DOCSLIB.ORG

Elk River Watershed Elk River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Elk River Watershed Elk River WV Division of Water Resources An Ecological Assessment the Elk River Watershed West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resources This report summarizes the data collected in the Elk River Watershed by the Watershed Assessment Program in 1997. It includes: An Ecological Assessment of the ● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● Elk River Watershed ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Water Quality Information ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● from 151 sites; ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Fecal Coliform Bacteria (colonies / 100ml) ● 0 - 399 ● 400 - 1999 ● > 2000 60 64 80 68 Biological Health Information 74 77 76 82 62 (Macrobenthic invertebrates) 66 42 66 74 from 135 sites; 71 51 76 53 Average WVSCI Scores 70 Bad <42 43 - 53 54 - 64 65 - 71 72 - 77 Good 78 - 82 And physical habitat and landuse pattern information that help us identify and understand the impairments that are affecting the streams of West Virginia. Cropland and Pasture Deciduous Forest Land Evergreen Forest Land Residential, Urban, Industrial Mixed Forest Land Strip Mines; Quarries; and Gravel Pits Nonforested Wetlands Transitional Areas Orchards; Groves; Vineyards; Nurseries Transportation; Communications Reservoirs Watershed Assessment Program Watershed Assessment Program The Elk River Watershed 1 An Ecological Assessment of the Elk River Watershed Report number - 05050007 - 1997 prepared by: Watershed Assessment Program Division of Water Resources West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 1201 Greenbrier Street, Charleston, WV 25311 www.dep.state.wv.us 2 An Ecological Assessment of Table of Contents Summary ............................................................................................................................ 4 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................ 7 Watersheds and their Assessment ................................................................................... 8 The Elk River Watershed.................................................................................................. 14 Watershed Associations.............................................................................................. 19 Watershed Assessment Methods ................................................................................... 20 Biological Monitoring — Benthic Macroinvertebrates .............................................. 20 Stream Condition Index............................................................................................... 26 Fecal Coliform Bacteria ............................................................................................... 28 Physico-Chemical Sampling ....................................................................................... 29 Habitat Assessment ..................................................................................................... 31 Assessment Results ........................................................................................................ 33 General Overview ........................................................................................................ 33 Benthic Macroinvertebrates ....................................................................................... 35 Fecal Coliform Bacteria .............................................................................................. 35 Physico-chemical Water Quality ................................................................................ 38 Physical Habitat ..........................................................................................................39 Results by sub-watershed ......................................................................................... 41 Elk River mainstem sites ......................................................................................... 41 Charleston area sites ............................................................................................... 42 Little Sandy Watershed ............................................................................................ 43 Blue Creek Watershed ............................................................................................. 46 Falling Rock Creek and other streams near Clendenin ........................................ 47 Big Sandy Creek Watershed ................................................................................... 49 Laurel Creek Watershed .......................................................................................... 51 Lower Mid Elk River Sites ........................................................................................ 53 Buffalo Creek Watershed ......................................................................................... 55 Upper Mid Elk River sites......................................................................................... 57 Birch River ................................................................................................................ 60 Sites from Frametown to Webster Springs ............................................................ 62 Laurel Creek Watershed .......................................................................................... 64 Holly River Watershed.............................................................................................. 65 Upper Elk River Watershed ..................................................................................... 67 Implications....................................................................................................................... 69 References ........................................................................................................................ 73 Appendix A. DATA TABLES .......................................................................................... 75 Appendix B. Glossary ......................................................................................................119 The Elk River Watershed 3 List of Figures Figure 1. A Generalized Watershed ................................................................................ 10 Figure 2. West Virginia’s Watersheds............................................................................. 16 Figure 3. Landuses of the Elk River Watershed ............................................................. 17 Figure 4. Ecoregions within the Elk River Watershed. .................................................. 17 Figure 5. Benthic Macroinvertebrates (SOS Card - page 1) ......................................... 22 Figure 6. Benthic Collection Nets ................................................................................... 24 Figure 7. Sample Site locations ....................................................................................... 34 Figure 8. Average WVSCI scores by sub-watershed ..................................................... 34 Figure 9. Benthic health versus Habitat Condition ........................................................ 36 Figure 10. Frequency of Occurrence of Macrobenthic Taxa in Collections. Top 33 of 81 total Family level taxa ............................................................................. 37 Figure 11. Fecal Coliform Bacteria levels ....................................................................... 38 Figure 12. Illustration of embeddedness ........................................................................ 40 Figure 13. Stream segment with and without riparian buffer zone .............................. 40 List of Tables Table 1. Water quality parameters ................................................................................... 30 Table 2. Scoring for Rapid Habitat Assessment parameters ........................................ 32 Table 3. Sampling summary ............................................................................................ 33 APPENDIX A. DATA TABLES ................................................................................... 75 Table 4. Sites sampled ..................................................................................................... 75 Table 5. Physical characteristics of 100 meter stream reach ........................................ 79 Table 6. Observed Sediment Characteristics ................................................................. 83 Table 7. Substrate composition in area of macrobenthic collection ............................ 86 Table 8. Macrobenthic community metrics and WVSCI scores .................................... 89 Table 9. Benthic macroinvertebrates indentified ........................................................... 92 Table 10. Water quality - parameters measured in the field and Fecal coliform bacteria ............................................................................................... 111 Table 11. Additional WQ parameters taken from suspected AMD streams ................ 115 Table 12. Rapid Habitat Assessment Scores ............................................................... 116 4 An Ecological Assessment of Summary Assessment teams visited 165 sites in the Elk River watershed from June 25th to August 7th 1997. Assessments at each site included measurements of physical attributes of the stream and riparian zone, observations of activities and disturbances in the surrounding area, water quality analysis,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southwest Missouri Water Quality Improvement Project (Wqip) Elk River Basin Water Quality Gap
    SOUTHWEST MISSOURI WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (WQIP) ELK RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY GAP November 2008 PREPARED FOR: Environmental Resources Coalition 3118 Emerald Lane Jefferson City, Missouri 65109 PREPARED BY: MEC Water Resources, Inc. 1123 Wilkes Boulevard, Suite 400 Columbia, Missouri 65201 Ozarks Environmental Water Resources Institute, Missouri State University Temple Hall 328 901 South National Avenue Springfield, Missouri 65897 (page intentionally left blank) Southwest Missouri Water Quality Improvement Project Missouri State University Elk River Basin Water Quality Gap Analysis MEC Water Resources, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................vii I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................................1 II. STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................................................3 2.1. Basin Characteristics..................................................................................................3 2.2. Population and Land Use............................................................................................3 2.3. Permitted Point Source Discharges ..........................................................................7 2.4. Geology and Soils .....................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Restoration of Tanyard Creek in the Little Sugar Creek Watershed B
    1. Cover Page: 2012 State Wildlife Grant Pre-Proposal a. Title of Project: Stream Restoration of Tanyard Creek in the Little Sugar Creek Watershed b. Project Summary: A 2,500 foot section of Tanyard Creek will be enhanced and restored. Unstable streambanks and excessive woody debris are compromising the aquatic and terrestrial habitat of this Karst area, and accelerated streambank erosion is contributing approximately 1,600,000 lbs/yr of sediment and 200 lbs/yr of total phosphorus to the Little Sugar Creek basin. Aquatic habit is limited from severe sedimentation which has diminished riffle/pool features and from stream instability resulting in degradation of the riparian area. A natural channel design approach will be used to restore and enhance the channel in a manner that reduces streambank erosion, transports sediment efficiently, and improves the riparian area and aquatic habitat for 13 SGCNs. c. Project Leader: Sandi Formica, Executive Director Watershed Conservation Resource Center 380 West Rock, Fayetteville, AR 72701 [email protected], 501-352-5252 d. Project Partners: Darrell Bowman, Lake Ecology/Fisheries Manager, Bella Vista Village Property Owners Association (Bella Vista POA); [email protected], (479) 855-5068 Drew Holts, Executive Director, Elk River Watershed Improvement Association (Elk River WIA), [email protected], (417) 223-3414 Steve Filipek, Assistant Chief Special Programs, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AG&FC), [email protected], 501- 223-6369 David Casaletto, President, Ozark Water Watch and Multi-Basin Regional Water Council, [email protected], (417) 739-4100 e. Project Budget: Amount of SWG Funds Requested: $70,000 (37%) Total Matching Funds Provided: $121,000 (63%) Total Project Cost: $191,000 1 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of West Virginia
    Bulletin No. 233 Series F, Geography, 41 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIKECTOU A GAZETTEER OF WEST VIRGINIA I-IEISTRY G-AN3STETT WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1904 A» cl O a 3. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. DEPARTMENT OP THE INTEKIOR, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Washington, D. C. , March 9, 190Jh SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for publication as a bulletin, a gazetteer of West Virginia! Very respectfully, HENRY GANNETT, Geogwvpher. Hon. CHARLES D. WALCOTT, Director United States Geological Survey. 3 A GAZETTEER OF WEST VIRGINIA. HENRY GANNETT. DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE. The State of West Virginia was cut off from Virginia during the civil war and was admitted to the Union on June 19, 1863. As orig­ inally constituted it consisted of 48 counties; subsequently, in 1866, it was enlarged by the addition -of two counties, Berkeley and Jeffer­ son, which were also detached from Virginia. The boundaries of the State are in the highest degree irregular. Starting at Potomac River at Harpers Ferry,' the line follows the south bank of the Potomac to the Fairfax Stone, which was set to mark the headwaters of the North Branch of Potomac River; from this stone the line runs due north to Mason and Dixon's line, i. e., the southern boundary of Pennsylvania; thence it follows this line west to the southwest corner of that State, in approximate latitude 39° 43i' and longitude 80° 31', and from that corner north along the western boundary of Pennsylvania until the line intersects Ohio River; from this point the boundary runs southwest down the Ohio, on the northwestern bank, to the mouth of Big Sandy River.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis Rafinesqueana)
    Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) Cover photo: Dr. Chris Barnhart (Missouri State University) Prepared by: The Neosho Mucket Recovery Team This species biological report informs the Draft Recovery Plan for the Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017). The Species Biological Report is a comprehensive biological status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the Neosho Mucket and provides an account of species overall viability. A Recovery Implementation Strategy, which provides the expanded narrative for the recovery activities and the implementation schedule, is available at https://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es/. The Recovery Implementation Strategy and Species Biological Report are finalized separately from the Recovery Plan and will be updated on a routine basis. Executive Summary The Neosho Mucket is a freshwater mussel endemic to the Illinois, Neosho, and Verdigris River basins in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. It is associated with shallow riffles and runs comprising gravel substrate and moderate to swift currents, but prefers near-shore areas or areas out of the main current in Shoal Creek and Illinois River. It does not occur in reservoirs lacking riverine characteristics. The life-history traits and habitat requirements of the Neosho Mucket make it extremely susceptible to environmental change (e.g., droughts, sedimentation, chemical contaminants). Mechanisms leading to the decline of Neosho Mucket range from local (e.g., riparian clearing, chemical contaminants, etc.), to regional influences (e.g., altered flow regimes, channelization, etc.), to global climate change. The synergistic (interaction of two or more components) effects of threats are often complex in aquatic environments, making it difficult to predict changes in mussel and fish host(s) distribution, abundance, and habitat availability that may result from these effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Mississippi River-Brainerd Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report
    Watershed health May 2019 Upper Mississippi River-Brainerd Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report Authors Chad R. Anderson, Joe Hadash, Cadie Olsen, Sophia Vaughan, Anthony J. Dingmann, Mike Bourdaghs, Bruce Monson Contributors/acknowledgements Citizen Stream Monitoring Program Volunteers Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Agriculture Aitkin County SWCD Crow Wing SWCD Central Lakes College - Natural Resources Program The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs by using the Internet to distribute reports and information to wider audience. Visit our website for more information. MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer recycled content paper manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Project dollars provided by the Clean Water Fund (from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | 651-296-6300 | 800-657-3864 | Or use your preferred relay service. | [email protected] This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us. Document number: wq-ws3-07010104b Table of contents List of acronyms .............................................................................................................................. viii Executive summary ............................................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Mcdonald Countycounty Missourimissouri States...And It Territories...For the Protection of Life and Property
    National Weather Service “To provide weather and flood Natural Hazard Risk Assessment warnings, public forecasts and Information For: advisories for all of the United McDonaldMcDonald CountyCounty MissouriMissouri States...and it territories...for the protection of life and property. Information Provided By WFO Springfield, Mo National Weather Service 2009 Update Includes data and information through December 2008 5808 W Hwy EE Springfield, Mo. 65802 Phone: 417-864-8535 Email: [email protected] [email protected] National Weather Service Table of Contents Local Climatology Averages and records for Anderson, Missouri in McDonald County Overview of Weather Hazards in Southwest Missouri 2 Normal Normal Normal Normal Record Record Record Record Historical information for McDonald County Missouri 3 High Low Precip. Snow High Low Precip. Snow Tornado Information 4 Jan 45 22 2.00 4.4 78 -21 5.63 23.0 Severe Hail, Lightning, Wind and Winter Weather 5 Feb 51 27 2.01 3.0 86 -21 6.41 16.6 Flooding 6 Mar 61 36 3.75 2.1 90 -4 10.79 24.0 Heat , Drought and Wildfires 7 Apr 70 44 4.14 0 93 6 9.09 4.0 Dam Failure 8 Historic Weather in Southwest Missouri 9 May 76 53 4.75 0 93 27 16.07 0 Local Climatology 10 Jun 84 62 4.58 0 100 39 10.96 0 Jul 89 66 3.21 0 112 44 11.30 0 Aug 88 64 3.50 0 108 42 8.26 0 Sept 80 57 4.76 0 104 27 12.18 0 Oct 71 45 3.48 0 96 13 9.11 0.5 Nov 58 35 4.41 1.1 86 0 9.09 8.0 Dec 48 26 3.01 2.7 80 -18 6.89 14.3 Links for Climate information www.crh.noaa.gov/sgf/ www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ www4.ncdc.noaa.gov This document is intended to provide general information on severe weather that has affected McDonald County and the communities with in the county.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample County History Submission
    1 Sample County History Submissions of county history articles should include all of the following elements indicated in bold type. Title: McDonald County Region: Southwest County seat: Pineville Established: March 3, 1849 Population: 23,073 (2010 Census) Area: 539.48 square miles (2010 Census) Author: Kimberly Harper About the Author: Kimberly Harper is the associate editor at the State Historical Society of Missouri. She lives in Columbia. Author’s email address and/or phone number: (please include contact information, which will be kept private) Summary (provides the first paragraph of text for the article and is included in the word count): Located in the southwest corner of Missouri, McDonald County borders Arkansas and Oklahoma. Situated within the Ozark Plateau, it is characterized by a mixture of rugged hills, scenic ridges and river valleys, rolling prairie, towering limestone bluffs, and upland forest. The origins of its nickname, “Snake County,” are obscure, but the name may have been prompted by the large number of snakes found in and around the county’s many streams and caves. Although it remains predominantly rural, McDonald County is included in the Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, Arkansas, Metropolitan Statistical Area, and serves as a bedroom community for these larger Arkansas towns.1 Home to Elk River, Big and Little Sugar Creeks, and Indian Creek, it is known for its scenic beauty and tourism industry. Body text (it is preferred that the text be organized chronologically, with or without subheadings): Pre-European Exploration Archaeological excavations have shown that McDonald County has been inhabited by humans for thousands of years.2 At the time of European contact, the Osage occupied the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulations Summary 2019
    WEST VIRGINIA FISHINGRegulations Summary 2019 wvdnr.gov From the Director Last year the DNR released an updated, online interactive map that provides valuable information on all aspects of fishing and hunting adventures. DNR personnel are continuing to update information and produce new, useful maps. After hearing about the need from anglers in an online survey, DNR personnel collected lake depth data and processed new bathymetry maps for 35 lakes across the state. These maps are now available on the interactive fishing map and downloadable to print or take with you on your mobile device. Also, anglers can now access the real-time streamflow conditions from the U.S. Geological Survey on our interactive fishing map. The real-time information allows anglers to check on flow and make decisions about whether fishing conditions are ideal before heading out to a stream or river. Visit wvdnr.gov/gis for more details and links to the interactive map and other map pages. You helped fund this project through the Sport Fish Restoration Program, using excise taxes on selected fishing equipment and boat fuel. I encourage you to take advantage of West Virginia’s abundant natural resources and go fishing every chance you get. And take a friend or family member with you. It’s a great way to relax and enjoy each other’s company. Stephen S. McDaniel, DNR Director DISTRICT OFFICES Main Office - South Charleston, WV 25303 324 4th Avenue Fish Management − Mark T. Scott (304) 558-2771 Law Enforcement − Col. Jerry Jenkins (304) 558-2784 License Unit − Michael Ingram (304) 558-2758 District 1 - Farmington, WV 26571 1110 Railroad Street (304) 825-6787 Fish Management − Dave Wellman Law Enforcement − Capt.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Investigations Program SURVEY of the ELK RIVER
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist Water Investigations Program SURVEY OF THE ELK RIVER SYSTEM IN ALABAMA FOR FISH SPECIES OF MODERATE TO HIGHEST CONSERVATION CONCERN: REPORT OF RESULTS FOR 2004 OPEN-FILE REPORT 0506 by Thomas E. Shepard, Patrick E. O'Neil, Stuart W. McGregor, and Maurice F. Mettee Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2004 CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Acknowledgments .................................................... 1 Introduction.......................................................... 2 Study area .......................................................... 3 Methods ............................................................ 6 Results and discussion................................................. 6 Conclusions ........................................................ 35 Literature cited ...................................................... 36 APPENDICES A. Collection results for fish samples in the Elk River system, 2004 . 39 B. Abundance and catch per unit effort (CPUE) for 12 fish species of conservation concern and two nonnative species in the Elk River system, 2004. 70 ILLUSTRATIONS 1. The Elk River system in Alabama and Tennessee . 4 2. Sampling stations in the Elk River system, 2004 . 11 3. Sampling stations where the boulder darter, Etheostoma wapiti, was collected in the Elk River system, 2004 ..................................... 16 4. Sampling
    [Show full text]
  • Status Survey of the Western Fanshell and the Neosho Mucket in Oklahoma
    1990 c.3 OKLAHOMA <) PROJECT TITLE: STATUS SURVEY OF THE WESTERN FANSHELL AND THE NEOSHO MUCKET IN OKLAHOMA To determine the distribution and abundance of the freshwater mussels Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) and Lampsilis rafinesqueana Frierson in Oklahoma. A survey to determine the status of the freshwater mussels, Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) and Lampsilis rafinesqueana Frierson, in Oklahoma was completed during August and September, 1989. These species are also known by the common names of Western Fanshell and Neosho Mucket, respectively. The western fanshell is probably extinct in the state. It is known that the species formerly occurred in the Verdigris River in Oklahoma and as a result of this study, was determined that it had also existed in the Caney River. However, no evidence of living or fresh specimens was found in any river system in northeastern Oklahoma. The Neosho mucket has also disappeared from most of its former range within the state and presently only occurs in a segment of the Illinois River system extending from the Lake Frances dam near the Arkansas border to Lake Tenkiller. Protection for this species is recommended. This report describes efforts to determine the status of two species of freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Oklahoma. Both species are generally considered to be rare and have rather limited geographical distributions. Both species may meet the criteria of endangered species and thus it was considered important to gain some information as to their current status. Both species have been recorded in Oklahoma but their current abundance and distribution in the state were unknown. The western fanshell, Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) was described in 1850 from specimens collected on the rapids of the Verdigris River, Chambers' Ford, Oklahoma (Johnson, 1980).
    [Show full text]
  • Walk Across West Virginia Route Descriptions
    WWAALLKK AACCRROOSSSS WWEESSTT VVIIRRGGIINNIIAA RROOUUTTEE DDEESSCCRRIIPPTTIIOONNSS Few of us have the time to actually Walk Across West Virginia (WAWV), but we can do a virtual Walk Across West Virginia by walking a distance equal to walking across the state. On the following pages are descriptions of five routes across West Virginia. Two are existing trails, two are hypothetical straight line routes through the geographical center of the state and one is a combination of trails and public roads. The longest route across the state is 281 miles. If you walked 5.5 miles a week or 21.5 miles a month, in your local neighborhood, you would equal the longest distance in less than a year. So why not set a personal goal of Walking Across West Virginia this year! Record the date you reach a specific mileage point on one of the routes to track your progress. You can use the mileage tracking chart found on the WAWV website to track your accumulated miles. Include your family members in your trip. You might enhance the “virtual” experience by actually walking parts of the existing trails nearest you, or by visiting some of the areas traversed by the hypothetical routes. The West to East route across the state also includes “trivia questions” about West Virginia. See how much you know about West Virginia.! Allegheny Trail Milage Listing Date Mileage Elevation Description _____ 0.0 2182 Pennsylvania/West Virginia State Line close to Bruceton Mills on Local Route 4 _____ 8.0 1495 Cross under I-68 _____ 13.3 1693 Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of West Virginia Water-Resources Data Through
    Prepared in cooperation with the West Virginia Division of Water and Waste Management Summary of West Virginia Water-Resources Data through September 2008 By R.D. Evaldi, S.M. Ward, and J.S. White Open-File Report 2009-1199 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2009 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Suggested citation: Evaldi, R.D., Ward, S.M., and White, J.S., 2009, Summary of West Virginia water-resources data through September 2008: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1199, 326 p. ii Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Data Presentation ..............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]