million gallons spilled funding and the low economic status of over 27,000 residents was contaminated, the county has stalled efforts to remedy and all aquatic life in Coldwater Fork and into the two Tug Fork tributaries of Wolf the situation. What must be done is 1) Wolf Creek was killed. It was one of the Creek and Coldwater Fork. By morning, Temporarily rerouting clean water from worst environmental disasters ever in nearby areas, 2) Obtaining funds to filter the southeastern United States, Wolf Creek was oozing with the black the water and fix the water according to the United States waste; on Coldwater Fork, a 10-foot-wide infrastructure. Popular media attention Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). could garner the widespread support of The water is still effective as of today and stream became a 100-yard expanse of thick the people to put pressure on the federal residents report tap water being brown, slurry.
    [Show full text]
  • Slaves and Slaveholders in Tazewell County, Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2011 Bondage on the Border: Slaves and Slaveholders in Tazewell County, Virginia Laura Lee Kerr College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the African American Studies Commons, African History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Kerr, Laura Lee, "Bondage on the Border: Slaves and Slaveholders in Tazewell County, Virginia" (2011). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626665. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-sphk-dq61 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bondage on the Border: Slaves and Slaveholders in Tazewell County, Virginia Laura Lee Kerr North Tazewell, Virginia Bachelor of Arts, Bluefield College, 2009 A Thesis presented to the Graduate Faculty of the College of William and Mary in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of History The College of William and Mary May, 2011 APPROVAL PAGE This Thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Laura Lee Kerr Approved by the Committee, March, 2011 Committee Chair Professor Cindy Hahamovitch, History The College of William and Mary ______________________ Assodilte Professor Robert Vinson, History The College of William and Mary A a a — Professor Carol Sheriff, History The College of William and Mary ABSTRACT PAGE Tazewell County is located in the Appalachian Mountains of Southwest Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Resources of Virginia
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 171 COAL RESOURCES OF VIRGINIA By Andrew Brown, Henry L. Berryhill, Jr., Dorothy A. Taylor, and James V. A. Trumbull UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 171 COAL RESOURCES OF VIRGINIA By Andrew Brown, Henry L. BenyhilL Jr., Dorothy A. Tayknr, and James V. A. Trumbull Prepared in cooperation with the Virginia Geological Survey Washington, D. C., 1962 Free on application to the Geological Surrey, Waatiii«ton 26, D. C. PREFACE This report on the coal resources of Virginia has been prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Virginia Geological Survey. It is the seventh of a series of reports published by the U. S. Geological Survey as part of a program to reappraise the coal reserves of the United States. Studies of reserves in other States are contained in the following publications: Geology of the Deep River coal field, Chatham, Lee, and Moore Counties, N. C., Preliminary map, 1949; Coal resources of Montana, Circular 53, 1949; Coal resources of Michigan, Circular 77, 1950; Coal resources of Wyoming, Circular 81, 1950; Coal resources of New Mexico, Circular 89, 1950; and Lignite resources of South Dakota, Circular 159, 1952. W. E. WRATHER, Director CONTENTS Page Page Introduction .............................. 1 The Southwest field Continued Acknowledgments ..................... 1 Coal beds in the Norton formation Con. Summary of Reserves...................... 2 Description Continued Methods of preparing reserve estimates ...... 2 Aily bed ..................... 19 Classification according to charac­ Kennedy bed ................... 19 teristics of the coal.................. 3 Caldwell bed ................... 19 Rank of coal .....................
    [Show full text]
  • Matewan Before the Massacre: Politics, Coal, and the Roots of Conflict in Mingo County, 1793-1920
    Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2001 Matewan Before the Massacre: Politics, Coal, and the Roots of Conflict in Mingo County, 1793-1920 Rebecca J. Bailey Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Part of the Political History Commons, and the Social History Commons Recommended Citation Bailey, Rebecca J., "Matewan Before the Massacre: Politics, Coal, and the Roots of Conflict in Mingo County, 1793-1920" (2001). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 7148. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/7148 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Matewan Before the Massacre: Politics, Coal, and the Roots of Conflict in Mingo County, 1793-1920 Rebecca J. Bailey Dissertation submitted to the Eberly College of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Modern American History Ronald Lewis, Ph.D., Chair Van Dempsey, Ed.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Sandy/Little Sandy and Tygarts Creek Basins Boat Ramps in the Basin Daniel I
    Kentucky Geological Survey Map and Chart 192 James C. Cobb, State Geologist and Director Series XII, 2009 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, LEXINGTON LM Big Sandy/Little Sandy and Tygarts Creek Basins Boat Ramps in the Basin Daniel I. Carey Water Body Name Type Directions Fee Latitude Longitude Basin Location Nearly 7,600 miles of streams flow through the basin’s 3,440 Fishtrap Lake Lick Creek ramp any boat Ky. 80 southeast of Pikeville; left on U.S. 460; left on Ky. 1373 to ramp no 37.40779 -82.31801 Fishtrap Lake Dam ramp any boat Ky. 80 southeast of Pikeville to Ky. 1789; follow signs yes 37.43665 -82.41445 Tygarts square miles in 14 counties to the Tug Fork, Big Sandy River, and Dewey Lake Jenny Wiley State Park Marina ramp any boat Ky. 1428 east of Prestonsburg; left on Ky. 302 to state park no 37.69361 -82.72723 Big/Little Sandy Ohio River. The Tygarts Creek–Little Sandy River Basin includes Dewey Lake Jenny Wiley State Park–Stratton Branch ramp any boat Ky. 1428 east of Prestonsburg; Ky. 302 to state park; follow Ky. 302 around lake to ramp no 37.70194 -82.73893 1,160 square miles. The Big Sandy River Basin has 2,285 square RIVER o Dewey Lake Jenny Wiley State Park Campground ramp any boat Ky. 1428 east of Prestonsburg; left on Ky. 302; follow around lake to site no 37.71440 -82.73890 38.75 miles in Kentucky and 1,950 square miles in West Virginia and Dewey Lake Terry ramp any boat Ky.
    [Show full text]
  • Anglo-Siouan Relations on Virginia's Piedmont Frontier, 1607-1732
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1989 Anglo-Siouan Relations on Virginia's Piedmont Frontier, 1607-1732 Joseph Benjamin Jones College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Indigenous Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Jones, Joseph Benjamin, "Anglo-Siouan Relations on Virginia's Piedmont Frontier, 1607-1732" (1989). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539625493. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-nx9x-qr97 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ANGLO-SIOUAN RELATIONS ON VIRGINIA'S PIEDMONT FRONTIER 1607-1732 A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the American Studies Program The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Joe B. Jones 1989 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Auth< Approved, May 1989 A*\jdUL James L. Axtell Thaddeus W. Tate James P. Whittenburg TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................iv LIST OF FIGURES ............................................v ABSTRACT ................................................... vi CHAPTER I. THE PIEDMONT WORLD ........................... 2 CHAPTER II. RELATIONS ACROSS THE FALL-LINE BECOME DISTRUSTFUL AND INDIRECT......................3 0 CHAPTER III. THE SIOUANS AND ENGLISH MEET A G A I N ........
    [Show full text]