The West Save Our Streams (WVSOS) program would like to express its extreme gratitude to all of the volunteer monitoring groups throughout the state. These groups have contributed greatly to the understanding of our streams and rivers ecology, and have acted as guardians of our watersheds. It is more important then ever before that we recognize their contribution by providing as much state support as possible, and by listening to their concerns regarding the health of our streams and rivers. The streams of our state are resilient to a degree; however, they cannot withstand the continuing encroachment of human development, unless we provide them with some reprieve. Together, we must look towards the future and plan carefully to preserve our state’s rivers and streams. We must carefully weigh our decisions and make sure they benefit both our society and our environment. Below are some simple “Smart Growth” recommendations from WVSOS.

1. Plan for growth with protection of the watershed in mind - Keep hard, impervious surfaces to a minimum. Expert’s recommend no more than 15% of an area should have impervious surfaces (like driveways, parking lots and roads).

2. Establish buffer zones along our streams and rivers - Make sure there is plenty native vegetation to trap sediment and reduce nonpoint source pollutant loads to our streams. Maintain a buffer zone of at least 60 feet from our stream banks.

3. Detain stormwater runoff through the use of stormwater retention ponds and other buffering measures - The ponds collect the runoff water and allow it to slowly infiltrate into the ground. Additional buffering measures and the appropriate best management practices help to further slow down the sediment-laden water.

4. Protect Our Most Sensitive Resources - Land trusts are being used around the country to purchase sensitive areas and keep them protected. These can be used in our area too!

5. Education - Understanding the impacts of stormwater can be a good first step. You can monitor the water quality in your river or stream using simple biological and physical techniques. Take the time to learn about your local rivers and streams and then teach others!

6. Cooperation - Work together with your local conservation groups, governments and developers to thoughtfully plan and develop your community. By working together, we can achieve development using environmentally responsible approaches.

West Virginia Save Our Streams 1201 Greenbrier Street Charleston, WV 2531 E-mail: [email protected]

This year’s WVSOS annual report takes a slightly different approach than in previous years. The report includes information collected from WVSOS certified volunteer monitors, information submitted by other citizens groups not certified by WVSOS, information from academic groups, information from personal knowledge, and information from websites and other local sources. The reports time period is January 2001 through December 2001; however, in some cases, it may also include information outside this time period. Finally, the report includes program updates and other events that have occurred over the past year.

The standard WVSOS stream survey relies heavily on descriptive terms to help characterize the stream’s physical conditions. For the purposes of this report, simple numerical rating scales have been devised so that the information is consistent throughout the report. This scale applies to the physical descriptions of sedimentation, embeddedness, bank coverage and buffer zone width. The tables throughout this document list information that was submitted by volunteer stream monitors. The conditions that are considered either marginal or poor are highlighted.

Table of Contents

POTOMAC DIRECT DRAINS...... 5 The Blue Heron Environmental Network ...... 5 Jefferson County Watershed Coalition ...... 6 Institute for Environmental Studies ...... 9 and Friends of the Cacapon ...... 10

CACAPON BASIN...... 10 Cacapon Institute...... 11 Girl Scout Troop 43 ...... 11

NORTH AND SOUTH BRANCH OF THE POTOMAC...... 12 Pendleton County High School ...... 12

TYGART RIVER BASIN...... 13 Friends of Laurel Mountain ...... 13 Buckhannon River Watershed Association ...... 13 Elkins Middle School ...... 13 IWLA – Mountaineer Chapter ...... 13

THE SAVE OUR STREAMS INAUGURAL ROUNDTABLE ...... 14

GREENBRIER BASIN ...... 14 White Sulphur Springs Elementary ...... 15 Lewisburg Elementary ...... 15 Seneca Trails Christian Academy...... 15 Greenbrier River Watershed Association ...... 15

NEW RIVER BASIN ...... 16 Shady Springs High School (Envirothon Team)...... 16 Woodrow Wilson Environmental Club ...... 16 Monroe County High School Advanced Biology Class...... 16

JULY FLOODING...... 17 3 WEST FORK BASIN ...... 18 Guardians of the West Fork ...... 18 Lower West Fork Watershed Association...... 18 Salem International University ...... 18

MONONGAHELA BASIN...... 19 Allegheny Conservation Alliance ...... 20 Downstream Alliance...... 20

DUNKARD CREEK BASIN ...... 20

CHEAT BASIN...... 21 Friends of the Cheat...... 21 Friends of Laurel Mountain ...... 21

KANAWHA BASIN ...... 22 Davis Creek Watershed Association ...... 23 Kelly’s Creek Community Association ...... 23 Heizer-Manila Watershed Organization ...... 23 West Virginia Trails Coalition...... 23 DEP – Stream Restoration & National Hummer Association ...... 23

GUYANDOTTE BASIN ...... 24 Hamlin High School (Envirothon Team) ...... 25 Culloden Elementary ...... 25 Cabell Midland High School...... 25 DEP – Mining and Reclamation...... 25 Southern WV Community College...... 25

TUG FORK...... 25 Pigeon Creek Watershed Association ...... 26 Elkhorn Creek Watershed Association ...... 26 Kentucky Waterwatch Program ...... 26

MISCELLANEOUS BASINS ...... 27 Marshall Environmental Student Association...... 27 Trap Hill Watershed Association ...... 27 Parkersburg High School Environmental Club ...... 27 Trout Unlimited...... 27

PROGRAM UPDATES...... 28

ANTIDEGRADATION AND TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS...... 28

REFERENCES...... 29

INTERNET RESOURCES...... 29

4 Potomac Direct Drains

This basin has the most active volunteer organizations in the state. Many groups in this region have been monitoring water quality long before the West Virginia Save Our Streams program was in existence.

Table 1 lists the groups in this basin, which submitted information for this report.

Table 1 – Organizations reporting in the Potomac Direct Drain Basin

Group Name Stream or Watershed Name Blue Heron Environmental Network Back Creek Watershed Friends of Sleepy Creek Sleepy Creek Jefferson County Watershed Coalition Streams of Jefferson County Friends of the Cacapon Sleepy Creek/Warm Springs Run

The Blue Heron Environmental Network

Back Creek Wild and Scenic River Designation - During the past 12 years, Blue Heron Environ- mental Network Inc. has conducted a water quality enhancement program for Back Creek in Berkeley County, W.Va. This program has included many educational and research projects ranging from water quality analysis, wetland education, stream cleanups, wildlife and endangered species inventories and historical documentation.

A majority of the information and has been submitted to various state and federal agencies for documentation. In working on the project, quotes Blue Heron, “we have had the privilege to work with many professional researchers, scientists, and various educational institutions, whom all have agreed that Back Creek and its watershed is in need of a stronger conservation assistance and protection programs” end quote. The ill effects of environmental impact on Back Creek's watershed and waters have become more prominent in the past four years.

Back Creek is one of the last clean running, relatively undisturbed stream left in Berkeley County. The watershed is host to a wide variety of rare and endangered species of flora and fauna. It has been highly noted by many as having a relatively undisturbed ecosystem. With all these facts in mind, the Blue Heron Environmental Network, along with cooperating landowners, concerned citizens, and others have decided to look toward a better alternative program to protect and conserve Back Creek. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Program is our best choice for the future of the stream.

In 2001 there has been two beginning informational public meetings in an expected series to be scheduled on various dates throughout 2002. Meetings are sponsored by Blue Heron Environmental Network Inc., and conducted by the National Park Service. The meetings will consist of an informational forum on the Wild and Scenic River designation program, where questions about the process and benefits

5 of the program for Back Creek and residents can be discussed. For information on future Back Creek Wild and Scenic River meeting dates, times, and locations, check the Blue Heron website at http://www.blue- heron.org/. If you would like a brochure, more information, or have questions about Wild and Scenic River Designation, please feel free to contact the Blue Heron Environmental Network at bheni@blue- heron.org (Source: Blue Heron website).

Back Creek and – Back Creek and its tributaries are some of the most pristine areas remaining in Berkeley County. The reason is simple; it is due to the efforts of Blue Heron and many more concerned citizens. However, encroaching development is a threat to this watershed and its health. There have been many reports of increased sediment loads, and this, combined with the early season lack of rainfall, has had dramatic impacts on the streams of this basin. Stream information from the Back Creek watershed is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 – Stream survey summary results from the Back Creek watershed

Station Stream Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating 2A Back Creek 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal 2B Back Creek 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal BCB1 Back Creek 10.0 Marginal 15.0 Good K1 Kate’s Run 10.0 Marginal 15.0 Good Overall average 10.0 Marginal 12.5 Marginal Station Stream WVSOS Index Score Rating 2A Back Creek 27.0 Good 2B Back Creek 27.0 Good BCB1 Back Creek 24.0 Good K1 Kate’s Run 20.0 Marginal Overall average 24.5 Good Station Stream Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating 2A Back Creek 15.0 Good 20.0 Excellent 2B Back Creek 15.0 Good 14.0 Good BCB1 Back Creek 20.0 Excellent 14.0 Good K1 Kate’s Run 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Overall average 17.5 Excellent 17.0 Excellent

The stream surveys submitted show a major increase in sedimentation over years past due mainly to encroaching development and construction related to new subdivisions reaching into the basin. In addition, shopping centers, possible NASCAR racetrack development and many more large earth-moving projects threaten the health of the basins streams.

Jefferson County Watershed Coalition

Mission - To restore, conserve, and protect the water resources of Jefferson County, W.Va., for the continuing benefit of the environment and the community through education and voluntary action.

The coalition of some 50 members monitor’s streams in Jefferson County that drain into the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers. The group assesses the water quality of 18 sites on nine streams through seasonal surveys of macroinvertebrate biodiversity and seasonal measurements of physical and chemical conditions at these sites.

6 The coalition was founded in 1997 and has worked in cooperation with the Institute for Environmental Studies at Shepherd College, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Blue Heron Environmental Network and many others to monitor and report on the condition of Jefferson County streams. The coalition uses several unique twists and innovations in their monitoring protocols so that the information more closely corresponds to professional results. One such innovation is their sampler splitter, which is used for streamside sub-sampling of the macroinvertebrates into smaller and smaller portions thereby allowing easier counting and sorting of the complete sample.

Actual counts are recorded by the coalition; thus, several types of biotic metrics can be calculated allowing for a closer look at various population attributes. WVSOS used the coalition’s data and calculated a stream condition score, which is simply an integration of six major biotic metrics, based upon the streamside identification of the macroinvertebrates. The resulting scores are shown on the line graph in Figure 1 below and again in Table 3.

Figure 1 – Stream condition scores for Jefferson County stream sites

Jefferson County Streams – These streams have seen a marked increase in sediment deposition resulting in multiple instances of habitat degradation, and in some cases have resulted in complete biological impairment of the stream. Another factor in this habitat degradation is the destruction of many riparian buffer zones surrounding the streams. These streams have paid a heavy price for development, and unless drastic changes are implemented, many may not be able to sustain life at all. Town Run, for example, has been devastated by urban impacts and a toxic spill that resulted in heavy fish kills through- out Shepherdstown and even reaching into the . A summary of the stream surveys submitted by the coalition is shown in Table 3.

Table 3 – Stream survey summary results from Jefferson County streams

Station Stream Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating Engle Elk Branch 20.0 Excellent 15.0 Good Engle Elk Branch 20.0 Excellent 15.0 Good NCTC Hendrix Run 20.0 Excellent 15.0 Good Palm Rockymarsh Run 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Jones Mill Rockymarsh Run 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Palm Rockymarsh Run 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Jones Mill Rockymarsh Run 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Morgan Grove Town Run 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Rocky St Town Run 20.0 Excellent 15.0 Good Morgan Grove Town Run 5.0 Poor 5.0 Poor Workshop Town Run 5.0 Poor 5.0 Poor

7 Eaton Rattlesnake Run 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Raunad Rattlesnake Run 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Raunad Rattlesnake Run 5.0 Poor 5.0 Poor Eaton Rattlesnake Run 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Hillbrook Bullskin Run 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Straith Bullskin Run 20.0 Excellent 10.0 Marginal Avon Bullskin Run 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Straith Bullskin Run 20.0 Excellent 10.0 Marginal Avon Bullskin Run 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Hillbrook Bullskin Run 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Station 1 North Fk of Bullskin 5.0 Poor 5.0 Poor Cross North Fk of Bullskin 5.0 Poor 5.0 Poor Mayhew Elk Run 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Mayhew Elk Run 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal H2O Plant Elk Run 20.0 Excellent 15.0 Good H2O Plant Elk Run 20.0 Excellent 15.0 Good Eastland Evitt’s Run 20.0 Excellent 15.0 Good RR Crossing Evitt’s Run 20.0 Excellent 15.0 Good Asphalt Plant Evitt’s Run 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Eastland Evitt’s Run 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal RR Crossing Evitt’s Run 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Asphalt Plant Evitt’s Run 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Overall average 12.9 Marginal 9.7 Marginal Station Stream Stream Condition WVSOS Index Score Rating Score Rating Engle Elk Branch 69.5 Good 33 Excellent Engle Elk Branch 71.3 Good 22 Good NCTC Hendrix Run 65.8 Good 23 Good Palm Rockymarsh Run 38.5 Poor 14.0 Marginal Jones Mill Rockymarsh Run 64.8 Marginal 17.0 Marginal Palm Rockymarsh Run 40.7 Poor 21.0 Good Jones Mill Rockymarsh Run 43.0 Poor 16.0 Marginal Morgan Grove Town Run 35.1 Poor 13.0 Marginal Rocky St Town Run 27.2 Poor 10.0 Poor Morgan Grove Town Run 34.1 Poor 15.0 Marginal Workshop Town Run 38.1 Poor 15.0 Marginal Eaton Rattlesnake Run 64.0 Marginal 26.0 Good Raunad Rattlesnake Run 64.3 Marginal 22.0 Good Raunad Rattlesnake Run 51.9 Marginal 20.0 Marginal Eaton Rattlesnake Run 71.0 Good 23.0 Good Hillbrook Bullskin Run 54.1 Marginal 19.0 Marginal Straith Bullskin Run 50.0 Marginal 15.0 Marginal Avon Bullskin Run 59.2 Marginal 21.0 Good Straith Bullskin Run 50.0 Marginal 15.0 Marginal Avon Bullskin Run 55.5 Marginal 16.0 Marginal Station 1 North Fk of Bullskin 46.5 Poor 22.0 Good Cross North Fk of Bullskin 46.6 Poor 24.0 Good Mayhew Elk Run 73.8 Good 22.0 Good Mayhew Elk Run 64.6 Marginal 24.0 Good H2O Plant Elk Run 69.1 Good 23.0 Good H2O Plant Elk Run 69.1 Good 25.0 Good Eastland Evitt’s Run 56.6 Marginal 20.0 Marginal RR Crossing Evitt’s Run 61.5 Marginal 22.0 Good Asphalt Plant Evitt’s Run 56.6 Marginal 20.0 Marginal Eastland Evitt’s Run 38.0 Poor 19.0 Marginal RR Crossing Evitt’s Run 61.3 Marginal 24.0 Good Asphalt Plant Evitt’s Run 63.1 Marginal 19.0 Marginal Kennard Flowing Spring Run 48.1 Poor 23.0 Good Overall average 54.2 Marginal 19.6 Marginal Station Stream Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating

8 Engle Elk Branch 20.0 Excellent 4.0 Poor Engle Elk Branch 20.0 Excellent 4.0 Poor NCTC Hendrix Run 20.0 Excellent 8.0 Marginal Palm Rockymarsh Run 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Jones Mill Rockymarsh Run 20.0 Excellent 16.0 Excellent Palm Rockymarsh Run 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Jones Mill Rockymarsh Run 20.0 Excellent 16.0 Excellent Morgan Grove Town Run 20.0 Excellent 4.0 Poor Rocky St Town Run 15.0 Good 16.0 Excellent Morgan Grove Town Run 20.0 Excellent 4.0 Poor Workshop Town Run 15.0 Good 12.0 Marginal Eaton Rattlesnake Run 10.0 Marginal 12.0 Marginal Raunad Rattlesnake Run 15.0 Good 4.0 Poor Raunad Rattlesnake Run 5.0 Poor 4.0 Poor Eaton Rattlesnake Run 10.0 Marginal 4.0 Poor Hillbrook Bullskin Run 10.0 Marginal 6.0 Marginal Straith Bullskin Run 20.0 Excellent 18.0 Excellent Avon Bullskin Run 10.0 Marginal 12.0 Marginal Straith Bullskin Run 20.0 Excellent 18.0 Excellent Avon Bullskin Run 10.0 Marginal 12.0 Marginal Hillbrook Bullskin Run 20.0 Excellent 6.0 Marginal Station 1 North Fk of Bullskin 20.0 Excellent 6.0 Marginal Cross North Fk of Bullskin 20.0 Excellent 6.0 Marginal Mayhew Elk Run 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Mayhew Elk Run 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent H2O Plant Elk Run 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent H2O Plant Elk Run 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Eastland Evitt’s Run 20.0 Excellent 6.0 Marginal RR Crossing Evitt’s Run 15.0 Good 6.0 Marginal Asphalt Plant Evitt’s Run 20.0 Excellent 8.0 Marginal Eastland Evitt’s Run 20.0 Excellent 13.0 Marginal RR Crossing Evitt’s Run 10.0 Marginal 4.0 Poor Asphalt Plant Evitt’s Run 20.0 Excellent 6.0 Marginal Kennard Flowing Springs Run 10.0 Marginal 4.0 Poor Overall average 12.3 Marginal 10.5 Marginal

Institute for Environmental Studies

The Institute for Environmental Studies at Shepherd College recently completed an assessment of Three Run in Berkeley County (Vila, P. & Leadman, D. 2001). The full study is available by submitting a written request to the institute. The article is summarized below.

The Three Run Watershed has been heavily impacted due to the construction of sewage lines near the stream. In spite of the disturbance, values for temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, conductivity, and total dissolved solids were within the expected range and similar to values found in nearby streams. Large inputs of sediment were observed at the sampling sites and there is a shift in the streambed sediment composition. This severely impacts colonization by macro-invertebrates and fish communities.

Nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorus) were high and the results were dependent upon the ionic form present. Aluminum and iron levels exceeded the National Secondary Drinking Water Standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Zinc did not exceed the secondary standards and sulfate 9 and chloride were below the secondary standards. Lead exceeds the National Primary Drinking Water Standards set by the US EPA.

The high levels of nutrients, metal ions, and the high levels of fecal coliform found in Three Run were not expected for streams of this geologic formation and most likely were due to inputs from active construction, agriculture or failed onsite wastewater disposal systems.

Sleepy Creek and Friends of the Cacapon

This watershed is similar to Back Creek in that it is still heavily forested with agriculture dominating the land uses. Like many other watersheds in the eastern panhandle, suburban sprawl is beginning to encroach upon the basin, and the streams are suffering from excess sedimentation. The Sleepy Creek Watershed Association and the Friends of the Cacapon submitted stream surveys from this basin. The results are summarized in Table 4.

The Friends of the Cacapon and President Abby Chappel have also been very active in protecting Warm Springs Run, a small urban stream that flows through the town of Bath (also known as Berkeley Springs). Early in 2001 a fish kill in the run made headlines in the local newspapers, spurred public meetings and inspired the Friends of the Cacapon to actively pursue an education program called “Groundwater Guardians”. For more information, contact Abby Chappel at [email protected].

Table 4 – Sleepy Creek stream survey summary results

Station Stream Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating Four Sleepy Creek 15.0 Good 15.0 Good Four Sleepy Creek 20.0 Excellent 15.0 Good Housing Development Sleepy Creek 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Overall average 15.0 Good 13.3 Good Station Stream WVSOS Index Score Rating Four Sleepy Creek 27.0 Good Four Sleepy Creek 27.0 Good Housing Development Sleepy Creek 19.0 Marginal Overall average 24.3 Good Station Stream Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating Four Sleepy Creek 15.0 Good 20.0 Excellent Four Sleepy Creek 20.0 Excellent 16.0 Excellent Housing Development Sleepy Creek 15.0 Good 12.0 Marginal Overall average 16.7 Excellent 16.0 Excellent

Cacapon Basin

There is also a great deal of activity within this basin. The Friends of the Cacapon, Cacapon and Lost River Trusts and the Cacapon Institute have worked ferverishly to protect the watershed and have conducted several research projects to learn more about the region.

Included in this report are surveys submitted by the groups in this basin and a summary of a report completed by the Cacapon Institute comparing volunteer stream monitoring methods to rapid bio- assessment protocol style methods of monitoring. Table 5 lists the groups that submitted information about this basin.

10

Table 5 – Organizations reporting in the Cacapon Basin

Group Name Stream or Watershed Name Friends of the Cacapon and tributaries Cacapon Institute Cacapon Watershed Girl Scout Troop 43 Cacapon River

Like the eastern panhandle,development is a major concern in the Cacapon Basin. However, it has been spared the massive influx that has occurred in the Potomac Basin. Table 6 provides a summary of the information submitted from this basin.

Table 6 – Stream survey summary results from the Cacapon Basin

Stream Monitoring group Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating Cacapon River Friends of the Cacapon 20.0 Excellent 15.0 Good Un-named Friends of the Cacapon 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Cacapon River Girl Scout Troop 43 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Overall average 16.7 Excellent 15.0 Good Stream Monitoring group WVSOS Index Score Rating Cacapon River Friends of the Cacapon 27.0 Good Un-named tributary Friends of the Cacapon 29.0 Good Cacapon River Girl Scout Troop 43 32.0 Excellent Overall average 29.3 Good Stream Monitoring group Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating Cacapon River Friends of the Cacapon 15.0 Good 16.0 Excellent Unnamed tributary Friends of the Cacapon 15.0 Good 16.0 Excellent Cacapon River Girl Scout Troop 43 20.0 Excellent 12.0 Marginal Overall average 16.0 Excellent 13.3 Good

Sections of Corridor H, a major four-lane highway, are now being built in the Cacapon and South Branch of the Potomac watersheds. No matter what your opinion is about this highway, now that it is being built concerns must shift to the impacts of construction on the environment. The biggest initial threat to our rivers is sediment-laden runoff from construction sites. Information about sediment and its effects can be found on the Cacapon Institute website.

The Cacapon Institute recently completed a study in the Cacapon Basin comparing volunteer stream monitoring methods to the more rigorous rapid bioassessment protocols (RBP) (Gillies et al., 2001).

Girl Scout Troop 43 sample a riffle of the Cacapon River.

The institute concluded that volunteer methods are comparable if they are modified slightly by futher sub- dividing the major goups into kinds and calculating a variety of biotic indexes, which provides information about various population attributes. The institute recommends preserving the macroinvertebrate samples and using slightly higher magnification to sort and count the organisms. The complete document can be downloaded from the institutes website at http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/.

11 North and South Branch of the Potomac

The North and South branches treverse West Virginia’s major agricultural region. Many substantial farms, feedlots, and other agriculture related industries are located in this region. This region also has several streams with abundant aquatic life, wildlife and a rich cultural heritage. Both the North and South branches provide excellent fishing for smallmouth bass in lower reaches and trout in their headwater areas. Even though remnants of excellent habitat remain, like many areas, destruction of the riparian buffer zones and sedimentation is taking a toll on the health of these streams.

The Environmental Earth Science class from Pendleton County High School provided stream survey information from this area. The information was submitted in a report written by Danielle Varner. Danielle reported on their assessment of the South Branch in Franklin and White Thorn Creek at Moyers. Table 7 provides a summary the habitat and stream score information and Table 8 provides a summary of the chemical information the class collected. The class also sketched the stream profile and used the float method to calculate discharge.

Note: Calculation of the stream scores were derived from numbers the table comparing the organim’s collected, and the other habitat ratings were derived based upon descriptions found within the report.

Table 7 – Pendleton County High School stream survey results

Stream Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating White Thorn Creek 10.0 Marginal 15.0 Good South Branch of the Potomac 10.0 Marginal 15.0 Good Overall average 10.0 Marginal 15.0 Good Stream Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating White Thorn Creek 15.0 Good 16.0 Excellent South Branch of the Potomac 15.0 Good 16.0 Excellent Overall average 15.0 Good 16.0 Excellent Stream Stream Condition Score WVSOS Index Score Rating Score Rating White Thorn Creek 79.8 Good 31.0 Excellent South Branch of the Potomac 78.3 Good 26.0 Good Overall average 79.1 Good 28.5 Good

Table 8 – Pendleton County High School chemical information

Stream DO pH Iron Sulfides South Branch 10.8 mg/l 8.0 0.2 mg/l Nd White Thorn Creek 13.0 mg/l 8.0 0.1 mg/l Nd Stream Phosphate Hardness TDS Ammonia Nitrate South Branch Nd 104 100 Nd White Thorn Creek Nd 102 137.5 Nd Nd – non detect; TDS – average from 2 readings

12 Basin

This watershed has been heavily impacted from coal mine drainage, and in many cases there has been little success regarding the rehabilitation of the streams. In addition to the mining impacts, much of the Buckhannon River watershed has been altered due to increased sediments from development such as shopping centers, highways, etc. Table 9 lists the groups that reported from various sub watersheds within this basin and Table 10 provides a summary of the information from all groups reporting in this basin.

Table 9 – Organizations reporting in the Tygart Valley Basin

Group Name Stream or Watershed Name Friends of Laurel Mountain Sandy Creek and tributaries Buckhannon River Watershed Association Upper Buckhannon tributaries Elkins Middle School Files and Milestone Creeks IWLA – Mountaineer Chapter Files Creek

Table 10 – Stream survey summary results from the Tygart Valley Basin

Stream Monitoring group Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating Milestone Ck Elkins Middle School 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Milestone Ck Elkins Middle School 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Right Fk/Files Ck Elkins Middle School 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Right Fk/Files Ck Elkins Middle School 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Files Creek Mountaineer IWLA 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent LB/LF/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 15.0 Good 15.0 Good LB/LF/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 15.0 Good 15.0 Good Left Fk/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 15.0 Good 15.0 Good RB/LF/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 15.0 Good 15.0 Good RB/LF/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 15.0 Good 15.0 Good Panther Fork Buckhannon River WA 5.0 Poor 10.0 Marginal Overall average 16.4 Excellent 16.8 Excellent Stream Monitoring group Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating Milestone Ck Elkins Middle School 15.0 Good 20.0 Excellent Milestone Ck Elkins Middle School 15.0 Good 14.0 Good Right Fk/Files Ck Elkins Middle School 15.0 Good 18.0 Excellent Right Fk/Files Ck Elkins Middle School 15.0 Good 20.0 Excellent Files Creek Mountaineer IWLA 15.0 Good 14.0 Good LB/LF/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 15.0 Good 16.0 Excellent LB/LF/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 15.0 Good 16.0 Excellent Left Fk/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 10.0 Marginal 8.0 Poor RB/LF/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 15.0 Good 14.0 Good RB/LF/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 15.0 Good 8.0 Poor Panther Fork Buckhannon River WA 15.0 Good 12.0 Marginal Overall average 14.5 Good 14.5 Good Stream Monitoring group WVSOS Index Score Rating Milestone Ck Elkins Middle School 21.0 Good Milestone Ck Elkins Middle School 26.0 Good Right Fk/Files Ck Elkins Middle School 23.0 Good Right Fk/Files Ck Elkins Middle School 26.0 Good Files Creek Mountaineer IWLA 30.0 Excellent LB/LF/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 6.0 Poor 13 LB/LF/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 8.0 Poor Left Fk/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 9.0 Poor RB/LF/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 11.0 Poor RB/LF/Sandy Ck Friends of Laurel Mnt 8.0 Poor Beans Mill Buckhannon River WA 14.0 Marginal Panther Fork Buckhannon River WA 19.0 Marginal Tenmile Creek Buckhannon River WA 19.0 Marginal Overall average 15.7 Marginal

The West Virginia Save Our Streams Inaugural Roundtable

In October of 2001, WVSOS held its inaugural roundtable near Beverly, West Virginia, on the property of the Mountaineer Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America (IWLA). The roundtable was a full-day event consisting of several speakers, open discussions, and an afternoon training session in RBP habitat assessment.

The roundtable was attended by a variety of groups including representatives from the WV Conservation Agency, DEP Divisions of Water Resources and Mining and Reclamation, several watershed associations, local IWLA members and members of the academic (colleges and universities) community. The inaugural volunteer monitoring roundtable took place to a large degree, due to the generosity of the Mountaineer Chapter of the West Virginia IWLA. This chapter provided both the facilities and the food for the event.

Greenbrier Basin

The basin still remains mostly forested with the major land influences being agriculture, logging, new home construction and recreational pursuits. The Greenbrier River and many of its tributaries provide excellent habitat for aquatic organisms. However, in order to maintain the area’s character and the beauty of its rivers and streams, local community leaders must take a smart growth approach to the management of the basins water resources.

Table 11 shows the groups that provided information from this basin. The groups reported a wide variety of information including the standard WVSOS streamside survey, a RBP style habitat assessment and extensive chemical monitoring. Table 12 provides a summary of the stream survey information.

14 Table 11 – Organizations reporting in the Greenbrier Basin

Group Name Stream or Watershed Name White Sulphur Springs Elementary Howard’s Creek Lewisburg Elementary Greenbrier River Seneca Trails Christian Academy Greenbrier River Greenbrier River Watershed Association Upper Greenbrier River

Table 12 – Stream survey summary results from the Greenbrier Basin

Stream Monitoring group Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating Greenbrier River Seneca Trails Christian Aca 15.0 Good 20.0 Excellent Howards Creek White Sulphur Springs Elem 10.0 Marginal 15.0 Good Greenbrier River Lewisburg Elem 20.0 Excellent 15.0 Good Overall average 15.0 Good 16.7 Excellent Stream Monitoring group Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating Greenbrier River Seneca Trails Christian Aca 20.0 Excellent 16.0 Excellent Howards Creek White Sulphur Springs Elem 10.0 Marginal 4.0 Poor Greenbrier River Lewisburg Elem 20.0 Excellent 18.0 Excellent Overall average 16.7 Excellent 12.7 Good Stream Monitoring group WVSOS Index Habitat Index Score Rating Score Rating Greenbrier River Seneca Trails Christian Aca 28.0 Good Howards Creek White Sulphur Springs Elem 91.0 Marginal Greenbrier River Lewisburg Elem 27.0 Good 167.0 Excellent Overall average 27.5 Good 129.0 Good

The Greenbrier River Watershed Association regularly monitors several locations along the upper portions of the Greenbrier River. For this report the organization submitted chemical data from its monitoring stations along the river. Table 13 provides a summary of their chemical data. The group also holds regular biological monitoring sessions and trains local school groups, scouts and others in the IWLA style of monitoring.

Lewisburg Elementary performs a macroinvertebrate assessment along portions of the Greenbrier River.

Table 13 – Greenbrier River Watershed Association chemical information

Location DO Conductivity pH Fecal Phosphates Turbidity Nitrates East Fork 13.8 40 6.8 35 1.5 ND 2.0 West Fork 12.5 50 6.3 30 1.0 ND 1.5 Cass 12.7 70 6.4 10 1.0 ND 1.5 Marlinton 12.3 130 6.4 24 1.5 ND 2.0 Buckeye 12.5 120 6.7 160 2.5 5.0 1.5

15 Renick 12.9 140 6.4 145 1.5 40.0 1.0 Anthony 10.6 170 6.8 16 2.0 5.0 1.5 Caldwell 11.4 150 6.6 44 2.0 5.0 1.5 Keister 12.9 150 6.6 86 3.0 5.0 1.5 Dissolved oxygen (DO) - ppm Fecal – colonies per 100 ml Turbidity - NTU Nitrate - ppm Phosphate - ppm Conductivity – dissolved solids (mg/l)

New River Basin The designation of the New River as a national scenic river has been beneficial to this basin. Many of the streams within the jurisdiction of the National Park Service have a slightly higher level of protection. However, many other streams have not been so lucky. Past mining practices, improper logging (insufficient best management practices “BMPs”), increased development in and around the Beckley area, and even recreational pursuits (ATVs) have drastically increased the sediment load and damaged the riparian buffers of the basin’s streams. The groups submitting stream survey information for this basin are shown in Table 14 and Table 15 provides a summary of the stream survey information from this basin.

Shady Springs Envirothon Team assesses the condition of the Bluestone River. This school consistently wins Envirothon competitions due to their hands-on approach to learning about our state’s natural resources.

Table 14 – Organizations reporting in the New River Basin

Group Name Stream or Watershed Name Shady Springs High School (Envirothon Team) Left Fork of Cherry Creek Shady Springs High School (Envirothon Team) Bluestone River Woodrow Wilson Environmental Club Beaver Creek Monroe County High School Advanced Biology Class Hans Creek Allegheny Conservation Alliance Glade Creek

Table 15 – Stream survey summary results from the New River Basin

Stream Monitoring group Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating Beaver Creek Woodrow Wilson Environ Club 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Glade Creek Allegheny Conservation Alliance 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Hans Creek Monroe High School AP Biology 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Left Fk/Cherry Creek Shady Springs Envirothon Team 5.0 Poor 5.0 Poor Bluestone River Shady Springs Envirothon Team 15.0 Good 10.0 Marginal Overall average 12.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Stream Monitoring group Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating 16 Beaver Creek Woodrow Wilson Environ Club 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Glade Creek Allegheny Conservation Alliance 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Hans Creek Monroe High School AP Biology 15.0 Good 12.0 Marginal Left Fk/Cherry Creek Shady Springs Envirothon Team 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Bluestone River Shady Springs Envirothon Team 20.0 Excellent 18.0 Excellent Overall average 15.0 Good 14.0 Good Stream Monitoring group WVSOS Index Score Rating Beaver Creek Woodrow Wilson Environ Club 11.0 Poor Glade Creek Allegheny Conservation Alliance 24.0 Good Hans Creek Monroe High School AP Biology 30.0 Excellent Left Fk/Cherry Creek Shady Springs Envirothon Team 15.0 Marginal Bluestone River Shady Springs Envirothon Team 24.0 Good Overall average 20.8 Marginal

July Flooding

Many of the watersheds within the New River, Guyandotte, Coal, Tug Fork and sections of the Kanawha basins were devastated by massive flooding during the month of July 2001.

All of southern West Virginia was declared a disaster area and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Guard, Red Cross, Corps of Engineers, WV Division of Highways, WV Conservation Agency, churches, volunteers and many more state, federal and nonprofit volunteer organizations provided needed supplies, cleanup assistance and money to help restore the region (the work in the region is ongoing).

In many areas, rainfall amounts of over five inches in just a few hours and poor land use practices destroyed entire communities and caused a Elkhorn Creek in McDowell County great deal of damage to our southern stream corridors. Although human life should always take precedence in these situations, in many cases the cleanup and debris removal caused more damage to the stream corridors than the actual flooding. This is due largely to a poor understanding of natural in- stream and floodplain processes.

Dredging and channel alteration was common in many watersheds throughout southern West Virginia following the July 2001 floods. The picture to the right shows what is left of Clear Fork in the Coal Basin, after several hundred yards of the stream channel was dredged and straightened.

Flooding in our communities threatens lives, damages property, and leaves behind dangerous blockages in streams and rivers. Unless we think ahead, it is difficult to resolve tough problems during the chaotic and emotional period after a flood. While floods cannot be prevented, there are some techniques available to reduce the risk of impacts by maintaining the stream’s ability to function naturally.

A brochure called Restoring Streams to Reduce Flood Loss put together by the National Park Service and Trout Unlimited is now available from WVSOS. The brochure is not meant to be a

17 cure-all; it is simply designed to provide the reader with a better understanding of stream processes related to flooding. To request a copy of the brochure, send e-mail to [email protected]. Be sure to include your mailing address with your request.

West Fork Basin

Several groups are active in the West Fork Basin (listed in Table 16). They have a slight advantage over others due their association with the local academic community. The Lower West Fork Watershed Association holds annual forums about water quality issues at Fairmont State College, and the Guardians of the West Fork, a relatively new organization, has representatives (including students and professors) from Salem International University as active members of their organization.

Land usage in this watershed runs the gauntlet from agriculture, logging, past and present mining, to urbanization. Many of the basin’s streams have been heavily damaged by sediment and have other problems relating to water quality. A summary of the basin’s survey information is provided in Table 17.

Table 16 – Organizations reporting in the West Fork Basin

Group Name Stream or Watershed Name Guardians of the West Fork Tenmile Creek Lower West Fork Watershed Association Helen’s Run/Buffalo Creek

Table 17 – Stream survey summary results from the West Fork Basin

Stream Monitoring group Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating Helen’s Run Lower West Fork Watershed Assoc 15.0 Good 15.0 Good Buffalo Creek Lower West Fork Watershed Assoc 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Overall average 12.5 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Stream Monitoring group Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating Helen’s Run Lower West Fork Watershed Assoc 20.0 Excellent 10.0 Marginal Buffalo Creek Lower West Fork Watershed Assoc 15.0 Good 8.0 Marginal Overall average 17.5 Good 9.0 Marginal Stream Monitoring group WVSOS Index Score Rating Helen’s Run Lower West Fork Watershed Assoc 27.0 Good Buffalo Creek Lower West Fork Watershed Assoc 12.0 Poor Overall average 19.5 Marginal

Salem International University

During the latter part of 2001, Dr. Bruce Edinger and several graduate students began working on a study of Tenmile Creek in Harrison County. The information collected from the study was submitted to the West Virginia Academy of Science (Edinger, B. et al. 2001). The group was interested in variability based upon sample size, replication and level of identification. The abstract from this study is included in this report. The complete report can be obtained by submitting a written request to Dr. Edinger, Dept. of Bioscience at Salem International University (SIU).

18 Table 18 shows a summary of the information collected from the Tenmile Creek study.

Table 18 – Tenmile Creek stream survey summary

Tenmile Creek Sites Embeddedness Sediment Deposition Score Rating Score Rating Site 1 - Footbridge 15.0 Good 16.0 Excellent Site 2 – Methodist Church 10.0 Marginal 14.0 Good Site 3 – Big Bend 14.0 Good 16.0 Excellent Site 4 – Grass Run Bridge 16.0 Excellent 13.0 Good Overall average 13.8 Good 14.8 Good Bank Vegetation Protection Width of Riparian Buffer Score Rating Score Rating Site 1 - Footbridge 12.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Site 2 – Methodist Church 10.0 Marginal 8.0 Marginal Site 3 – Big Bend 16.0 Excellent 14.0 Good Site 4 – Grass Run Bridge 8.0 Marginal 8.0 Marginal Overall average 11.5 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Stream Condition Score WVSOS Index Score Rating Score Rating Site 1 - Footbridge 66.5 Good 73.3 Good Site 2 – Methodist Church 63.9 Marginal 83.3 Excellent Site 3 – Big Bend 74.0 Good 83.3 Excellent Site 4 – Grass Run Bridge 70.4 Good 93.3 Excellent Overall average 68.7 Good 83.3 Excellent Note: Table shows only the second of three benthic macroinvertebrates collected at each site, based upon a 200-organism sub- sample.

SIU evaluated variability between replicates, effects of sample size of 100 or 200 organisms, ordinal versus family level of identification and the use of various biotic indices concerning stream quality. Four sites, approximately two to three kilometers apart along Tenmile Creek were sampled (three different riffles per site) in December 2001 using a 500-micron Nitex net. The macroinvertebrates were preserved in ethanol and transported to the lab for sorting and identification.

There was significant variability (sometimes greater than 50%) among index values (e.g., EPT diversity, % shredders, etc.) derived from 100-organism samples from different riffles at the same site. This could indicate that sampling needs replication for robust conclusions.

There was little variation among indices calculated from two different 100-organism sub-samples. However, % Chironomids (midges), EPT family abundance and EPT diversity did vary (likely reflecting non-random selection of Chironomids from the original sample). Macroinvertebrate indices based upon taxon diversity was higher for 200-organism versus 100-organism sub-samples. For example, family richness averaged 32% higher, the Cacapon Institute’s stream condition index (SCI) average 8% higher, EPT family richness averaged 29% higher and WVSOS index scores average 14% higher. The reason certain indices are possibly sample size dependant, and how biased conclusions based upon unequal sample sizes can be avoided are discussed.

Monongahela Basin

The Monongahela Basin, like many others in the state, has been severely impacted by various types of land uses. Acid mine drainage is probably the worst problem, its effects leaving many miles of streams with sparse benthic life. Nutrient loading from agriculture and inadequate or nonexistent wastewater treatment in many rural areas is also a problem. Additionally, in the developed areas (especially around Morgantown), streams are affected from urban and suburban runoff. However, it’s not all bad news, there are a number of fairly high quality streams that flow 19 through the forested regions of the basin.

Allegheny Conservation Alliance

Allegheny Conservation Alliance (ACA) is a nonprofit service organization focused on community development, outdoor recreation, recycling, anti-litter campaigns and wildlife protection in the Mid- Atlantic States. ACA became interested in stream monitoring early in 2001 and organized a workshop at the campus of West Virginia University inviting students, members of their association and other interested participants. The group’s target was Booth Creek, a Monongalia County stream with a very unusual color (Bahaman-Blue) and highly impacted by acid mine drainage. The group’s charge is to try and help the stream. They have since begun to survey its watershed and have worked with other local groups to gain interest from the surrounding community. Table 19 provides a summary of the survey results from Booth Creek.

Table 19 – Booth Creek stream survey summary

Buffer Zone Sedimentation Embeddedness Bank Coverage WVSOS Index Protection Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating 15.0 Good 15.0 Good 15.0 Good 18.0 Excellent 0.0 Poor

Downstream Alliance

Downstream Alliance (DA) is a coalition of small watershed groups in north central West Virginia. Since 1994 the group has had an active volunteer stream-monitoring program focusing primarily on macro- invertebrates as indicators of stream health. From 1994 through 1996, DA collected more than 370 benthic samples to inventory stream quality in Preston County. From 1998 through 2001, the group conducted a similar survey in Monongalia County; a few streams in the adjoining counties of Marion and Taylor were also included.

DA used a modified version of the SOS index to rate stream quality in the Preston County project. With experience, project coordinators came to feel that the method occasionally overrated stream quality. About midway through the Monongalia project, DA switched to using the West Virginia Stream Condition Index (WVSCI) method of scoring. Because DA preserves their benthic samples, it was possible to re- analyze samples from previous years applying the WVSCI scoring methods. This made a direct comparison between the SOS method and the WVSCI method possible for 299 benthic samples (Mains et al. 2001). The paper comparing the results is available from WVSOS by submitting a e-mail request to the Citizens Monitoring Coordinator at [email protected].

Dunkard Creek Basin

Dunkard Creek is the main stream in northwestern Monongalia County, crossing the state line with several times, entering the at Point Marion, PA. There has been and continues to be standard deep mining and long wall mining in the watershed (older mines in PA that are now resulting in bad water). For the most part, Dunkard Creek is not severely contaminated from coal mine drainage. It appears that there should be plenty of benthic life and fish, but a serious sedimentation problem is causing diminished fishery and benthic life. This continued degradation has been observed in the last 30 years, since mining began in the watershed in the late 1960s.

The Dunkard Creek Watershed Association is developing a permanent instream monitoring system and in 20 February 2001, began collecting monthly samples, which are tested by chemist Paul Baker at Alternative Testing Labs in Lemont Furnace Pa., free of cost. Downstream Alliance (DA) has created a county water quality map of the basin, which shows many of Dunkard's tributaries as fairly pristine, but also, many are impaired. DA also conducted chemical monitoring (results are shown in Table 22), at the request of a landowner in the basin, on a mine discharge. A question that arose from the analysis was: What effect does brackish mine water discharge have on aquatic life, if any? DA has written a report on their findings, which is available by submitting a written request to Downstream Alliance (Mains et al. 2001).

Table 20 - Results of lab analysis of a mine discharge

Parameter Mine Water Upstream Downstream pH 8.17 6.85 7.23 Conductivity (µS) 7225 282 2550 Chloride (mg/l) 2250 4.1 785 Aluminum (mg/l) < 0.01 0.14 0.33 Arsenic (mg/l) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Cadmium (mg/l) < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Calcium (mg/l) 105 25.2 49.7 Copper (mg/l) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Chromium (mg/l) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Iron (mg/l) 0.84 0.65 0.83 Lead (mg/l) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Magnesium (mg/l) 45.8 5.3 15.7 Manganese (mg/l) 0.20 0.18 0.21 Mercury (mg/l) < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Potassium (mg/l) 6.9 0.69 2.6 Sodium (mg/l) 2078 25.7 560 Zinc (mg/l) < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Cheat Basin

The Cheat Basin is similar to the Monongahela Basin in both geology and human impacts. Acid mine drainage has had a major impact throughout most of the watershed, with increased sedimentation through poor land use management practices such as, logging, agriculture, suburban development, etc. becoming an increasing problem.

The Friends of the Cheat (FOC), one of the most active watershed associations in the state, has made enormous strides towards the restoration of this basin. Table 21 lists the groups that submitted stream survey information from this basin and Table 22 provides a summary of the stream survey results.

Table 21 – Organizations reporting in the Cheat Basin

Group Name Stream or Watershed Name Friends of the Cheat Laurel Fork Friends of Laurel Mountain Watkins Run WVSCA workshop Dry Fork

Every watershed is important. Our streams are the arteries that carry the lifeblood of the planet. Within the Cheat watershed can be found a broad range of individuals, businesses, and recreational opportunities. Some residents of the Cheat watershed boast of multiple generations born and raised on the same homestead. Others came here because of its incredible natural beauty and abundant recreational opportunities. Native trout, wild turkey, black bear, and white tail deer abound in much of the watershed. The canyon section of the Cheat is a whitewater destination for thousands of enthusiasts each

21 year. The is one of the most heavily fished streams in the state. Three alpine and one Nordic ski area are located within the watershed. Kingwood, Albright, Rowlesburg, Parsons, Cheat Lake, and other communities draw their drinking water from the Cheat. A healthy watershed is critical to the happiness and basic survival needs of thousands of stakeholders in the Cheat (Source: Friends of the Cheat website).

Meredith Pavlick, of FOC demonstrates her sorting technique with help from OWLS Program Coordinator, Emily Grafton, during her certified stream-monitoring trainer certification.

Table 22 – Stream summary results from the Cheat Basin

Stream Monitoring group Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating Watkins Run – station 1 Friends of Laurel Mountain 15.0 Good 15.0 Good Watkins Run – station 2 Friends of Laurel Mountain 15.0 Good 15.0 Good Dry Fork SCA workshop 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Laurel Fork Friends of the Cheat 10.0 Marginal 15.0 Good Overall average 15.0 Good 16.3 Excellent Stream Monitoring group Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating Watkins Run – station 1 Friends of Laurel Mountain 20.0 Excellent 18.0 Excellent Watkins Run – station 2 Friends of Laurel Mountain 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Dry Fork SCA workshop 15.0 Good 12.0 Marginal Laurel Fork Friends of the Cheat 10.0 Marginal 6.0 Poor Overall average 16.3 Excellent 14.0 Good Stream Monitoring group WVSOS Index Score Rating Watkins Run – station 1 Friends of Laurel Mountain 30.0 Excellent Watkins Run – station 2 Friends of Laurel Mountain 29.0 Good Dry Fork SCA workshop 13.0 Marginal Laurel Fork Friends of the Cheat 18.0 Marginal Overall average 22.5 Good

Kanawha Basin

Our state capital and the largest city in the state (Charleston) are located in the Kanawha Basin. The main focus regarding environmental protection for this region in the past has been a close watch on discharge permits and air quality. The has seen tremendous improvement over the past 20 years; however, there are still many problems throughout the basin.

High on the list is coal mine drainage; almost all watersheds in the basin have had some impact from mining. Many of the watersheds (e.g., Cabin Creek) have active mining operations and many more (e.g., Heizer & Manila creeks) have been devastated and have not recovered from past mining problems. 22

Another concern in the basin, like many other parts of the state, is sedimentation. Large amounts of sediment are choking the streams from operations such as massive shopping areas, roads, cleared land that is left abandoned for months on end (years in some cases) in the hope of development, and the ever-present suburban sprawl. Table 23 lists the groups that submitted information from the basin, and Table 24 provides a summary of their stream surveys.

Polluted coal mine drainage and trash in Putman County

Table 23 – Organizations reporting from the Kanawha Basin

Group Name Stream or Watershed Name Davis Creek Watershed Association Davis Creek and its tributaries Kelly’s Creek Community Association Kelly’s Creek Heizer-Manila Watershed Organization Heizer-Manila Creek Watershed West Virginia Trails Coalition Trace Fork of Davis Creek DEP – Stream Restoration & National Hummer Association Abbott Creek Blue Creek Watershed Association Workshop participation Little Sandy Watershed Association Workshop participation

Table 24 – Stream summary results from the Kanawha Basin

Stream Monitoring group Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating Davis Creek – KSF1 Davis Creek Watershed Assoc 15.0 Good 15.0 Good Davis Creek Davis Creek Watershed Assoc 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Davis Creek WS WV Trails Coalition 20.0 Excellent 20.0 Excellent Trace Fork - WS Blue Creek/Little Sandy WA 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Abbott Creek - WS Hummers/DEP Stream Restoration 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Manila Creek – MC1 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 5.0 Poor 5.0 Poor Manila Creek – MC2 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Manila Creek – MC3 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 5.0 Poor 5.0 Poor Manila Creek – MC4 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Manila Creek – MC5 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Manila Creek – WS Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 10.0 Marginal 15.0 Good Overall average 10.5 Marginal 9.1 Marginal Stream Monitoring group Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating Davis Creek – KSF1 Davis Creek Watershed Assoc 15.0 Good 4.0 Poor Davis Creek Davis Creek Watershed Assoc 15.0 Good 12.0 Marginal Davis Creek WS WV Trails Coalition 10.0 Marginal 6.0 Poor Trace Fork - WS Blue Creek/Little Sandy WA 5.0 Poor 20.0 Excellent Abbott Creek - WS Hummers/DEP Stream Restoration 15.0 Good 16.0 Excellent Manila Creek – MC1 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 5.0 Poor 4.0 Poor Manila Creek – MC2 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 5.0 Poor 4.0 Poor Manila Creek – MC3 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 15.0 Good 12.0 Marginal Manila Creek – MC4 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 5.0 Poor 12.0 Marginal Manila Creek – MC5 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 5.0 Poor 8.0 Marginal Manila Creek - WS Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 10.0 Marginal 20.0 Excellent Overall average 10.5 Marginal 10.7 Marginal 23 Stream Monitoring group Chemical Attributes Chemical Attributes pH Conductivity Iron D.O. Manila Creek – MC1 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 4.5 187.0 Manila Creek – MC2 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 4.5 160.0 Manila Creek – MC3 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 152.0 Manila Creek – MC4 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 4.2 198.0 Manila Creek – MC5 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 4.5 197.0 Davis Creek – KSF1 Davis Creek Watershed Assoc 7.4 Abbott Creek Hummers/DEP Stream Restoration 7.1 8.9 Kelly’s Creek Kelly’s Creek Community Assoc 8.3 570 Stream Monitoring group WVSOS Index Habitat Score Score Rating Score Rating Davis Creek – KSF1 Davis Creek Watershed Assoc 27.0 Good 67.0 Marginal Davis Creek Davis Creek Watershed Assoc 27.0 Good 58.0 Marginal Davis Creek WS WV Trails Coalition 19.0 Marginal Trace Fork - WS Blue Creek/Little Sandy WA 22.0 Good 64.0 Marginal Abbott Creek - WS Hummers/DEP Stream Restoration 18.0 Marginal Kelly’s Creek Kelly’s Creek Community Assoc 13.0 Marginal Manila Creek – MC1 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 0.0 Poor Manila Creek – MC2 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 0.0 Poor Manila Creek – MC3 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 0.0 Poor Manila Creek – MC4 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 0.0 Poor Manila Creek – MC5 Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 0.0 Poor 19.0 Poor Manila Creek – WS Heizer-Manila Watershed Org 27.0 Good Overall average 10.5 Poor 52.0 Marginal

Members of the Little Sandy Watershed Association, Blue Creek Watershed Association and representatives from the Capitol Soil Conservation District participate in a stream monitoring workshop on Trace Fork of Davis Creek.

The Capitol Soil Conservation District sponsored the workshop, provided a meeting room and refreshments for the day’s activities.

Guyandotte Basin The Guyandotte Basin’s streams suffer from the same problems as many of the other basins. Present day and past mining activities pollutes many streams. Most of the streams do not have a low pH like many of their northern cousins; however, many have high amounts of metals (iron, aluminum and manganese). Other practices, such as improperly maintained logging and oil and gas roads, construction projects etc. have increased the sediment loads of streams throughout the basin.

Corridor G, the main north-south highway that accesses the region, has brought increased commerce and opportunity to the regions population. However, the new housing developments, shopping malls and numerous other impervious surfaces have increased runoff water and made stormwater management issues a major concern for many of the regions communities. Table 25 lists the groups that submitted information from the basin and Table 26 provides of summary of their results.

24 Table 25 – Organizations reporting from the Guyandotte Basin

Group Name Stream or Watershed Name Hamlin High School (Envirothon Team) Mud River Culloden Elementary Charlie Creek Cabell Midland High School Lower Creek DEP – Mining and Reclamation Little Buffalo Creek Southern WV Community College Little Buffalo Creek

Table 26 – Stream summary results from the Guyandotte Basin

Stream Monitoring group Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating Charlie’s Creek Culloden Elementary 5.0 Poor 10.0 Marginal Lower Creek Cabell Midland High School 5.0 Poor 10.0 Marginal Falls Branch Logan High School 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Mud River Hamlin High School – Envirothon 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Little Buffalo Creek Southern WV Community College 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Little Buffalo Creek DEP – Mining and Reclamation 15.0 Good 15.0 Good Overall average 9.2 Marginal 10.8 Marginal Stream Monitoring group Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating Charlie’s Creek Culloden Elementary 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Lower Creek Cabell Midland High School 5.0 Poor 12.0 Marginal Falls Branch Logan High School 15.0 Good 12.0 Marginal Mud River Hamlin High School – Envirothon 15.0 Good 10.0 Marginal Little Buffalo Creek Southern WV Community College 10.0 Marginal 12.0 Marginal Little Buffalo Creek DEP – Mining and Reclamation 15.0 Good 14.0 Good Overall average 11.7 Marginal 11.7 Marginal Stream Monitoring group Chemical Attributes Chemical Attributes pH Conductivity Iron D.O. Charlie’s Creek Culloden Elementary 6.5 13.5 Falls Branch Logan High School 7.1 9.6 Little Buffalo Creek Southern WV Community College 9.0 530 10.8 Stream Monitoring group WVSOS Index Habitat Score Score Rating Score Rating Charlie’s Creek Culloden Elementary 20.0 Good Lower Creek Cabell Midland High School 14.0 Marginal Falls Branch Logan High School 18.0 Marginal 50.0 Marginal Mud River Hamlin High School – Envirothon 14.0 Marginal 48.0 Marginal Little Buffalo Creek Southern WV Community College 13.0 Marginal 120 Good Little Buffalo Creek DEP – Mining and Reclamation 17.0 Marginal 120 Good Overall average 16.0 Marginal 86.5 Marginal

Tug Fork

The Tug Fork Basin is very similar to the Guyandotte Basin with some of the same present and past mining problems and high sediment loads in the streams. The sediment is mainly a result of logging, poor quality oil and gas roads and mining activities.

The groups in the basin (listed in Table 27) are unique because they have crossed state lines to work with neighboring watershed groups in Kentucky and Virginia (sections of the basin are drained by all three states). In October 2001, the Pigeon Creek Watershed Association and WVSOS joined forces with the Kentucky Waterwatch Program to organize a chemical monitoring sweep of the Tug Fork and sections of the Big Sandy basins. The results of this sweep can be found on the Kentucky Waterwatch website at the address on the next page. A summary 25 from the basin is provided in Table 28.

A small sludge spill occurred near Gilbert due to a late night coal truck accident.

For the past four years, the Big Sandy conference has occurred in the Tug Fork and Big Sandy Basins. The conference invites groups from the region to participate in discussions and workshops, and encourages volunteer and state efforts regarding water quality throughout the basin. The conference rotates between Virginia, Kentucky and West Virginia. Last year’s conference was held at Breaks Interstate Park on the Virginia/Kentucky border. Volunteers interested in participating can contact Ken Cooke, coordinator of the Kentucky Waterwatch Program at 800-928-0045 Ext 473, or signup online at: http://water.nr.state.ky.us/watch/bsr.htm.

Table 27 – Organizations reporting from the Tug Fork Basin

Group Name Stream or Watershed Name Pigeon Creek Watershed Association Pigeon Creek and tributaries Elkhorn Creek Watershed Association Elkhorn Creek and tributaries Kentucky Waterwatch Program Kentucky’s Volunteer Monitoring Program

Probably the most notable event that occurred in the basin was the massive sludge spill that destroyed habitat and affected water supplies, throughout the Tug Fork and Big Sandy, and even into the . A smaller spill also occurred when a truck carrying sludge crashed into a small stream near Gilbert, W.Va. About a mile of the stream was turned completely black. The full scale of the damage to the basin is still not known, and studies will continue for some time into the future.

A TMDL is currently being developed for the basin, which should shed some new light on many polluted areas.

Members of the Elkhorn Creek Watershed Association and the local Parks and Recreation Dept become certified volunteer stream monitors.

Table 28 – Stream summary results from the Tug Fork Basin

Stream Monitoring group Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating Tug Fork Elkhorn Creek Watershed Assoc 10.0 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Elk Creek Pigeon Creek Watershed Assoc 10.0 Marginal 5.0 Poor Overall average 10.0 Marginal 7.5 Marginal Stream Monitoring group Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating Tug Fork Elkhorn Creek Watershed Assoc 5.0 Poor 8.0 Marginal Elk Creek Pigeon Creek Watershed Assoc 10.0 Marginal 12.0 Marginal Overall average 7.5 Marginal 10.0 Marginal Stream Monitoring group Chemical Attributes Chemical Attributes

26 pH Conductivity Iron D.O. Tug Fork Elkhorn Creek Watershed Assoc 9.3 560 Elk Creek Pigeon Creek Watershed Assoc 9.1 360 Stream Monitoring group WVSOS Index Score Rating Tug Fork Elkhorn Creek Watershed Assoc 20.0 Good Elk Creek Pigeon Creek Watershed Assoc 18.0 Marginal Overall average 19.0 Marginal

Miscellaneous Basins

In addition to the basins discussed thus far, WVSOS also received stream-monitoring reports from a single stream in the Lower Ohio, Middle Ohio, Gauley and Coal Basins. The groups submitting these reports are listed in Table 29 and a summary of their information is listed in Table 30.

MESA (Marshall Environmental Student Association) is active A stream monitoring workshop for Parkersburg High School in several watershed projects in the Fourpole Watershed. Environmental Club introduced other aspects of stream ecology.

Table 29 – Organizations reporting from miscellaneous basins

Group Name Stream or Watershed Name Marshall Environmental Student Association Fourpole Creek – Lower Ohio Trap Hill Watershed Association Stephens Branch – Coal Parkersburg High School Environmental Club Left Fork of Stillwell Creek – Middle Ohio Trout Unlimited Laurel Creek – Gauley

Table 30 – Stream summary information from Miscellaneous Basins

Stream Monitoring group Sedimentation Embeddedness Score Rating Score Rating Fourpole Creek MESA 10.0 Marginal 15.0 Good Stephens Branch Trap Hill Watershed Assoc 5.0 Poor 10.0 Marginal LF/Stillwell Creek Parkesburg High School 5.0 Poor 5.0 Poor Laurel Creek Trout Unlimited 15.0 Good 15.0 Good Stream Monitoring group Bank Coverage Buffer Zone Protection Score Rating Score Rating Fourpole Creek MESA 10.0 Marginal 14.0 Good Stephens Branch Trap Hill Watershed Assoc 10.0 Marginal 20.0 Excellent LF/Stillwell Creek Parkesburg High School 20.0 Excellent 6.0 Poor

27 Laurel Creek Trout Unlimited 15.0 Good 20.0 Excellent Stream Monitoring group WVSOS Index Habitat Score Score Rating Score Rating Fourpole Creek MESA 21.0 Good 59.0 Marginal Stephens Branch Trap Hill Watershed Assoc 21.0 Good 63.0 Marginal LF/Stillwell Creek Parkesburg High School 13.0 Marginal 42.0 Poor Laurel Creek Trout Unlimited 24.0 Good 160.0 Optimal

Program Updates

The West Virginia Save Our Streams has worked for the past year on incorporating additional stream assessment protocols to provide volunteers with the opportunity to learn methods similar to a professional bioassessment. WVSOS now offers three levels of training. Level one is a slight modification of the standard Save Our Streams developed by the Izaak Walton League; Level two expands upon the habitat survey and incorporates counts instead of an estimation of numbers; and Level three mimics the EPA’s rapid bioassessment protocols (RBP) (U.S. EPA, 1999). There are some limitations to level three training because, even though the training teaches RBP protocols, it does not advocate preserving the organisms for family level identification, unless the facilities and appropriate permits are available to the organization.

An alternate method has been developed for those who are either not permitted or do not have the lab facilities for identification purposes. The method involves streamside identification using morphological features of the benthic macroinvertebrates to subdivide the major groups (orders). This subdivision, called types, estimates the number of families found in a particular group. The scoring method designed for this type-identification uses the same or similar metrics as the West Virginia Stream Condition Index (WVSCI) (Tetra Tech, 2000). WVSOS believes that this method will provide a better overall estimate of the stream’s conditions, and in some cases, may even be comparable to the approaches used by DEP’s Watershed Assessment Section.

Antidegradation and Total Maximum Daily Loads

Antidegradation and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) are two phrases that seem to strike fear in the eyes and mind of the public. Instead of fear, we should be elated that our state is recognizing how valuable our water resources are, and that we are doing all we can to protect them. This report will not attempt to define, or try to provide additional information on either the TMDL or antidegration process. However, WVSOS encourages everyone to become involved as much as possible, by providing thoughtful and useful information. For example, you may be aware of the source of a possible problem that could be valuable in helping the Division of Water Resources (DWR) assess your watershed. You can help DWR make good decisions by providing the information in the form of a stream and/or watershed survey. For more information on watershed survey materials and techniques, contact the WVSOS Coordinator.

28 A watershed survey is a background investigation into the history of your watershed and a visual assessment through windshield surveys and stream walks. A watershed survey is an excellent tool for learning more about your watershed, and it provides a method to record the information you collect. These types of surveys are very valuable, and most important they provide a means for citizens of all ages and skill levels to participate in cleaning up our state’s waters.

Antidegradation or TMDLs are not a government conspiracy, and they do not mean that the government is trying to intrude upon your personal property rights. They are simply tools (that have been around since the Clean Water Act of 1972) that if implemented properly, can help clean and preserve our streams and rivers for many generations to come. These tools and many others can only be successful with participation from our citizens. For it is ultimately you and I who determine whether or not our state’s streams and rivers will be clean!

A native brook trout stream in eastern Randolph County

References

1. Craddock, Timothy. December 2001. West Virginia Save Our Streams Bioassessment Protocols. WVDEP, Division of Water Resources Publication.

2. Gillies, Neil and N. Navis. June 2001. A Comparison of a Professional and Volunteer Method for Assessing Stream Health. Cacapon Institute Science and Society Series Paper #2.

3. Mains, Craig, M. Pavlick and S. Mitchell. May 2001. A Comparison of Save Our Streams and Stream Condition Index Protocols applied to North Central West Virginia Streams. A Downstream Alliance Publication.

4. Mains, Craig, M. Pavlick and S. Mitchell. May 2001. A Comparison of Stream Condition Index Values and Conductivity Measurements in Western Monongalia County. A Downstream Alliance Publication.

5. Tetra Tech. July 2000. A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia’s Wadeable Streams.

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers, Second edition. EPA 841-B-99-002.

7. Vila, Peter and D. Leadman. 2001. A Chemical and Physical Assessment of Three Run, Berkeley County. Institute of Environmental Studies, Shepherd College.

Internet Resources

American Rivers Tools for River Conservation - http://www.amrivers.org/toolkits/default.htm Blue Heron Environmental Network - http://www.blue-heron.org/ Cacapon Institute - http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/ Institute - http://www.canaanvi.org/

29 Conducting a Watershed Survey - http://www.amrivers.org/docs/conductwatershedsurvey.pdf Friends of the Cheat - http://www.cheat.org/ Greenbrier River Watershed Association - http://www.greenbrierriver.org/ Izaak Walton League’s Save Our Streams Program - http://www.iwla.org/SOS/ Jefferson County Watershed Coalition - http://webpages.shepherd.edu/PDROHAN/jcwc/ Kentucky Waterwatch - http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/wwhomepg.htm Marshall Environmental Student Association (MESA) - http://www.marshall.edu/mesa/ National Research Center for Coal and Energy - http://www.nrcce.wvu.edu/ NC River Course Fact Sheets - http://www5.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/sri/Factsheets.htm Shepherd College Institute of Environmental Studies - http://www.shepherd.edu/iesweb/ Stream Corridor Restoration - http://www.usda.gov/stream_restoration/newgra.html Trout Unlimited - http://www.tu.org/ U.S EPAs Rapid Bioassessment Protocols - http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/ U.S. EPAs Volunteer Stream Monitoring Manual - http://www.epa.gov/volunteer/stream/ West Virginia Watershed Resource Center - http://www.wvwrc.org/ West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection – http://www.dep.state.wv.us/ West Virginia NRCS Programs - http://www.wv.nrcs.usda.gov/Programs/nrcs_programs.htm

30