DOCSLIB.ORG

Peasants, Wood and Ritchie Counties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Grimsley in the detailed Report submitted, the main source of natural wealth of the counties in question must always be found in its soils. True, there are splendid clays and shales for the manufacture of all manner of building and paving brick, and there is much good building stone accessible at the surface over wide areas of these three counties, but the Coal Measures, so rich in fuel farther eastward in Harrison and adjoining counties, contain practically no coal beds of commercial value at the present time. The rocky strata of the entire Coal Measures column occurring in the northern region of the State underlie this entire area, but the great Pittsburg bed so important in the counties of Har- rison, Marion, Monongalia, Marshall, Wetzel and the northern panhandle, as well as in eastern Doddridge, western Barbour, and over considerable areas in Taylor, Upshur, Lewis, Gilmer, Brax- ton, and a few other counties southwest from the latter, appears to be absent as a commercial deposit from Pleasants, Wood and Ritchie, while the coals of the Allegheny series, the Freeport, and Kittanning beds, so important in eastern Monongalia, Pres- ton, Barbour, Randolph, Tucker, Grant and Mineral counties, along the mountain regions of the State, are found in only thin and meagre development,,, so far as the drill of the oil and gas developments can be relied on, over the area herein described. A few years ago the drillers for several different oil companies operating in Union District Ritchie county, in what is locally LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. Vll. known as the White Oak oil fielld, reported a thickness of coal ranging fro,m 8 to 12 feet at the proper horizon for the Pitts- burg seam over a large region. A core drill, however, put down on the land of Zimri Flanaghan near the junction of Tuttle run with the South Fork of Hughes river, as described on pages 662 and 663, Volume II (A) of the State Survey Reports, found only 2 feet of coal under 10 feet of black slate, the oil well drill- ers having reported the entire 12 feet as \coal. It is barely pos- able that there may be limited areas in Ritchie where the Pitts- burg coal bed would make a better showing than the test on the Flanaghan farm, but the matter is doubtful. When the time comes in this county (as it most certainly will in the not distant future) that it becomes commercially possible to mine and distil the oily and bituminous matter from black shales, then this black shale and coal horizon of the Pittsburg bed in Ritchie county may prove a valuable mineral resource, since whatever coal is present could then be readily mined and taken out separte from the bituminous shale. The thin and irregular coal deposits occurring in the Coal Measures of this area appear to be clue to lack of suitable con- ditions for the growth and preservation of great peat bogs dur- ing Carboniferous time. As to the true cause of these unfavor- able conditions, the writer has elsewhere indicated that this fail- ure of deposition was primarily due to tbe water's covering the central portion of the Appalachian basin to a depth greater than was consistent with the rapid growth and accumulation of the debris from land vegetation, since the coal beds in each great series from the Pocahontas to the Monongahela, disappear suc- cessively in belts of no great width in miles, as one passes from the southeastern border of the Appalachian coal field north westward towards its central portion in West Virginia, while tbe rocky sediments of each series, although they greatly de crease in thickness, continue entirely across the basin, and ap pear to hold more limy material in the central portion where coal beds are thinnest and often completely absent as commer- cial fuel. The higher beds of the Permian series, like the Washing- ton coal, and Waynesburg .•/.. appear to be more persisl til over viii. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. this area than any of the others, and when coal becomes scarce in the Appalachian field, even these thin and impure beds may have considerable value. It is quite possible that the Waynes- burg A. bed may have been confused with the Washington coal in some portions of the area covered by this Report, since Mr. Hennen's work of 1909 in Caflhoun, Wirt and Roane counties appears to demonstrate that in the area he studied, the Waynes- burg A. bed is much more persistent than the higher or Wash- ington coal. The thin seam of coal at Cairo, which the writer onjee identified provisionally with the Washington and which identification Prof. Grimsley followed, turns out to be the Waynesburg A.. 60 to 70 feet below the horizon of the Wash- ington coal. Owing to the uncertain and irregular deposition of coal over this area, it is impossible, as Prof. Grimsley has said, to make any close estimate of the tonnage of these sporadic and impure beds that do occur. However, if we place the total quantity of coal, both pure and impure, that may exist under the area of these 3 counties, at 2 billion tons, it is quite proba- ble that it will not be underestimated. I. C. WHITE, State Geologist. Morgantown. April I, 1910. CONTENTS PAGE. Members of Geological Survey Commission Ill Members of Scientific Staff \ Letter of Transmittal VI-VIII Tab'.e of Contents IX Preface • XI 1 T Cbapter I. —The Historical and Industrial Development of Pleasants, Wood, and Ritchie Counties. i Chapter II.—The Physiography of Pleasants, Wood, and Ritchie Counties 13 Chapter III.—The Geology of Pleasants, Wood and Ritchie Counties 40 Chapter IV.—Petroleum and Natural Gas in Pleasant^ County 81 Chapter V.—Petroleum and Natural Gas in Wood County 114 Chapter VI.—Petroleum and Natural Gas in Ritchie County 147 Chapter VII.—The Chemistry of Petroleum from Pleasants. Wood, and Ritchie Counties 205 Chapter VIII.—Asphalt and Other Mineral Resources of Pleasants, Wood and Ritchie Counties 244 Chapter IX.—Climate of Pleasants, W]ood, and -Ritchie Counties 277 Chapter X.— Soil Survey of the Parkersburg Area 298 Appendix.—Levels above Mean Tide in Pleasants, Wood, and Ritchie Counties 33< I Index 34 ( ) ILLUSTRATIONS. MAPS IN ATLAS. Topographical Miap of Pleasants, Wood, and Ritchie Counties. Map Showing Areal Geology of Pleasants., Wood, and Ritchie Counties. Soil Map of Pleasants. Wood, and Ritchie Counties. PLATES. NO. PAGE. I. —Group of Derricks in the St. Marys and McFarlan Oil Fields Frontispiece II.— (A)—Birds Eye View of Town of St. Marys 18 (B) —The Ohio River Valley near Eureka. III.— (A) —View of Ohio River Valley near St. Marys. ... 36 (B) —Ohio River near St. Marys at Low Stage Water. IV.—Birds Eye View of Portion of Town of Cairo 52 A'. — (A) —The Hughes River Valley at McFarlan 60 (B) —The Sandstone Hills on McFarlan Run. VI.— (A) —Staunton Pike Bridge near McFarlan 80 (B) —Bando Oil Company Well on Long Run. VII.—Sandstone Rock Floor at Ohio River Dam, No. 18. 96 VIII.— Marietta Sandstone Cliffs near Calcutta 116 IX.—Waynesburg Sandstone Cliffs near Harrisville — 136 X. Waynesburg Sandstone Cliffs near St. Marys 150 X I . — Upper Freeport Sandstone and Coal on Cow Creek. ... 170 XII.—Folded Sandstone and Shales at Volcano 188 X I II.— (A)—Spindle Top Oil Field near St. Marys 200 (B)—Eureka Pipe Line Oil Tanks near Eureka. X I \ . —Oil Derrick near McFarlan 220 ILLUSTRATIONS. XI. XV.—Mount Farm Oil Field near Volcano 236 XVI.—Pumping Device in Volcano Oil Field 254 XVII.—Pumping Device on Mount Farm at Volcano 268 XVIII.—Grahamite Fissure at Ritchie Mines 280 XIX.— (A) —Marietta Sandstone Grindstone Quarry at Briscoe 300 (B) —Grindstones cut at Briscoe Quarry. XX.—High School Buildng at Parkersburg, Marietta Sand- stone 318 XXI.—Naughton Quarry in Waynesburg Sandstone at Cornwallis 330 FIGURES. NO. PAGE. i. Creek Profiles in Pleasants and Wood Counties 22 2. River and Creek Profiles in Wood and Ritchie Countes .
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]
  • Metals TMDL for Little Kanawha River Watershed, West Virginia US
    Final Report Metals TMDL for Little Kanawha River Watershed, West Virginia US Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA September 2000 Decision Rationale Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Aluminum and Total Iron for the Little Kanwaha River Watershed I. Introduction This document will set forth the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rationale for establishing the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Total Iron and Total Aluminum for the Little Kanawha River and five of its tributaries (Reedy Creek, Spring Creek, Sand Fork, Oil Creek, and Saltlick Creek). The TMDL was sent out for public comment on July 15, 2000. Our rationale is based on the determination that the TMDL meets the following 8 regulatory conditions pursuant to 40 CFR §130. According to the 1997 Consent Decree EPA was responsible to fulfill West Virginia’s obligations under the Consent Decree if the State was unable to do so. EPA established the TMDL for the Little Kanawha River Watershed because the State was unable to fulfill its Consent Decree commitments. 1. The TMDLs are designed to implement applicable water quality standards. 2. The TMDLs include a total allowable load as well as individual waste load allocations and load allocations. 3. The TMDLs consider the impacts of background pollutant contributions. 4. The TMDLs consider critical environmental conditions. 5. The TMDLs consider seasonal environmental variations. 6. The TMDLs include a margin of safety. 7. The TMDLs have been subject to public participation. 8. There is reasonable assurance that the TMDLs can be met. II. Background Located in central West Virginia, the Little Kanawha River watershed 1 is approximately 2,307 square miles (1.5 million square acres).
    [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]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Round Hickorynut Mussel (Obovaria Subrotunda)
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Round Hickorynut Mussel (Obovaria subrotunda) Photo credit: Environment Canada October 2019 Version 1.0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Atlanta, GA 1 Primary Contributors • Andrew Henderson - Asheville Field Office, Lead Biologist (Region 4) – primary author • Heidi Crowell - Pacific Southwest Regional Office, SAT Project Manager (Region 8) • Mark Endries - Asheville Field Office (Region 4) – mapping support Contributors & Agency Reviewers (underlined) • Paul Hartfield, Leroy Koch (retired), Angela Boyer, Stephanie Chance (retired), Bob Anderson, Tyler Hern, Andy Ford, Patty Morrison (retired), Bob Butler (retired), Josh Hundley (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) • Dr. Todd Morris (Fisheries & Oceans Canada) • Chuck Howard (retired), Tim Keeling (Tennessee Valley Authority) • Kierstin Carlson (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy) • Steve Ahlstedt (retired) (U.S. Geological Survey) • Dr. Arthur Bogan, Jamie Smith (North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences) • Jeremy Tiemann, Rachel Vinsel, Kevin Cummings (Illinois Natural History Survey) • Heidi Dunn, Emily Grossman (Ecological Specialists, Inc.) • Dr. Paul Johnson, Jeff Garner, Michael Buntin, Todd Fobian, Ashley Peters (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) • Gerry Dinkins (University of Tennessee) • Matt Johnson, Greg Zimmermann (EnviroScience, Inc.) • Mike Compton, Ian Horn (Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission) • Chad Lewis, Clarissa Lawliss (Lewis Environmental Consulting) • Nevin Welte (Pennsylvania Boat and Fish Commission) • Amy Mahar, Nick Conrad (New York Natural Heritage Program) • Darran Crabtree (New York Chapter, The Nature Conservancy) • Debbie Wolschki (Ohio Natural Heritage Program) • Janet Clayton (West Virginia Natural Resources) • Brant Fisher (Indiana Department of Natural Resources) • Dr. Monte McGregor, Adam Shepard, Keith Wethington (Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources) • Stuart McGregor (Geological Survey of Alabama) • Don Hubbs, Jason Wisenwski (Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency) • Dr.
    [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]
  • 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
    [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]