Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel 

Characteristics Determined from Flow 

Measurements at Selected Stream-Gaging 

Stations in West Virginia, 1911-2002

By Terence Messinger and Jeffrey B. Wiley

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey

West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways

West Virginia Conservation Agency

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4276
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services 

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products: 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication 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 materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Messinger, Terence, and Wiley, J.B., 2004, Regional relations in bankfull channel characteristics determined from flow 

measurements at selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia, 1911-2002: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4276, 43 p.
 iii

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Description of study area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Stream gaging network in West Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Historical trends in the extent of the network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Limitations of data available from the stream-gaging network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Basin characteristics of gaged streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Standard measurement procedures at stream-gaging stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Database construction and quality assurance procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Factors affecting selection of stream-gaging stations for analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Relations of flow with area, width, and average depth at cross sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Backwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Bankfull channel characteristics and regional relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Regional relations in bankfull channel characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Cross-sectional area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Average depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Stream-gaging stations with two or more high-flow cross sections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

References cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
iv 

Figures

1-4. Maps showing:

1. Physiographic provinces of West Virginia, and selected towns and cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Altitudes in West Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. Mean annual precipitation in West Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4.. Two-year, 24-hour precipitation intensity, in inches, in West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

5. Graph showing number of continuous-record and annual-peak stream-gaging stations in West Virginia, 1900-2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

6. Map showing selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

7-16. Graphs showing:

7. Relations between area and flow for (1) all flow measurements made at the Middle Fork near 

Audra, W.Va., 1988-20001, and selected earlier high-flow measurements, and (2) flow measurements made from the cableway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

8. Relation between cross-sectional area and flow for flow measurements made at a bridge over 

Big Coal River at Ashford, W.Va., and a cableway over Guyandotte River near Baileysville, 

W.Va., compared to the relation for each stream-gaging station for only those measurements 

made at flows between 0.5 and 5 times bankfull flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

9. Relation of flow and width at bridges where flow is apparently confined and not confined by the 

bridge structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

10. Regional relations between drainage area and bankfull cross-sectional area measured during 

current-meter flow measurements at selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia . . . . 24

11. Comparison of the area of stream channels at bankfull flow at bridge and cableway cross sections in the Eastern and Western Regions in West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

12. Comparison of the average depth of stream channels at bankfull flow at bridge and cableway 

cross sections in the Eastern and Western Regions in West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

13. Comparison of the width of stream channels at bankfull flow at bridge and cableway cross sections in the Eastern and Western Regions in West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

14. Regional relations between bankfull average depth determined from current-meter flow measurements and drainage area at selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia . . . . . . . . . 28

15. Regional relations between bankfull width determined from current-meter flow measurements 

and drainage area at selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

16. Relation of bankfull area, width, and average depth to drainage area at five stream-gaging stations in the Western Region with flow measurements at more than one cross section, compared to regression lines and 95 percent confidence intervals for all stream-gaging stations in 

the Western Region of West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Tables

1. Map numbers and station numbers for selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. Regression equations, correlation coefficients, and p-values for the relations between near-bankfull 

flow and cross-sectional area for stream-gaging stations in West Virginia used to develop regression 

equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3. Regression equations, correlation coefficients, and p-values for the relations between near-bankfull 

flow and average depth for stream-gaging stations in West Virginia used to develop regression equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4. Regression equations, correlation coefficients, and p-values for the relations between near-bankfull 

flow and width for stream-gaging stations in West Virginia used to develop regression equations 21
 v

5. Equations and regression statistics describing regional relations in drainage area and bankfull channel characteristics at selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1-1. Regression equations for the relation between flow and cross-sectional area, and flow and width for 

all stream-gaging stations in West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more 

years of record and two or more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, 

for all measurements at that cross section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33. 

1-2. Regression equations for the relation between flow and average depth, and flow and width for all 

stream-gaging stations in West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more 

years of record and two to more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, 

for all measurements at that cross section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Conversion Factors and Datum

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square foot (ft2) 0.0929 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Temperature in degrees Celsius ( ̊C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit ( ̊F) as follows:

 ̊F = (1.8 x  ̊C) + 32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit ( ̊F) may be converted to degrees Celsius ( ̊C) as follows:

 ̊C = ( ̊F - 32) / 1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88), and horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 

1983 (NAD 83). Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
vi 
Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics 

Determined from Flow Measurements at Selected StreamGaging Stations in West Virginia, 1911-2002

By Terence Messinger and Jeffrey B. Wiley

Abstract 

Three bankfull channel characteristics—cross-sectional 

area, width, and depth—were significantly correlated with 

drainage area in regression equations developed for two regions 

in West Virginia. Channel characteristics were determined from 

analysis of flow measurements made at 74 U.S. Geological Survey stream-gaging stations at flows between 0.5 and 5.0 times 

bankfull flow between 1911 and 2002.

Graphical and regression analysis were used to delineate 

an “Eastern Region” and a “Western Region,” which were separated by the boundary between the Appalachian Plateaus and 

Valley and Ridge Physiographic Provinces. Streams that 

drained parts of both provinces had channel characteristics typical of the Eastern Region, and were grouped with it. Standard 

error for the six regression equations, three for each region, 

ranged between 8.7 and 16 percent. Cross-sectional area and 

depth were greater relative to drainage area for the Western 

Region than they were for the Eastern Region. Regression equations were defined for streams draining between 46.5 and 1,619 

square miles for the Eastern Region, and between 2.78 and 

1,354 square miles for the Western Region.

Stream-gaging stations with two or more cross sections 

where flow had been measured at flows between 0.5 and 5.0 

times the 1.5-year flow showed poor replication of channel 

characteristics compared to the 95-percent confidence intervals 

of the regression, suggesting that within-reach variability for 

the stream-gaging stations may be substantial. A disproportionate number of the selected stream-gaging stations were on large 

(drainage area greater than 100 square miles) streams in the central highlands of West Virginia, and only one stream-gaging 

station that met data-quality criteria was available to represent 

the region within about 50 miles of the Ohio River north of 

Parkersburg, West Virginia. Many of the cross sections were at 

bridges, which can change channel shape. Although the data 

discussed in this report may not be representative of channel 

characteristics on many or most streams, the regional equations 

in this report provide useful information for field identification 

of bankfull indicators.

Introduction

Programs and policies developed following passage of the 

Federal Clean Water Act in 1972 have successfully reduced 

stream pollution from industrial and other point sources, yet 

some of the broad goals in the Clean Water Act have not been 

achieved (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). For 

instance, the Clean Water Act specifies support of aquatic life 

and protection of biological integrity as primary uses of waters 

of the United States. In streams of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands 

(a region including West Virginia and parts of Pennsylvania, 

Maryland, and Virginia) during 1993 and 1994, over 31 percent 

of stream miles were in poor condition as measured with a fish 

Index of Biotic Integrity, and 27 percent of stream miles were 

in poor condition as measured with aquatic insect indicators.

Physical habitat degradation is seen as one of the most common 

reasons that streams fail to adequately support aquatic life. In 

the Mid-Atlantic Highlands in 1993 and 1994, 24 percent of the 

total stream length had poor riparian habitat, and 25 percent of 

the regional stream length had excess sedimentation (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000).

In addition to improving land-use and water-management 

practices in a watershed, stream-channel restoration is considered an important part of the strategy to restore many streams 

with degraded habitat to a condition that fully supports aquatic 

life. Stream-channel restoration is the practice of applying 

knowledge and principals of geomorphology in rebuilding damaged stream channels so that they transport sediment and 

remain stable. A crucial aspect of stream restoration is to design 

a stable size and shape for the stream, so that its channel will 

maintain its dimension, pattern, and profile over time without 

degrading or aggrading (Rosgen, 1996).

The 1.5-year recurrence flow has been identified as bankfull flow in most streams (Leopold, 1994). Bankfull flow is of 

geomorphic significance because it moves the greatest amount 

of sediment in the stream channel over time; consequently, it is 

sometimes referred to as the “effective discharge” (Leopold and 

others, 1964). Estimates of bankfull flow have ranged from the 

1.1-year flow to the 30-year flow, but geomorphic features that 

indicate the top of the stream channel most commonly corre-
2 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

spond with flows between the 1- and 2-year recurrence flow calculated from the annual peak series. The 1.5-year recurrence 

flow from the annual peak series corresponds to the 1-year 

recurrence flow from the partial duration series (Langbein, 

1949). The 1.5-year recurrence flow was assumed to be bankfull flow for this study, and is the flow referred to as “bankfull” 

throughout the rest of this report; however, this usage is not 

meant to imply that field studies have verified the 1.5-year 

recurrence flow as bankfull flow in West Virginia.

Flow measurements made at U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) stream-gaging stations provide a large body of data on 

stream-channel characteristics at specific cross sections 

(Leopold and Maddock, 1953; Leopold, 1994; Rosgen, 1996). 

The USGS, in cooperation with the West Virginia Department 

of Transportation and West Virginia Conservation Agency, 

with cooperation facilitated by the Canaan Valley Institute, has 

analyzed the relation between flow and stream channel crosssectional area, width, and average depth, and determined 

regional relations in these characteristics at the 1.5-year recurrence flow calculated from the annual peak series at streamgaging stations in West Virginia. This study was intended to 

help investigators locate bankfull indicators in stream channels 

near stream-gaging stations or at reference reaches, an important part of data collection done in the design phase of streamrestoration projects. The regional equations presented in this 

report are not intended to be used to design stream channels 

without first collecting additional data. The USGS is currently 

(2003) collecting information on stream-channel characteristics 

in West Virginia to be used to develop regional curves for 

designing channels; information on this study is available from 

the West Virginia District Office of the USGS.

Purpose and scope

This report describes the relations between drainage area, 

flow, and bankfull stream channel characteristics at selected 

stream-gaging stations in West Virginia. The relation between 

flow and stream channel cross-sectional area, width, and average depth measured in current-meter flow measurements made 

between 1911 and 2002 were analyzed for stream-gaging stations on unregulated streams draining less than 2,000 mi2. The 

relation between flow and stream channel area, width, and average depth were also analyzed for cross sections at stream-gaging stations where three or more current-meter flow measurements had been made at flows between 0.5 and 5.0 times the 

1.5-year recurrence flow, and where these relations appeared to 

be stable. The regional relations between drainage area and 

stream channel area, width, and average depth at the 1.5-year 

recurrence flow were determined using the latter set of data. 

Equations presented in this report are to be used to help field 

identification of bankfull indicators. 

Description of study area

Most of West Virginia is within the Appalachian Plateaus 

(20,000 mi2) and Valley and Ridge (4,220 mi2) Physiographic 

Provinces, although a small area (20 mi2) at the easternmost tip 

of West Virginia is within the Blue Ridge Province (fig. 1). The 

Appalachian Plateaus consist of flat-lying sedimentary rocks 

that were uplifted in the Appalachian Orogeny 250 million 

years ago. The rocks of the Appalachian Plateaus have been 

eroded by water into hills and valleys. Streams in this province 

drain in a dendritic pattern. The maximum altitudes (nearly 

5,000 ft) are in mountains in the eastern part of the Province, 

and the minimum altitudes (about 600 ft) are near the Ohio 

River in the western part of West Virginia (fig. 2). The greatest 

relief is in the area of greatest altitude (Messinger and Hughes, 

2001).

Rocks of the Appalachian Plateaus are mostly Mississippian and Pennsylvanian, although the Dunkard Group may be 

of Permian age (Cardwell and others, 1968). The oldest rocks 

in the Province are in the east, in the region with the greatest 

altitude; the youngest rocks are in the west, near the Ohio River. 

A band of karstic limestone and dolomite, with extensive caves 

and other solution openings, is near the southeastern border of 

West Virginia with Virginia. Of Pennsylvanian rocks, the hardest rocks and highest proportions of sandstone are in the oldest 

rocks, in the south and east. Generally and with local exceptions, the proportions of shale, and softness and erodibility of 

sandstone, are greater in the younger rocks to the north and west 

than in the oldest Pennsylvanian rocks. Most of the commonly 

mined coal seams in West Virginia are Pennsylvanian.

In West Virginia, the Valley and Ridge Province consists 

of layers of folded and faulted sedimentary rocks that are Mississippian or older (Cardwell and others, 1968). Rocks of the 

Valley and Ridge Province were folded in the Appalachian 

Orogeny, the same event that uplifted the Appalachian Plateaus. 

Linear ridges that run from southwest to northeast alternate with 

valleys. Ridges are generally harder, more erosion-resistant 

rock than the rock underlying the valleys. Streams in this Province drain in a trellised pattern. Generally, lithology in the Valley and Ridge is more complex than in the Appalachian Plateaus. Some of the valleys, most significantly the Great Valley 

near the eastern edge of the Province, are karstic and underlain 

by limestone and dolomite.

Precipitation in the Appalachian Plateaus increases with 

altitude, from about 40 inches per year near the Ohio River, to 

more than 60 inches per year in the mountains in central West 

Virginia (fig. 3). The Allegheny Front, a mountain range that 

divides the Appalachian Plateaus and Valley and Ridge in the 

north, but is within the Appalachian Plateaus in the south, creates an orographic divide and causes a precipitation shadow. 

Annual precipitation east and southeast of the precipitation 

shadow is between 31 and 35 inches per year. Average annual 

precipitation in the Valley and Ridge Province increases from 

west to east, to about 42 inches per year in the easternmost part 

of the province. Other climatic characteristics are distrib-
Introduction 3

Figure 1. Physiographic provinces of West Virginia, and selected towns and cities.

Figure 2. Altitudes in West Virginia.
4 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

Figure 3. Mean annual precipitation in West Virginia.

Figure 4. Two-year, 24-hour precipitation intensity, in inches, in West Virginia.
Introduction 5

uted in patterns different than that of annual precipitation. The 

2-year, 24-hour precipitation intensity increases from west to 

east (fig. 4). Average annual snowfall is influenced by the same 

orographic factors that influence average precipitation, but is 

even more strongly influenced by altitude.

Land uses in West Virginia that affect streamflow are 

determined by topography, geology, and location. Extensive 

commercial agriculture (more than about 25 percent of land 

cover) is limited to the Ohio and Kanawha River terraces, the 

Greenbrier, Bluestone, and Tygart Valley River Basins, and 

valleys in the Valley and Ridge Province. The only major 

urbanized areas in West Virginia are in the Charleston-Huntington area and other areas near the Ohio River, and in the Clarksburg-Morgantown area. The primary land cover in the rest of 

West Virginia is forest. Coal mining is economically and hydrologically important but is difficult to quantify historically or at 

a regional scale. The extent of underground mining is particularly difficult to quantify. Underground and surface mining, 

which are usually done in the same areas, have complex hydrologic effects that sometimes counteract each other. 

Stream gaging network in West Virginia 

The stream-gaging program of the USGS is an aggregation 

of networks and individual streamflow stations that originally 

were established for various purposes (Wahl and others, 1995). 

The general objective of the stream-gaging program is to provide information on flow characteristics at any point on any 

stream, either from measurements or estimates based on statistical relations. Streamflow data are collected for immediate 

decision making, future planning, or both. 

Historical trends in the extent of the network

The stream-gaging program in West Virginia, as elsewhere in the United States, has expanded and contracted in 

response to concern about floods and droughts, changes in public water sources or standards for project design, national concern about the effect of surface mining on hydrology, and specific legislative acts (Wahl and others, 1995). Changes in the 

number of stream-gaging stations in West Virginia are important to this study because many of the stations used have been 

discontinued and many were operated for a relatively short 

time, so that flow frequencies calculated from these stations 

reflect the hydrologic conditions of the time they were operated. 

Consequently, statistics such as the 1.5-year flow may be 

skewed, when calculated from a station with a short period of 

record.

About 20 stream-gaging stations were operated in West 

Virginia between 1911, the year that the first flow measurement 

used in this study was made, and 1927 (fig. 5; Runner and others, 1989). In 1928, the number of stream-gaging stations 

approximately doubled. After this major increase, the number 

of stations generally increased to 94 active stations in 1947. 

About 95 stations made up the West Virginia network until 

1964, when a network of small-stream crest gages was established to provide information for bridge design. The number of 

stream-gaging stations increased to 115 active stations in 1969 

and remained consistent until 1977. In 1978, the number 

decreased slightly as several stream-gaging stations were discontinued but others were activated as part of the Coal Hydrology Program, a national program mandated by the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act to define hydrologic conditions in areas with surface mining. In 1983, following the end 

of the Coal Hydrology Program, the number of stream-gaging 

stations dropped from 103 to 73. The stream-gaging network 

was partially restored following the 1985 flood (Carpenter, 

1988) to 81 stations. Except for a few years in the 1990s when 

two phases of the crest-gage program were active, the network 

has included between 80 and 90 stations.

Limitations of data available from the stream-gaging 

network

Historical stream-gaging data from West Virginia have 

major limitations because of geographic and size distribution of 

streams in the network (fig. 5; table 1). The most serious problem with the stream-gaging network is lack of stream-gaging 

stations on streams draining areas less than 100 square miles 

and especially on streams draining less than 10 square miles, 

but the geographic distribution of stream-gaging stations is also 

a major problem in interpreting the regional relations of channel 

characteristics and drainage area.

At most stream-gaging stations on small streams, only a 

few high-flow current-meter measurements were made. Small 

streams are generally flashy and hard to reach before high water

Figure 5. Number of continuous-record and annual-peak streamgaging stations in West Virginia, 1900-2001. Data from Runner and 

others (1987) and U.S. Geological Survey Annual Water-Resources 

Data Reports (1986-2001)
6 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

Figure 6. Selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia.
Introduction 7

Table 1. Map numbers and station numbers for selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia.

Map number Station number Stream-gaging station Drainage area 

(mi2

)

1 01595300 Abram Creek at Oakmont 42.6

2 03182700 Anthony Creek near Anthony 144

3 01614000 Back Creek near Jones Springs 235

4 03198500 Big Coal River at Ashford 391

5 03070500 Big Sandy Creek at Rockville 200

6 03066000 Blackwater River at Davis 85.9

7 03179500 Bluestone River at Lilly 438

8 03179000 Bluestone River near Pipestem 395

9 03202480 Briar Creek at Fanrock 7.34

10 03053500 Buckhannon River at Hall 277

11 03061500 Buffalo Creek at Barrackville 116

12 03069880 Buffalo Creek near Rowlesburg 12.2

13 03114650 Buffalo Run near Little 4.19

14 01610500 Cacapon River at Yellow Springs 306

15 01611500 Cacapon River near Great Cacapon 675

16 03178500 Camp Creek near Camp Creek 32

17 03070000 Cheat River at Rowlesburg 974

18 03069500 Cheat River near Parsons 722

19 03071000 Cheat River at Pisgah 1,354

20 03189000 Cherry River at Fenwick 150

21 03202750 Clear Fork at Clear Fork 126

22 03200500 Coal River at Tornado 862

23 03062400 Cobun Creek at Morgantown 11

24 03189650 Collison Creek near Nallen 2.78

25 03187500 Cranberry River near Richwood 80.4

26 03062500 Deckers Creek at Morgantown 63.2

27 03198450 Drawdy Creek near Peytona 7.75

28 03212980 Dry Fork at Beartown 209

29 03065000 Dry Fork at Hendricks 349

30 03206800 East Fork Twelvepole Creek near East Lynn 139

31 03206600 East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow 38.5

32 03059500 Elk Creek at Quiet Dell 84.6
8 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

33 03195000 Elk River at Centralia 281

34 03197000 Elk River at Queen Shoals 1,145

35 03195500 Elk River at Sutton 542

36 03194700 Elk River below Webster Springs 266

37 03192000 Gauley River above Belva 1,317

38 03187000 Gauley River at Camden-on-Gauley 236

39 03189100 Gauley River near Craigsville 529

40 03189500 Gauley River near Summersville 680

41 03195600 Granny Creek at Sutton 6.98

42 03183500 Greenbrier River at Alderson 1,364

43 03182500 Greenbrier River at Buckeye 540

44 03180500 Greenbrier River at Durbin 133

45 03184000 Greenbrier River at Hilldale 1,619

46 03204000 Guyandotte River at Branchland 1,224

47 03203600 Guyandotte River at Logan 833

48 03203000 Guyandotte River at Man 758

49 03202400 Guyandotte River near Baileysville 306

50 03155500 Hughes River at Cisco 453

51 03177500 Indian Creek at Indian Mills 189

52 03182000 Knapp Creek at Marlinton 108

53 03151500 Little Kanawha River near Burnsville 155

54 03151400 Little Kanawha River near Wildcat 112

55 03152500 Leading Creek near Glenville 144

56 03195250 Left Fork Holly River near Replete 46.5

57 01609800 Little Cacapon River near Levels 108

58 03199000 Little Coal River at Danville 269

59 03199400 Little Coal River at Julian 318

60 03113700 Little Grave Creek near Glendale 4.95

61 03152000 Little Kanawha River at Glenville 387

62 03153500 Little Kanawha River at Grantsville 913

63 03155000 Little Kanawha River at Palestine 1,516

64 03190000 Meadow River at Nallen 287

Table 1. Map numbers and station numbers for selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia.—Continued

Map number Station number Stream-gaging station Drainage area 

(mi2

)
Introduction 9

65 03190400 Meadow River near Mt. Lookout 365

66 03052000 Middle Fork River at Audra 148

67 03051500 Middle Fork River at Midvale 122

68 03114500 Middle Island Creek at Little 458

69 03204500 Mud River at Milton 256

70 01606000 North Fork South Branch Potomac at Cabins 335

71 01599500 New Creek at Keyser 46.5

72 03185500 New River at Caperton 6,826

73 03187300 North Fork Cranberry River near Hillsboro 9.78

74 01616500 Opequon Creek near Martinsburg 273

75 03191500 Peters Creek near Lockwood 40.2

76 03201000 Pocatalico River at Sissonville 238

77 01618000 Potomac River at Shepherdstown 5,936

78 03213500 Panther Creek near Panther 31

79 01604500 Patterson Creek near Headsville 211

80 03185000 Piney Creek at Raleigh 52.7

81 03201410 Poplar Fork at Teays 8.47

82 01610000 Potomac River at Paw Paw 3,129

83 03177000 Rich Creek near Peterstown 50.6

84 03154500 Reedy Creek near Reedy 79.4

85 03195100 Right Fork Holly River at Guardian 51.9

86 03052500 Sand Run near Buckhannon 14.3

87 03069000 Shavers Fork at Parsons 213

88 01636500 Shenandoah River at Millville 3,022

89 03057500 Skin Creek near Brownsville 25.7

90 01607500 South Fork South Branch Potomac River at Brandywine 103

91 01608000 South Fork South Branch Potomac River near Moorefield 277

92 01606500 South Branch Potomac River near Petersburg 676

93 01605500 South Branch Potomac River at Franklin 179

94 01608500 South Branch Potomac River near Springfield 1,486

95 03155200 South Fork Hughes River at Macfarlan 210

96 03153000 Steer Creek near Grantsville 162

Table 1. Map numbers and station numbers for selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia.—Continued

Map number Station number Stream-gaging station Drainage area 

(mi2

)
10 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

97 03154250 Tanner Run at Spencer 2.82

98 03068610 Taylor Run at Bowden 5.06

99 03056250 Three Forks Creek near Grafton 96.8

100 03214900 Tug Fork at Glenhayes 1,507

101 03214500 Tug Fork at Kermit 1,280

102 03213000 Tug Fork at Litwar 504

103 03212750 Tug Fork at Welch 174

104 03213700 Tug Fork at Williamson 936

105 03214000 Tug Fork near Kermit 1,188

106 01617000 Tuscarora Creek above Martinsburg 11.3

107 03207000 Twelvepole Creek at Wayne 291

108 03207020 Twelvepole Creek below Wayne 300

109 03056500 Tygart Valley River at Fetterman 1,304

110 03051000 Tygart Valley River at Belington 406

111 03054500 Tygart Valley River at Philippi 914

112 03050000 Tygart Valley River near Dailey 185

113 03050500 Tygart Valley River near Elkins 271

114 03058500 West Fork River at Butcherville 181

115 03154000 West Fork Little Kanawha River at Rocksdale 205

116 03059000 West Fork River at Clarksburg 384

117 03061000 West Fork River at Enterprise 759

118 03057300 West Fork River at Walkersville 28.8

119 03112000 Wheeling Creek at Elm Grove 281

120 03186500 Williams River at Dyer 128

Table 1. Map numbers and station numbers for selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia.—Continued

Map number Station number Stream-gaging station Drainage area 

(mi2

)

recedes. For a small stream that peaks within an hour after a 

storm, which is typical for streams in West Virginia that drain 

less than 10 mi2, a hydrographer would have to predict when 

and where a storm might hit and travel there to measure while 

flow is still high. Often, making these measurements is not practical within time and staffing constraints. Also, many of the 

stream-gaging stations on small streams have shorter periods of 

record than stream-gaging stations on large streams, so there 

have not been as many chances to measure these streams at high 

flows. Because of the difficulty in making high-flow currentmeter measurements at gaging stations on small streams, the 

typical practice is to use indirect flow measurements to define 

the rating in the range of bankfull rather than to extend ratings 

from lower current-meter measurements. 

Many of the rivers in West Virginia form in the mountains 

in central West Virginia, where altitude and precipitation are 

greatest. Because most stream-gaging stations in West Virginia 

have been operated to determine flow in major rivers (those 

draining more than 500 mi2), most stations on smaller streams 

have been operated in the headwaters of major river basins. Few 

stream-gaging stations have been operated on tributaries that 

enter near the mouth of a major stream. As a result, few streamgaging stations have been operated within about 50 miles of the 

Ohio River, particularly north of the Little Kanawha River. 
Methods 11

Runner and others (1989) noted that one of the greatest weaknesses of the stream-gaging network in West Virginia was the 

lack of stream-gaging stations on minor tributaries of the Ohio 

River. Geology, topography, elevation, average precipitation, 

and precipitation intensity are substantially different in this 

region than in the central highlands (fig. 3, fig. 4). 

Basin characteristics of gaged streams

Basin characteristics used in this study were the same as 

those used by Wiley and others (2002; 2000). Basin characteristics were determined by visual integration of various mapped 

characteristics. Land use, including coal mining, was not among 

the basin characteristics that were considered. This study would 

have been strengthened by GIS analysis and the inclusion of 

some additional basin characteristics, including land use and 

surface geology; however, outlines of the basins were not available as GIS coverages.

Acknowledgements

The Canaan Valley Institute facilitated cooperation for this 

project through stream restoration workshops and meetings, 

and creation of the West Virginia Stream Team. The West Virginia Stream Team is an association of Federal agencies, State 

agencies, academia, and other groups that share an interest in 

preserving and restoring the quality of streams in West Virginia. Members of the West Virginia Stream Team, particularly 

the Canaan Valley Institute, the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service, and West Virginia Department of Natural Resources 

contributed to the development of the project objectives.

Methods

The present study used flow measurements made at USGS 

stream-gaging stations in West Virginia between 1911 and 

2002. Flow measurements during this period were made using 

documented methods (U.S. Geological Survey, 1901; Lyon, 

1915; Corbett and others, 1943; Rantz and others, 1982). 

Changes in methodology between 1915 and 1943 were documented in internal agency memoranda. The greatest change in 

methodology between 1911 and 2002 came when automobiles 

and roads progressed so that hydrographers began to drive to 

stream-gaging stations, instead of traveling by train. This 

change allowed hydrographers to bring heavier sounding 

weights on field trips, which in turn allowed hydrographers to 

sound stream depth simultaneously while measuring velocity at 

high flow. At some stream-gaging stations, flow measurements 

made before this change were not comparable to those made 

afterward; however, these data were filtered out of this study.

Standard measurement procedures at stream-gaging 

stations

Flow measurements are made by measuring stream width, 

depth, and velocity (Wahl and others, 1995). When stream stage 

is low and the stream can be waded, flow measurements are 

made by wading with a current meter mounted on a wading rod. 

If the water is too deep for wading, then the measurement is 

made by lowering the meter either from a bridge or cableway 

that crosses the stream. 

Because of changing flow or channel characteristics, wading measurements may be made at several different cross sections near a stream-gaging station. Bridge or cableway measurements are made at the same cross-section. Generally, if a 

bridge is available near a stream-gaging station, high-flow measurements are made from the bridge. A cableway is usually 

installed only if a stream-gaging station is far from the nearest 

bridge, or if accurate measurements cannot be made at the available bridge.

Database construction and quality assurance 

procedures

Data from more than 10,000 flow measurements were 

entered into a database. At stream-gaging stations with fewer 

than 30 years of record, all measurements made from a bridge 

or cableway were entered and analyzed. At stations with more 

than 30 years of record, at least the most recent 30 years of measurements were entered and analyzed. At stations where fewer 

than 30 measurements were made from a bridge or cableway, 

all measurements made from a bridge or cableway were entered 

and analyzed. All bridge or cableway measurements used to 

define the current (2003) stage-discharge relation were used for 

all stations, regardless of when the measurements were made. 

At stations where the gage datum had been changed, indicating 

a major shift in the channel, up to 30 years of measurements 

prior to the datum change were entered and analyzed. At stations where more than one bridge or cableway measuring section was identified, up to 30 years of measurements were 

entered and analyzed for each cross section. Finally, at stations 

where plots and regression diagnostics indicated a weak relation between flow and channel geometry characteristics, additional measurements were entered and analyzed if station 

records suggested that a temporary disturbance, such as bridge 

construction near the measuring bridge, was the cause of the 

weak relation.

For quality assurance of data entry, data were checked by 

calculating flow as the product of area and velocity, comparing 

the calculated flow to the entered flow, and resolving any discrepancy. Also, data entry was checked graphically; plots of 

flow and channel geometry characteristics of all measurements 

entered for a stream-gaging station were examined for outliers, 

and data entry of all outliers was checked. For all outliers used 

in the final computation of at-a-station curves, the original calculation of flow was checked. Station records were reviewed to 
12 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

see if the measurement was used in developing stage-discharge 

ratings; measurements that were not used in rating development, usually because of concerns about accuracy, were not 

used in developing at-a-station curves. 

Factors affecting selection of stream-gaging 

stations for analysis

Not all stream-gaging stations in the West Virginia network had records suitable for use in this study. Stream-gaging 

stations with less than 10 years of record were not considered 

for data analysis, because for these stations, the 1.5 year recurrence interval could not be calculated with the desired accuracy 

(Wiley and others, 2002). Stream-gaging stations with contributing drainage areas greater than 2,000 mi2 were not considered 

for data analysis. Data from regulated streams were not considered for analysis, although data collected from these streams 

before they were regulated were analyzed. The long-term 

stream-gaging network contained no streams that drain primarily urban areas. Data from discontinued stream-gaging stations 

were analyzed if the stations had more than 10 years of record. 

Relations of flow with area, width, and average depth 

at cross sections

For many cross sections, the relations between flow and 

cross-sectional area, flow and width, and flow and average 

depth are linear at a logarithmic scale (Leopold and others, 

1964). Dunne and Leopold (1978) recommend that to determine 

the relation between flow and other channel characteristics, a 

straight line should be fitted to data points by eye. Rosgen 

(1996) recommends obtaining all available flow-measurement 

data from a stream-gaging station and performing regression 

analysis on them to develop at-a-station curves. Regression 

analysis assumes that data are related linearly (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992). Dunne and Leopold (1978) note that at-a-station 

curves may not always be linear, although log-linear relations 

are a reasonable generalization. 

Examination of graphs of cross-sectional area as a function 

of flow at several stream-gaging stations in West Virginia 

showed for most stations a set of complex and often nonlinear 

relations, rather than a single clear linear relation (fig. 7). The 

relations between area and flow for the Middle Fork near Audra 

were typical in that the graph showed measurements made by 

wading were widely scattered, but measurements made from 

cableways fit a curve tightly. These patterns are not unusual, 

and have been noted previously (Leopold and Maddock, 1953; 

Leopold and others, 1964; Dunne and Leopold, 1978; Leopold, 

1994). At most stream-gaging stations, high-flow measurements are made at a single cross section, either at a cableway or 

a bridge, but at wadeable flow, measurements are made at many 

cross sections. Middle Fork near Audra is unusual in that most 

measurements made by wading are made at the same cross section, where it is particularly convenient to attach a tagline. Measurements made at this cross-section and the one at the cableway provide two sets of data, each from distinct cross sections 

in pools; low-flow measurements are made from several cross 

sections from a 50- to 100-foot reach in a riffle (fig. 7). Fitting 

a regression line through all available measurements gives a 

significant and strong correlation (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.936), but 

also provides a regression line that does not pass through the 

measurements made at or near bankfull flows. This result is not 

surprising considering that the data violate linearity, the only 

assumption of linear regression necessary for all common uses 

of it (Helsel and Hirsch, 1991). Additionally, most of the measurements, particularly on smaller streams, were made by wading at medium and low flows, which violates the assumptions 

of randomness and normal distribution and biases the regression line, pulling it toward the majority of measurements and 

away from the measurements made at or near the flow of interest, and gives a greatly different line than would be produced by 

most analysts who fit a curve by eye to the same set of data.

For the Middle Fork near Audra, fitting lines by eye to the 

subsets of data that can be identified as linearly related points 

from distinct cross sections gives three lines that approach each 

other at bankfull (fig. 7). However, measurements were rarely 

documented well enough to determine at which cross section 

they were made. Fitting a line by eye to points that could not be 

documented as being from a particular cross section was considered highly subjective and less accurate than simply fitting 

the data from the high-flow cross section. Consequently, measurements made by wading were excluded from analysis 

(except at Taylor Run near Bowden, where measurements were 

made under the bridge from which high-flow measurements 

were made, so measurements made by wading were considered 

to be at the same cross section as measurements made from the 

bridge). 

For many stream-gaging stations, the relation between 

flow, and area, width, and depth at a high-flow cross section is 

linear throughout the range of measured flows. For other 

stream-gaging stations, though, the overall relation is not linear, 

but there are often two approximately linear relations at different stages and an inflection point is typical at about half bankfull (fig. 8). Linear regression of log-transformed variables 

from stations where the overall relation is not linear often gives 

p-values less than 0.05, and R2 values greater than 0.80, 

although the regression curve may not give a good fit of measurements made at flows at or near bankfull.

As a surrogate for fitting curves by eye to measurements 

made at or near bankfull, a procedure was developed in which 

measurement data were filtered to include those measurements 

made at the same cross section at flows between 0.5 and 5.0 

times the 1.5-year recurrence flow. Regression equations were 

computed for these subsets of data, and data and curves were 

plotted to examine them for linearity; all the stream-gaging stations included in regional analysis had a linear relation in this 

subset of measurement data. Regression equations for flow near 

bankfull were used for regional analysis only if at least 
Factors affecting selection of stream-gaging stations for analysis 13

three flow measurements had been made between 0.5 and 5.0

times bankfull, and linear regression of flow and cross-sectional 

area was statistically significant (p < 0.05), and had minimal 

scatter (R2 = 0.80). Most stream-gaging stations with high scatter among measurements in this subset had poor measuring 

cross sections. In all, 74 stream-gaging stations met these criteria. Regression equations were also developed from all measurements available from a given bridge or cableway cross 

section (Appendix 1). 

Bridges

Bridges can change channel dimensions and stream 

hydraulic properties. At some bridges, flow is confined between 

piers or abutments; and at these bridges, velocity and depth 

increase more rapidly with increasing flow than at cross sections without bridges (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Increased 

depth and velocity at bridges can also cause scour of the stream 

bottom. Because of these characteristics, measurements made at 

bridges were a concern. Not all bridges, however, confine bankfull flow; some bridges are built so that the streams they span 

continue to increase in width as flow increases. Because of this, 

at-a-station curves were developed and analyzed for bridge 

cross sections, although (as discussed later) some stream characteristics at bridge cross sections that confine flow were not 

included in the regional analysis.

Backwater

On some stream reaches, backwater affects the stage-discharge relation and causes it to be a complex function of watersurface slope (Rantz and others, 1982). At cross sections in 

these reaches, the relation between flow and channel characteristics is also complex; any given flow at these stream-gaging 

stations may have a range of areas, widths, depths, and velocities, depending on downstream conditions, such as whether 

stage was rising and falling, or the stage of a receiving stream 

when a measurement was made on a tributary. Backwater most 

frequently affects these streams at high flow. Leading Creek at 

Glenville, Steer Creek near Grantsville, Little Kanawha River 

at Palestine, and Guyandotte River at Branchland were among 

the stream-gaging stations affected by backwater; therefore, 

Figure 7. Relations between area and flow for (1) all flow measurements made at the Middle Fork near Audra, W.Va., 1988-20001, and selected earlier high-flow measurements, and (2) flow measurements made from the cableway.
14 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

they were excluded from regional analysis, but at-a-station 

curves (equations for the relations between flow and cross-sectional area, flow and width, and flow and average depth) were calculated for these stream-gaging stations.

Figure 8. Relation between cross-sectional area and flow for flow measurements made at a bridge over Big Coal River at Ashford, W.Va., 

and a cableway over Guyandotte River near Baileysville, W.Va., compared to the relation for each stream-gaging station for only those 

measurements made at flows between 0.5 and 5 times bankfull flow.
Bankfull channel characteristics and regional relations 15

Bankfull channel characteristics and 

regional relations

For the at-a-station curves for cross-sectional area, the factors, or intercepts in a logarithmic plot of the curves, ranged 

from 0.053 for Camp Creek near Camp Creek to 85.1 for South 

Fork of the South Branch of the Potomac River near Moorefield 

(table 2). The exponents, or slopes in logarithmic plots of the 

curves, ranged from 0.291 for South Fork of the South Branch 

of the Potomac River near Moorefield to 1.21 for Camp Creek 

near Camp Creek. 

For the at-a-station curves for average depth, the factors 

ranged from 0.029 for Twelvepole Creek below Wayne, to 12.3 

for Opequon Creek near Martinsburg, and the exponents ranged 

from –0.079 for Opequon Creek near Martinsburg to 0.652 for 

Little Kanawha River at Grantsville (table 3). The depth curve 

for Opequon Creek near Martinsburg was significant (p < 0.05), 

although the depth curves for six other stream-gaging stations 

were not significant. For the at-a-station curves for average 

width, the factors ranged from 0.0132 for Opequon Creek near 

Martinsburg, to 12.3 for 235 for Cheat River near Rowlesburg, 

and the exponents ranged from 0.0364 for Cheat River near 

Rowlesburg, to 1.03 for Opequon Creek near Martinsburg 

(table 4). 

The range of values for slope and intercept of the at-a-station curves emphasizes that using a subset of available data to 

develop these curves so that they fit the near-bankfull data may 

make these curves unsuitable for computing the values of channel characteristics at flows that are less than the bankfull flow. 

The curves for several stream-gaging stations (such as the depth 

curve for Opequon Creek, which has a negative slope) are probably artifacts of this approach. These curves are a surrogate for 

graphically picking values from a plot; they are not equations 

for estimating channel characteristics throughout a range of 

flows. If determining channel characteristics at below-bankfull 

flows, consider using the equations in Appendix 1. The equations in Appendix1, however, include some that were developed from data that do not meet assumptions for linear regression, some that are not statistically significant (p < 0.05), some 

that describe data with weak correlations (R2 < 0.80), or some 

that were developed from backwater-affected cross sections. 

Regional relations in bankfull channel characteristics

Regional relations were determined from patterns in data, 

rather than by arbitrarily assigning stream-gaging stations to 

physiographic regions, and the methods used were similar to 

those used in regional analyses of streamflow characteristics 

(Riggs, 1973). In an iterative process, cross-sectional area was 

plotted in relation to drainage area, stream-gaging stations were 

grouped according to basin characteristics, multiple regressions 

were run, the basin characteristics that explained the greatest 

amount of variation among the stream-gaging stations were 

selected, and plots of residuals were examined. Cross-sectional 

area was used to delineate regions. Equations for the other characteristics were determined for the regions delineated from the 

area data. 

Bankfull flow explained more variation in bankfull crosssectional area (R2 = 0.938) than did drainage area (R2 = 0.881), 

when all stream-gaging stations were considered. There was 

also less regional variation in the relation between bankfull 

cross-sectional area and bankfull flow than in the relation 

between bankfull cross-sectional area and drainage area. 

Regression equations for the relation between bankfull area and 

flow, however, were less useful than regression equations for 

drainage area. Except at stream-gaging stations, bankfull flow 

would have to be determined by either directly measuring bankfull area and other characteristics, or by using regional equations (Wiley and others, 2002) which would introduce additional error. The strong relation between bankfull area and 

bankfull flow, however, suggests that more of the regional variation in bankfull area may be caused by basin-scale characteristics (such as total precipitation, precipitation intensity, basin 

relief, and drainage density) that cause the regional variation in 

bankfull flow, than by reach-specific characteristics (such as a 

rock unit in which a stream channel formed).

Velocity and drainage area were unrelated (R2 = 0.031, p 

> 0.05), so regional relations between velocity and drainage 

area were not developed. Cross-sectional area, width, and average depth were significantly related to drainage area for the 

entire study area (p < 0.0001). On the basis of the regression 

analysis of cross-sectional area, West Virginia was divided into 

an Eastern Region and a Western Region, along physiographic 

province boundaries (fig. 1; table 5). Regression equations are 

defined for streams draining between 46.5 and 1,619 mi2 for the 

Eastern Region, and between 2.78 and 1,354 mi2 for the Western Region. Standard error for the six regression equations 

ranged between 8.7 and 16 percent. (In this report, “standard 

error” refers to residual standard error, which is also known as 

the standard error of the regression.)

Some of the bridges from which measurements were made 

apparently confined the streams which they crossed, by presenting barriers to prevent the streams from widening as flows 

increased. Apparently confining bridges could easily be distinguished by examining at-a-station curves for flow and width to 

see if width remained constant through a range of flows (fig. 9). 

Graphs of regional relations between drainage area and bankfull 

cross-sectional area, average depth, and width, which identified 

data from apparently confining bridges, were examined to 

determine if including data obtained at these bridges skewed 

regional relations. This analysis was done within regions so that 

possible effects of bridges on stream channels could be distinguished from regional differences in stream-channel characteristics.
16 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

Table 2. Regression equations, correlation coefficients, and p-values for the relations between near-bankfull flow and cross-sectional 

area for stream-gaging stations in West Virginia used to develop regression equations.

[R2 = correlation coefficient; “number of measurements” refers to measurements made at 0.5 and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow; all equations are power 

curves of the form Area = Factor(Flow)Exponent.

Area

Station 

number Stream-gaging station Number of measurements Factor Exponent R2 p-value

01595300 Abram Creek at Oakmont 4 3.85 0.557 0.9588 0.02

01599500 New Creek at Keyser 15 1.99 0.646 0.9717 0.00

01604500 Patterson Creek near Headsville 10 7.79 0.568 0.9515 0.00

01605500 South Branch Potomac River at Franklin 4 2.39 0.664 0.9983 0.00

01606500 South Branch Potomac River near Petersburg 12 10.2 0.534 0.8974 0.00

01607500 South Fork South Branch Potomac River at Brandywine 11 0.755 0.840 0.8073 0.00

01608000 South Fork South Branch Potomac River near Moorefield9 85.1 0.291 0.8851 0.00

01608500 South Branch Potomac River near Springfield 8 6.50 0.650 0.8854 0.00

01610500 Cacapon River at Yellow Springs 4 14.6 0.562 0.9934 0.00

01611500 Cacapon River near Great Cacapon 14 2.09 0.767 0.9724 0.00

01614000 Back Creek near Jones Springs 6 28.1 0.422 0.9422 0.00

01616500 Opequon Creek near Martinsburg 6 0.388 0.949 0.9667 0.00

03050000 Tygart Valley River near Dailey 11 2.30 0.748 0.9741 0.00

03051000 Tygart Valley River at Belington 33 5.61 0.660 0.9811 0.00

03051500 Middle Fork River at Midvale 5 0.586 0.883 0.9130 0.01

03052000 Middle Fork River at Audra 12 32.1 0.419 0.9934 0.00

03052500 Sand Run near Buckhannon 6 4.08 0.537 0.8510 0.01

03053500 Buckhannon River at Hall 24 11.7 0.540 0.9897 0.00

03054500 Tygart Valley River at Philippi 24 10.5 0.615 0.9824 0.00

03056500 Tygart Valley River at Fetterman 14 17.1 0.554 0.9961 0.00

03057500 Skin Creek near Brownsville 6 0.539 0.906 0.8561 0.01

03058500 West Fork River at Butcherville 6 1.32 0.755 0.9132 0.00

03059000 West Fork River at Clarksburg 18 2.53 0.734 0.9830 0.00

03059500 Elk Creek at Quiet Dell 18 1.73 0.769 0.9331 0.00

03061500 Buffalo Creek at Barrackville 10 4.83 0.626 0.9001 0.00

03062400 Cobun Creek at Morgantown 4 1.15 0.658 0.9391 0.03

03066000 Blackwater River at Davis 21 4.73 0.643 0.9882 0.00
Bankfull channel characteristics and regional relations 17

03069000 Shavers Fork at Parsons 16 20.0 0.449 0.9223 0.00

03069500 Cheat River near Parsons 6 29.2 0.470 0.9942 0.00

03070000 Cheat River at Rowlesburg 12 16.8 0.534 0.9932 0.00

03070500 Big Sandy Creek at Rockville 7 8.74 0.516 0.9878 0.00

03071000 Cheat River at Pisgah 4 11.4 0.572 0.9995 0.00

03114500 Middle Island Creek at Little 18 0.638 0.876 0.9770 0.00

03151400 Little Kanawha River near Wildcat 5 0.595 0.884 0.8702 0.02

03151500 Little Kanawha River near Burnsville 28 3.53 0.725 0.9198 0.00

03152000 Little Kanawha River at Glenville 14 1.66 0.812 0.9206 0.00

03153500 Little Kanawha River at Grantsville 13 0.341 0.977 0.9898 0.00

03154000 West Fork Little Kanawha River at Rocksdale 20 13.6 0.574 0.9619 0.00

03154500 Reedy Creek near Reedy 9 0.598 0.887 0.9153 0.00

03155200 South Fork Hughes River at Macfarlan 10 2.04 0.787 0.9611 0.00

03155500 Hughes River at Cisco 17 1.330 0.839 0.9010 0.00

03178500 Camp Creek near Camp Creek 9 0.053 1.21 0.8669 0.00

03179000 Bluestone River near Pipestem 15 26.2 0.409 0.9695 0.00

03180500 Greenbrier River at Durbin 7 6.68 0.569 0.9931 0.00

03182500 Greenbrier River at Buckeye 12 22.3 0.494 0.9902 0.00

03183000 Second Creek near Second Creek 10 0.250 0.924 0.8711 0.00

03183500 Greenbrier River at Alderson 4 4.11 0.690 0.9919 0.00

03184000 Greenbrier River at Hilldale 21 5.41 0.653 0.9867 0.00

03186500 Williams River at Dyer 12 2.29 0.679 0.8184 0.00

03189000 Cherry River at Fenwick 7 23.8 0.442 0.9314 0.00

03189100 Gauley River near Craigsville 7 14.5 0.549 0.9147 0.00

03189500 Gauley River near Summersville 8 32.3 0.458 0.9217 0.00

03189650 Collison Creek near Nallen 4 1.89 0.625 0.9902 0.00

03190000 Meadow River at Nallen 23 17.9 0.478 0.9819 0.00

03190400 Meadow River near Mt. Lookout 4 17.2 0.478 0.9990 0.00

03192000 Gauley River above Belva 8 8.95 0.610 0.9900 0.00

Table 2. Regression equations, correlation coefficients, and p-values for the relations between near-bankfull flow and cross-sectional 

area for stream-gaging stations in West Virginia used to develop regression equations.—Continued

[R2 = correlation coefficient; “number of measurements” refers to measurements made at 0.5 and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow; all equations are power 

curves of the form Area = Factor(Flow)Exponent.

Area

Station 

number Stream-gaging station Number of measurements Factor Exponent R2 p-value
18 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

03194700 Elk River below Webster Springs 10 6.68 0.584 0.9649 0.00

03195000 Elk River at Centralia 8 48.9 0.409 0.9975 0.00

03195500 Elk River at Sutton 20 0.577 0.921 0.9732 0.00

03197000 Elk River at Queen Shoals 41 13.4 0.584 0.9539 0.00

03198500 Big Coal River at Ashford 24 1.42 0.804 0.9698 0.00

03199000 Little Coal River at Danville 33 0.941 0.845 0.9621 0.00

03200500 Coal River at Tornado 21 3.95 0.689 0.9718 0.00

03201000 Pocatalico River at Sissonville 28 3.02 0.758 0.9078 0.00

03201410 Poplar Fork at Teays 3 3.84 0.579 0.9988 0.02

03202400 Guyandotte River near Baileysville 12 9.32 0.579 0.9637 0.00

03203000 Guyandotte River at Man 18 12.9 0.538 0.9368 0.00

03203600 Guyandotte River at Logan 4 0.568 0.884 0.9993 0.00

03204500 Mud River at Milton 27 1.69 0.790 0.9663 0.00

03206600 East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow 3 6.58 0.562 0.9986 0.02

03207000 Twelvepole Creek at Wayne 17 2.21 0.759 0.9897 0.00

03207020 Twelvepole Creek below Wayne 5 1.40 0.833 0.9663 0.00

03212980 Dry Fork at Beartown 7 5.85 0.546 0.9976 0.00

03213500 Panther Creek near Panther 5 0.629 0.816 0.8659 0.02

Table 2. Regression equations, correlation coefficients, and p-values for the relations between near-bankfull flow and cross-sectional 

area for stream-gaging stations in West Virginia used to develop regression equations.—Continued

[R2 = correlation coefficient; “number of measurements” refers to measurements made at 0.5 and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow; all equations are power 

curves of the form Area = Factor(Flow)Exponent.

Area

Station 

number Stream-gaging station Number of measurements Factor Exponent R2 p-value
Bankfull channel characteristics and regional relations 19

Table 3. Regression equations, correlation coefficients, and p-values for the relations between near-bankfull flow and average depth for 

stream-gaging stations in West Virginia used to develop regression equations.

[R2 = correlation coefficient; “number of measurements” refers to measurements made at 0.5 and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow; bold type distinguishes regression equations not significant at p < 0.05; italic type distinguishes regression equations for which R2

 < 0.80; all equations are power curves of the form Average depth = Factor(Flow)Exponent.

Average depth

Station 

number Stream-gaging station Number of measurements Factor Exponent R2 p-value

01599500 New Creek at Keyser 15 0.106 0.508 0.9565 0.00

01604500 Patterson Creek near Headsville 10 0.202 0.409 0.9024 0.00

01605500 South Branch Potomac River at Franklin 4 0.151 0.417 0.9983 0.00

01606500 South Branch Potomac River near Petersburg 12 1.86 0.158 0.1574 0.20

01608000 South Fork South Branch Potomac River near Moorefield9 2.51 0.123 0.4442 0.05

01610500 Cacapon River at Yellow Springs 4 0.236 0.420 0.9977 0.00

01611500 Cacapon River near Great Cacapon 14 0.059 0.518 0.9752 0.00

01616500 Opequon Creek near Martinsburg 6 12.3 -0.079 0.2993 0.61

03050000 Tygart Valley River near Dailey 11 0.055 0.581 0.8917 0.00

03051000 Tygart Valley River at Belington 33 0.160 0.461 0.9142 0.00

03051500 Middle Fork River at Midvale 5 0.318 0.365 0.5076 0.18

03052000 Middle Fork River at Audra 12 0.574 0.317 0.9604 0.00

03054500 Tygart Valley River at Philippi 24 0.094 0.515 0.9587 0.00

03057500 Skin Creek near Brownsville 6 0.624 0.295 0.7984 0.02

03058500 West Fork River at Butcherville 6 3.40 0.075 0.1881 0.39

03059500 Elk Creek at Quiet Dell 18 0.148 0.512 0.8846 0.00

03066000 Blackwater River at Davis 21 0.179 0.447 0.6597 0.00

03069000 Shavers Fork at Parsons 16 0.365 0.307 0.9046 0.00

03069500 Cheat River near Parsons 6 0.199 0.398 0.9925 0.00

03070000 Cheat River at Rowlesburg 12 0.071 0.497 0.9931 0.00

03071000 Cheat River at Pisgah 4 0.163 0.446 0.9742 0.01

03114500 Middle Island Creek at Little 18 0.037 0.614 0.9737 0.00

03151400 Little Kanawha River near Wildcat 5 0.063 0.526 0.9956 0.00

03152000 Little Kanawha River at Glenville 14 0.220 0.467 0.7436 0.00

03153500 Little Kanawha River at Grantsville 13 0.031 0.652 0.9661 0.00

03154500 Reedy Creek near Reedy 9 0.050 0.631 0.5584 0.02
20 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

03155200 South Fork Hughes River at Macfarlan 10 0.250 0.467 0.9698 0.00

03155500 Hughes River at Cisco 17 0.130 0.507 0.9046 0.00

03178500 Camp Creek near Camp Creek 9 0.566 0.221 0.1363 0.33

03179000 Bluestone River near Pipestem 15 0.843 0.264 0.9703 0.00

03180500 Greenbrier River at Durbin 7 0.181 0.359 0.7943 0.01

03186500 Williams River at Dyer 12 0.093 0.461 0.6771 0.00

03189000 Cherry River at Fenwick 7 0.332 0.368 0.9599 0.00

03189500 Gauley River near Summersville 8 2.12 0.165 0.4327 0.08

03190400 Meadow River near Mt. Lookout 4 0.230 0.375 0.7989 0.11

03192000 Gauley River above Belva 8 0.120 0.472 0.9668 0.00

03194700 Elk River below Webster Springs 10 0.121 0.453 0.9571 0.00

03195500 Elk River at Sutton 20 0.029 0.638 0.9689 0.00

03197000 Elk River at Queen Shoals 41 0.213 0.425 0.8923 0.00

03198500 Big Coal River at Ashford 24 0.107 0.519 0.8844 0.00

03200500 Coal River at Tornado 21 0.456 0.347 0.8731 0.00

03202400 Guyandotte River near Baileysville 12 0.399 0.376 0.9762 0.00

03203600 Guyandotte River at Logan 4 0.064 0.531 0.9945 0.00

03204500 Mud River at Milton 27 0.153 0.520 0.9807 0.00

03206600 East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow 3 0.430 0.348 1.0000 0.00

03212980 Dry Fork at Beartown 7 0.138 0.447 0.9963 0.00

03213500 Panther Creek near Panther 5 0.388 0.368 0.5064 0.18

Table 3. Regression equations, correlation coefficients, and p-values for the relations between near-bankfull flow and average depth for 

stream-gaging stations in West Virginia used to develop regression equations.—Continued

[R2 = correlation coefficient; “number of measurements” refers to measurements made at 0.5 and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow; bold type distinguishes regression equations not significant at p < 0.05; italic type distinguishes regression equations for which R2 < 0.80; all equations are power curves of the form Average depth = Factor(Flow)Exponent.

Average depth

Station 

number Stream-gaging station Number of measurements Factor Exponent R2 p-value
Bankfull channel characteristics and regional relations 21

Table 4. Regression equations, correlation coefficients, and p-values for the relations between near-bankfull flow and width for streamgaging stations in West Virginia used to develop regression equations.

[R2 = correlation coefficient; “number of measurements” refers to measurements made at 0.5 and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow; bold type distinguishes regression equations not significant at p < 0.05; italic type distinguishes regression equations for which R2

 < 0.80; all equations are power curves of the form Width 

= Factor(Flow)Exponent.

Width

Station 

number Stream-gaging station Number of measurements Factor Exponent R2 p-value

01599500 New Creek at Keyser 15 18.8 0.138 0.8054 0.00

01604500 Patterson Creek near Headsville 10 38.6 0.159 0.6599 0.00

01605500 South Branch Potomac River at Franklin 4 15.9 0.248 0.9695 0.02

01606500 South Branch Potomac River near Petersburg 12 17.8 0.249 0.8539 0.00

01608000 South Fork South Branch Potomac River near Moorefield9 34.0 0.168 0.6914 0.01

01610500 Cacapon River at Yellow Springs 4 61.9 0.141 0.9674 0.02

01611500 Cacapon River near Great Cacapon 14 35.8 0.248 0.7378 0.00

01616500 Opequon Creek near Martinsburg 6 0.0132 1.03 0.8763 0.01

03050000 Tygart Valley River near Dailey 11 42.2 0.168 0.5415 0.01

03051000 Tygart Valley River at Belington 33 35.0 0.199 0.4992 0.00

03051500 Middle Fork River at Midvale 5 1.84 0.518 0.9675 0.00

03052000 Middle Fork River at Audra 12 56.0 0.102 0.6861 0.00

03054500 Tygart Valley River at Philippi 24 111 0.0994 0.5665 0.00

03057500 Skin Creek near Brownsville 6 0.863 0.611 0.8091 0.01

03058500 West Fork River at Butcherville 6 0.388 0.680 0.8428 0.01

03059500 Elk Creek at Quiet Dell 18 11.7 0.256 0.7782 0.00

03066000 Blackwater River at Davis 21 26.5 0.196 0.2563 0.02

03069000 Shavers Fork at Parsons 16 54.8 0.141 0.4296 0.01

03069500 Cheat River near Parsons 6 147 0.0722 0.9385 0.00

03070000 Cheat River at Rowlesburg 12 235 0.0364 0.7253 0.00

03071000 Cheat River at Pisgah 4 70.2 0.125 0.8105 0.10

03114500 Middle Island Creek at Little 18 17.3 0.262 0.7895 0.00

03151400 Little Kanawha River near Wildcat 5 9.37 0.358 0.5423 0.16

03152000 Little Kanawha River at Glenville 14 7.54 0.345 0.8185 0.00

03153500 Little Kanawha River at Grantsville 13 11.1 0.325 0.9417 0.00

03154500 Reedy Creek near Reedy 9 12.0 0.257 0.1605 0.29
22 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

03155200 South Fork Hughes River at Macfarlan 10 8.16 0.320 0.8500 0.00

03155500 Hughes River at Cisco 17 10.2 0.332 0.8497 0.00

03178500 Camp Creek near Camp Creek 9 0.094 0.990 0.9065 0.00

03179000 Bluestone River near Pipestem 15 31.1 0.145 0.8596 0.00

03180500 Greenbrier River at Durbin 7 36.9 0.210 0.5641 0.05

03186500 Williams River at Dyer 12 24.6 0.217 0.4866 0.01

03189000 Cherry River at Fenwick 7 71.7 0.0740 0.2664 0.24

03189500 Gauley River near Summersville 8 15.3 0.292 0.7270 0.01

03190400 Meadow River near Mt. Lookout 4 74.7 0.104 0.2068 0.55

03192000 Gauley River above Belva 8 74.3 0.138 0.9153 0.00

03194700 Elk River below Webster Springs 10 55.0 0.131 0.6252 0.01

03195500 Elk River at Sutton 20 19.7 0.283 0.8083 0.00

03197000 Elk River at Queen Shoals 41 63.0 0.159 0.6983 0.00

03198500 Big Coal River at Ashford 24 13.2 0.285 0.7770 0.00

03200500 Coal River at Tornado 21 8.67 0.343 0.9119 0.00

03202400 Guyandotte River near Baileysville 12 23.3 0.202 0.7826 0.00

03203600 Guyandotte River at Logan 4 8.83 0.353 0.9898 0.01

03204500 Mud River at Milton 27 11.1 0.270 0.8512 0.00

03206600 East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow 3 15.3 0.214 0.9922 0.06

03212980 Dry Fork at Beartown 7 42.5 0.0986 0.9457 0.00

03213500 Panther Creek near Panther 5 1.62 0.448 0.4552 0.21

Table 4. Regression equations, correlation coefficients, and p-values for the relations between near-bankfull flow and width for streamgaging stations in West Virginia used to develop regression equations.—Continued

[R2 = correlation coefficient; “number of measurements” refers to measurements made at 0.5 and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow; bold type distinguishes regression equations not significant at p < 0.05; italic type distinguishes regression equations for which R2 < 0.80; all equations are power curves of the form Width 

= Factor(Flow)Exponent.

Width

Station 

number Stream-gaging station Number of measurements Factor Exponent R2 p-value
Bankfull channel characteristics and regional relations 23

Cross-sectional area

Stream-gaging stations on streams draining the Valley and 

Ridge Province could be distinguished from stations on streams 

draining only the Appalachian Plateaus Province on a scatter 

plot of cross-sectional area and drainage area (fig. 10). Cross 

sections of streams draining the Appalachian Plateaus Province 

had a greater area relative to their drainage area than did cross 

sections of streams draining only the Valley and Ridge Province. Stations on streams draining both Valley and Ridge and

Appalachian Plateaus Provinces plotted in a cluster with Valley 

and Ridge Province stations. The other analyses described in the 

previous section confirmed this relation. On the basis of these 

analyses, stream-gaging stations were grouped into two regions: 

the Western Region, comprised of stations on streams draining 

only the Appalachian Plateaus, and the Eastern Region, comprised of stations on streams draining the Valley and Ridge 

Province, including stations on streams draining some area 

within the Appalachian Plateaus Province. 

Including the stream-gaging stations on streams that 

drained parts of both the Appalachian Plateaus and Valley and 

Ridge Provinces with the Eastern Region did not change the 

factor or exponent in the first three significant figures of the 

Eastern Region regression equation. Excluding these streamgaging stations from the Western Region regression equation 

changed that equation substantially. Streams in West Virginia 

that drain areas in both the Valley and Ridge and Appalachian 

Plateaus Provinces include the North Branch of the Potomac 

River, the Greenbrier River, all of the Greenbrier River tributaries that are south of the river, the Bluestone River, and Dry 

Fork, a Tug Fork tributary.

The physiographic province boundary may not be the best 

line to divide the two regions, but it was used because no other 

explanatory data provide either sufficient measurement precision or a convincing justification for dividing the regions elsewhere. The 43-in. contour line of total annual precipitation, if 

used as a boundary, provides for slightly decreased regression 

residuals compared to separating the regions by physiography, 

but the precipitation line does not seem reasonable as a regional 

boundary. 

Figure 9. Relation of flow and width at bridges where flow is apparently confined (top) and not confined (bottom) by the bridge structure.

Table 5. Equations and regression statistics describing regional 

relations in drainage area and bankfull channel characteristics at 

selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia.

[DA, drainage area in square miles; %, percent; R2, correlation coefficient; <, 

less than; area is in square feet, and depth and width are in feet; all equations 

are power curves of the form Characteristic = Factor(Drainage Area)Exponent]

Regression equation

Standar

d error 

(%)

R2 number 

of sites p-value

Western Region

Area =18.2(DA)0.797 12.8 0.931 56 < 0.001

Depth = 1.32(DA)0.351 11.0 0.712 36 < 0.001

Width = 

16.0(DA)0.423

9.0 0.842 36 < 0.001

Eastern Region

Area = 5.48(DA)0.917 13.8 0.899 18 < 0.001

Depth = 0.59(DA)0.411 8.7 0.723 11 < 0.001

Width = 

8.76(DA)0.503

16.0 0.537 11 0.01
24 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

The basin divide between the Potomac River Basin and the 

Ohio River Basin is near the border between the Valley and 

Ridge and Appalachian Plateaus Provinces. Dividing West Virginia into two regions on the basis of major river basin rather 

than physiographic province boundary would provide for 

greater convenience in using regional equations, because drainage areas of streams draining both provinces would not have to 

be prorated. The single station on a stream in the Potomac River 

Basin that drains the Appalachian Plateaus Province plots near 

the regression line for the Eastern Region. However, three gaging stations on streams in the Ohio River Basin that drain parts 

of both the Valley and Ridge and Appalachian Plateaus Provinces plot well to the right of the Eastern Region curve, and 

would strongly affect the position of the regression line for a 

region consisting of the Ohio River Basin. 

Some of the cross sections in the Western Region with the 

most area relative to drainage area, or high positive residuals, 

are in the part of the region near the Ohio River. These include 

cross sections at stream-gaging stations in the Middle Island 

Creek and Little Kanawha River Basins. None of the streamgaging stations in this part of the region have negative residuals. 

The Western Region should probably be subdivided into two 

subregions, one representing upland areas with relatively high 

annual precipitation, predominantly forested land cover, and 

streams with a high gradient, and the other representing lowland 

areas near the Ohio River, with a greater proportion of agriculture, a larger human population, and streams with a lower gradient than the other subregion. However, there are not enough 

stream-gaging stations in the Appalachian Plateaus lowlands to 

fully document differences between the lowlands and the highlands.

Cross-sectional area measured from cableways and nonconfining bridges was compared to cross-sectional area measured from apparently confining bridges for each region. No 

pattern of clustering was observed (fig. 11).

Average depth

Width and average depth of cross sections measured from 

apparently confining bridges were different from width and 

average depth of cross sections measured from cableways and 

non-confining bridges (figs. 12, 13). Cross sections from 

medium and large streams (> 100 mi2) measured from cableways and non-confining bridges were generally shallower and 

wider relative to their drainage area than were cross sections 

measured from apparently confining bridges. Some cross sections measured from apparently confining bridges had similar 

width and average depth relative to drainage area as cross secDRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA, IN SQUARE FEET

10

100

1,000

10,000

100 1,000 10,000

Area = 5.48(Drainage area)

p < 0.01, R2 = 0.8988

(0.917)

Area = 18.2(Drainage area)

p < 0.01, R2 = 0.9309

(0.797)

Western Region

Eastern Region

STATIONS IN THE APPALACHIAN PLATEAUS PROVINCE

STATIONS IN THE VALLEY AND RIDGE PROVINCE

REGRESSION LINE, EASTERN REGION

REGRESSION LINE, WESTERN REGION

EXPLANATION

95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVAL, WESTERN REGION

95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVAL, EASTERN REGION

Figure 10. Regional relations between drainage area and bankfull cross-sectional area measured during current-meter flow measurements at selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia.
Bankfull channel characteristics and regional relations 25

Figure 11. Comparison of the area of stream channels at bankfull flow at bridge and cableway cross sections in the Eastern and Western 

Regions in West Virginia.
26 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

Figure 12. Comparison of the average depth of stream channels at bankfull flow at bridge and cableway cross sections in the Eastern and 

Western Regions in West Virginia.
Bankfull channel characteristics and regional relations 27

Figure 13. Comparison of the width of stream channels at bankfull flow at bridge and cableway cross sections in the Eastern and Western 

Regions in West Virginia.
28 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

tions measured from non-confining bridges. Width and depth of 

cross sections measured from cableways were not apparently 

different from width and depth measured from non-confining 

bridges. On the basis of this analysis, cross sections measured 

from apparently confining bridges were excluded from regional 

analysis for width and depth.

The relation between drainage area and bankfull average 

depth was significant in both regions (p < 0.001), but was 

weaker than the relation between drainage area and bankfull 

area (R2, 0.712 for the Western Region, and 0.723 for the Eastern Region; fig. 14). The 95-percent confidence intervals of the 

two regional regressions did not overlap. Average depth of 

cross sections in the Western Region was greater relative to 

drainage area than for cross sections in the Eastern Region.

Generally, the stream-gaging stations that had greater 

cross-sectional area relative to drainage area were the same stations that were deeper at bankfull flow. As with the regional 

relation between cross-sectional area and drainage area, however, not enough stations were available in areas with lower altitude, less relief, and higher human population to fully explore a 

regional difference within the Appalachian Plateaus.

Width

The relation between drainage area and bankfull width in 

both regions was statistically significant (p < 0.001 for the 

Western Region, and p = 0.01 for the Eastern Region), but was 

weaker than the relation between drainage area and bankfull 

area (R2, 0.842 for the Western Region, and 0.537 for the Eastern Region). The regression line for the Eastern Region plotted 

outside the 95-percent confidence interval for the Western 

Region, but the entire 95-percent confidence interval for the 

Western Region plotted inside the 95-percent confidence interval for the Eastern Region (fig. 15). These aspects of the 

regional relations are caused by the weak relation of the Eastern 

Regional regression. 

Stream-gaging stations with two or more high-flow 

cross sections

Measurements at more than one bridge or cableway cross 

section were made at flows between 0.5 and 5.0 times bankfull 

flow at five stream-gaging stations in the Western Region. Plot

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

AVERAGE DEPTH, IN FEET

10 100 1,000

1

10

Western Region

Depth = 1.316(Drainage Area)

p < 0.01, R2 = 0.7121

(0.351)

Eastern Region

Depth = 0.592(Drainage Area)

p < 0.01, R2 = 0.7229

(0.411)

STATIONS IN THE EASTERN REGION

EXPLANATION

STATIONS IN THE WESTERN REGION

REGRESSION LINE, EASTERN REGION

REGRESSION LINE, WESTERN REGION

95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVAL, WESTERN REGION

95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVAL, EASTERN REGION

Figure 14. Regional relations between bankfull average depth determined from current-meter flow measurements and drainage area at 

selected stream-gaging stations in West Virginia.
Bankfull channel characteristics and regional relations 29

ting bankfull channel characteristics for these stream-gaging 

stations in relation to the regression lines and 95-percent confidence intervals for the regional relations among all streamgaging stations is one of the few measures of within-reach variability available for this study (fig. 16). This measure does not 

provide the information about variability that would be obtained 

from a study where bankfull channel characteristics were determined from multiple cross sections in many reaches, and where 

a measure of variance, such as the standard deviation, was calculated for each reach. Several of the cross sections at the five 

stream-gaging stations did not meet the criteria to be included 

in regional analysis, so the information about within-reach variability is extremely limited and may not be representative of 

within-reach variability throughout the study area. It is still, 

however, the best information available for this study.

At the Greenbrier River at Alderson stream-gaging station, 

measurements were made from a cableway and two bridges. 

Measurements were made from two bridges at West Fork at 

Clarksburg, Greenbrier River at Durbin, Williams River at 

Dyer, and Peters Creek near Lockwood. One of the bridges at 

Greenbrier River at Durbin and Williams River at Dyer was a 

“swinging” footbridge. This type of bridge was typically built 

without concrete abutments that confine streams at high flow. 

Conditions for some of the cross sections were not conducive 

for accurate measurements; at two of the stream-gaging stations 

where measurements were made from more than one bridge, 

Greenbrier River at Durbin and Peters Creek near Lockwood, 

hydrographers stopped using the original bridge when a new 

one became available, because it was difficult to measure flow 

accurately from the original bridge. At four stream-gaging stations—Greenbrier River at Alderson, Williams River at Dyer, 

West Fork at Clarksburg, and Peters Creek near Lockwood—one of the two bridges at which measurements were 

made was apparently confining.

Of the stream-gaging stations with more than one cross 

section, only area at one station (Greenbrier River at Durbin), 

width at one station (West Fork at Clarksburg), and average 

depth at one station (Greenbrier River at Alderson) plotted 

within the 95-percent confidence interval for all stations in the 

Western Region. For 6 of the 15 characteristics at examined 

replicated cross sections, characteristics for both cross sections 

plotted outside the 95-percent confidence interval. One of the 

cross sections for Greenbrier River at Durbin, a stream-gaging 

station just downstream from the confluence of the East and

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

WIDTH, IN FEET

10 100 1,000

10

100

1,000

Eastern Region 

Width = 8.76(Drainage Area)

p = 0.01, R2 = 0.5374

(0.503)

Western Region 

Width = 16.0(Drainage Area)

p < 0.01, R2

 = 0.8416

(0.423)

STATIONS IN THE EASTERN REGION

EXPLANATION

STATIONS IN THE WESTERN REGION

REGRESSION LINE, EASTERN REGION

REGRESSION LINE, WESTERN REGION

95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVAL, WESTERN REGION

95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVAL, EASTERN REGION

Figure 15. Regional relations between bankfull width determined from current-meter flow measurements and drainage area at selected 

stream-gaging stations in West Virginia.
30 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

West Forks of the Greenbrier River, was actually two cross sections on the tributaries upstream from the confluence; few 

researchers would consider this location to be part of the same 

reach as the location of the other bridge, downstream from the 

confluence. The difference in reaches explains why cross-sectional area at this stream-gaging station fit the regional pattern 

well but width and average depth did not.

Variability in cross sections measured at single streamgaging stations may indicate that variability of cross sections 

within reaches may be greater than is suggested by the low standard errors and high R2 values of the regional regression equations; therefore, applying the regression equations from this 

report may provide dubious results. The regression equations 

from this report, however, do provide useful information supporting field identification of bankfull indicators. Unless the 

cross sections from which they were developed can be shown to 

be representative of the reaches containing the cross sections, 

these equations are not adequate for designing channels.

Summary

Three bankfull channel characteristics—cross-sectional 

area, width, and average depth—were significantly correlated 

with drainage area in two regions in West Virginia. Channel 

characteristics were determined from analysis of historical flow 

measurements at 74 U.S. Geological Survey stream-gaging stations. Measurements made between 0.5 and 5.0 times the flow 

at the 1.5-year recurrence interval (referred to in this report as 

“bankfull flow”) were analyzed by graphical and regression 

analysis of selected channel characteristic in relation to flow. 

Channel characteristic values were calculated for bankfull flow.

Two regions, the Western Region and the Eastern Region, 

were delineated using the relation between bankfull cross-sectional area and drainage area. Regression equations of bankfull 

width and average depth in relation to drainage area were determined for those regions. The boundary between the Eastern and 

Western Region was the same as the boundary between the 

Appalachian Plateaus and Valley and Ridge Provinces. Streams 

that drained parts of both the Appalachian Plateaus and Valley 

and Ridge Provinces were included in the Eastern Region. No 

stream-gaging stations were available from the small part of the 

Blue Ridge Province in West Virginia. Standard error for the six 

regression equations ranged between 8.7 and 16 percent. Crosssectional area and average depth were greater for the Western 

Region than for the Eastern Region. Regression equations were 

defined for streams draining between 46.5 and 1,619 mi2 for the 

Eastern Region, and between 2.78 and 1,354 mi2 for the Western Region.

Many of the cross sections were at bridges, which alter 

stream-channel characteristics. Cross sections from bridges that 

appeared to confine flow were excluded from regional analysis 

of width and average depth, because values for these characteristics from these bridges appeared to have a skewed distribution. Cross-sectional area measured from bridges that apparently confined flow did not appear to have a skewed distribution 

among other stream-gaging stations in each region, and these 

cross sections were included in regional analysis.

For stream-gaging stations with two or more cross sections 

that met data-quality standards, characteristics of one or more 

Figure 16. Relation of bankfull area, width, and average depth to 

drainage area at five stream-gaging stations in the Western Region 

with flow measurements at more than one cross section, compared to regression lines and 95 percent confidence intervals for 

all stream-gaging stations in the Western Region of West Virginia.
References cited 31

cross sections fell outside the 95-percent confidence intervals of 

the regional regression. This suggests that within-reach variability for the stream-gaging stations may be greater than 

expected from the low standard error and high R2 values of the 

regional regression equations. 

This study had several other limitations, including a 

skewed distribution of available stream-gaging stations with 

respect to location and stream size. A disproportionate number 

of stream-gaging stations were on large (>100 mi2 drainage 

area) streams in the central highlands of West Virginia. Only 

one stream-gaging station that met data-quality criteria was 

available to represent the region within about 50 miles of the 

Ohio River north of Parkersburg. 

References cited

Cardwell, D.H., Erwin, R.B., and Woodward, H.P., and Lotz, 

C.W., comps., 1968, Geologic map of West Virginia: West 

Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, 2 sheets, scale 

1:250,000.

Carpenter, D.H., 1988, Floods in West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, November 1985: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4213, 86 

p.

Corbett, D.M., and others, 1943, Stream-gaging procedure—a 

manual describing methods and practices of the Geological 

Survey: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 888, 

245 p.

Dunne, T., and Leopold, L.B., 1978, Water in environmental 

planning: New York, W.H. Freeman and Company, 818 p.

Fenneman, N.M., 1938, Physiography of Eastern United States: 

New York, McGraw-Hill, 714 p.

Frye, P.M., and Runner, G.S., 1970, A proposed streamflow 

data program for West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report (unnumbered), 38 p.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1992, Statistical methods in 

water resources: New York, Elsevier Science Publishing 

Company, Inc., 522 p.

Langbein, W.B., 1949, Annual floods and the partial-duration 

flood series: American Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 

30, no. 6, p. 879-881.

Leopold, L.B., 1994, A view of the river: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 298 p.

Leopold, L.B., and Maddock, T., 1953, The hydraulic geometry 

of stream channels and some physiographic implications: 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252, 57 p.

Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P., 1964, Fluvial 

processes in geomorphology: New York, Dover Publications, 522 p.

Lyon, G.J., 1915, Equipment for current-meter gaging stations: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 371, 64 p.

Messinger, Terence, and Hughes, C.A., 2000, Environmental 

setting and its relations to water quality in the Kanawha River 

Basin: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4020, 57 p. 

Rantz, S.E. and others, 1982, Measurement and computation of 

streamflow: v. 1, measurement of stage and discharge: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 284 p.

Riggs, H.C., 1973, Regional analyses of Streamflow characteristics: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 4, chap. B3, 15 p. 

Rosgen, D.L., 1996, Applied river morphology: Pagosa 

Springs, CO, Wildland Hydrology, variously paged. 

Runner, G.S., Bragg, R.L., and Atkins, J.T., 1989, Cost effectiveness of the stream-gaging program in West Virginia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

87-4089, 57 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, Mid-Atlantic 

Highlands Streams Assessment: EPA-903-R-00-015, 

accessed March 27, 2003, at http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/

maha.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1901, Methods of stream measurement: Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 56, 51 p.

Wahl, K.L., Thomas, W.O., Jr., and Hirsch, R.M., 1995, The 

stream-gaging program of the U.S. Geological Survey: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1123, 22 p.

Wiley, J.B., Atkins, J.T., and Tasker, G.D., 2000, Estimating 

magnitude and frequency of peak discharges for rural, unregulated, streams in West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigation Report 00-4080, 93 pp.

Wiley, J.B., Atkins, J.T., and Newell, D.A., 2002, Estimating 

the magnitude of annual peak discharges with recurrence 

intervals between 1.1 and 3.0 years for rural, unregulated 

streams in West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 02-4164, 73 p.
 1

Appendix 1. Regression equations for the relations between flow and cross-sectional 

area, flow and width, flow and average depth, and flow and velocity at selected streamgaging stations in West Virginia.

Table 1-1. Regression equations for the relation between flow and cross-sectional area, and flow and width for all stream-gaging stations 

in West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more years of record and two or more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, for all measurements at that cross section.

[n, number of measurements; R2, correlation coefficient; p, probability; ft2, square feet; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; Q, flow in cubic feet per second; NA, not applicable for mathematical reasons; * signifies stations where area and width did not always increase as a function of flow because of the effects of backwater; bold 

type signifies that a regression line was not significant at p < 0.05; stations listed in this table but not in Table 2 had fewer than 5 flow measurements between 0.5 

and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow made at a single identifiable cross section, or the measurements were not significantly related (p < 0.05), not linearly related, or fit a regression line with excessive scatter (R2

 > 0.80); stations listed in this table and Table 2, but not Table 3 were those where flow measurements were 

made from a bridge that appeared to confine flow]

Area Width

Station 

number Stream-gaging station n Equation R2 p Equation R2 p

01595300 Abram Creek at Oakmont 36 10.09Q0.41 0.91 0.00 34.96Q0.03 0.16 0.02

03182700 Anthony Creek near Anthony 5 0.15Q1.09 0.97 0.00 0.37Q0.83 0.55 0.15

01614000 Back Creek near Jones Springs 73 31.83Q0.39 0.94 0.00 63.68Q0.04 0.56 0.00

03198500 Big Coal River at Ashford 162 14.98Q0.52 0.92 0.00 51.16Q0.13 0.71 0.00

03070500 Big Sandy Creek at Rockville 104 15.67Q0.44 0.95 0.00 42.74Q0.11 0.38 0.00

03066000 Blackwater River at Davis 62 6.38Q0.60 0.99 0.00 29.73Q0.18 0.57 0.00

03179500 Bluestone River at Lilly 11 103.60Q0.28 0.74 0.00 104.10Q0.07 0.43 0.03

03179000 Bluestone River near Pipestem 95 26.03Q0.40 0.99 0.00 36.37Q0.13 0.91 0.00

03202480 Briar Creek at Fanrock 3 184.65Q-0.22 1.00 0.04 30.11Q0.00 0.00 0.99

03053500 Buckhannon River at Hall 147 11.02Q0.54 0.99 0.00 82.00Q0.04 0.35 0.00

03061500 Buffalo Creek at Barrackville 56 5.27Q0.60 0.93 0.00 20.94Q0.20 0.72 0.00

03069880 Buffalo Creek near Rowlesburg 2 2.79Q0.58 1.00 NA 18.48Q0.16 1.00 NA 

03114650 Buffalo Run near Little 3 23.43Q0.18 0.72 0.36 14.90Q0.12 0.78 0.31

01610500 Cacapon River at Yellow Springs 27 4.96Q0.68 0.97 0.00 21.49Q0.26 0.83 0.00

01611500 Cacapon River near Great Cacapon 75 4.90Q0.66 0.97 0.00 11.29Q0.36 0.82 0.00

03178500 Camp Creek near Camp Creek 19 1.78Q0.69 0.87 0.00 18.07Q0.20 0.34 0.01

03071000 Cheat River at Pisgah 190 113.73Q0.32 0.98 0.00 129.74Q0.05 0.81 0.00

03070000 Cheat River at Rowlesburg 308 63.61Q0.37 0.68 0.00 119.90Q0.13 0.31 0.00
2 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

03069500 Cheat River near Parsons 214 108.17Q0.32 0.89 0.00 157.69Q0.07 0.55 0.00

03189000 Cherry River at Fenwick 178 97.02Q0.25 0.64 0.00 41.92Q0.14 0.72 0.00

03202750 Clear Fork at Clear Fork 17 25.05Q0.40 0.77 0.00 46.10Q0.10 0.39 0.01

03200500 Coal River at Tornado 120 229.34Q0.25 0.78 0.00 86.63Q0.10 0.71 0.00

03062400 Cobun Creek at Morgantown 7 1.55Q0.60 0.93 0.00 8.12Q0.07 0.41 0.12

03189650 Collison Creek near Nallen 4 1.89Q0.62 0.99 0.00 10.00Q0.00 NA NA 

03187500 Cranberry River near Richwood 43 16.39Q0.44 0.93 0.00 62.17Q0.08 0.32 0.00

03062500 Deckers Creek at Morgantown 28 5.62Q0.54 0.75 0.00 44.92Q0.04 0.25 0.01

03198450 Drawdy Creek near Peytona 3 0.89Q0.70 1.00 0.00 14.73Q0.01 0.30 0.63

03212980 Dry Fork at Beartown 16 9.34Q0.48 0.98 0.00 40.83Q0.10 0.95 0.00

03065000 Dry Fork at Hendricks 150 35.13Q0.41 0.64 0.00 155.99Q0.03 0.51 0.00

03206600 East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow13 6.08Q0.57 0.98 0.00 16.12Q0.20 0.60 0.00

03206800 East Fork Twelvepole Creek near East 

Lynn

12 2.08Q0.77 0.97 0.00 5.25Q0.38 0.87 0.00

03059500 Elk Creek at Quiet Dell 45 8.93Q0.55 0.93 0.00 22.52Q0.17 0.89 0.00

03195000 Elk River at Centralia 97 155.52Q0.27 0.96 0.00 107.77Q0.05 0.72 0.00

03197000 Elk River at Queen Shoals 220 195.28Q0.30 0.94 0.00 120.70Q0.09 0.77 0.00

03195500 Elk River at Sutton 121 9.69Q0.60 0.95 0.00 37.65Q0.20 0.82 0.00

03194700 Elk River below Webster Springs 98 41.95Q0.36 0.91 0.00 99.36Q0.06 0.38 0.00

03192000 Gauley River above Belva 164 133.22Q0.33 0.92 0.00 197.63Q0.04 0.56 0.00

03189100 Gauley River at Camden-on-Gauley 153 13.91Q0.55 0.98 0.00 93.44Q0.08 0.68 0.00

03189100 Gauley River near Craigsville 80 72.32Q0.37 0.92 0.00 95.52Q0.11 0.77 0.00

03189500 Gauley River near Summersville 242 53.82Q0.39 0.99 0.00 137.19Q0.06 0.61 0.00

03195600 Granny Creek at Sutton 6 0.52Q0.88 0.99 0.00 9.84Q0.14 0.31 0.25

03183500 Greenbrier River at Alderson 306 108.35Q0.34 0.87 0.00 295.59Q0.01 0.00 0.52

Table 1-1. Regression equations for the relation between flow and cross-sectional area, and flow and width for all stream-gaging stations 

in West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more years of record and two or more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, for all measurements at that cross section.—Continued

[n, number of measurements; R2, correlation coefficient; p, probability; ft2, square feet; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; Q, flow in cubic feet per second; NA, not applicable for mathematical reasons; * signifies stations where area and width did not always increase as a function of flow because of the effects of backwater; bold 

type signifies that a regression line was not significant at p < 0.05; stations listed in this table but not in Table 2 had fewer than 5 flow measurements between 0.5 

and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow made at a single identifiable cross section, or the measurements were not significantly related (p < 0.05), not linearly related, or fit a regression line with excessive scatter (R2

 > 0.80); stations listed in this table and Table 2, but not Table 3 were those where flow measurements were 

made from a bridge that appeared to confine flow]

Area Width

Station 

number Stream-gaging station n Equation R2 p Equation R2 p
Appendix 1 3

03182500 Greenbrier River at Buckeye 189 47.18Q0.41 0.98 0.00 190.94Q0.03 0.28 0.00

03180500 Greenbrier River at Durbin 32 8.15Q0.54 0.93 0.00 28.69Q0.23 0.29 0.00

03184000 Greenbrier River at Hilldale 150 42.97Q0.44 0.90 0.00 78.48Q0.13 0.53 0.00

03204000 Guyandotte River at Branchland* 139 4.80Q0.68 0.93 0.00 45.81Q0.18 0.71 0.00

03203600 Guyandotte River at Logan 80 1.96Q0.73 0.98 0.00 49.78Q0.17 0.80 0.00

03203000 Guyandotte River at Man 162 32.31Q0.43 0.94 0.00 152.03Q0.03 0.66 0.00

03202400 Guyandotte River near Baileysville 84 61.03Q0.36 0.90 0.00 66.50Q0.08 0.54 0.00

03155500 Hughes River at Cisco 118 8.72Q0.61 0.94 0.00 30.71Q0.21 0.61 0.00

03177500 Indian Creek at Indian Mills 8 39.53Q0.35 0.98 0.00 49.57Q0.08 0.91 0.00

03182000 Knapp Creek at Marlinton 14 18.14Q0.40 0.62 0.00 55.96Q0.11 0.22 0.09

03152500 Leading Creek near Glenville* 59 6.24Q0.71 0.83 0.00 14.50Q0.27 0.56 0.00

03195250 Left Fork Holly River near Replete 13 7.02Q0.50 0.99 0.00 21.40Q0.18 0.77 0.00

01609800 Little Cacapon River near Levels 7 146.49Q0.14 0.53 0.06 46.51Q0.06 0.43 0.11

03199000 Little Coal River at Danville 141 2.78Q0.71 0.95 0.00 51.40Q0.12 0.78 0.00

03199400 Little Coal River at Julian 28 3.37Q0.71 0.94 0.00 69.56Q0.06 0.74 0.00

03113700 Little Grave Creek near Glendale 5 0.57Q0.77 0.99 0.00 3.95Q0.30 1.00 0.00

03152000 Little Kanawha River at Glenville 94 11.19Q0.56 0.91 0.00 13.60Q0.27 0.72 0.00

03153500 Little Kanawha River at Grantsville* 83 4.91Q0.69 0.97 0.00 38.25Q0.18 0.66 0.00

03155000 Little Kanawha River at Palestine* 181 150.58Q0.35 0.58 0.00 144.71Q0.07 0.27 0.00

03151500 Little Kanawha River near Burnsville 149 11.82Q0.56 0.94 0.00 23.31Q0.21 0.81 0.00

03151400 Little Kanawha River near Wildcat 21 1.62Q0.75 0.96 0.00 19.18Q0.26 0.82 0.00

03190000 Meadow River at Nallen 171 30.86Q0.40 0.37 0.00 106.15Q0.00 0.00 0.39

03190400 Meadow River near Mt. Lookout 101 26.65Q0.42 0.97 0.00 69.28Q0.11 0.72 0.00

03052000 Middle Fork River at Audra 91 51.40Q0.35 0.97 0.00 62.04Q0.09 0.46 0.00

03051500 Middle Fork River at Midvale 42 11.45Q0.52 0.90 0.00 38.00Q0.15 0.43 0.00

Table 1-1. Regression equations for the relation between flow and cross-sectional area, and flow and width for all stream-gaging stations 

in West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more years of record and two or more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, for all measurements at that cross section.—Continued

[n, number of measurements; R2, correlation coefficient; p, probability; ft2, square feet; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; Q, flow in cubic feet per second; NA, not applicable for mathematical reasons; * signifies stations where area and width did not always increase as a function of flow because of the effects of backwater; bold 

type signifies that a regression line was not significant at p < 0.05; stations listed in this table but not in Table 2 had fewer than 5 flow measurements between 0.5 

and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow made at a single identifiable cross section, or the measurements were not significantly related (p < 0.05), not linearly related, or fit a regression line with excessive scatter (R2

 > 0.80); stations listed in this table and Table 2, but not Table 3 were those where flow measurements were 

made from a bridge that appeared to confine flow]

Area Width

Station 

number Stream-gaging station n Equation R2 p Equation R2 p
4 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

03114500 Middle Island Creek at Little 156 2.72Q0.70 0.93 0.00 57.91Q0.13 0.72 0.00

03204500 Mud River at Milton 132 2.67Q0.72 0.98 0.00 11.53Q0.26 0.90 0.00

01599500 New Creek at Keyser 16 4.40Q0.52 0.91 0.00 23.05Q0.11 0.75 0.00

03185500 New River at Caperton 71 214.99Q0.28 0.97 0.00 109.36Q0.11 0.70 0.00

03187300 North Fork Cranberry River near Hillsboro3 3.98Q0.52 1.00 NA 27.32Q0.10 1.00 NA 

01606000 North Fork South Branch Potomac at 

Cabins

8 60.82Q0.34 0.97 0.00 162.29Q0.04 0.24 0.22

01616500 Opequon Creek near Martinsburg 58 1.62Q0.79 0.84 0.00 3.83Q0.46 0.59 0.00

03213500 Panther Creek near Panther 27 3.11Q0.60 0.76 0.00 17.47Q0.14 0.21 0.02

01604500 Patterson Creek near Headsville 83 9.91Q0.56 0.39 0.00 31.00Q0.19 0.41 0.00

03191500 Peters Creek near Lockwood 29 5.57Q0.52 0.78 0.00 31.68Q0.05 0.08 0.13

03185000 Piney Creek at Raleigh 16 1.79Q0.69 0.87 0.00 30.34Q0.12 0.08 0.29

03201000 Pocatalico River at Sissonville 192 3.48Q0.71 0.94 0.00 12.33Q0.28 0.82 0.00

03201410 Poplar Fork at Teays 7 2.52Q0.64 0.99 0.00 21.96Q0.01 0.11 0.47

01610000 Potomac River at Paw Paw 76 8.52Q0.62 0.91 0.00 48.68Q0.19 0.50 0.00

01618000 Potomac River at Shepherdstown 230 189.22Q0.35 0.94 0.00 427.90Q0.03 0.40 0.00

03154500 Reedy Creek near Reedy 31 7.50Q0.56 0.96 0.00 33.15Q0.13 0.74 0.00

03177000 Rich Creek near Peterstown 2 1.37Q0.78 1.00 NA 0.82Q0.65 1.00 NA 

03195100 Right Fork Holly River at Guardian 2 9.81Q0.47 1.00 NA 134.58Q-0.18 1.00 NA 

03052500 Sand Run near Buckhannon 22 7.00Q0.44 0.76 0.00 8.13Q0.21 0.79 0.00

03069000 Shavers Fork at Parsons 66 21.18Q0.43 0.94 0.00 83.39Q0.09 0.46 0.00

01636500 Shenandoah River at Millville 38 10.08Q0.61 0.99 0.00 355.47Q0.08 0.39 0.00

03057500 Skin Creek near Brownsville 17 10.14Q0.47 0.96 0.00 32.87Q0.08 0.40 0.01

01605500 South Branch Potomac River at Franklin 33 8.32Q0.49 0.78 0.00 22.49Q0.20 0.48 0.00

Table 1-1. Regression equations for the relation between flow and cross-sectional area, and flow and width for all stream-gaging stations 

in West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more years of record and two or more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, for all measurements at that cross section.—Continued

[n, number of measurements; R2, correlation coefficient; p, probability; ft2, square feet; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; Q, flow in cubic feet per second; NA, not applicable for mathematical reasons; * signifies stations where area and width did not always increase as a function of flow because of the effects of backwater; bold 

type signifies that a regression line was not significant at p < 0.05; stations listed in this table but not in Table 2 had fewer than 5 flow measurements between 0.5 

and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow made at a single identifiable cross section, or the measurements were not significantly related (p < 0.05), not linearly related, or fit a regression line with excessive scatter (R2

 > 0.80); stations listed in this table and Table 2, but not Table 3 were those where flow measurements were 

made from a bridge that appeared to confine flow]

Area Width

Station 

number Stream-gaging station n Equation R2 p Equation R2 p
Appendix 1 5

01606500 South Branch Potomac River near 

Petersburg

259 19.42Q0.46 0.72 0.00 48.90Q0.15 0.28 0.00

01608500 South Branch Potomac River near 

Springfield

216 21.64Q0.50 0.79 0.00 45.75Q0.18 0.37 0.00

03155200 South Fork Hughes River at Macfarlan 66 27.45Q0.47 0.96 0.00 47.15Q0.11 0.80 0.00

01607500 South Fork South Branch Potomac River 

at Brandywine

38 3.81Q0.62 0.78 0.00 23.45Q0.22 0.48 0.00

01608000 South Fork South Branch Potomac River 

near Moorefield

53 22.37Q0.44 0.68 0.00 67.78Q0.09 0.18 0.01

03153000 Steer Creek near Grantsville* 137 12.11Q0.54 0.88 0.00 26.66Q0.17 0.67 0.00

03154250 Tanner Run at Spencer 2 15.48Q0.19 1.00 NA 26.00Q0.00 NA NA 

03068610 Taylor Run at Bowden 7 3.14Q0.57 0.88 0.00 29.12Q-0.01 0.00 0.90

03056250 Three Forks Creek near Grafton 15 6.34Q0.57 0.98 0.00 26.64Q0.12 0.89 0.00

03214900 Tug Fork at Glenhayes 62 1.44Q0.82 0.99 0.00 18.50Q0.26 0.81 0.00

03214500 Tug Fork at Kermit 63 3.44Q0.72 0.97 0.00 47.01Q0.15 0.82 0.00

03213000 Tug Fork at Litwar 196 25.47Q0.44 0.95 0.00 58.37Q0.08 0.91 0.00

03212750 Tug Fork at Welch 7 4.88Q0.57 0.98 0.00 26.45Q0.13 0.91 0.00

03213700 Tug Fork at Williamson 132 6.47Q0.63 0.97 0.00 39.76Q0.16 0.93 0.00

03214000 Tug Fork near Kermit 259 2.75Q0.74 0.99 0.00 44.66Q0.16 0.67 0.00

01617000 Tuscarora Creek above Martinsburg 5 39.26Q0.03 0.01 0.91 78.24Q-0.29 0.69 0.17

03207000 Twelvepole Creek at Wayne 102 16.10Q0.51 0.89 0.00 28.51Q0.16 0.74 0.00

03207020 Twelvepole Creek below Wayne 22 5.00Q0.66 0.96 0.00 12.35Q0.27 0.90 0.00

03051000 Tygart Valley River at Belington 186 10.23Q0.59 0.99 0.00 78.77Q0.11 0.77 0.00

03056500 Tygart Valley River at Fetterman 102 168.10Q0.30 0.91 0.00 250.97Q0.01 0.34 0.00

03054500 Tygart Valley River at Philippi 201 18.61Q0.55 0.99 0.00 102.16Q0.11 0.72 0.00

03050000 Tygart Valley River near Dailey 56 1.03Q0.84 0.99 0.00 1.78Q0.60 0.74 0.00

03050500 Tygart Valley River near Elkins 105 36.91Q0.39 0.90 0.00 43.53Q0.14 0.39 0.00

Table 1-1. Regression equations for the relation between flow and cross-sectional area, and flow and width for all stream-gaging stations 

in West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more years of record and two or more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, for all measurements at that cross section.—Continued

[n, number of measurements; R2, correlation coefficient; p, probability; ft2, square feet; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; Q, flow in cubic feet per second; NA, not applicable for mathematical reasons; * signifies stations where area and width did not always increase as a function of flow because of the effects of backwater; bold 

type signifies that a regression line was not significant at p < 0.05; stations listed in this table but not in Table 2 had fewer than 5 flow measurements between 0.5 

and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow made at a single identifiable cross section, or the measurements were not significantly related (p < 0.05), not linearly related, or fit a regression line with excessive scatter (R2

 > 0.80); stations listed in this table and Table 2, but not Table 3 were those where flow measurements were 

made from a bridge that appeared to confine flow]

Area Width

Station 

number Stream-gaging station n Equation R2 p Equation R2 p
6 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

03154000 West Fork Little Kanawha River at 

Rocksdale

140 11.36Q0.57 0.87 0.00 34.70Q0.16 0.81 0.00

03058500 West Fork River at Butcherville 50 9.57Q0.51 0.97 0.00 41.34Q0.12 0.60 0.00

03059000 West Fork River at Clarksburg 104 11.24Q0.58 0.85 0.00 93.50Q0.07 0.31 0.00

03061000 West Fork River at Enterprise 7 5.62Q0.65 0.97 0.00 37.31Q0.19 0.77 0.01

03057300 West Fork River at Walkersville 12 12.10Q0.56 0.88 0.00 10.99Q0.29 0.75 0.00

03112000 Wheeling Creek at Elm Grove 72 3.80Q0.64 0.96 0.00 23.73Q0.20 0.57 0.00

03186500 Williams River at Dyer 78 23.15Q0.41 0.73 0.00 72.18Q0.08 0.50 0.00

Table 1-1. Regression equations for the relation between flow and cross-sectional area, and flow and width for all stream-gaging stations 

in West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more years of record and two or more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, for all measurements at that cross section.—Continued

[n, number of measurements; R2, correlation coefficient; p, probability; ft2, square feet; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; Q, flow in cubic feet per second; NA, not applicable for mathematical reasons; * signifies stations where area and width did not always increase as a function of flow because of the effects of backwater; bold 

type signifies that a regression line was not significant at p < 0.05; stations listed in this table but not in Table 2 had fewer than 5 flow measurements between 0.5 

and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow made at a single identifiable cross section, or the measurements were not significantly related (p < 0.05), not linearly related, or fit a regression line with excessive scatter (R2

 > 0.80); stations listed in this table and Table 2, but not Table 3 were those where flow measurements were 

made from a bridge that appeared to confine flow]

Area Width

Station 

number Stream-gaging station n Equation R2 p Equation R2 p

Table 1-2. Regression equations for the relation between flow and average depth, and flow and width for all stream-gaging stations in 

West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more years of record and two to more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, for all measurements at that cross section.

[n, number of measurements; R2, correlation coefficient; p, probability; ft2, square feet; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; Q, flow in cubic feet per second; NA, not applicable for mathematical reasons; * signifies stations where area and width did not always increase as a function of flow because of the effects of backwater; bold 

type signifies that a regression line was not significant at p < 0.05; stations listed in this table but not in Table 2 had fewer than 5 flow measurements between 0.5 

and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow made at a single identifiable cross section, or the measurements were not significantly related (p < 0.05), not linearly related, or fit a regression line with excessive scatter (R2 > 0.80); stations listed in this table and Table 2, but not Table 3 were those where flow measurements were 

made from a bridge that appeared to confine flow]

Depth Velocity

Station 

number Station n Equation R2 p Equation R2 p

01595300 Abram Creek at Oakmont 36 0.29Q0.37 0.87 0.00 0.10Q0.59 0.95 0.00

03182700 Anthony Creek near Anthony 5 0.42Q0.27 0.17 0.49 6.54Q-0.10 0.18 0.48

01614000 Back Creek near Jones Springs 73 0.50Q0.35 0.92 0.00 0.03Q0.61 0.97 0.00

03198500 Big Coal River at Ashford 162 0.29Q0.40 0.93 0.00 0.07Q0.47 0.91 0.00

03070500 Big Sandy Creek at Rockville 104 0.37Q0.33 0.91 0.00 0.06Q0.56 0.97 0.00

03066000 Blackwater River at Davis 62 0.21Q0.43 0.90 0.00 0.16Q0.40 0.98 0.00

03179500 Bluestone River at Lilly 11 1.00Q0.22 0.56 0.01 0.01Q0.71 0.95 0.00
Appendix 1 7

03179000 Bluestone River near Pipestem 95 0.72Q0.28 0.97 0.00 0.04Q0.59 0.99 0.00

03202480 Briar Creek at Fanrock 3 6.13Q-0.22 0.79 0.30 0.01Q1.22 1.00 0.01

03053500 Buckhannon River at Hall 147 0.13Q0.51 0.98 0.00 0.09Q0.45 0.98 0.00

03061500 Buffalo Creek at Barrackville 56 0.25Q0.41 0.85 0.00 0.19Q0.39 0.84 0.00

03069880 Buffalo Creek near Rowlesburg 2 0.15Q0.43 NA NA 0.35Q0.41 NA NA 

03114650 Buffalo Run near Little 3 1.57Q0.06 0.62 0.42 0.04Q0.82 0.98 0.09

01610500 Cacapon River at Yellow Springs 27 0.23Q0.42 0.99 0.00 0.20Q0.32 0.87 0.00

01611500 Cacapon River near Great Cacapon 75 0.43Q0.31 0.84 0.00 0.20Q0.33 0.89 0.00

03178500 Camp Creek near Camp Creek 19 0.10Q0.50 0.80 0.00 0.56Q0.31 0.56 0.00

03071000 Cheat River at Pisgah 190 0.88Q0.28 0.98 0.00 0.01Q0.67 1.00 0.00

03070000 Cheat River at Rowlesburg 308 0.53Q0.25 0.25 0.00 0.02Q0.62 0.85 0.00

03069500 Cheat River near Parsons 214 0.69Q0.26 0.85 0.00 0.01Q0.68 0.97 0.00

03189000 Cherry River at Fenwick 178 2.31Q0.12 0.26 0.00 0.01Q0.74 0.94 0.00

03202750 Clear Fork at Clear Fork 17 0.54Q0.31 0.80 0.00 0.04Q0.59 0.88 0.00

03200500 Coal River at Tornado 120 2.65Q0.16 0.76 0.00 0.00Q0.75 0.97 0.00

03062400 Cobun Creek at Morgantown 7 0.19Q0.54 0.86 0.00 0.64Q0.39 0.85 0.00

03189650 Collison Creek near Nallen 4 0.19Q0.62 0.99 0.00 0.51Q0.38 0.98 0.01

03187500 Cranberry River near Richwood 43 0.26Q0.36 0.76 0.00 0.06Q0.55 0.95 0.00

03062500 Deckers Creek at Morgantown 28 0.13Q0.50 0.73 0.00 0.18Q0.46 0.68 0.00

03198450 Drawdy Creek near Peytona 3 0.06Q0.70 1.00 0.01 1.11Q0.30 1.00 0.00

03212980 Dry Fork at Beartown 16 0.23Q0.38 0.96 0.00 0.11Q0.52 0.99 0.00

03065000 Dry Fork at Hendricks 150 0.23Q0.39 0.62 0.00 0.03Q0.58 0.77 0.00

03206600 East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow13 0.38Q0.37 0.86 0.00 0.16Q0.43 0.96 0.00

03206800 East Fork Twelvepole Creek near East 

Lynn

12 0.40Q0.40 0.85 0.00 0.48Q0.22 0.72 0.00

03059500 Elk Creek at Quiet Dell 45 0.40Q0.38 0.92 0.00 0.11Q0.44 0.90 0.00

Table 1-2. Regression equations for the relation between flow and average depth, and flow and width for all stream-gaging stations in 

West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more years of record and two to more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, for all measurements at that cross section.—Continued

[n, number of measurements; R2, correlation coefficient; p, probability; ft2, square feet; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; Q, flow in cubic feet per second; NA, not applicable for mathematical reasons; * signifies stations where area and width did not always increase as a function of flow because of the effects of backwater; bold 

type signifies that a regression line was not significant at p < 0.05; stations listed in this table but not in Table 2 had fewer than 5 flow measurements between 0.5 

and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow made at a single identifiable cross section, or the measurements were not significantly related (p < 0.05), not linearly related, or fit a regression line with excessive scatter (R2

 > 0.80); stations listed in this table and Table 2, but not Table 3 were those where flow measurements were 

made from a bridge that appeared to confine flow]

Depth Velocity

Station 

number Station n Equation R2 p Equation R2 p
8 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

03195000 Elk River at Centralia 97 1.44Q0.22 0.95 0.00 0.01Q0.72 0.99 0.00

03197000 Elk River at Queen Shoals 220 1.62Q0.21 0.88 0.00 0.01Q0.69 0.99 0.00

03195500 Elk River at Sutton 121 0.26Q0.40 0.97 0.00 0.10Q0.39 0.90 0.00

03194700 Elk River below Webster Springs 98 0.42Q0.31 0.82 0.00 0.02Q0.63 0.97 0.00

03192000 Gauley River above Belva 164 0.67Q0.29 0.94 0.00 0.01Q0.67 0.98 0.00

03189100 Gauley River at Camden-on-Gauley 153 0.15Q0.47 0.97 0.00 0.07Q0.45 0.97 0.00

03189100 Gauley River near Craigsville 80 0.76Q0.27 0.87 0.00 0.01Q0.62 0.97 0.00

03189500 Gauley River near Summersville 242 0.39Q0.34 0.98 0.00 0.02Q0.60 0.99 0.00

03195600 Granny Creek at Sutton 6 0.05Q0.75 0.97 0.00 1.90Q0.11 0.66 0.05

03183500 Greenbrier River at Alderson 306 0.37Q0.34 0.46 0.00 0.01Q0.65 0.96 0.00

03182500 Greenbrier River at Buckeye 189 0.25Q0.38 0.97 0.00 0.02Q0.59 0.99 0.00

03180500 Greenbrier River at Durbin 32 0.28Q0.32 0.37 0.00 0.12Q0.45 0.90 0.00

03184000 Greenbrier River at Hilldale 150 0.55Q0.31 0.93 0.00 0.02Q0.55 0.93 0.00

03204000 Guyandotte River at Branchland* 139 0.10Q0.51 0.96 0.00 0.21Q0.31 0.74 0.00

03203600 Guyandotte River at Logan 80 0.04Q0.56 0.95 0.00 0.51Q0.27 0.85 0.00

03203000 Guyandotte River at Man 162 0.21Q0.40 0.93 0.00 0.03Q0.56 0.96 0.00

03202400 Guyandotte River near Baileysville 84 0.92Q0.28 0.93 0.00 0.02Q0.64 0.97 0.00

03155500 Hughes River at Cisco 118 0.28Q0.41 0.90 0.00 0.11Q0.38 0.86 0.00

03177500 Indian Creek at Indian Mills 8 0.80Q0.27 0.98 0.00 0.03Q0.65 0.99 0.00

03182000 Knapp Creek at Marlinton 14 0.32Q0.29 0.38 0.02 0.05Q0.59 0.78 0.00

03152500 Leading Creek near Glenville* 59 0.43Q0.45 0.85 0.00 0.16Q0.28 0.43 0.00

03195250 Left Fork Holly River near Replete 13 0.33Q0.33 0.92 0.00 0.15Q0.49 0.99 0.00

01609800 Little Cacapon River near Levels 7 3.15Q0.09 0.27 0.23 0.01Q0.85 0.97 0.00

03199000 Little Coal River at Danville 141 0.05Q0.59 0.97 0.00 0.36Q0.29 0.78 0.00

03199400 Little Coal River at Julian 28 0.05Q0.65 0.94 0.00 0.30Q0.28 0.72 0.00

03113700 Little Grave Creek near Glendale 5 0.15Q0.47 0.97 0.00 1.72Q0.23 0.86 0.02

Table 1-2. Regression equations for the relation between flow and average depth, and flow and width for all stream-gaging stations in 

West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more years of record and two to more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, for all measurements at that cross section.—Continued

[n, number of measurements; R2, correlation coefficient; p, probability; ft2, square feet; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; Q, flow in cubic feet per second; NA, not applicable for mathematical reasons; * signifies stations where area and width did not always increase as a function of flow because of the effects of backwater; bold 

type signifies that a regression line was not significant at p < 0.05; stations listed in this table but not in Table 2 had fewer than 5 flow measurements between 0.5 

and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow made at a single identifiable cross section, or the measurements were not significantly related (p < 0.05), not linearly related, or fit a regression line with excessive scatter (R2

 > 0.80); stations listed in this table and Table 2, but not Table 3 were those where flow measurements were 

made from a bridge that appeared to confine flow]

Depth Velocity

Station 

number Station n Equation R2 p Equation R2 p
Appendix 1 9

03152000 Little Kanawha River at Glenville 94 0.82Q0.30 0.78 0.00 0.09Q0.43 0.84 0.00

03153500 Little Kanawha River at Grantsville* 83 0.13Q0.51 0.91 0.00 0.20Q0.31 0.85 0.00

03155000 Little Kanawha River at Palestine* 181 1.04Q0.28 0.57 0.00 0.01Q0.64 0.86 0.00

03151500 Little Kanawha River near Burnsville 149 0.51Q0.36 0.93 0.00 0.08Q0.43 0.90 0.00

03151400 Little Kanawha River near Wildcat 21 0.08Q0.49 0.95 0.00 0.63Q0.24 0.77 0.00

03190000 Meadow River at Nallen 171 0.29Q0.40 0.36 0.00 0.03Q0.61 0.99 0.00

03190400 Meadow River near Mt. Lookout 101 0.38Q0.32 0.96 0.00 0.04Q0.58 0.99 0.00

03052000 Middle Fork River at Audra 91 0.83Q0.27 0.95 0.00 0.02Q0.64 0.99 0.00

03051500 Middle Fork River at Midvale 42 0.30Q0.37 0.91 0.00 0.09Q0.48 0.88 0.00

03114500 Middle Island Creek at Little 156 0.05Q0.58 0.90 0.00 0.37Q0.29 0.69 0.00

03204500 Mud River at Milton 132 0.23Q0.47 0.98 0.00 0.37Q0.27 0.86 0.00

01599500 New Creek at Keyser 16 0.19Q0.42 0.91 0.00 0.23Q0.47 0.89 0.00

03185500 New River at Caperton 71 1.97Q0.17 0.87 0.00 0.00Q0.72 1.00 0.00

03187300 North Fork Cranberry River near Hillsboro3 0.15Q0.42 1.00 NA 0.25Q0.48 1.00 NA 

01606000 North Fork South Branch Potomac at 

Cabins

8 0.37Q0.30 0.94 0.00 0.02Q0.65 1.00 0.00

01616500 Opequon Creek near Martinsburg 58 0.42Q0.34 0.55 0.00 0.61Q0.21 0.27 0.00

03213500 Panther Creek near Panther 27 0.18Q0.47 0.58 0.00 0.32Q0.40 0.58 0.00

01604500 Patterson Creek near Headsville 83 0.32Q0.37 0.33 0.00 0.10Q0.44 0.28 0.00

03191500 Peters Creek near Lockwood 29 0.18Q0.47 0.78 0.00 0.18Q0.48 0.74 0.00

03185000 Piney Creek at Raleigh 16 0.06Q0.58 0.80 0.00 0.56Q0.30 0.56 0.00

03201000 Pocatalico River at Sissonville 192 0.28Q0.44 0.90 0.00 0.29Q0.28 0.69 0.00

03201410 Poplar Fork at Teays 7 0.12Q0.63 0.98 0.00 0.39Q0.36 0.98 0.00

01610000 Potomac River at Paw Paw 76 0.18Q0.43 0.98 0.00 0.12Q0.38 0.80 0.00

01618000 Potomac River at Shepherdstown 230 0.44Q0.32 0.94 0.00 0.01Q0.64 0.98 0.00

03154500 Reedy Creek near Reedy 31 0.23Q0.44 0.93 0.00 0.13Q0.43 0.93 0.00

Table 1-2. Regression equations for the relation between flow and average depth, and flow and width for all stream-gaging stations in 

West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more years of record and two to more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, for all measurements at that cross section.—Continued

[n, number of measurements; R2, correlation coefficient; p, probability; ft2, square feet; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; Q, flow in cubic feet per second; NA, not applicable for mathematical reasons; * signifies stations where area and width did not always increase as a function of flow because of the effects of backwater; bold 

type signifies that a regression line was not significant at p < 0.05; stations listed in this table but not in Table 2 had fewer than 5 flow measurements between 0.5 

and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow made at a single identifiable cross section, or the measurements were not significantly related (p < 0.05), not linearly related, or fit a regression line with excessive scatter (R2

 > 0.80); stations listed in this table and Table 2, but not Table 3 were those where flow measurements were 

made from a bridge that appeared to confine flow]

Depth Velocity

Station 

number Station n Equation R2 p Equation R2 p
10 Regional Relations in Bankfull Channel Characteristics Determined from Flow Measurements in West Virginia

03177000 Rich Creek near Peterstown 2 1.67Q0.14 NA NA 0.72Q0.22 NA NA 

03195100 Right Fork Holly River at Guardian 2 0.07Q0.65 NA NA 0.11Q0.52 NA NA 

03052500 Sand Run near Buckhannon 22 0.86Q0.23 0.38 0.01 0.14Q0.56 0.86 0.00

03069000 Shavers Fork at Parsons 66 0.25Q0.35 0.94 0.00 0.05Q0.56 0.96 0.00

01636500 Shenandoah River at Millville 38 0.03Q0.54 0.96 0.00 0.10Q0.38 0.98 0.00

03057500 Skin Creek near Brownsville 17 0.31Q0.40 0.98 0.00 0.10Q0.52 0.97 0.00

01605500 South Branch Potomac River at Franklin 33 0.37Q0.30 0.53 0.00 0.12Q0.50 0.79 0.00

01606500 South Branch Potomac River near 

Petersburg

259 0.40Q0.32 0.71 0.00 0.05Q0.54 0.77 0.00

01608500 South Branch Potomac River near 

Springfield

216 0.47Q0.32 0.67 0.00 0.05Q0.50 0.79 0.00

03155200 South Fork Hughes River at Macfarlan 66 0.58Q0.36 0.97 0.00 0.04Q0.53 0.97 0.00

01607500 South Fork South Branch Potomac River 

at Brandywine

38 0.16Q0.40 0.54 0.00 0.26Q0.37 0.54 0.00

01608000 South Fork South Branch Potomac River 

near Moorefield

53 0.33Q0.36 0.42 0.00 0.02Q0.63 0.79 0.00

03153000 Steer Creek near Grantsville* 137 0.45Q0.38 0.92 0.00 0.08Q0.45 0.84 0.00

03154250 Tanner Run at Spencer 2 0.60Q0.20 NA NA 0.06Q0.80 NA NA 

03068610 Taylor Run at Bowden 7 0.11Q0.58 0.75 0.01 0.32Q0.43 0.81 0.01

03056250 Three Forks Creek near Grafton 15 0.24Q0.45 0.97 0.00 0.16Q0.43 0.96 0.00

03214900 Tug Fork at Glenhayes 62 0.08Q0.57 0.95 0.00 0.69Q0.18 0.77 0.00

03214500 Tug Fork at Kermit 63 0.07Q0.58 0.98 0.00 0.29Q0.27 0.84 0.00

03213000 Tug Fork at Litwar 196 0.44Q0.36 0.93 0.00 0.04Q0.56 0.97 0.00

03212750 Tug Fork at Welch 7 0.18Q0.45 0.98 0.00 0.21Q0.42 0.96 0.00

03213700 Tug Fork at Williamson 132 0.16Q0.47 0.95 0.00 0.15Q0.36 0.91 0.00

03214000 Tug Fork near Kermit 259 0.06Q0.59 0.98 0.00 0.36Q0.25 0.89 0.00

01617000 Tuscarora Creek above Martinsburg 5 0.50Q0.33 0.83 0.09 0.03Q0.97 0.90 0.05

03207000 Twelvepole Creek at Wayne 102 0.56Q0.36 0.83 0.00 0.06Q0.48 0.87 0.00

Table 1-2. Regression equations for the relation between flow and average depth, and flow and width for all stream-gaging stations in 

West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more years of record and two to more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, for all measurements at that cross section.—Continued

[n, number of measurements; R2, correlation coefficient; p, probability; ft2, square feet; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; Q, flow in cubic feet per second; NA, not applicable for mathematical reasons; * signifies stations where area and width did not always increase as a function of flow because of the effects of backwater; bold 

type signifies that a regression line was not significant at p < 0.05; stations listed in this table but not in Table 2 had fewer than 5 flow measurements between 0.5 

and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow made at a single identifiable cross section, or the measurements were not significantly related (p < 0.05), not linearly related, or fit a regression line with excessive scatter (R2

 > 0.80); stations listed in this table and Table 2, but not Table 3 were those where flow measurements were 

made from a bridge that appeared to confine flow]

Depth Velocity

Station 

number Station n Equation R2 p Equation R2 p
Appendix 1 11

03207020 Twelvepole Creek below Wayne 22 0.41Q0.40 0.97 0.00 0.20Q0.33 0.87 0.00

03051000 Tygart Valley River at Belington 186 0.13Q0.48 0.99 0.00 0.10Q0.41 0.98 0.00

03056500 Tygart Valley River at Fetterman 102 0.67Q0.30 0.91 0.00 0.01Q0.69 0.98 0.00

03054500 Tygart Valley River at Philippi 201 0.18Q0.45 0.99 0.00 0.05Q0.45 0.98 0.00

03050000 Tygart Valley River near Dailey 56 0.58Q0.25 0.32 0.00 0.97Q0.15 0.68 0.00

03050500 Tygart Valley River near Elkins 105 0.85Q0.26 0.58 0.00 0.03Q0.61 0.96 0.00

03154000 West Fork Little Kanawha River at 

Rocksdale

140 0.33Q0.41 0.80 0.00 0.09Q0.43 0.79 0.00

03058500 West Fork River at Butcherville 50 0.23Q0.39 0.96 0.00 0.11Q0.48 0.97 0.00

03059000 West Fork River at Clarksburg 104 0.12Q0.51 0.74 0.00 0.09Q0.42 0.75 0.00

03061000 West Fork River at Enterprise 7 0.15Q0.46 0.99 0.00 0.18Q0.34 0.91 0.00

03057300 West Fork River at Walkersville 12 1.10Q0.27 0.41 0.02 0.08Q0.44 0.82 0.00

03112000 Wheeling Creek at Elm Grove 72 0.16Q0.44 0.85 0.00 0.26Q0.36 0.90 0.00

03186500 Williams River at Dyer 78 0.32Q0.33 0.58 0.00 0.04Q0.59 0.83 0.00

Table 1-2. Regression equations for the relation between flow and average depth, and flow and width for all stream-gaging stations in 

West Virginia draining less than 2,000 square miles, and with 10 or more years of record and two to more current-meter flow measurements at an identifiable cross section, for all measurements at that cross section.—Continued

[n, number of measurements; R2, correlation coefficient; p, probability; ft2, square feet; ft, feet; ft/s, feet per second; Q, flow in cubic feet per second; NA, not applicable for mathematical reasons; * signifies stations where area and width did not always increase as a function of flow because of the effects of backwater; bold 

type signifies that a regression line was not significant at p < 0.05; stations listed in this table but not in Table 2 had fewer than 5 flow measurements between 0.5 

and 5 times the 1.5-year recurrence flow made at a single identifiable cross section, or the measurements were not significantly related (p < 0.05), not linearly related, or fit a regression line with excessive scatter (R2

 > 0.80); stations listed in this table and Table 2, but not Table 3 were those where flow measurements were 

made from a bridge that appeared to confine flow]

Depth Velocity

Station 

number Station n Equation R2 p Equation R2 p