DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Hughes River TMDL Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Hughes River TMDL Report Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Hughes River Watershed, West Virginia USEPA Approved Report September 2018 On the cover: Photos provided by WVDEP Division of Water and Waste Management Hughes River Watershed: TMDL Report CONTENTS Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions ................................................................................ iv Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... vii 1.0 Report Format ....................................................................................................................1 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1 2.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads ...................................................................................1 2.2 Water Quality Standards ..........................................................................................4 3.0 Watershed Description and Data Inventory....................................................................5 3.1 Watershed Description .............................................................................................5 3.2 Data Inventory .........................................................................................................7 3.3 Impaired Waterbodies ..............................................................................................9 4.0 Biological Impairment and Stressor Identification ......................................................16 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................17 4.2 Data Review ...........................................................................................................17 4.3 Candidate Causes/Pathways...................................................................................17 4.4 Stressor Identification Results ...............................................................................20 5.0 Metals Source Assessment ...............................................................................................23 5.1 Metals Point Sources..............................................................................................23 5.1.1 Non-mining Point Sources .........................................................................25 5.1.2 Construction Stormwater Permits ..............................................................25 5.2 Metals Nonpoint Sources .......................................................................................28 5.2.1 Sediment Sources .......................................................................................29 6.0 Fecal Coliform Source Assessment.................................................................................32 6.1 Fecal Coliform Point Sources ................................................................................32 6.1.1 Individual NPDES Permits ........................................................................32 6.1.2 General Sewage Permits ............................................................................32 6.2 Fecal Coliform Nonpoint Sources .........................................................................34 6.2.1 On-site Treatment Systems ........................................................................34 6.2.2 Urban/Residential Runoff ..........................................................................36 6.2.3 Agriculture .................................................................................................36 6.2.4 Natural Background (Wildlife) ..................................................................36 7.0 Modeling Process .............................................................................................................37 i Hughes River Watershed: TMDL Report 7.1 Model Selection .....................................................................................................37 7.2 Model Setup ...........................................................................................................38 7.2.1 General MDAS Configuration ...................................................................38 7.2.2 Iron and Sediment Configuration...............................................................39 7.2.3 Fecal Coliform Configuration ....................................................................40 7.3 Hydrology Calibration ...........................................................................................41 7.4 Water Quality Calibration ......................................................................................41 7.5 Modeling Technique for Biological Impacts with Sedimentation Stressors .........42 7.6 Allocation Strategy ................................................................................................43 7.6.1 TMDL Endpoints .......................................................................................43 7.6.2 Baseline Conditions and Source Loading Alternatives .............................44 7.7 TMDLs and Source Allocations ............................................................................47 7.7.1 Total Iron TMDLs......................................................................................47 7.7.2 Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDLs ...............................................................49 7.7.3 Seasonal Variation .....................................................................................49 7.7.4 Critical Conditions .....................................................................................50 7.7.5 TMDL Presentation ...................................................................................50 8.0 TMDL Results ..................................................................................................................51 9.0 Future Growth .................................................................................................................62 9.1 Iron .........................................................................................................................62 9.2 Fecal Coliform Bacteria .........................................................................................63 10.0 Public Participation .........................................................................................................63 10.1 Public Meetings .....................................................................................................63 10.2 Public Notice and Public Comment Period ...........................................................64 10.3 Response Summary ................................................................................................64 11.0 Reasonable Assurance .....................................................................................................65 11.1 NPDES Permitting .................................................................................................65 11.2 Watershed Management Framework Process ........................................................66 11.3 Public Sewer Projects ............................................................................................67 12.0 Monitoring Plan ...............................................................................................................67 12.1 NPDES Compliance...............................................................................................67 12.2 Nonpoint Source Project Monitoring .....................................................................67 12.3 TMDL Effectiveness Monitoring ..........................................................................67 13.0 References .........................................................................................................................68 ii Hughes River Watershed: TMDL Report TABLES Table 2-1. Applicable West Virginia water quality criteria .......................................................... 5 Table 3-1. Modified landuse for the Hughes TMDL watersheds ................................................. 7 Table 3-2. Datasets used in TMDL development ......................................................................... 8 Table 3-3. Waterbodies and impairments for which TMDLs have been developed................... 11 Table 4-1. Biological impacts resolved by implementation of pollutant-specific TMDLs ........ 21 Table 7-1. TMDL endpoints........................................................................................................ 44 Table 8-1. Iron TMDLs ............................................................................................................... 51 Table 8-2. Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDLs ............................................................................... 58 FIGURES Figure I-1. Examples of a watershed, TMDL watershed, and subwatershed ............................... vi Figure 2-1. Hydrologic groupings of West Virginia’s watersheds ................................................ 3 Figure 3-1. Location of the Hughes River Watershed TMDL Project Area in West Virginia ...... 6 Figure 3-2. Hughes TMDL Watersheds....................................................................................... 10 Figure 4-1. Conceptual model of candidate causes and potential biological effects ................... 19 Figure 5-1. Point sources in the Hughes River Watershed .......................................................... 24 Figure 5-2. Construction
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pittsburgh NWP 12 Combined
    PASPGP-5 PERMIT COMPLIANCE, SELF-CERTIFICATION FORM Project Name: Applicant Name: PADEP Permit No: Date of Issuance: Corps Permit Number: Date of Issuance: Waterway: County: In accordance with the compliance certification condition of your PASPGP-5 authorization, you are required to complete and sign this certification form and return it to the appropriate Corps of Engineers District in which the work is located. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District Baltimore District Pittsburgh District Regulatory Branch 1631 South Atherton Street Regulatory Branch Wanamaker Building Suite 101 Federal Building, 20th Floor 100 Penn Square East State College, PA 16801-6260 1000 Liberty Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4186 Please note that the permitted activity is subject to compliance inspections by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representatives. As a condition of this permit, failure to return this notification form, provide the required information below, or to perform the authorized work in compliance with the permit, can result in suspension, modification or revocation of your authorization in accordance with 33 CFR Part 325.7 and/or administrative, civil, and/or criminal penalties, in accordance with 33 CFR part 326. Please provide the following information: 1. Date authorized work commenced: ________________________________________________ 2. Date authorized work completed: ________________________________________________ 3. Was all work, including any required mitigation, completed in accordance with your PASPGP-5 authorization? YES NO 4. Explain any deviations (use additional sheets if necessary) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Was compensatory wetland/stream mitigation accomplished through an approved Mitigation Bank and/or In-Lieu fee program? YES NO (if YES, attach proof of transaction, if NO complete Number 6 and 7 below).
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Army Letterhead
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HUNTINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 502 EIGHTH STREET HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA 25701-2070 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF December 22, 2017 Regulatory Division Energy Resource Branch LRH-2015-592-GBR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NO. 12 VERIFICATION Mr. Shawn Posey Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC 555 Southepointe Boulevard, Suite 200 Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317 Dear Mr. Posey: I refer to the Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC’s request received on February 25, 2016 with an updated application received on February 17, 2017 and additional information received December 18, 2017 requesting a Department of the Army (DA) authorization to discharge dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.) in association with the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) Project. The proposed project will involve the construction of a 304-mile 42-inch natural gas pipeline in Virginia and West Virginia. The MVP pipeline will cross the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Pittsburgh, Norfolk and Huntington Districts regulatory boundaries. Approximately 164-miles of the proposed pipeline, approximately 132-miles of proposed access roads, and three (3) compressor stations are located within the Huntington District’s regulatory boundary in Monroe, Summers, Greenbrier, Nicholas, Webster, Braxton, Lewis, Harrison, and Wetzel Counties, West Virginia. The project has been assigned the following file number: LRH-2015-592-GBR. Please reference this number on all future correspondence related to this proposed project. The Corps’ authority to regulate waters of the United States is based on the definitions and limits of jurisdiction contained in 33 CFR 328 and 33 CFR 329. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Section 404) requires a DA permit be obtained prior to discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio River Basin Pilot Study
    Institute for Water Resources–Responses to Climate Change Program Ohio River Basin Pilot Study CWTS report 2017-01, May 2017 OHIO RIVER BASIN– Formulating Climate Change Mitigation/Adaptation Strategies through Regional Collaboration with the ORB Alliance U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Ohio River Basin Alliance Institute for Water Resources, Responses to Climate Change Program Sunrise on the Ohio River. January, 2014. i Institute for Water Resources–Responses to Climate Change Program Ohio River Basin Pilot Study i Institute for Water Resources–Responses to Climate Change Program Ohio River Basin Pilot Study Ohio River Basin Climate Change Pilot Study Report ABSTRACT The Huntington District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in collaboration with the Ohio River Basin Alliance, the Institute for Water Resources, the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division, and numerous other Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, research institutions, and academic institutions, has prepared the Ohio River Basin Climate Change Pilot Report. Sponsored and supported by the Institute for Water Resources through its Responses to Climate Change program, this report encapsulates the research of numerous professionals in climatology, meteorology, biology, ecology, geology, hydrology, geographic information technology, engineering, water resources planning, economics, and landscape architecture. The report provides downscaled climate modeling information for the entire basin with forecasts of future precipitation and temperature changes as well as forecasts of future streamflow at numerous gaging points throughout the basin. These forecasts are presented at the Hydrologic Unit Code-4 sub-basin level through three 30-year time periods between 2011 and 2099. The report includes the results of preliminary investigations into the various impacts that forecasted climate changes may have on both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and operating water resources infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 3.-0Hio River Basin
    c Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 3.-0hio River Basin Index of Surface-Water Recordr to September 30, 1 970 Part 3.-0hio River Basin GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 653 Washington J ,71 United States Department of the Interior ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary Geological Survey W. A. Radlinski, Acting Director Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242 Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30, 1970 Part 3.-0hio River Basin INTRODUCTION This report lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in the Ohio River basin for which records have been or are to be published in reports of the Geological Survey for periods through September 30, 1970. lt supersedes Geo­ logical Survey Circular 573. It was updated by personnel of the Data Reports Unit, Water Resources Division, Geo­ logical Survey. Basic data on surface-water supply have been published in an annual series of water-supply papers consisting of several volumes, including one each for the States of Alaska and Hawaii. The area of the other 48 States is divided into 14 parts whose boundaries coincide with certain natural drainage lines. Prior to 1951, the records for the 48 States were published in 14 volumes, one for each of the parts. From 1951 to 1%0, the records for the 48 States were published annually in 18 volumes, there being 2 volumes each for Parts 1, 2, 3, and 6. Beginning in 1961, the annual series of water-supply papers on surface-water supply was changed to a 5-year series, and records for the period 1961-65 were published in 37 volumes, there being 2 or more volumes for each of 11 parts and one each for parts 10, 13, 14, 15 (Alaska), and 16 (Hawaii and other Pacific areas).
    [Show full text]
  • USEPA Approved IR 303D Co
    2016 West Virginia Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Prepared to fulfill the requirements of Section 303(d) and 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act and Chapter 22, Article 11, Section 28 of the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act for the period of July 2014 through June 2016. Prepared by the Division of Water and Waste Management Jim Justice Governor Austin Caperton Cabinet Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Scott G. Mandirola Director Division of Water and Waste Management 2016 WV Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Water Quality Standards ............................................................................................ 2 3.0 Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment ................................................................. 4 3.1 Streams and Rivers ......................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Probabilistic (Random) Sampling ...................................................................................... 5 3.3 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network ....................................................................... 5 3.4 Targeted Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 7 3.5 Pre-Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Development Monitoring ........................................
    [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]
  • Huntington NWP 12 Combined
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HUNTINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 502 EIGHTH STREET HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA 25701-2070 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF February 17, 2017 Regulatory Division Energy Resource Branch LRH-2014-00804-OHR – Ohio River NATIONWIDE PERMIT NO. 12 VERIFICATION Ms. Buffy Thomason Rover Pipeline, LLC 1300 Main Street Houston, Texas 77002 Dear Ms. Thomason: I refer to the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) requesting a Department of the Army (DA) authorization to discharge dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.) in association with the operation and construction of the Rover Pipeline Project. The project is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act of 2005 (Docket No. CP15-93-000); the FERC issued an Environmental Impact Statement for this project on July 29, 2016. The Rover Pipeline Project involves facilities located within multiple districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. The project corridor originates near New Milton, in Doddridge County, West Virginia and terminates near Howell, in Livingston County, Michigan. Within the Huntington District Regulatory Boundary, the project proposes work within multiple counties in West Virginia and Ohio. In West Virginia, portions of the project are located within Doddridge, Tyler and Wetzel Counties. In Ohio, portions of the project are located within Noble, Monroe, Harrison, Carroll, Tuscarawas, Stark, Wayne, Ashland, Richland, and Crawford Counties. The DA file number (LRH-2014-00804-OHR) should be referenced on all future correspondence related to this project. The U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior
    Vol. 77 Tuesday, No. 30 February 14, 2012 Part VI Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox Mussels Throughout Their Ranges; Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:11 Feb 13, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14FER3.SGM 14FER3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 8632 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Species Information are swollen, turned forward and inward, and extended above the hingeline Rayed Bean Fish and Wildlife Service (Cummings and Mayer 1992, p. 162). The rayed bean is a small mussel, Beak sculpture consists of three or four 50 CFR Part 17 usually less than 1.5 inches (in) (3.8 faint, double-looped bars (Cummings centimeters (cm)) in length (Cummings and Mayer 1992, p. 162; Parmalee and [Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2010–0019; and Mayer 1992, p. 142; Parmalee and Bogan 1998, p. 108). The anterior end of 4500030113] Bogan 1998, p. 244; West et al. 2000, p. the shell is rounded, and the posterior 248). The shell outline is elongate or end is truncated, highly so in females. ovate in males and elliptical in females, RIN 1018–AV96 The posterior ridge is prominent, being and moderately inflated in both sexes, high and rounded, while the posterior Endangered and Threatened Wildlife but more so in females (Parmalee and slope is widely flattened. The posterior and Plants; Determination of Bogan 1998, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing Regulations
    FISHING REGULATIONS SUMMARY 2021 FROM THE DIRECTOR My grandmother used to say, “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.” Well, 2020 could certainly fall into the “lemons” category, but from a fish management standpoint, things could not have gone better. The COVID pandemic motivated millions of Americans to step outside and take in all that Mother Nature has to offer. The West Virginia mountains provide an ideal backdrop for this increased outdoor activity. Our parks, streams and lakes have experienced record attendance, and fishing licenses sales have been robust. Our fish management professionals were behind the scenes making things happen. We continued to work on improving fish habitat, stocking trout and other species, as well as kicking off our $40 million hatchery renovation program. Our hatcheries had been neglected for decades. We started with the hatchery at Bowden. Early last year, Bowden began receiving a $10 million makeover. When finished, it will not only provide state of the art facilities but will increase rearing capacity by 50 percent. When all the renovations are complete, our hatcheries will be able to produce well over one million pounds of trout annually. Looking forward to 2021, we anticipate expanding our Gold Rush event, continuing to improve fish habitat, and developing new special regulation areas and events to create more exciting opportunities for anglers throughout West Virginia. I hope the upcoming season is a special one, and until next time ”tight lines” for everyone. Hancock Stephen S. McDaniel, DNR Director Brooke Ohio Marshall Monongalia Wetzel Morgan Marion Tyler Preston Berkeley Mineral Pleasants Jeerson Taylor Hampshire Harrison Doddridge Grant ___________________ Wood Barbour Ritchie Tucker District Offices Wirt Lewis Hardy Gilmer Randolph Jackson Mason Calhoun Upshur Roane Braxton Main Office - South Charleston, WV 25303 Pendleton Putnam Webster Clay 324 4th Avenue Cabell Kanawha Fish Management − Mark T.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources Sustainability and Safe Yield in West Virginia
    Water Resources Sustainability and Safe Yield in West Virginia Prepared for West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Prepared by Heidi L.N. Moltz James B. Palmer Karin R. Bencala Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, Suite PE-08 Rockville, MD 20850 March 2013 ICPRB Report No. ICPRB-13-3 This report is available online at www.PotomacRiver.org. Cover Photo Image obtained from http://desktopwallpaperz.com. Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policies of the United States government or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. ii Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Appendices ................................................................................................................................... iii Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................... iv Units of Measurement .............................................................................................................................. iv 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • West Virginia's Water Quality Assessment 305(B) Report 2002
    West Virginia’s Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report 2002 Upper Ohio South Dunkard Creek Monongahela R West Fork River Cacapon River Little Kanawha River Lower Ohio Big S andy Greenbrier Twelvepole Ck River Lower New River Upper Guyandotte James River Upper New River Focus on Watersheds Assessed in 1999 & 2000 West Virginia Water Quality Status Assessment Table of Contents Part Page I. Executive Summary / Overview 7 II. Surface Water Assessments 12 SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENTS - BY WATERSHED 21 Greenbrier River 23 James River 28 Little Kanawha River 32 Lower New River 37 Monongahela River 43 Upper New River 48 Big Sandy River 53 Cacapon River 58 Dunkard Creek 63 Lower Ohio River 68 Twelvepole Creek 73 Upper Guyandotte River 79 Upper Ohio River South 84 West Fork River 89 III. Lake Water Quality Assessment 94 IV. Groundwater Quality 102 V. Wetlands 104 VI. Water Pollution Control Program 105 Chapter One: Point Source Control Program 105 Chapter Two: Nonpoint Source Control Program 107 Chapter Three: Cost/Benefit Assessment 110 Chapter Four: Surface Water Monitoring Program 112 Chapter Five: Special State Concerns and Recommendations 123 Page 2 2002 305(b) Report List of Tables Table Page Table 1. Water Resources Atlas 9 Table 2. West Virginia Waterbody Assessment Matrix 13 Table 3. Overall Designated Use Support Summary: Statewide 14 Table 4. Individual Use Support Summary: Statewide 15 Table 5. Summary of Impairment Causes: Statewide 18 Table 6. Summary of Impairment Sources: Statewide 19 Table 7. Trophic State Indices of Priority Lakes 95 Table 8. Overall Designated Use Support Summary: Lakes 97 Table 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Peasants, Wood and Ritchie Counties
    V :.... "^I^C CD o o•s d a> a> P CO p p %•":, 3 02 WEST VIRGINIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY County Reports and Maps Pleasants, Wood and Ritchie Counties BY G. P. GRIMSLEY I. C. WHITE, State Geologist QE '77 f)SPS J THE ACHE PUBLISHING COMPANY PRINTERS AND BINDERS MOROANTOWN 1910 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY COMMISSION. WILLIAM E. GLASSCOCK President GOVERNOR OF WEST VIRGINIA. E. L. LONG Vice President TREASURER OE WEST VIRGINIA. ARCHIBALD MOORE Secretary PRESIDENT OF STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. D. B. PURINTON Treasurer PRESIDENT OF WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY. JAMES H. STEWART Executive Officer DIRECTOR STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. SCIENTIFIC STAFF. I. C. WHITE State Geologist SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SURVEY. G. P. GRIMSLEY Assistant Geologist RAY V. HENNEN Assistant Geologist C. E. KREBS Assistant Geologist D: B. REGER Temporary Field Assistant A. B. BROOKS Forester B. H. HITE Chief Chemist J. B. KRAK Assistant Chemist EARL M. HENNEN Chief Clerk J. L. WILLIAMS Stenographer LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. To His Excellency, Hon. William E. Glasscock, Governor of West Virginia, and President of the State Geological and Economic Survey Commission : the Detailed Sir : — I have the honor to transmit herewith Report of Prof. G. P. Grimsley on the counties of Pleasants, Wood and Ritchie, together with the topographic, geologic, and soil maps covering the entire area of the three counties in single sheets. These maps should prove of great value to every inter- est, and especially to that of agriculture. Aside from the vast oil and gas fields that have been developed in this area, the de- scription of which is so well set forth by Prof.
    [Show full text]