DOCSLIB.ORG

082105Come093009.Wpd PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION at A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

082105come093009.wpd PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON At a session of the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA in the City of Charleston on the 30th day of September 2009. CASE NO. 08-2105-E-CS AES NEW CREEK, LLC Application for a Siting Certificate to Authorize the Construction and Operation of a Wholesale Electric Generating Facility in Grant County, West Virginia Public Service Commission of West Virginia Charleston TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .......................................... 2 11. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND EVIDENCE ........................... 8 A. StatutoryTest ................................................ 8 B. The Commission’s Application of Part One ........................ 9 1. Part One (a) - The Interest of AES New Creek to Construct the Project ............................................. 9 2. Part One (b) - The Need for Generating Plants in the State andRegion ........................................... 10 3. Part One (c) - The Economic Gain to the State and the LocalEconomy ........................................ 13 4. Part One (i) - Community Residents’ Interest in Living Separate from the Project, Part One (ii) - The Project’s Negative Impacts be Minimally Disruptive to Existing Uses, and Part One (iii) - The Project’s Social and Environmental Impacts . 14 a. Viewshed ....................................... 15 b. Noise .......................................... 17 C. Birds and Bats ................................... 21 d. Water .......................................... 24 5. Proposed Conditions and the Memorandum Agreement ........ 24 C. The Commission’s Application of Part Two ....................... 3 1 111. FINDINGS OF FACT ............................................. 31 IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ......................................... 43 V. ORDER ......................................................... 48 Public Service Commission of West Virginia Charleston COMMISSION ORDER By this Order, the Commission (i) grants a conditional siting certificate to AES New Creek, LLC (“AES New Creek”) and (ii) approves the January 14, 2009 Memorandum Agreement between AES New Creek and the Trades Council. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY’ On December 19,2008, AES New Creek filed an application for a Siting Certificate2 (“Application”), pursuant to W.Va. Code 824-2- 1IC, to authorize the construction and operation of a $308 million wind turbine wholesale electric generating facility, including related interconnection facilities. AES New Creek proposed to construct up to sixty-six wind turbines on a seven-mile stretch of the New Creek Mountain ridge line from a point approximately one mile north of Greenland Gap near Greenland in Grant County and proceeding in a northern direction to the county line with Mineral County. AES New Creek EX. 1,p. 1-1. AES New Creek stated that the Project will be located within 4,900 acres of leased land that consists primarily of undeveloped mountainous woodlands. About fifty acres will be required for the Project’s final footprint. Id., pp. 1-1, 1-2, 7-1. AES New Creek has already obtained the leases needed for the construction and operation of the Project. AES New Creek Ex. RAC-D, p. 8. There is one residence located within 3,500 feet to the closest proposed turbine. That residence, a part-time residence, is located approximately 1,300 feet from the closest proposed turbine. The owner of this residence has entered into a lease agreement with AES New Creek. There are only nine residences within 4,000 feet of the Project, and three of these residences are under lease agreements with AES New Creek. AES New Creek Ex. RAC-D, pp. 8-9. 1 The Table of Contents and Headings are provided purely as a convenience to the reader. Material or discussion under one heading may also relate to material or discussion under another heading. In all events, the substantive content ofthe Commission’s Order, and not the wording or placement of any heading, controls. 2 AES New Creek’s Application consisted of three volumes in excess of 1,100 pages, including multiple tables and figures and nineteen appendices. The Application was filed in accordance with the Commission’s Rules Governing Siting Certificates for Exempt Wholesale Generators (‘‘Siting Rules”), 15 C.S.R. Series 30. AES New Creek numbered the pages of its Application and related materials beginning with a section and then specific page of that particular section. Thus, page 1-2 refers to Section 1, page 2, and not to pages 1 through 2. For the sake of consistency, the Commission will follow the same page numbering format when referring to the Application. Public Service Commission of West Virginia Charleston 2 According to the Application, AES New Creek selected this site because it has an excellent wind resource; the Project can meet growing demand for electricity in the PJM3 service territory; the landowners support the Project; the Project is located away from sensitive receptors such 2s residences and recreational areas 2nd near an existing electric transmission line; and environmental aspects are expected to be minimal. AES New Creek Ex. 1, p. 1-1; AES New Creek Ex. RAC-D, p. 11. AES New Creek asserted that neither the Project nor the related interconnection facilities is a utility providing service to the public, and there will be no direct financial impact to West Virginia ratepayers from the construction and operation of the Project. AES New Creek Ex. 1, App. B, p. 2. Rates charged for electricity from the Project will be subject to regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) for negotiated rates. _.Id. According to the Application, the Project will be capable of generating up to 160 megawatts (“MW’)‘ to an existing Allegheny Power 500 kV overhead transmission line that runs from Mount Storm to Doubs and is located approximately 3,300 feet from the southern- most proposed turbine location. AES New Creek Ex. 1, pp. 1-1,4.1. A collector system of buried cables will conduct electricity from each of the wind turbines to a new collection substation. From the collection substation, power will be conducted to a new switching station located adjacent to the collection substation and then to the existing 500 kV transmission line. Id.,pp. 1-3,4-1, AES New Creek will bear all of these costs and the costs for any other upgrades necessary for the Project to deliver its electricity to the existing 500 kV transmission line. Id., p. 4-1. AES New Creek will enter into agreements with PJM to govern the Project’s operation and interconnection with the 500 kV transmission line. According to the Application, the PJM feasibility study indicates that there is adequate capacity to accept 160 MW from the Project. Id., p. 1-3 & App. F. According to the Application, AES New Creek will obtain 40 to 60 percent of the Project funding through equity, and the remainder of its funding will be borrowed. No public funds will be used, and there are no agreements with public entities regarding the funding of the Project. Id., p. 12-1; AES New Creek Ex. RAC-D, p. 15. 3 PJM Interconnection L.L.C., a regional transmission organization (ccRTO”),coordinates the movement of electricity through all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia; operates a wholesale electricity market; and manages a long-term regional electric transmission planning system to maintain the reliability to the power supply system. 4 A megawatt is enough electricity to power approximately 800 to 1,000 homes. Public Service Commission of West Virginia Charleston If the Project is constructed at its full maximum size of 160 MW, then the estimated property tax that AES New Creek will pay to Grant County is approximately $673,000 per year. For the full maximum size of 160 MW, AES New Creek will also pay approximately $2 19,000 per year in Stzite taxes for the first ten years of the Project and $437,000 per year thereafter. AES New Creek Ex. 1, pp. 12-3, 12-4. If the Project size results in a capacity of 99 MW, then the estimated property tax that AES New Creek would pay to Grant County is approximately $428,000 per year, with approximately $135,000 per year in State taxes for the first ten years of the Project and $27 1,000 per year thereafter. Id., p. 12-4. The Project will result in about 123 construction jobs and eight to ten permanent jobs when the Project is operational. Id.,pp. 12-2, 12-3. Under the requirements of W.Va. Code 924-2- 1lc(b), the Commission must issue its final order in this proceeding by October 15,2010. Initial Public Notice & Comment Letters The Commission received letters in support of and in opposition to the Project after AES New Creek filed the Application. By the end of June 2009, the comment letters in support of the Project numbered approximately 44, and the number of comment letters in opposition numbered approximately 107. AES New Creek published notice of the Application on December 30, 2008, in Kanawha County in The Charleston Gazette and in Grant County in The Grant County Press. See Affidavits of Publication filed January 5,2009. AES New Creek placed a copy of the Application at the Grant County Public L brary. AES New Creek Ex. 1 (cover letter). Reauest for Waiver of Filing Requirements; Interventions On February 23, 2009, the Commission granted a request of AES New Creek for a waiver of certain certificate application filing requirements. Because the Commission's jurisdiction, by law, is limited regarding the operations of the Project, the Commission did not require AES New Creek to file information that relates to the traditional public utility model under which the Commission establishes rates for service based on the cost to the utility to provide that service. February 23,2009 Commission Order, pp. 6, 12. Additionally, AES New Creek filed a photograph to satis& Siting Rule 3.1 .g.2 that was three months older than the Siting Rules require and sought a waiver from the requirement of the Siting Rules.
Recommended publications
  • The Cacapon Settlement: 1749-1800 31

    The Cacapon Settlement: 1749-1800 31

    THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 31 THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 31 5 THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 The existence of a settlement of Brethren families in the Cacapon River Valley of eastern Hampshire County in present day West Virginia has been unknown and uninvestigated until the present time. That a congregation of Brethren existed there in colonial times cannot now be denied, for sufficient evidence has been accumulated to reveal its presence at least by the 1760s and perhaps earlier. Because at this early date, Brethren churches and ministers did not keep records, details of this church cannot be recovered. At most, contemporary researchers can attempt to identify the families which have the highest probability of being of Brethren affiliation. Even this is difficult due to lack of time and resources. The research program for many of these families is incomplete, and this chapter is offered tentatively as a basis for additional research. Some attempted identifications will likely be incorrect. As work went forward on the Brethren settlements in the western and southern parts of old Hampshire County, it became clear that many families in the South Branch, Beaver Run and Pine churches had relatives who had lived in the Cacapon River Valley. Numerous families had moved from that valley to the western part of the county, and intermarriages were also evident. Land records revealed a large number of family names which were common on the South Branch, Patterson Creek, Beaver Run and Mill Creek areas. In many instances, the names appeared first on the Cacapon and later in the western part of the county.
  • A Retrospective Tiered Environmental Assessment of the Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, West Virginia, Usa

    A Retrospective Tiered Environmental Assessment of the Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, West Virginia, Usa

    - ORNL/TM-2012/515 A RETROSPECTIVE TIERED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE MOUNT STORM WIND ENERGY FACILITY, WEST VIRGINIA, USA November 26, 2012 Rebecca A. Efroymson and Robin J. Day Oak Ridge National Laboratory M. Dale Strickland Western EcoSystems Technology DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Information Bridge. Web site http://www.osti.gov/bridge Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source. National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847) TDD 703-487-4639 Fax 703-605-6900 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.ntis.gov/support/ordernowabout.htm Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS) representatives from the following source. Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone 865-576-8401 Fax 865-576-5728 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.osti.gov/contact.html This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof.
  • New Creek Wind Project 2018 Post-Construction Monitoring

    New Creek Wind Project 2018 Post-Construction Monitoring

    New Creek Wind Project 2018 Post-construction Monitoring Results of April – November 2018 Curtailment Evaluation, Acoustic Bat Monitoring, and Bird and Bat Carcass Surveys January 31, 2019 Prepared for: New Creek Wind, LLC Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 30 Park Drive Topsham, ME 04086 NEW CREEK WIND PROJECT 2018 POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 MONITORING OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 3 2.0 METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 TURBINE OPERATION AND CURTAILMENT EVALUATION ........................................ 3 2.2 ACOUSTIC MONITORING ............................................................................................. 4 2.2.1 Acoustic Detector Deployment ....................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Acoustic Data Analysis and Summary ............................................................ 5 2.3 BAT ACTIVITY AND TURBINE OPERATION ................................................................. 6 2.4 STANDARDIZED CARCASS
  • Water Resources Research Center in the District of Columbia: Water

    Water Resources Research Center in the District of Columbia: Water

    DC WRRC Report. No. 36 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Water Resources Research Center WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Water Supply Management In the District of Columbia: An Institutional Assessment by Daniel P. Beard, Principal Investigator February 1982 WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT IN TI-M DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: AN INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT WRRC Report No. 36 by Or. Daniel Beard ERRATA The following errors should be corrected as follows: Page V-5, Line 11 - The diameter of the conduit from Great Falls is 9 ft. not 90 ft. Page V-6, Line 18 - The operation of the water department of the District is not under the Chief of Engineers. Page V-8, Figure 14 - The line of supply to the Federal Government in Virginia is through the D.C.-DES, not through Arlington County. Page VI-8 - Mr. Jean B. Levesque was the Administrator of the Water Resources Management Administration of the Department of Environmental Services. DISCLAIMER "Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement or recommendation for use by the United States Government”. ABSTRACT This study defines the District of Columbia's water management structure, explains how it operates, delineates the issues it will have to deal with in the 1980's, and assesses how the District is prepared to deal with these issues. The study begins with a description of the Potomac River Basin and the physical environment water managers in the Washington Metropolitan have to deal with.
  • Planning Assistance to States Jennings Randolph Lake Scoping Study Phase II Report

    Planning Assistance to States Jennings Randolph Lake Scoping Study Phase II Report

    ~ ~ U. S. Army Corps Interstate Commission of Engineers on the Potomac River Basin Planning Assistance to States Jennings Randolph Lake Scoping Study Phase II Report APRIL 2020 Prepared by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Laura Felter and Julia Fritz and Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Cherie Schultz, Claire Buchanan, and Gordon Michael Selckmann Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Study Authority ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Congressional Authorizations and Project Objectives .................................................................. 3 1.4 Study Area Management .............................................................................................................. 4 2 Scoping Studies ..................................................................................................................................... 7 3 Watershed Conditions Analysis ...........................................................................................................
  • Participant Statistical Areas Program Verification

    Participant Statistical Areas Program Verification

    39.338794N 2020 PSAP VERIFICATION (PSAPV) - CENSUS TRACT CODE REVIEW MAP: Tucker County, WV 39.335839N 79.842446W 79.282054W S a un r ny o sid Rd r e e R 26 u ik d n d A P tow orge R Kane e W H r G a e d s hingt o v on wy i R H 50 ll F R hurch o i r ll e w C y R e e d t t d R i h l S 72 el 50 W G D d 50 a y R r d re n d t ha e Aurora R t S s itt H e w w d e y il D 50 en W B g in 219 K d venb 50 R Ste urg d 24 50 l R o d y Rd 50 on ho w b c Geor H ib S ge Washi R n n g gton Hwy e so d n u n R i l a orman R i r B k M G n 50 p a S R le p 560 a M /5 te 76 ollo o R Dayt tone H w Rd C on S B o lya rd n Rd Georg ma e Wa Gor sco L sh er d Ro a in y R n te ill t g S ll H z t Be o R n d Hw Grange Hall 219 y glon Rd 50 R E S M te e a v nburg d p en teve le bu S R rg o S B c d p ir k R r ch y 72 in Cas d lley Hw d g h Ro t R Va n Va o t la H lle 50 l a e Is w y o R h y d o C n d h e 50 ge R c v id e R S w S o rr 6 24 a R 1 N ts d a r Mo e Rd b ge Gorman m Rid u e N pl m te S Sn y yder w H H o tt llo e w rr d 90 a R G k K c no o tt R s 219 e l F b V e a Rd 50 C l T a a t d on l h o or le e n l R C a H a n Rd y t i rt o ill H ll o ls e H 50 w Rd P i ous y ent D W th Accid Al Rd y ar d a ay W B rk 72 a P d 90 e in o W F ses h G airview C S Hor neg hurch R in d y Chur d Bayard c n R ch l u Rd a l R r i nak T r S e Rd R y a e c d l l e a n V e S n s 24 i e v e s a t r G D H 219 - ir e a e l L inc d S R lli H n a ilson Rd m W w o d PRESTON 077 B R ds lan d n Is R Seve TUCKER 093 e Ridg ry er d h R C d k R c s a t B a l g F A les Rd o l Sca d H B o ro o
  • Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River

    Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River

    Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River North Fork Watershed Project/Friends of Blackwater MAY 2009 This report was made possible by a generous donation from the MARPAT Foundation. DRAFT 2 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 TABLE OF Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 THE UPPER NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ................................................................................... 7 PART I ‐ General Information about the North Branch Potomac Watershed ........................................................... 8 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Geography and Geology of the Watershed Area ................................................................................................. 9 Demographics .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................
  • HV September 2009.P65

    HV September 2009.P65

    Volume 42, Number 9 September, 2009 GROUPS PETITION OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING TO TAKE OVER REGULATION OF MINING IN WEST VIRGINIA By John McFerrin The West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the Sierra Club, Coal mountaintop removal mining. River Mountain Watch, and the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition have The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has petitioned the federal Office of Surface Mining to evaluate the West ignored this rule since its inception. The petition now asks the Office of Virginia State surface mining program, withdraw approval of that pro- Surface Mining to step in and enforce it. gram, and substitute federal enforcement. If successful, the petition The regulation of surface mining is designed to be a partner- would result in the federal Office of Surface Mining (instead of the West ship. In 1977 Congress passed the Surface Mining Control and Recla- Virginia Department of Environmental Protection) regulating mining in mation Act. In that Act, Congress and the federal Office of Surface West Virginia. Mining established minimum standards for the regulation of surface The focus of the petition is the what is known as the buffer zone mining. So long as a state established and enforced equally effective rule. This rule says that a mine cannot disturb the land within one hun- standards it could carry out its own program for the regulation of sur- dred feet of a stream unless certain conditions are met. Such distur- face mining. When it failed to do so, the Office of Surface Mining would bance is prohibited unless the “surface mining activities will not ad- step in and enforce the law.
  • Fishing Regulations JANUARY - DECEMBER 2004

    Fishing Regulations JANUARY - DECEMBER 2004

    WEST VIRGINIA Fishing Regulations JANUARY - DECEMBER 2004 West Virginia Division of Natural Resources D I Investment in a Legacy --------------------------- S West Virginia’s anglers enjoy a rich sportfishing legacy and conservation ethic that is maintained T through their commitment to our state’s fishery resources. Recognizing this commitment, the R Division of Natural Resources endeavors to provide a variety of quality fishing opportunities to meet I increasing demands, while also conserving and protecting the state’s valuable aquatic resources. One way that DNR fulfills this part of its mission is through its fish hatchery programs. Many anglers are C aware of the successful trout stocking program and the seven coldwater hatcheries that support this T important fishery in West Virginia. The warmwater hatchery program, although a little less well known, is still very significant to West Virginia anglers. O West Virginia’s warmwater hatchery program has been instrumental in providing fishing opportunities F to anglers for more than 60 years. For most of that time, the Palestine State Fish Hatchery was the state’s primary facility dedicated to the production of warmwater fish. Millions of walleye, muskellunge, channel catfish, hybrid striped bass, saugeye, tiger musky, and largemouth F and smallmouth bass have been raised over the years at Palestine and stocked into streams, rivers, and lakes across the state. I A recent addition to the DNR’s warmwater hatchery program is the Apple Grove State Fish Hatchery in Mason County. Construction of the C hatchery was completed in 2003. It was a joint project of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the DNR as part of a mitigation agreement E for the modernization of the Robert C.
  • Gazetteer of West Virginia

    Gazetteer of West Virginia

    Bulletin No. 233 Series F, Geography, 41 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIKECTOU A GAZETTEER OF WEST VIRGINIA I-IEISTRY G-AN3STETT WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1904 A» cl O a 3. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. DEPARTMENT OP THE INTEKIOR, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Washington, D. C. , March 9, 190Jh SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for publication as a bulletin, a gazetteer of West Virginia! Very respectfully, HENRY GANNETT, Geogwvpher. Hon. CHARLES D. WALCOTT, Director United States Geological Survey. 3 A GAZETTEER OF WEST VIRGINIA. HENRY GANNETT. DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE. The State of West Virginia was cut off from Virginia during the civil war and was admitted to the Union on June 19, 1863. As orig­ inally constituted it consisted of 48 counties; subsequently, in 1866, it was enlarged by the addition -of two counties, Berkeley and Jeffer­ son, which were also detached from Virginia. The boundaries of the State are in the highest degree irregular. Starting at Potomac River at Harpers Ferry,' the line follows the south bank of the Potomac to the Fairfax Stone, which was set to mark the headwaters of the North Branch of Potomac River; from this stone the line runs due north to Mason and Dixon's line, i. e., the southern boundary of Pennsylvania; thence it follows this line west to the southwest corner of that State, in approximate latitude 39° 43i' and longitude 80° 31', and from that corner north along the western boundary of Pennsylvania until the line intersects Ohio River; from this point the boundary runs southwest down the Ohio, on the northwestern bank, to the mouth of Big Sandy River.
  • TROUT Stocking – Lakes and Ponds Code No

    TROUT Stocking – Lakes and Ponds Code No

    TROUT Stocking – Lakes and Ponds Code No. Stockings .......Period Code No. Stockings .......Period Code No. Stockings .......Period Q One ...........................1st week of March Twice a month .............. February-April CR Varies ...........................................Varies BW One ........................................... January M One each month ........... February-May One .................................................. May W Two..........................................February MJ One each month ............January-April One ........................................... January One each week ....................March-May Y One ................................................. April BA One each week ...................................... X After April 1 or area is open to public One ...............................................March F weeks of October 19 and 26 Lake or Pond ‒ County Code Lake or Pond ‒ County Code Anawalt – McDowell M Laurel – Mingo MJ Anderson – Kanawha BA Lick Creek – Wayne MJ Baker – Ohio Q Little Beaver – Raleigh MJ Barboursville – Cabell BA Logan County Airport – Logan Q Bear Rock Lakes – Ohio BW Mason Lake – Monongalia M Berwind – McDowell M Middle Wheeling Creek – Ohio BW Big Run – Marion Y Miletree – Roane BA Boley – Fayette M Mill Creek – Barbour M Brandywine – Pendleton BW-F Millers Fork – Wayne Q Brushy Fork – Pendleton BW Mountwood – Wood MJ Buffalo Fork – Pocahontas BW-F Newburg – Preston M Cacapon – Morgan W-F New Creek Dam 14 – Grant BW-F Castleman Run – Brooke, Ohio BW Pendleton – Tucker
  • Class G Tables of Geographic Cutter Numbers: Maps -- by Region Or

    Class G Tables of Geographic Cutter Numbers: Maps -- by Region Or

    G3862 SOUTHERN STATES. REGIONS, NATURAL G3862 FEATURES, ETC. .C55 Clayton Aquifer .C6 Coasts .E8 Eutaw Aquifer .G8 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway .L6 Louisville and Nashville Railroad 525 G3867 SOUTHEASTERN STATES. REGIONS, NATURAL G3867 FEATURES, ETC. .C5 Chattahoochee River .C8 Cumberland Gap National Historical Park .C85 Cumberland Mountains .F55 Floridan Aquifer .G8 Gulf Islands National Seashore .H5 Hiwassee River .J4 Jefferson National Forest .L5 Little Tennessee River .O8 Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail 526 G3872 SOUTHEAST ATLANTIC STATES. REGIONS, G3872 NATURAL FEATURES, ETC. .B6 Blue Ridge Mountains .C5 Chattooga River .C52 Chattooga River [wild & scenic river] .C6 Coasts .E4 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Area .N4 New River .S3 Sandhills 527 G3882 VIRGINIA. REGIONS, NATURAL FEATURES, ETC. G3882 .A3 Accotink, Lake .A43 Alexanders Island .A44 Alexandria Canal .A46 Amelia Wildlife Management Area .A5 Anna, Lake .A62 Appomattox River .A64 Arlington Boulevard .A66 Arlington Estate .A68 Arlington House, the Robert E. Lee Memorial .A7 Arlington National Cemetery .A8 Ash-Lawn Highland .A85 Assawoman Island .A89 Asylum Creek .B3 Back Bay [VA & NC] .B33 Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge .B35 Baker Island .B37 Barbours Creek Wilderness .B38 Barboursville Basin [geologic basin] .B39 Barcroft, Lake .B395 Battery Cove .B4 Beach Creek .B43 Bear Creek Lake State Park .B44 Beech Forest .B454 Belle Isle [Lancaster County] .B455 Belle Isle [Richmond] .B458 Berkeley Island .B46 Berkeley Plantation .B53 Big Bethel Reservoir .B542 Big Island [Amherst County] .B543 Big Island [Bedford County] .B544 Big Island [Fluvanna County] .B545 Big Island [Gloucester County] .B547 Big Island [New Kent County] .B548 Big Island [Virginia Beach] .B55 Blackwater River .B56 Bluestone River [VA & WV] .B57 Bolling Island .B6 Booker T.