Figure 1. Land Use

The Big Sandy River Basin is located along the intersection of three states, Virginia, Kentucky and West Virginia. Over half of the land area of the basin, or 54%, is in Kentucky, and 23% in Virginia and West Virginia, respectively. The basin is comprised of four major 8-digit hydrologic units. They are the Big Sandy, Tug, Lower Levisa and Upper Levisa. See Appendix A., Figure 2. These four major hydrologic units drain north to the Ohio River. Land use in the river basin is mostly deciduous forest. Forest cover accounts for about 95.6% of the river basin. Cropland and pastures account for about 3.54% of the basin. The remaining land use categories make up less than 1% of the river basin area. They are strip mines and transitional areas (.77%), land for urban, industrial and utilities (.06%), and water (.03%). See Figure 1 above.

The Big Sandy River Basin is located in an area known geologically as the Cumberland Plateau. It consists mostly of sandstone. Siltstone and shale with coal beds make up less than half the area. On the steep slopes coal bearing sedimentary rocks, acid sandstone, siltstone and shale form much of the parent material (underlying rocks) that weathers into soil. Limestone and dolomite (limestone with magnesium) form the majority of parent material in the valleys along with pockets of sandstone and shale.

The basin is sparsely populated and primarily rural. Estimated population within the watershed boundary is 350,300. (See Table 1.)

Table 1. Population estimate for Big Sandy River Basin adjusted by population densities for portions of counties within the watershed boundary from the 1990 Census of Population and Housing

Economic indicators for the counties partially or entirely within the river basin compare poorly to state and national averages. Average annual unemployment rates within the Big Sandy River Basin for 1996 range from 7.1% in Boyd County, Kentucky to a high of 20.4% in Dickenson County, Virginia. State averages for Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia are 5.6%, 7.5% and 5.4%, respectively. Unemployment for the nation for the same period was 5.4%. Most of the basin is characterized by unemployment rates that are almost twice the national average. See Appendix A., Chart 1.

Indicators such as median household income and percent of population below poverty level also provide insight into the economic health of a county or region. The poverty threshold is a defined level of income necessary to sustain households of given sizes. Persons or families living below this threshold are not able to meet basic food needs. Nationally, about 13.8% of the population live below the poverty level. State averages for West Virginia and Kentucky exceed this rate with 19.9% and 17.9% respectively. According to the Bureau of the Census, the state of Virginia, with 11.3% of its population living below the poverty level, fares slightly better than the national average. This is not the case for the majority of the river basin. Poverty levels in most counties within the Big Sandy River Basin are nearly double the national average. Boyd County, Kentucky, which is partially within the watershed boundary, reports 16.9%, the lowest rate for the watershed. Magoffin and Morgan Counties in Kentucky have very high poverty levels, however, only small portions (less than 8%) of these counties are within the river basin boundary. McDowell County, West Virginia reports 36.8% of the population living at or below the poverty level. Data are shown in Table 2. below, and in Appendix A., Chart 2.

Table 2. Poverty level and median household income for the Big Sandy River Basin, estimates for 1995 from the U.S. Census Bureau

	Percent Population Below Poverty	Median Household Income
WV State	19.9	$ 25,354
McDowell County	36.8	17,706
Mingo County	29.5	23,231
Wayne County	22.1	25,969
VA State	11.3	36,367
Buchanan County	23.4	23,873
Dickenson County	25.5	21,806
Tazewell County	18.7	25,920
Wise County	22.1	25,565
KY State	17.9	28,929
Boyd County	16.9	30,884
Floyd County	31.3	21,792
Johnson County	28.1	22,803
Knott County	33.7	20,764
Lawrence County	30.9	21,551
Letcher County	29.2	21,295
Magoffin County	38.0	18,856
Martin County	32.6	22,165
Morgan County	36.3	18,842
Pike County	24.5	24,430
UNITED STATES	13.8	34,076

Median household income figures for the basin correlate to the other economic indicators for the area. In all but one instance (Wayne County, WV) state averages exceed those for counties within the river basin. Median household income for the state of Virginia is slightly higher than the national average. See Appendix A., Chart 3.

Coal is an abundant natural resource in this area. The mining and retail trade industries employ the largest percentages of the labor force for the Big Sandy River Basin. See Appendix A., Chart 4. Both sectors employ about 17% each of the civilian labor force. The health services sector follows with about 10%. The trend is similar for each portion of the three states within the watershed boundary. The agricultural sector, including forestry, employs about 1% of the labor force. Terrain in the river basin is steep and undulating and is characterized by unproductive soils. As such, the agricultural sector is considerably less productive in this part of the tri-state area. Considering the apparently abundant forest resource, the forestry industry is under-represented in terms of employment and earnings. The forestry industry accounts for less than one-half of a percent of earnings in the Big Sandy River Basin. See Appendix A., Chart 5. Also, only 2% of the timberland in the river basin is actually owned by the forest industry. Terrain may also be prohibitive for logging operations. See Figure 3 below for other ownership percentages. Private individuals (64%) and private corporations (25%) own most of the timberland.

Figure 3. Timberland Ownership

In general, sparsely populated or rural areas have higher unemployment and lower household incomes than metropolitan areas. Income and employment opportunities are also usually limited in these areas, and one or two industrial sectors may dominate. Conditions in the Big Sandy River Basin indicate lower than average economic sustainability. Statistics point out the limited resources of communities throughout the watershed.

During a field review of parts of the Big Sandy Watershed in Virginia, local residents described potential water quality impairments due to runoff from coal mining operations and "straight–piping" of septic lines from homes into streams. Residents also described environmental concerns ranging from subsidence on formerly mined lands, sedimentation from timber operations, to fish kills, odors and discoloration in area streams.

Subsidence, or the sinking of a large area of the earth’s crust resulting from past mining activity, has been documented by the Division of Mines, Minerals and Energy. This phenomenon has resulted in significantly diminished ground water flow in some areas. The reduced water flow leaves wells dry and forces residents to haul water from offsite. Although subsidence is listed as a priority 1 or 2 feature, repair is currently unfunded at a total cost of $300,000. Subsidence has resulted in extreme inconvenience for residents who live near these sinks. Water loss reportedly began 10 years ago and has continued to as recently as June of 1998. Adverse social impacts include the time and inconvenience of hauling water from the municipal source back to homes at least one day every week. This process represents a significant change in the quality of life for local people affected by subsidence. Economically, residents report a significant decrease in property values over the past five years. Additionally, the cost for 1,000 gallons of water is $25. An average household using 1,000 gallons per week would incur costs in excess $100 per month, which is substantially higher than average water utility costs. Approximately 8 households are currently affected. Elderly residents are particularly at risk.

The team observed water discoloration at several locations during the field tour of parts of the Big Sandy River Basin. Water quality samples were taken at these locations where possible. In some locations, streambeds were a reddish color, apparently from the presence of iron oxide. At the time of the field review, a sulfurous odor was present in one of the streams that flowed adjacent to at 12 homes in a small subdivision. A white precipitant was also present at this location. According to residents, the odor has been continuous for the past five years. A restaurant located on state highway 80, which runs next to the stream, has seen business decrease steadily over that time period. Adverse impacts on property values have not been documented, but are highly likely. The source of the odor is undetermined at this time.

During the site visit to the Big Sandy Watershed on December 17, 1998, one of the objectives was to conduct initial water quality sampling to get a better understanding of the range of water quality issues present in the watershed. Several parameters were sampled. Aquatic macro-invertebrates, dissolved oxygen, pH, and copper have been evaluated. An analysis of the data shows some fairly good water quality at least for the parameters measured. Only the section of the Levisa River that had a high sulfur odor showed poor water quality. Sample results are shown in Table 3. It is important to note that these sample results are evaluations from one occurrence.

Table 3. Water Quality Sample Summary

Dissolved oxygen was measured but not recorded. Dissolved Oxygen was at healthy levels for trout. All dissolved oxygen measurements were above 8.0.

Copper levels were all below the 0.1 detection level. Copper can be limiting to some organisms such as freshwater mussels, but was not determined to be a problem in any of the tested streams.

Contrary to expectations, the pH levels were all in the neutral range of 6.0-8.0. This indicates water that would support a trout fishery. The pH ranges were at acceptable levels for all of the samples, even for those locations where there were iron deposits or white precipitate on the stream bottom which would normally indicate lower pH due to acid mine drainage.

Bio-analysis, which measures the presence of benthic organisms or macroinvertebrates, is a good indicator of the history of the water quality of an area. By examining the diversity of aquatic insects the bioanalysis method indicates several things about a stream. It shows if the habitat is suitable for the insects and the level of past disturbance from chemical and physical factors. Since some organisms are more tolerant of pollution than others, these insects will predominate when these waters become degraded.

In the case of streams sampled in the Big Sandy watershed, the sites sampled were selected because of residents’ concerns and possible environmental impacts associated with mining. These sites may not necessarily reflect the water quality for the entire watershed but may reflect some common measurements for similarly impacted streams. Two of the stream samples showed good insect diversity, two showed fair and one was poor. See Table 3. The Levisa River showed poor water quality using bio-analysis techniques. The intuitive reason for these results is a high sulfur content from water that apparently originates from a nearby coal mine, however a monitoring program covering a larger area over a period of time is necessary to determine origins or pollutants and the relationship to existing water quality impairments.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s BASINS (Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources) program is a multipurpose environmental analysis system for use in watershed assessments. Data is obtained from EPA’s STORET database which includes water quality monitoring station summaries, bacteria monitoring station summaries, data from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging stations and other sources. For the Big Sandy River Basin, the Target and Assess modules were used to summarize pollutant information for the two 8-digit hydrologic units that are within Virginia: 05070201 (Tug) and 05070202 (Upper Levisa) as shown in Figure 4.

The Target module was used to evaluate water quality and bacteria monitored data for the time period 1990 to 1994, and summarize pollutant loads for each hydrologic unit. The Assess module was used to categorize the same data by distribution of the monitoring stations within the hydrologic units by the pollutant loads.

The pollutant parameters that revealed some results using this system are hardness, copper, zinc, manganese, iron, sulfates and fecal coliform (MF). See Appendix A. for the Target and Assess results from the BASINS program. The following is a description of the findings for each of these pollutant parameters.

Hardness is a measure of the amount of calcium and magnesium in water systems and may also include amounts of iron, strontium and manganese. It is directly related to the geology of an area. For example, limestone parent material forms harder water than sandstone because calcium and magnesium are the basic mineral components of limestone and are easily dissolved by water. Hardness is measured most commonly by the concentration of calcium carbonate (CaCO₃) in water expressed as milligrams (mg) of CaCO₃ per liter (L) of water. Values between 0 and 150 mg CaCO₃/L signify softer water, and values higher than 300 mg CaCO₃ /L denotes very hard water.

Hardness determines the solubility of several metals that can contaminate water such as cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc. These metal compounds are "hardness-dependent" which means the amount or concentration of these metals in water is related to the hardness of the water. The harder the water the more these metals dissolve and may reach levels that are harmful or toxic to aquatic or human life.

Figure 5. shows the hardness from BASINS output for the Big Sandy River Basin. Hardness levels fall into the hard (05070201 - Tug) to very hard (05070202 – Upper Levisa) categories. Water harness in itself does not degrade water quality, however, it does affect the concentration and toxicity of other metals. These results signify that sediments in the water contain high amounts of calcium and magnesium, and further testing of the water for contamination by hardness-dependent metals is highly suggested. Figure 6. shows the monitoring stations where levels of hardness were measured.

Copper is one of the metals whose concentration in water is hardness-dependent. EPA recommends that the concentration of copper not exceed 13 micrograms (ug) per liter (L) in water with average hardness (100 mg CaCO₃/L) for aquatic organisms. The level for human consumption should not exceed 1300 ug/L according to EPA. However, people can detect an off-taste in water with levels higher than 1000 ug/L copper.

The BASINS output for copper, Figure 7., shows levels that exceed the recommended concentration for healthy aquatic life, but which are well below levels that would affect people. Tug hydrologic unit has the highest concentration of copper. A bio-analysis in the Levisa River resulted in an indication of poor water quality. BASINS output supports the conclusion that copper levels exceed the limit for aquatic life. Another contribution to copper contamination is acidification. The more acidic the water, the more copper dissolves. Mining can be a significant source of copper contamination. Figure 8. shows the location of the monitoring stations where copper levels were recorded.

Zinc is another metal whose level of contamination and toxicity depends on hardness. People can taste zinc in their drinking water at levels of 5000 ug/L, however EPA recommended level for consumption is much higher at 9100 ug/L. For healthy aquatic systems, the recommended level is much lower at 120 ug/L, again at 100 mg CaCO₃/L for all values.

In the BASINS output, Figure 9., the highest concentration of Zinc is 81.39 ug/L in the Upper Levisa Watershed, well below the EPA’s recommended level for aquatics and humans. Figure 10. shows what monitoring stations recorded zinc levels. Some of the stations also recorded higher copper and hardness levels. These subwatersheds may need further monitoring and analysis to determine what is causing the higher hardness and metal concentrations. A base level can be established by measuring the concentration of metals in undisturbed and unmined streams. Acid mine waste from coal or mineral mines can contribute to higher hardness and metal concentrations in water.

Manganese is considered a non-priority metal by EPA. The recommended concentration for human consumption from water sources is 50 ug/L. Figure11. is the BASINS output for manganese by watershed. Both the Tug and the Upper Levisa watersheds show an elevated concentration of manganese above the recommended level.

Acid mine drainage from coal and manganese mines are possible sources of contamination from this metal. The metal is also found naturally in ore deposits in sandstone, limestone rocks and parent material. Manganese is often found as a coating on suspended sediments in water. In areas of naturally occurring manganese, erosion will contribute to increased manganese contamination whether or not mining is present. Excess manganese in water imparts an off-taste. When oxidized or exposed to the air, manganese forms black coatings that may stain clothing and eating utensils. Figure 12. shows the locations of monitoring stations that recorded manganese concentrations.

Naturally occurring iron ore in soils, mineral deposits, coal seams and parent material makes setting a recommended level difficult. EPA’s recommended concentration for consumption is 300 ug/L. Increasing the acidity of the water will result in higher concentrations of dissolved iron. Figure 13. shows that the Tug Fork had a very high iron concentration of 1260.15 ug/L. Figure 14. shows the distribution of iron concentration found at monitoring stations. Both the Tug and Upper Levisa Watersheds had stations recording excess iron concentrations which considering the geology and history of mining in the area is not surprising. However, EPA considers iron to be a non-priority pollutant. The effects of excessive iron include bad tasting water, corrosion of metals and reddish staining on clothes and eating utensils.

Sulfates are found in rocks and parent material containing coal deposits and iron minerals such as shales and sandstones. The sulfates (SO₄) are released from many different metals such as iron, manganese, calcium, magnesium, manganese, zinc and many other naturally occurring minerals. Extracting coal and these metals releases sulfates into the water where it reacts to form sulfuric acid. This reaction is the basis for the acidification of many streams and results in increasing concentration of the associated metals. Acidification of water can lead to death of the stream by completely killing all aquatic life. Streams located in limestone or dolomite valleys may have the ability to buffer acid formation thereby keeping the water at a more neutral pH.

Where water flows slowly such as in swamps seeps, marshes, and in underground caves and depressions, sulfates in water undergo a chemical reaction which results in the formation of sulfides. This reaction occurs more readily in acid conditions but under certain circumstances can occur in neutral or alkaline conditions. The presence of sulfides can be easily detected since they give off the "rotten egg" odor typically associated with stagnant water. Sulfides were detected in this manner at the Levisa River. A look into mining activities and the hydrogeology of the area may lead to the cause of this odor.

The recommended sulfate concentration limit is 250 mg/L. The BASINS output for sulfates is shown in Figure 15. The Levisa Watershed shows an elevated concentration of sulfate, which was confirmed by the previously documented odor problem. Past or present mining activities could have elevated the sulfate-sulfide concentration in the Levisa River, but the natural presence of coal beds, iron and manganese probably resulted in a high baseline level which should be taken into account. Figure 16 shows the monitoring stations where sulfate levels were recorded. Most of these stations match the locations where excess iron or manganese were also recorded.

Minerals and metals are not the only outputs BASINS can document. Monitored data also includes one the most contentious contaminants, fecal coliform bacteria.

Monitored data shows a range of fecal coliform from 2000 to 3280 colonies per 100 milliliters (ml) of water. See Figure 17. The recommended criteria for fecal coliform is 200 colonies per 100 ml for 2 or more samples over a 30 day period or a single count of 1000 colonies per 100 ml water at any time. The watersheds of the Big Sandy River Basin exceed the single count level by two to three times the limit. The Tug appears to have a more severe problem than the Upper Levisa on average. However, Figure 18 shows that the Tug had only two monitoring stations with one of them recording the exceedingly high value of 3280 colonies per 100 ml of water. The Upper Levisa had more monitoring stations with a wider range of values that still exceeded the recommended levels.

Several chemical processes occurring within the geology of Big Sandy River Basin are affecting the concentration of metals in the water. Hardness contributes to higher metal contamination while the fairly neutral pH of the water decreases metal contamination. Naturally high deposits of acidifying metals near the coal beds are neutralized by deposits of limestone and dolomite in the valleys. However, the chemical processes that are naturally balanced to form good water quality are compromised when mining activity occurs. Acid mine drainage from past and present mining activities throws off the balance by increasing acidity and excessive metal concentrations that exceed EPA’s recommended criteria.

The presence of fecal coliform does not signify that diseases are present, but there is potential of pathogen contamination associated with fecal coliform. The high fecal coliform contamination in the watershed must be further studied to pinpoint the source of the bacteria. Since agricultural production is rare in the river basin, other sources such as poorly installed or failed septic and sewer systems and "straight-piping" are more likely causes. Data from EPA 305(b) reports also suggest urban causes as the primary source of fecal coliform bacteria.

There are some opportunities for recreational developments which might improve the economic sustainability in the Big Sandy River Basin. Terrain in the basin and its undisturbed natural setting lends itself readily to camping, hiking, hunting, fishing and scenic lookouts. There are also opportunities for more specialized activities such as mountain biking and whitewater rafting. Limitations to the success of these opportunities include accessibility, local population base, presence of tourist amenities, and disposable income in the basin area.

A cursory evaluation of potential recreational benefits for the watershed consists of ranking several factors and assigning point values. Points will be assigned for general recreation activities and for specialized recreation activities. For the Big Sandy River Basin, general activities will include hiking, camping, fishing, and scenic opportunities. The summary is shown below in Table 4.

Table 4. Point Value and Summary Unit Day Value for Recreation Activities

Source: Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines of Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, Water Resources Council, 1983.

The recreation experience for potential activities in the Big Sandy River Basin consists of several general activities and more than one high quality activity. Whitewater rafting and mountain biking are defined as high quality or specialized activities. Camping, hiking, boating are general activities. Availability of opportunity ranks the distance to facilities offering similar activities within a defined radius. There are multiple opportunities within an hours drive for the general and special activities. Carrying capacity describes facilities currently available to support the general and special activities. Items which would affect this ranking include boat ramps, supply rental, campsite quality, and other public health and safety features. Accessibility describes ease of getting to the site via county and local roads and highways, and also ease of moving around within the site. Environmental quality describes aesthetic quality of the site and surrounding areas.

Based on the point assignments for general recreation activities, the current unit day value is $4.20. A conservative estimate of 10,000 visitor days could yield annual benefits of $42,000. This estimate is based on number of visitors to similar facilities and has been adjusted downward for local population and income and access statistics. For special recreation activities, the unit day value is $14.88. Given the seasonal nature of whitewater rafting, and adjusting for population, income and access, annual visitor days could total 1500, yielding annual benefits of $22,320. Although these estimates are conservative, the local economy would benefit. General tourism benefits that might result from multiplier effects have not been identified.

The results of the BASINS analysis revealed some metal or mineral contamination and significant fecal coliform pollution in the surface water of the watershed. Data from other published sources also confirm residents’ concerns that indicate that potential water quality impairments may exist as a result of runoff from abandoned coal mines. In addition, published data also document the presence of fecal coliform violations at several locations within the watershed. These are attributed to urban or household sources. More intensive analysis could not be made because of the lack of monitored data; one major missing component of which is ground water data. Evidence of other water quality concerns such as sedimentation or the presence of nitrates was not found in this cursory review.

Given the existence of known water quality concerns, the following is a list of recommendations that will improve the information resource and create a baseline in which to compare the effects of future activities in the watershed.

A cohesive, locally led approach is an effective way to address natural resource concerns. This type approach helps to involve communities and individuals directly impacted by water quality pollution. Though the approach begins at the local level, it is also imperative to involve pertinent groups, agencies, or municipalities at applicable city, county, state and regional levels. Local residents, industry representatives, city governments and wildlife habitat groups all represent entities that have interests in the water quality of an area. This diversity will make additional resources available to carry out a watershed plan. This will also help to insure that local groups have the access to authority necessary for obligating public resources and funds to the environment. The USDA-NRCS Social Sciences Institute has compiled a document which provides guidance for setting local natural resource priorities using a locally led planning approach. Highlights of this document follow.

• Establish a core working group or steering committee. This group should consist of local people who represent their own interests and those of specific groups. Representatives from government agencies and environmental groups should also be included.

• Develop and implement a media outreach plan to present all sides of natural resource issues to the population. Create a short presentation that describes past, present and future natural resources issues in the watershed or river basin. Use existing data and testimonials for past and present trends. Get technical assistance from government or privately run planning groups to forecast future issues, both with and without some project action. Use as many of the following as time and resources will permit:

Local television

Local radio

School contests

Posters or fact sheets

Newspaper articles or editorials

• Use public forums as a method of presenting and exchanging information. These gatherings should also be an opportunity to develop strategic plans and time tables.

• Gather comprehensive natural resource data from primary and secondary sources. Primary sources include residents and physical data collection or monitoring efforts. Develop comprehensive scientific ground and surface water monitoring programs which cover the basin area. Gather data from developed and undeveloped, mined and unmined streams near human and livestock activity if any. For the Big Sandy River Basin, it is important to measure the background contamination level of calcium and magnesium minerals as well as that of metals and acids, and to collect thorough geologic and hydrologic data.

• Develop a plan of action including a timetable to measure progress. Set specific goals with realistic dates so that accomplishments can be documented and shared with involved stakeholders and funding bodies.

These recommendations will be a good start in helping to manage the water quality in the Big Sandy River Basin watershed. It is important to have a baseline to compare the impact of past, current and future activities on the watershed. Then a comprehensive, locally developed plan of action can be developed that will insure good water quality long into the future.

Part of the locally led watershed planning approach involves finding resources for carrying out technical or educational activities. Following are potential sources of funds or other types of assistance that might help to address the environmental concerns in the Big Sandy River Basin.

Competitive grant program that will further the vision and goals of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. The SDCG program is an important opportunity for EPA to award competitive grants for seed funding to leverage private and other public sector investment in sustainable communities and watersheds.

http://www.epa.gov/reinvent/notebook/sdcg.htm

Objectives are to (1) support surveys, studies, investigations and special purpose assistance associated with air quality, acid deposition, drinking water, water quality, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides; (2) to identify, develop and demonstrate necessary pollution control techniques; (3) to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution; and (4) to evaluate the economic and social consequences of alternative strategies and mechanisms used by those in economic, social, governmental, and environmental management positions.

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/p66606.htm

Assist states and interstate agencies in establishing and maintaining adequate measures for prevention and control of surface and ground water pollution.

http://Aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/p66419.htm

Very Low-Income Housing Repair Loans and Grants (Section 504 Rural Housing Loans and Grants) to enable low income rural homeowners to remove health and safety hazards in their homes and to make homes accessible for people with disabilities. Grants up to $5000 are available for people 62 years old and older who cannot afford to repay a loan. Eligible areas are those with populations under 20,000 or under 10,000 in a metropolitan statistical area.

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/agency/rhs/rhsprog.html

This program provides grants, loans and guaranteed or insured loans to provide basic human amenities, alleviate health hazards and promote the orderly growth of the rural areas of the nation by meeting the need for new and improved rural water and waste disposal facilities. Funds may be used for the installation, repair, improvement, or expansion of a rural water facility including costs of distribution lines and well pumping facilities. Funds also support the installation, repair, improvement, or expansion of a rural waste disposal facility, including the collection and treatment of sanitary waste stream, storm water, and solid wastes.

http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/programs.htm

Grants to local watershed partnerships to support their organizational development and long-term effectiveness. Watershed Assistance Grants (WAG) Program funds are designed to bring together diverse interests to achieve watershed protection and restoration; and to build the capacity of existing or new watershed partnerships. http://www.rivernetwork.org/wag.htm

Earth Team Volunteers are individuals or groups who are interested in helping to conserve the nation’s natural resources. Volunteers must be at least 16 years old, and be citizens of the U.S. or an allied country. Tap into potential pools of high quality volunteers by consulting volunteer centers, retired senior volunteer programs (retired NRCS personnel are eligible), environmental societies or associations, and students interested in internship or service learning opportunities.

Data for this summary were collected from several sources. Many of the databases collect data on an ongoing basis for many water quality parameters.

Virginia Water Quality Assessment 1998, 305(b) Report to the EPA Administrator and Congress for the Period July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1997; Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, VA; April 1998

Virginia 303(D) Total Maximum Daily Load Priority List and Report, revised June 1998 [Draft], Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, VA

Hydrology of Area 16, Eastern Coal Province, Virginia and Tennessee, Powell River and Clinch River, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations, Open File Report 81-204

Quality of Ground Water in Southern Buchanan County, Virginia, Water Resources Investigation 82-4022, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, May 1983

Hydrology and Effects of Mining in the Upper Russell Fork Basin, Buchanan and Dickenson Counties, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4238, 1986

West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (http://www.dep.state.wv.us/watershed/major.html)

Kentucky Department of Natural Resources Cabinet, Division of Water (/)