DOCSLIB.ORG

Soil Survey of Wayne County, West Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Soil Survey of Wayne County, West Virginia United States In cooperation with Department of West Virginia Agricultural Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Soil Survey of Station Natural Wayne County, Resources Conservation Service West Virginia 3 How to Use This Soil Survey General Soil Map The general soil map, which is the color map preceding the detailed soil maps, shows the survey area divided into groups of associated soils called general soil map units. This map is useful in planning the use and management of large areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the map, identify the name of the map unit in the area on the color-coded map legend, then refer to the section General Soil Map Units for a general description of the soils in your area. Detailed Soil Maps The detailed soil maps follow the general soil map. These maps can be useful in planning the use and management of small areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the Index to Map Sheets, which precedes the soil maps. Note the number of the map sheet and turn to that sheet. Locate your area of interest on the map sheet. Note the map units symbols that are in that area. Turn to the Contents, which lists the map units by symbol and name and shows the page where each map unit is described. The Contents shows which table has data on a specific land use for each detailed soil map unit. Also see the Contents for sections of this publication that may address your specific needs. 4 This soil survey is a publication of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. This survey updates the “Soil Survey of the Huntington Area, West Virginia,” printed in 1912 (USDA, 1912). It provides additional information and has larger scale maps, which show the soils in greater detail. Major fieldwork for this soil survey was completed in 1992. Soil names and descriptions were approved in 1993. Unless otherwise indicated, statements in this publication refer to conditions in the survey area in 1992. This survey was made cooperatively by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. The survey is part of the technical assistance furnished to the Guyan Soil Conservation District. Soil maps in this survey may be copied without permission. Enlargement of these maps, however, could cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping. If enlarged, maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a larger scale. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover: East Lynn Lake at Kiahsville. The surrounding landscape is typical of the Dekalb-Latham- Gilpin general soil map unit. Additional information about the Nation’s natural resources is available on the Natural Resources Conservation Service home page on the World Wide Web. The address is http://www.nrcs.usda.gov (click on “Technical Resources”). 5 Contents How to Use This Soil Survey .................................. 3 FvF—Fiveblock channery sandy loam, very Contents .................................................................. 5 steep, very stony .......................................... 31 Foreword ................................................................. 7 GuC—Gilpin-Upshur complex, 8 to 15 General Nature of the County ................................... 9 percent slopes ............................................. 32 Settlement .......................................................... 10 GuD—Gilpin-Upshur complex, 15 to 25 Farming .............................................................. 10 percent slopes ............................................. 33 Relief and Drainage ............................................ 10 GuE—Gilpin-Upshur complex, 25 to 35 Geology .............................................................. 10 percent slopes ............................................. 34 Climate ............................................................... 10 GuF—Gilpin-Upshur complex, 35 to 65 How This Survey Was Made ................................... 11 percent slopes ............................................. 35 General Soil Map Units ........................................ 13 Gw—Grigsby loam ............................................. 36 Soils on Terraces and Flood Plains ..................... 13 Gy—Guyan silt loam .......................................... 36 1. Urban land-Ashton-Lindside .................... 13 Hu—Huntington silt loam .................................... 38 2. Grigsby-Lobdell-Chagrin .......................... 13 KaA—Kanawha loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ...... 38 3. Gilpin-Cotaco-Allegheny .......................... 14 KaB—Kanawha loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes ...... 39 4. Kanawha-Udorthents-Huntington ............ 14 LgC—Latham-Gilpin complex, 8 to 15 percent 5. Udorthents-Nelse .................................... 15 slopes .......................................................... 40 Soils on Strongly Dissected Uplands .................. 16 LgD—Latham-Gilpin complex, 15 to 25 6. Gilpin-Upshur-Beech ............................... 16 percent slopes ............................................. 41 7. Dekalb-Latham-Gilpin .............................. 16 Lo—Lobdell loam ............................................... 42 8. Dekalb-Pineville-Guyandotte ................... 17 MaB—Markland silt loam, 3 to 8 percent Detailed Soil Map Units ........................................ 19 slopes .......................................................... 42 AgC—Allegheny loam, bedrock substratum, MaC—Markland silt loam, 8 to 15 percent 8 to 15 percent slopes.................................. 20 slopes .......................................................... 43 AsA—Ashton silt loam ........................................ 21 Me—Melvin silt loam .......................................... 44 BeC—Beech loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes ......... 21 NeD—Nelse silt loam, 3 to 25 percent slopes .... 44 BeD—Beech loam, 15 to 25 percent PbE—Pineville and Buchanan channery slopes .......................................................... 22 loams, 15 to 35 percent slopes, extremely BeE—Beech loam, 25 to 35 percent slopes ....... 23 stony ............................................................ 45 BuC—Beech-Urban land complex, 3 to 15 Ud—Udorthents, smoothed ................................ 46 percent slopes ............................................. 23 UsB—Urban land-Ashton-Lindside complex, Ca—Chagrin silt loam ........................................ 25 0 to 8 percent slopes.................................... 46 CtA—Cotaco loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ........... 25 UtD—Urban land-Gilpin-Upshur complex, CtB—Cotaco loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes ........... 27 15 to 25 percent slopes................................ 47 DgF—Dekalb-Gilpin complex, 35 to 65 UvB—Urban land-Kanawha-Cotaco complex, percent slopes, very stony ........................... 27 0 to 8 percent slopes.................................... 48 DlE—Dekalb-Latham complex, 25 to 35 UwB—Urban land-Wheeling complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes ............................................. 28 percent slopes ............................................. 49 DPG—Dekalb-Pineville-Guyandotte Prime Farmland .................................................... 51 association, very steep, extremely stony ...... 29 Use and Management of the Soils ...................... 53 DrD—Dormont-Latham complex, 15 to 25 Crops and Pasture ............................................. 53 percent slopes ............................................. 30 Yields per Acre ............................................... 54 DrE—Dormont-Latham complex, 25 to 35 Land Capability Classification ........................ 54 percent slopes ............................................. 31 Woodland Management and Productivity ........... 55 6 Recreation .......................................................... 57 Udorthents ......................................................... 87 Wildlife Habitat ................................................... 59 Upshur Series .................................................... 88 Engineering ........................................................ 61 Wheeling Series ................................................. 88 Building Site Development ............................. 61 Formation of the Soils .......................................... 91 Sanitary Facilities ........................................... 62 Factors of Soil Formation ................................... 91 Construction
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Decision Rationale Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Twelvepole Creek Watershed, West Virginia
    Decision Rationale Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Twelvepole Creek Watershed, West Virginia ____________ _________________ Catherine A. Libertz, Director Water Division Date: _________ ______________ Decision Rationale Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Twelvepole Creek Watershed, West Virginia I. Introduction The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be developed for those waterbodies identified as impaired by a state where technology-based effluent limits and other pollution controls do not provide for the attainment of water quality standards. A TMDL establishes a target for the total load of a particular pollutant that a water body can assimilate and divides that load into wasteload allocations (WLA), given to point sources, load allocations (LAs), given to nonpoint sources and natural background, and a margin of safety (MOS), which takes into account any uncertainty. Mathematically, a TMDL is commonly expressed as an equation, shown below. 푇푀퐷퐿 = ∑푊퐿퐴푠 + ∑퐿퐴푠 + 푀푂푆 This document sets forth the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III’s (EPA’s) rationale for approving TMDLs for iron, selenium, aluminum, pH, and fecal coliform bacteria in the Twelvepole Creek Watershed submitted by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP). The TMDLs were developed to address impairments of water quality standards as identified on West Virginia’s section 303(d) list of water quality- limited segments. WVDEP submitted TMDLs for 194 impaired streams in its report entitled Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Twelvepole Creek Watershed, West Virginia (March 2021) (hereinafter referred to as the “TMDL Report”), to EPA for final review and action on March 4, 2021.
    [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]
  • U.S. EPA Approved Camp Creek TMDL Report
    Total Maximum Daily Loads for Streams in the Camp Creek of Twelvepole Creek Watershed, West Virginia FINAL APPROVED REPORT July 2009 Camp Creek Watershed: TMDL Report CONTENTS Acronyms AND Abbreviations .....................................................................................................v 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 ......................................................10 4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Cover Sheet
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA OHIO VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, INC.; SIERRA CLUB; WEST VIRGINIA HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY, INC.; & WEST VIRGINIA RIVERS COALITION; Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. GINA MCCARTHY, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, & SHAWN M. GARVIN, Regional Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INTRODUCTION 1. This action challenges six (6) final actions by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, its Administrator, and Regional Administrator for Region III (collectively, “EPA”), and seeks to compel Defendants to perform certain nondiscretionary duties under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (the “Clean Water Act” or “CWA”). 2. The challenged final actions include: a. EPA’s September 24, 2009 approval of the Total Maximum Daily Loads (“TMDLs”) for selected streams in the Upper Ohio River South Watershed (hereinafter, the “Upper Ohio South TMDLs”), submitted by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (“WVDEP”); 1 b. EPA’s September 30, 2009 approval of the TMDLs for selected streams in the Dunkard Creek Watershed (hereinafter, the “Dunkard Creek TMDLs”), submitted by the WVDEP; c. EPA’s April 23, 2012 approval of the TMDLs for selected streams in the Lower Kanawha River Watershed (hereinafter, the “Lower Kanawha River TMDLs”), submitted by WVDEP; d. EPA’s May 17, 2012 approval of the TMDLs for selected streams in the Elk River Watershed (hereinafter, the “Elk River TMDLs”), submitted by WVDEP; e. EPA’s April 2, 2014 approval of the TMDLs for selected streams in the Monongahela River Watershed (hereinafter, the “Monongahela River TMDLs”), submitted by WVDEP; and f.
    [Show full text]
  • CALL Today 304-526-4002 Connecting You with Local Buyers,Quickly and Effectively
    The Wayne County News — Wednesday, August 30, 2017 7B CALL today 304-526-4002 Connecting you with local buyers,quickly and effectively Legal Notices Legal Notices Legal Notices Legal Notices Legal Notices Legal Notices Legal Notices Legal Notices Legal Notices Legal Notices Virginia, and being West Virginia, in Book made under the terms in hand on day of sale whichever is longer. P.O. Box 81 this action on or before Fifth St., Bldg 1, Suite more particularly de- 626, at Page 864. At 6)The total purchase and conditions of said or within 30 days of Parkersburg, WV September 29, 2017. Red Oak 201, Buckhannon, WV scribed as follows: the time of the execu- price is payable to the deed of trust, and the date of sale upon The party(ies) secured 26102 If you fail to do so, 11,179 26201 telephone; tion of the Deed of Trustee within thirty provisions in said deed terms to be agreed by the Deed of Trust Telephone thereafter judgment, 304-545-9015, email All that certain lot, Trust, this property (30) days of the date of of trust concerning ac- upon between Trustee reserve the right to (304) 485 3851 upon proper hearing Black Walnut address Travis.M.Miller Piece or parcel of real was reported to have a sale, with ten (10%) of celeration having been and successful bidder, purchase the property Fax (304) 485-0261 and trial, may be taken 2,186 @wv.gov. estate, situate in Hun- mailing address of the total purchase complied with by the time being of the es- at such sale.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Floyd Hoard Stark and Pitt Hoard Stark Collection, 1820-1970
    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Guides to Manuscript Collections Search Our Collections 2014 0818: Floyd Hoard Stark and Pitt Hoard Stark Collection, 1820-1970 Marshall University Special Collections Follow this and additional works at: https://mds.marshall.edu/sc_finding_aids Part of the Labor History Commons, Political History Commons, Public History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Floyd Hoard Stark and Pitt Hoard Stark Collection, 1820-1970, Accession No. 2014/09.0818, Special Collections Department, Marshall University, Huntington, WV. This Finding Aid is brought to you for free and open access by the Search Our Collections at Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Guides to Manuscript Collections by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Finding Aid for The Floyd Hoard Stark and Pitt Hoard Stark Collection, 1820s-1970s Accession Number: 2014/09.0818 Special Collections Department James E. Morrow Library Marshall University Huntington, West Virginia 2015 James E. Morrow Library Marshall University The Floyd Hoard Stark and Pitt Hoard Stark Collection 1820s-1970s Accession Number: 2014/09.0818 Processed by: Mike Emett, Andrew Lore, & Laura Maple Location: Special Collections Department, Morrow Library, Room 217 Date: 1820s-1970s System of Arrangement: The collection was grouped into eight series: Series I - Personal, Series II - Business, Series III - Legal, Series IV - Railroad, Series V - Land and Minerals, Series VI - Eli Thayer, Series VII - Watertown Musket and Series VIII - Miscellaneous. Oversized documents have been boxed separately from their original series however their separate boxes display the correct series number.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Twelvepole Creek Watershed, West Virginia
    Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Twelvepole Creek Watershed, West Virginia Draft Report November 2020- REVISED 12/8/2020 Revisions and additions are noted in Table of Contents and italicized in documented On the cover: Photos provided by WVDEP Division of Water and Waste Management Twelvepole Creek Watershed: TMDL Report CONTENTS Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Definitions ..................................................................................v Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... viii 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....................................................................6 3.1 Watershed Description .............................................................................................6 3.2 Data Inventory .........................................................................................................8 3.3 Impaired Waterbodies ............................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • The Samuel Smith Land Grants
    Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar Theses, Dissertations and Capstones 2005 The aS muel Smith land grants: a historical study of land ownership and use in southern West Virginia Stephen M. Porter Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd Part of the History Commons, Other Geography Commons, and the Remote Sensing Commons Recommended Citation Porter, Stephen M., "The aS muel Smith land grants: a historical study of land ownership and use in southern West Virginia" (2005). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 790. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SAMUEL SMITH LAND GRANTS: A HISTORICAL STUDY OF LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE IN SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA Thesis submitted to The Graduate College of Marshall University In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Science Geography By Stephen M. Porter James Leonard, Ph. D., Committee Chairperson Sarah Brinegar, Ph. D. Committee Member Larry Jarrett, M.A. Committee Member Marshall University April 4, 2005 ABSTRACT “THE SAMUEL SMITH LAND GRANTS: AN HISTORICAL STUDY OF LAND OWNERSHIP AND LAND USE IN SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA” By Stephen M. Porter This study intends to illustrate the history of several tracts of land granted to General Samuel Smith, of Baltimore, Maryland by the state of Virginia in the years 1796 and 1797 containing, in totality, 300,000 acres (more or less). This research attempts to untangle some of the tangled web of ownership (both surface and mineral) that has affected this tract in particular and reflects the general trend of corporate land ownership in southern West Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • COST EFFECTIVENESS of the STREAM- GAGING PROGRAM in WEST VIRGINIA by G
    COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THE STREAM- GAGING PROGRAM IN WEST VIRGINIA by G. S. Runner, R. L. Bragg, and J. T. Atkins, Jr, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4089 Charleston, West Virginia 1989 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information write to: Copies of the report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey, WRD U.S. Geological Survey 603 Morris Street Books and Open-File Reports Charleston, West Virginia 25301 Box 25425, Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract........................................................... 1 Introduction....................................................... 2 History of the stream-gaging program in West Virginia......... 3 Current West Virginia stream-gaging program................... 4 Uses, funding, and availability of continuous streamflow data...... 9 Data-use classes.............................................. 9 Regional hydrology...................................... 9 Hydrologic systems...................................... 9 Legal obligations....................................... 10 Planning and design..................................... 10 Project operation....................................... 11 Hydrologic forecasts.................................... 11 Water-quality monitoring................................ 11 Research................................................ 11 Other................................................... 11 Funding......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms, a XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    71-22,513 NAPIER, Teddy Lee, 1942- THE IMPACT OF WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT UPON LOCAL RURAL COMMUNITIES: ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TO RAPID CHANGE. The Ohio State Univer’si'ty, Ph.D., 1971 Sociology, general University Microfilms, A XEROXCompany , Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE IMPACT OF WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT UPON LOCAL RURAL COMMUNITIES: ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TO RAPID CHANGE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ted';L. Napier, B.A., M.A. The Ohio State University 1971 Approved by Adviser Department of Sociology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to the agencies and individuals who were essential in making this research possible. To his adviser, Dr. Kent P. Schwirian, Professor of Sociology, for his advice, constructive criticisms, and interest in the develop­ ment of this research. To Dr. R. F. Sletto, Dr. Robert Roth, and Dr. Wen Li for their participation in the research and their helpful suggestions. To Dr. G. Howard Phillips for his untiring efforts through advice and counsel. To the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center for financial support. To the United States Corps of Engineers and the Ohio Depart­ ment of Natural Resources for their cooperation in providing infor­ mation essential to this research. To Dr. David Boyne, Chairman of the Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Department, whose active support facilitated the conduct of the research. To the many other professionals within the Department of Agri­ cultural Economics and Rural Sociology, and the Department of Sociology who provided helpful counsel.
    [Show full text]