Front cover photo: A valley fill and sediment-control pond in 

the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia.

Back cover photo: Ballard Fork near Mud, 

West Virginia.
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Relations Between Precipitation and 

Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged,

Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, 

Ballard Fork, West Virginia, 1999–2001

TERENCE MESSINGER and KATHERINE S. PAYBINS

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4113

Prepared in cooperation with the

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING, RECLAMATION, AND ENFORCEMENT

Charleston, West Virginia

2003
U.S. Department of the Interior

GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

The use of trade, product or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For additional information, write to:

District Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

11 Dunbar St.

Charleston, WV 25301

or visit our Web site at

http://wv.usgs.gov

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey

Branch of Information Services

Box 25286

Denver, CO 80225-0286
Contents III

CONTENTS

Abstract............................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Purpose and Scope.................................................................................................................................................... 4

Description of Study Area........................................................................................................................................ 4

Study Design and Data Collection........................................................................................................................... 6

Hydrologic Conditions from 1999 through 2001 ................................................................................................... 6

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................................... 8

Relations Between Precipitation and Flow in Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds................................................ 12

Relation of Flow Among Sites and with Long-Term Stream-Gaging Stations.................................................... 12

Evapotranspiration.................................................................................................................................................... 15

Estimated Evapotranspiration ........................................................................................................................ 17

Seasonal Flow-Evapotranspiration Partitioning............................................................................................ 18

Flow Duration........................................................................................................................................................... 21

Flow Variability........................................................................................................................................................ 24

High Flows................................................................................................................................................................ 24

Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 25

References........................................................................................................................................................................... 26

FIGURES

1–3. Maps showing:

1. Valley fills in the Central Appalachian coal field and location of the Ballard Fork 

Watershed, West Virginia...................................................................................................................... 2

2. Streams, stream-gaging stations, rain gages, valley fills, and areas permitted for mining 

in the Ballard Fork Watershed .............................................................................................................. 3

3. Selected streams, stream-gaging stations, and rain gages in southern West Virginia........................ 7

4–14. Graphs showing:

4. Hydrographs for three streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed and the index site, East Fork 

Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow, November 15, 1999–November 14, 2001 ..................................... 10

5. Unit monthly mean flow for three sites in the Ballard Fork Watershed, 1999–2001......................... 11

6. Relation of daily mean flow among three streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed, 1999–2001 ....... 13

7. Relation of monthly mean flow among three streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed, 

1999–2001.............................................................................................................................................. 14

8. Relation between monthly total precipitation at Madison and Dunlow, 1966–2001......................... 16

9. Relation between monthly total precipitation in the Ballard Fork Watershed and at 

Dunlow, 1999–2001............................................................................................................................... 17

10. Unit monthly mean flow per monthly total precipitation for three sites in the Ballard Fork 

Watershed, 1999–2001 .......................................................................................................................... 19

11. Relation between monthly mean flow and monthly mean flow per monthly total 

precipitation among three streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed, 1999–2001................................. 20

12. Relation between monthly mean flow and monthly mean flow per monthly total 

precipitation for East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow, 1965–2001 .......................................... 21

13. Relation between monthly mean flow and monthly total precipitation for three streams in 

the Ballard Fork Watershed, 1999–2001 .............................................................................................. 22
IV Contents

14. Flow duration of three streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed and of East Fork 

Twelvepole Creek .................................................................................................................................. 23

TABLES

1. Average streamflow for water year 2000 and period of record for selected stream-gaging 

stations in southern West Virginia................................................................................................................. 8

2. Long-term average and study-period total monthly precipitation, in inches, for the Ballard Fork 

Watershed, Dunlow and Madison ................................................................................................................. 9

3. Correlation coefficients for linear regressions of log-transformed daily and monthly mean 

flow for six candidate index stream-gaging stations and three stream-gaging stations in the 

Ballard Fork Watershed, November 1999–November 2001 ....................................................................... 15

4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, November 1999–November 2001........... 31

CONVERSION FACTORS AND DATUMS

CONVERSION FACTORS

DATUMS

In this report, 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). Historical data collected and stored as National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 have been 

converted to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) for this publication. 

Multiply By To Obtain

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

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

cubic foot per second per 

square mile [(ft3/s)/mi2]

0.01093 cubic meter per second per square 

kilometer (m3/s/km2)

cubic foot per second per inch per

square mile [(ft3/s)/in/mi2] 

0.0004305 cubic meter per second per centimeter 

per square kilometer (m3/s/cm/km2)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

short ton (t) 907.2 kilogram (kg)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)
Abstract 1

Relations Between Precipitation and 

Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, 

Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, 

Ballard Fork, West Virginia, 1999–2001

By Terence Messinger and Katherine S. Paybins

ABSTRACT

Large-scale surface mining using valley fills 

has changed hydrologic storage and processes in 

the Ballard Fork Watershed in West Virginia. Total 

unit flow for the 2-year study period (November 15, 

1999–November 14, 2001) on the Unnamed 

Tributary (extensively mined) (11,700 cubic feet 

per second per square mile) was almost twice that 

on Spring Branch (unmined) (6,260 cubic feet per 

second per square mile), and about 1.75 times 

that on Ballard Fork (downstream, partly mined) 

(6,690 cubic feet per second per square mile). Unit 

flow from the Unnamed Tributary exceeded that 

from the other two streams for all flows analyzed 

(5–95 percent duration). Unit flow from Ballard Fork 

exceeded unit flow from Spring Branch about 80 

percent of the time, but was about the same for 

high flows (less than 20 percent duration). The 

proportional differences among sites were greatest 

at low flows. Spring Branch was dry for several

days in October and November 2000 and for most of 

October 2001, and the Unnamed Tributary had flow 

throughout the study period.

The increase in flows from mined parts 

of the Ballard Fork Watershed appears to result 

from decreases in evapotranspiration caused by 

removal of trees and soil during mining. During both 

years, evapotranspiration from the Spring Branch 

Watershed greatly exceeded that from the Unnamed 

Tributary Watershed during May through October, 

when leaves were open. Evapotranspiration from 

the Unnamed Tributary Watershed slightly exceeded 

that from the Spring Branch Watershed in February 

and March during both years. Evapotranspiration, 

as a percentage of total rainfall, decreased from the 

first to the second, drier, year from the Unnamed 

Tributary Watershed (from 61 percent to 49 percent) 

but changed little from the Spring Branch (from 77 

to 76 percent) and Ballard Fork (73 to 76 percent) 

Watersheds. 

Precipitation and flow during the study period 

at three nearby long-term sites, the U.S. Geological 

Survey stream-gaging station East Fork Twelvepole 

Creek near Dunlow, West Virginia, and two National 

Oceanic Atmospheric Administration rain gages at 

Madison and Dunlow, West Virginia, were less than 

long-term annual averages. Relations observed 

among the three streams in the Ballard Fork 

Watershed during this study may not represent those 

in years when annual precipitation and flow are 

closer to long-term averages.
2 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

INTRODUCTION

Mountaintop-removal and other large surface 

mines that dispose of spoil in valley fills (fig. 1) have 

become increasingly controversial in the central 

Appalachians since the mid-1990s (Loeb, 1997; Bragg v. 

Robertson, Civil Action No. 2:98-636 [S.D. W.Va.]). As a 

condition of a partial settlement of Bragg v. Robertson, 

federal agencies with regulatory jurisdiction over coal 

mining were required to prepare a comprehensive 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the effects of 

valley fills. As part of that effort, the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Office of Surface 

Mining, Regulation, and Enforcement, began a study of 

relations between flow and precipitation in mined and 

unmined parts of the Ballard Fork Watershed, in the upper 

Mud River Basin, in November 1999 (fig. 2). 

Location of

study area

OHIO

KENTUCKY

WEST VIRGINIA

VIRGINIA

NORTH CAROLINA

TENNESSEE

0 25 50 100 KILOMETERS

0 25 50 100 MILES

Huntington Charleston

Beckley

Logan

Mud Madison

Tazewell

Big Stone Gap

Pikeville

Williamson

EXPLANATION

VALLEY FILLS

STUDY AREA

TOWNS

Base map from 1:100,000 series GIS data sets

82o30' 80o30'

38o30'

37o00'

Figure 1. Valley fills in the Central Appalachian coal field and location of the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia.
Introduction 3

Sediment

control

structure

Sally Fork

Mountaintop Sally Fork

Valley

Left Fork

Mountaintop

Spring Branch

Ballard Fork

Unnamed

Tributary

AREAS WITHIN MINEPERMIT BOUNDARIES

VALLEY FILLS

WATERSHED BOUNDARY

EXPLANATION

0 0.5 1

0 MILE 0.25 0.5 1

0.25 KILOMETER

STREAM GAGE

RAIN GAGE

Spring Branch

Valley

Ballard Fork

near Mud, W.Va.

Spring Branch

near Mud, W.Va.

Unnamed Tributary to

Ballard Fork near Mud, W.Va.

Modified from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection digital data

N

Figure 2. Streams, stream-gaging stations, rain gages, valley fills, and areas permitted for mining in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West 

Virginia.
4 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

Surface mining is an important method of 

extracting coal in the low-sulfur Central Appalachian Coal 

Field of southern West Virginia, southwestern Virginia, 

eastern Kentucky, and northeastern Tennessee. During 

1996–2000, more than 1.36 billion tons of coal were 

mined from this coal field—25 percent of all coal mined 

in the United States (Energy Information Administration, 

2002). In 2000, more than 258 million tons of coal were 

surface mined in this coal field; this production accounted 

for 42 percent of the coal mined in the coal field by 

all methods and 10 percent of the coal mined in the 

United States. 

During the 1990s, production of the mostly lowsulfur coal from this coal field has increased, a trend that 

is widely attributed to provisions in the Clean Air Act 

amendments of 1991 that were intended to reduce acid 

precipitation (Messinger and Hughes, 2001). Surface 

mining has increased steadily during the same period, 

because increases in the size and efficiency of earthmoving equipment made it profitable to mine multiple 

thin coal seams covered by hundreds of feet of rock. In 

mountaintop removal mines and other large surface 

mines, rock is removed from the tops of mountains and 

dumped in “valley fills” in adjacent headwater valleys. 

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe and 

compare stream characteristics measured on three small 

gaged watersheds in the Ballard Fork Watershed, in the 

mountaintop-removal coal mining region of southern 

West Virginia, between November 15, 1999, and 

November 14, 2001. The scope of this report is limited to 

stream characteristics that respond to precipitation over a 

period of 1 or more days, measured as daily mean flow. 

Another report produced in this study discusses short-term 

(less than 1 day) flow response of the same three streams 

to storms (Messinger, 2003). This study was done as part 

of the programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on 

valley fills.

Description of Study Area

The study area is in the Kanawha Section 

of the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province 

(Fenneman, 1938). Surface rocks are sedimentary and of 

Pennsylvanian age (Cardwell and others, 1968). The 

closest long-term climatography station, in Madison, WV, 

receives an average of 47.7 in. of precipitation annually 

(1971–2000) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2002). Madison receives an average of 

17.5 in. of snow per year (1971–2000). July is the wettest 

month, with an average precipitation of 4.88 in. 

Flow in southern West Virginia streams is 

dominated by rainfall, even during the winter. Long-term 

average flows are greatest in February through April, the 

period of maximum soil-moisture and ground-water 

recharge for the year, and are least in September and 

October, the period of lowest precipitation for the year 

(Messinger and Hughes, 2001). Long-term average 

maximum precipitation is received during May through 

July, and coincides with the period of maximum 

evapotranspiration. Most precipitation in winter results 

from passage of fronts and usually comes as slow, soaking 

rains throughout the region. Most precipitation in summer 

results from thunderstorms, which are often short, intense, 

and localized.

Three stream-gaging stations were sited to address 

the effects of mining, particularly valley fills, on flow 

(fig. 2). One stream-gaging station was installed on an 

Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork directly downstream 

from a valley fill and upstream from a sediment pond. The 

Unnamed Tributary drains 0.19 mi2 at the stream-gaging 

station, all of which is within the area permitted for 

mining, including 0.084 mi2 (44 percent) covered by the 

single valley fill in the watershed. A small area (less 

than 5 acres, or 0.008 mi2) immediately uphill from the 

Unnamed Tributary stream-gaging station was not 

disturbed by mining. The second stream-gaging station 

was installed near the mouth of Spring Branch, which 

drains an unmined watershed. Spring Branch drains 

0.53 mi2 at the stream-gaging station. The third streamgaging station was installed on the main stem of Ballard 

Fork about 0.3 mi downstream from the confluence with 

Spring Branch. Ballard Fork drains 2.19 mi2 at the streamgaging station. About 0.26 mi2 (12 percent) of the Ballard 

Fork Watershed was covered by seven valley fills, and 

about 0.89 mi2 (40 percent) was permitted for mining, 

although not all the permitted area was actually mined. 

Because regulations prohibit damage resulting from 

mining activities outside the permitted area, it is standard 

practice for permits to include a buffer area. All valley fills 

in the Ballard Fork Watershed were built by dumping 
Introduction 5

overburden from trucks over the edge of the bench (or fill) 

into the valley. The sediment ponds for the mines were 

still in place during this study. All mine runoff flowing 

past the Ballard Fork stream-gaging station had previously 

flowed through a sediment pond; this condition is normal 

for streams receiving runoff from active mines.

All mining in the Ballard Fork Watershed had been 

done under a single permit issued in 1989; unlike most 

nearby mined areas, the study area has no recorded deep 

mines, which can affect flow in a variety of ways and 

therefore complicate determining the effect of surface 

mining on flow. The mine permit specified a post-mining 

land use of rangeland. No coal was mined in the 

watershed during this study. The mine was still under 

reclamation in October 1999, although mine-inspection 

forms showed that inspectors had estimated that no more 

than ten acres were unreclaimed by November 1997 (West 

Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, 2003). 

The mine received a partial (“Phase 1”) bond release in 

August 2000, when backfilling and grading had been 

satisfactorily completed. Activities that sometimes take 

place during this stage of reclamation include installing 

drainage structures and moving backfill material, both of 

which would affect rainfall-runoff relations. 

The coal seams mined in the Ballard Fork 

Watershed were at the base of the Allegheny Formation, 

and the overburden was from rocks of that formation and 

the next major map unit upward, the Conemaugh Group 

(Cardwell and others, 1968). The Allegheny Formation 

and Conemaugh Group are both Pennsylvanian. The 

Allegheny Formation is mixed sandstone, shale, siltstone, 

and coal, and the Conemaugh Group is predominantly 

shale with some interbedded sandstone and siltstone. 

The sandstones of both these units are typically soft and 

crumbly and weather rapidly when exposed. Mine spoil 

from these rocks is expected to produce abundant fine 

particles, which would in turn fill some of the void space 

in the fill and lead to channelized flows of the type 

observed in other valley fills (Hawkins, 1998). The 

Kanawha Formation, which is Pennsylvanian, is 

predominantly hard, massive sandstone with some 

interbedded shale, is beneath the base of the Allegheny 

Formation, and forms the bottoms of mountains and 

underlies the valley floor.

The Ballard Fork Watershed had no human 

residents during the study period, and the unmined parts 

of the watershed were predominantly forest. However, the 

unmined parts of the watershed were not pristine. Several 

roads passed through the unmined parts of the watershed, 

and many or most of these roads had rills and gullies 

which could affect rainfall-runoff relations. Natural gas 

wells and pipelines have also been built in unmined parts 

of the watershed. Some of the pipeline rights-of-way have 

been used as all-terrain vehicle trails. Steep sections of 

these trails are extensively gullied and eroded, as are 

similar sections of all-terrain vehicle trails in the mined 

part of the watershed. 

Forest in the Spring Branch Watershed and other 

unmined parts of the Ballard Fork Watershed is secondor third-growth. Common canopy species include white 

and red oak, several hickory species, sycamore, and tulip 

poplar. The understory includes dogwoods, redbuds, 

and saplings of typical canopy species. No large forest 

fires took place during the study period, and leaf 

litter was present on the forest floor. In the mined 

parts of the Ballard Fork Watershed, vegetation was sparse 

and included broomsedge and other grasses, crown vetch, 

and other herbaceous vegetation typical of dry and 

disturbed land, as well as scattered woody vegetation that 

included autumn olive, tree of heaven, and white pine. 

Revegetation in the mined areas was ongoing but 

incomplete during the study period. Soil-survey 

information was not available for the mined areas, but 

field reconnaissance showed that the soils were generally 

thin and stony.

The Unnamed Tributary flows generally southwest 

(fig. 2). Its watershed has a maximum length of 3,250 ft, 

and maximum width of 2,500 ft. Spring Branch flows 

generally northwest. The maximum length of its 

watershed is 7,500 ft, and maximum width is 3,000 ft. 

Ballard Fork flows generally west. The maximum length 

of its watershed is 10,500 ft, and maximum width is 

9,500 ft. Storms in the region typically move from west to 

east, so that under normal conditions, the downstream 

parts of the watersheds receive precipitation before the 

upland areas. Basin relief at the time of the study was 

measured from a topographic map as 680 ft in the Spring 

Branch Watershed and 700 ft in the Ballard Fork 

Watershed. Post-mining basin relief in the Unnamed 

Tributary Watershed was measured as about 450 ft from 

altimeter readings taken at some of the highest points in 

the watershed.
6 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

Study Design and Data Collection

Data were collected for this study from November 

15, 1999, through November 14, 2001, a time referred to 

in this report as the “study period;” November 1999 

through November 2000 is referred to as the “first year of 

the study,” and November 2000 through November 2001 

is referred to as the “second year of the study.” All rain 

gages and stream-gaging stations are in West Virginia.

Three stream-gaging stations for continuous flow 

measurement were installed by the USGS in November 

1999 in the Ballard Fork Watershed near Madison (figs. 1, 

2). Continuous stage data were collected and flow records 

were computed according to procedures described by 

Rantz and others (1982). Part of the data-processing and 

compilation process is an assessment of data quality. 

Records are assessed as excellent, good, fair, or poor, if 

about 95 percent of the data are within 5, 10, 15, or more 

than 15 percent, respectively, of the true flow value. This 

assessment is included in station manuscripts in the USGS 

series of annual Water-Resources Data Reports (Ward and 

others, 2001; 2002). Data-quality assessments are based 

on factors including stage-sensor response, stability of the 

stage-discharge relationship, and completeness of the 

record. In this report, when the phrase “measurement 

error” is used in reference to daily-discharge data or data 

derived from daily-discharge data, it refers to these dataquality assessments. Published data include estimates of 

daily mean flow for periods when the stage record is lost 

because of instrument malfunction; these estimates are 

identified in Water-Resources Data Reports. Estimates are 

made on the basis of comparison of hydrographs between 

nearby stream-gaging stations, or regression of flow 

records between stream-gaging stations with correlated 

records. 

Four rain gages were installed in the Ballard Fork 

Watershed during this study to collect precipitation data in 

10-minute intervals (fig. 2). Two were on mountaintops 

(Sally Fork Mountaintop Rain Gage and Left Fork 

Mountaintop Rain Gage) and two were on the valley floor 

(Sally Fork Valley Rain Gage and Spring Branch Valley 

Rain Gage). Although there was usually variation in the 

amount and timing of rainfall recorded by the four rain 

gages, when all four rain gages functioned properly, 

recorded rainfall was within the range of variation 

expected to result from random causes among rain gages 

receiving the same amount of rain (Black, 1996). In this 

report, rainfall totals at the watershed scale are assumed to 

be the same throughout the Ballard Fork Watershed, and 

rainfall averaged from all functioning rain gages was 

assumed to have fallen throughout the watershed. 

Watershed boundaries were delineated on a 

1:24,000 USGS topographic map for the unmined part of 

the watershed. Mining changed the topographic boundary 

of the watershed in the mined areas, and a post-mining 

topographic map was not available. The post-mining 

topographic perimeter was mapped by use of a Global 

Positioning System (GPS) at locations determined in the 

field. A watershed boundary based on topography might 

not be accurate, particularly where it crosses the valley fill, 

because water can flow along subsurface confining layers 

into or out of a watershed. Watershed boundaries based on 

topography were used in this study, however, because of 

the uncertainties with respect to subsurface flows.

Hydrologic Conditions from 

1999 through 2001

Hydrologic conditions during the study period at 

three nearby long-term sites, the USGS stream-gaging 

station East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow and 

two National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) rain gages at Madison and Dunlow (fig. 3) were 

not representative of long-term conditions. In 2000, total 

precipitation was close to long-term averages (47.8 and 

45.7 in., respectively, 1971–2000) at both Madison and 

Dunlow (46.2 and 47.4 in., respectively). Total 

precipitation was substantially less than average in 2001 

(40.2 and 35.0 in., respectively) (National Climatic Data 

Center, 2002). More important than deviation from the 

annual totals, however, was timing and intensity of 

precipitation, which was unusual in both years. 

Total precipitation for the study period was nearly 

the same at Dunlow (78.6 in.) and in the Ballard Fork 

Watershed (78.4 in. mean). Ballard Fork received 

substantially more rain than Dunlow in a few storms 

(most notably from several-day storm systems during 

February 2000 and May and July 2001), and Dunlow 

received substantially more rain than Ballard Fork in at 

least one storm (during July 2000). 

Average flow in East Fork Twelvepole Creek 

near Dunlow was substantially less than the long-term 

average flow (52.0 ft3/s) in the 2000 and 2001 water years 

(29.6 ft3/s in 2000, and 21.6 ft3/s in 2001) (Ward and 

others, 2001; Ward and others, 2002). Below-average flow 

is to be expected for 2001, a year with below-average 
Introduction 7

OHIO

KENTUCKY

VIRGINIA

WEST VIRGINIA

Coal River

at Tornado

Big Coal River

at Ashford

Clear Fork

at Whitesville

Tug Fork

at Welch

Guyandotte River

near Baileysville

Clear Fork

at Clear Fork

Ballard Fork

near Mud

East Fork Twelvepole

Creek near Dunlow

1

2

3

4 5

9 6,7,8

10

Spring Branch

near Mud

Unnamed Tributary to 

Ballard Fork near Mud

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

EXPLANATION

STREAM-GAGING

STATIONS

 RAIN GAGES

A Dunlow

B Madison

A

B

0

0 50

50

100 KILOMETERS

100 MILES

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 1:100,000 Digital Data

Gau ley River

Kanawha River

Mud River

New River

Big Coal River Clear Fork

Guyandotte River

Clear Fork

Twelvepole Creek

Tug Fork

Elk River

Bluestone River

Meadow River

82o30' 81o

37o30'

38o30'

Figure 3. Selected streams, stream-gaging stations, and rain gages in southern West Virginia.

precipitation, but is surprising for 2000, a year with nearaverage precipitation. The relation between flow in 2000 

and the long-term average at Dunlow was similar to that at 

other gaged sites in southern West Virginia (table 1). 

The incongruity of near-average precipitation 

resulting in low flow in 2000 was caused by seasonal 

distribution of precipitation (table 2). Precipitation at 

Madison was 4.71 in. below average from November 

1999 through March 2000, typically the period of 

maximum recharge and runoff. Recharge of aquifers and 

soil moisture during winter and early spring typically 

sustains base flow throughout the year. In 2000, 

precipitation at Madison exceeded the long-term average 

during June and July, the period of maximum 

evapotranspiration, by 4.82 in. Much of this excess 

precipitation was intercepted or transpired by trees, or 

recharged soil moisture, and was unavailable to run off to 

streams. 

The second year of the study, 2001, was dry. The 

annual totals for precipitation and flow conceal the overall 

dryness of the year, because 11.41 in. of rain in the Ballard 

Fork Watershed, 32 percent of the total for the year, fell 

during two storms, one during May 16–22 and one during 

July 26–29. Ballard Fork received only 0.65 in. of rain 

from the July 8, 2001, storm (table 4, at back of report) 

that caused heavy flooding throughout much of southern 

West Virginia (West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection, Flood Advisory Task Force, 

2002). 
8 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

Table 1. Average streamflow for water year 2000 and period of record for selected stream-gaging stations in southern West Virginia

[WY, water year, or the period from October 1 through September 30 of the following year. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square miles]

Stream gage Station No. Period of record

Drainage

area

(mi2)

Long-term

average

(ft3/s)

WY 2000

average

(ft3/s)

Big Coal River at Ashford 03198500 1908–16, 1930–present 391 522 402

Coal River at Tornado 03200500 1908–11, 1911–12,1928–31, 

1961–present

862 1,203 891

Guyandotte River near Baileysville 03202400 1968–present 306 415 313

Clear Fork at Clear Fork 03202750 1974–present 126 191 166

East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow 03206600 1964–present 38.5 52.0 29.6

Tug Fork at Welch 03212750 1985–93, 1996–present 174 192 132

During the study period, lowest flows were during 

the fall, and peaks followed storm precipitation (fig. 4). 

The streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed responded 

differently to storms; unit peak flow from the Spring 

Branch Watershed exceeded that from the Unnamed 

Tributary Watershed after soaking rains, particularly in 

winter, but unit peak flow from the Unnamed Tributary 

Watershed exceeded that from the Spring Branch 

Watershed after summer thunderstorms when rainfall 

intensity exceeded about 1 in. per hour (Messinger, 2003). 

As noted in the precipitation discussion, storms differed 

somewhat between Dunlow and the Ballard Fork 

Watershed. As a result, peak flows differed between East 

Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow and the streams in 

the Ballard Fork Watershed (fig. 4). Dry periods in the two 

basins generally coincided.

Monthly flow patterns were different among the 

three streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed during the 

study period (fig. 5). At all sites, the lowest flows 

sustained for several days were during fall months, 

although unit low flows on the Unnamed Tributary were 

much higher (more than double) than unit low flows on 

Spring Branch and Ballard Fork. The highest unit monthly 

flow in the study period in Ballard Fork was during May 

2001, because of a series of thunderstorms that produced 

6.22 in. of rain in eight days (May 15–22). The flow 

record for Spring Branch was lost during this period 

because of a stage-sensor malfunction; but on the basis of 

hydrographic comparison and regression with the flow 

record from Ballard Fork, flow at Spring Branch during 

May 2001 was estimated to be the highest monthly total 

during the study period. Monthly total flows in these 

streams dropped for the rest of the summer and fall, 

although both streams had major peaks during that period 

(figs. 4, 5). The maximum total monthly flow on the 

Unnamed Tributary was in June 2001, although total 

monthly flow varied little during May through July 2001. 

Differences between total monthly unit flow in Spring 

Branch and Ballard Fork were usually less than the 

measurement error, except during the summer, when unit 

flows in Ballard Fork were somewhat higher. Total unit 

flow for the 2-year study period on the Unnamed 

Tributary (11,700 ft3/s/mi2) was almost twice that on 

Spring Branch (6,260 ft3/s/mi2), and about 1.75 times that 

on Ballard Fork (6,690 ft3/s/mi2). 

Acknowledgments

The authors thank John McDaniel and the Arch 

Coal Corporation, who have been helpful during the 

course of this work. Robert Bragg and Freddie Brogan, of 

the U.S. Geological Survey in Charleston, did most of the 

field work during this study.
Introduction 9

Table 2. Long-term average and study-period total monthly precipitation, in inches, for Ballard Fork Watershed, Dunlow and Madison, West Virginia[Data for Dunlow and Madison are from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2002. ≥, greater than or equal to; --, not presented]

Site January February March April May June July August September October November December

Ballard Fork Watershed, 1999 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4.37 2.87Ballard Fork Watershed, 2000 1.41 3.22 2.44 4.14 4.93 6.34 5.37 4.21 2.90 0.56 1.18 2.45Ballard Fork Watershed, 2001 2.49 2.31 2.84 1.59 7.13 3.69 8.33 2.74 2.35 1.29 -- --Dunlow, 1999 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.59 ≥2.03Dunlow, 2000 ≥1.92 ≥2.90 2.91 4.99 3.97 6.34 7.27 3.53 3.59 .51 1.31 ≥2.89Dunlow, 2001 ≥2.58 ≥2.82 ≥3.01 2.00 5.55 3.56 5.21 3.35 1.29 1.45 -- --Dunlow, 1971–2000 3.30 3.21 3.88 3.77 4.92 4.20 4.74 3.83 3.39 2.98 3.73 3.76Madison, 1999 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4.21 ≥1.86Madison, 2000 1.59 ≥3.38 2.54 3.95 4.77 7.52 7.05 5.42 3.05 .84 1.41 ≥2.16Madison, 2001 2.36 2.46 3.11 ≥2.12 7.45 4.53 9.18 1.91 1.93 1.61 -- --Madison, 1971–2000 3.47 3.21 3.92 3.90 5.17 4.58 5.17 4.58 3.71 2.91 3.59 3.63
10 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

11/15/1999 5/15/2000 11/14/2000 5/15/2001 11/14/2001

BALLARD FORK NEAR MUD

DAILY MEAN FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO 

BALLARD FORK NEAR MUD

SPRING BRANCH NEAR MUD

EAST FORK TWELVEPOLE

CREEK NEAR DUNLOW

0.01

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

0.01

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

0.01

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

0.01

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

DATE

Figure 4. Hydrographs for three streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed and the index site, East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow, West Virginia, 

November 15, 1999–November 14, 2001. Values of zero flow are not shown.
Introduction 11

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

4.0

3.02.01.00.0

UNIT MONTHLY MEAN FLOW,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

1999 2000 2001

July

July

Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork near MudSpring Branch near MudBallard Fork near MudError bar represents sum of streamflow variance

MONTH AND YEAR

Figure 5. Unit monthly mean flow for three sites in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, 1999–2001. Error bars represent the sum of daily-mean streamflow variance determined from estimates 

of daily quality made by Ward and others (2001, 2002). Spring Branch had average flow of zero during October 2001.
12 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

RELATIONS BETWEEN PRECIPITATION AND 

FLOW IN UNMINED AND VALLEY-FILLED 

WATERSHEDS

Hydrologic characteristics of the Ballard Fork 

Watershed during the study period were affected by 

watershed characteristics. The principal difference 

among the watersheds in the study area was in the extent 

of coal mining. This affected stream and watershed 

characteristics including the relation of daily and monthly 

flow among sites, evapotranspiration, flow duration, flow 

variability, and stream response to storms.

Relation of Flow Among Sites and with 

Long-Term Stream-Gaging Stations

Most factors that influence flow characteristics are 

regional in nature, so that flow characteristics at nearby 

sites are usually correlated (Black, 1996). Stream-gaging 

stations with short periods of record are routinely 

compared to nearby index stream-gaging stations with 

longer periods of record, to assess how representative the 

period of record is at the short-term site and to estimate 

some flow statistics that usually require a long period of 

record to determine. An index site should have basin 

characteristics similar to those of the short-term site. In 

this report, comparisons are made between streamflow at 

the stream-gaging stations in the Ballard Fork Watershed 

and in the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek, and between 

rainfall in the Ballard Fork Watershed and at Madison and 

Dunlow. In addition, some flow characteristics are 

estimated for streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed by 

comparison to flow characteristics of the East Fork of 

Twelvepole Creek. 

Assessing the relation between the index site and 

the study sites requires assessing the relation among the 

study sites. Log-transformed daily mean flow for the 

study period was significantly (p < 0.01) correlated 

between all pairs of the three streams in the Ballard Fork 

Watershed. Estimated values were excluded from this 

analysis because they were obtained by comparison and 

regression of flow records among the three stream-gaging 

stations, and observations of zero flow were excluded 

because they could not be log-transformed. The 

correlation was strongest between Spring Branch and 

Ballard Fork (R2 = 0.813), second strongest between the 

Unnamed Tributary and Ballard Fork (R2 = 0.578), and 

weakest between the Unnamed Tributary and Spring 

Branch (R2 = 0.406) (fig. 6). Correlation of daily flow 

between nearby sites is sometimes affected by differences 

in timing of runoff among streams, particularly when size 

differences among streams are great. Differences in 

drainage area affect the time of concentration, or the 

period needed for water to drain from upland areas. 

Distance along a stream channel also affects runoff 

timing, as a flood peak needs some time to move 

down the channel. 

Examining monthly instead of daily flow 

reduces the effects of runoff timing in correlation of 

sites. Log-transformed monthly mean flow was also 

significantly (p < 0.01) correlated between all pairings of 

the three streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed. As with 

the daily mean flows, the correlation was strongest 

between Spring Branch and Ballard Fork (R2 = 0.904), 

second strongest between the Unnamed Tributary and 

Ballard Fork (R2 = 0.548), and weakest between the 

Unnamed Tributary and Spring Branch (R2 = 0.312) 

(fig. 7). Flow records for Spring Branch for February 2000 

and April and May 2001 were excluded from this analysis 

because more than half the total flow during these months 

was estimated (Ward and others, 2001, 2002). The flow 

record for October 2001 for Spring Branch was also 

excluded because the average flow for the month was 

zero, which could not be log-transformed.

Most of these correlations were surprisingly weak. 

For example, the correlation between log-transformed 

flow at Coal River at Tornado (862 mi2) and a tributary, 

Big Coal River at Ashford (391 mi2), was significant and 

strong for both daily (p < 0.001; R2 = 0.968) and monthly 

(p < 0.001; R2 = 0.985) mean flow during the study 

period (data not shown). The correlations between logtransformed flow at Coal River at Tornado and Clear Fork 

at Whitesville (62.8 mi2), a Big Coal River tributary that 

drains less than 10 percent of the area that the Coal River 

drains at Tornado, were also stronger than five of the six 

correlations among pairs of sites in the Ballard Fork 

Watershed (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.823 for daily mean flow; 

p < 0.001, R2 = 0.866 for monthly mean flow) (data not 

shown).
Relations Between Precipitation and Flow in Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds 13

BALLARD FORK NEAR MUD

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO BALLARD

FORK NEAR MUD

COMMON LOGARITHM OF DAILY MEAN FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO BALLARD

FORK NEAR MUD

SPRING BRANCH NEAR MUD

BALLARD FORK NEAR MUD

COMMON LOGARITHM OF DAILY MEAN FLOW,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

SPRING BRANCH NEAR MUD

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

-2.5

-2.5

-2.5

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

-2.5

-2.5

-2.5

Y = 0.463 + 0.285X

R2

 = 0.406

Y = -0.679 + 0.449X

R2

 = 0.578

Y = 0.506 + 0.681X

R2

 = 0.813

Figure 6. Relation of daily mean flow among three streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, 

1999–2001.
14 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001 BALLARD FORK NEAR MUD UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO BALLARD FORK NEAR MUD COMMON LOGARITHM OF MONTHLY MEAN FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO BALLARD FORK NEAR MUD

SPRING BRANCH NEAR MUD

BALLARD FORK NEAR MUD

SPRING BRANCH NEAR MUD

COMMON LOGARITHM OF MONTHLY MEAN

FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Y = 0.755X + 0.927

R2

 = 0.904, p < 0.001

Y = 0.427X + 0.166

R2

 = 0.548, p < 0.001

Y = 0.268X + 0.607

R2

 = 0.312, p < 0.001

Figure 7. Relation of monthly mean flow among three streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West 

Virginia, 1999–2001.
Relations Between Precipitation and Flow in Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds 15

Flow data for the streams in the Ballard Fork 

Watershed were compared to data for the study period 

from the candidate index sites, which included seven 

active stream-gaging stations with 20 or more years of 

continuous flow records on unregulated streams in 

southern West Virginia (table 3). Daily and monthly 

mean flow data (log-transformed) for each of the three 

streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed were significantly 

correlated with flow data for each of the candidate index 

sites (p < 0.01). Flow data from Spring Branch and 

Ballard Fork were correlated more strongly to flow data 

for East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow than to any 

of the other sites (table 3). Flow data for the Unnamed 

Tributary were correlated more strongly to flow data for 

Coal River at Tornado than to flow data for any of the 

other sites (table 3). East Fork Twelvepole Creek was 

closer geographically to the Ballard Fork Watershed than 

was any of the other sites, and also drained the smallest 

area, even though it drained more than 10 times the area of 

Ballard Fork. Because using two separate index sites was 

judged to be too complex and confusing, East Fork 

Twelvepole Creek was selected as the index site for the 

entire study on the basis of its basin characteristics and 

strong correlation with Spring Branch, the unmined site. 

Monthly total precipitation data (1966–2001) for 

Madison and Dunlow, 29 miles apart, are significantly 

(p < 0.001) but weakly (R2 = 0.52) correlated (fig. 8). 

Correlation between log-transformed monthly total 

precipitation data for the Ballard Fork Watershed and 

Dunlow during the study period (1999-2001) was stronger 

(p < 0.001, R2 = 0.846; fig. 9) than the correlation for the 

long term (1966–2001) record at Madison and Dunlow. 

Evapotranspiration

A substantial amount of rain that falls in a 

watershed evaporates or is transpired by plants, 

particularly trees. Evaporation can be measured, but 

transpiration is often a more important component of 

overall evapotranspiration, and it cannot be measured 

from mature trees. Evapotranspiration is estimated by 

subtracting total flow, loss to any regional aquifer 

system, and change in soil moisture and aquifer storage 

from total precipitation over a watershed area. For the 

estimate to be reasonable, storage in aquifers and soils 

must be the same at the beginning and end of the period 

under consideration. The amount of water stored 

in soils is usually most consistent from year to year 

during the annual low-flow period. Because of this, 

evapotranspiration is usually estimated on an annual basis, 

with a beginning and ending date selected during the 

lowest flow period of the year; the water year runs from 

October 1 through the following September 30 for ease in 

estimating evapotranspiration (Black, 1996). 

Table 3. Correlation coefficients for linear regressions of log-transformed daily and monthly mean flow for six candidate index stream-gaging stations and 

three stream-gaging stations in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001

[Flow values of zero were deleted before analysis. mi2, square miles]

Stream gage Station No.

Drainage

area

(mi2)

Period of

record

Correlation coefficients

Unnamed Tributary 

to Ballard Fork near 

Mud

Spring Branch to 

Ballard Fork

Ballard Fork

near Mud

Daily Monthly Daily Monthly Daily Monthly

Big Coal River at Ashford 03198500 391 1908–16, 

1930–2001

0.490 0.516 0.516 0.739 0.721 0.688

Coal River at Tornado 03200500 862 1908–11, 

1911–12, 

1928–31, 

1961–2001

.518 .531 .537 .797 .742 .743

Guyandotte River near Baileysville 03202400 306 1968–2001 .435 .493 .422 .540 .590 .575

Clear Fork at Clear Fork 03202750 126 1974–2001 .457 .519 .517 .745 .720 .720

East Fork Twelvepole Creek near 

Dunlow

03206600 38.5 1964–2001 .346 .325 .652 .895 .758 .778

Tug Fork at Williamson 03213700 936 1967–2001 .433 .461 .467 .687 .634 .696
16 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

Y = 1.102 + 0.690X

R2

 = 0.52, P = 0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

MONTHLY TOTAL PRECIPITATION AT DUNLOW, IN INCHES

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

MONTHLY TOTAL PRECIPITATION AT MADISON, WV, IN INCHES

Figure 8. Relation between monthly total precipitation at Madison and Dunlow, West Virginia, 1966–2001.

Few studies appear to have been done of the 

mechanisms of evapotranspiration on reclaimed surface 

mines in the Appalachian Mountains. A great deal is 

known about evapotranspiration in forests (generally the 

most important pre-mining land use in the region), and 

most studies on forest cutting or manipulation have shown 

that loss of trees decreases evapotranspiration, even if the 

studies disagree or are ambiguous as to the relative 

importance of different mechanisms of evapotranspiration 

(Black, 1996). In order of the passage of water through the 

system, the principal mechanisms of evapotranspiration in 

forests are: evaporation of water intercepted by leaves in 

the canopy and on the forest floor, evaporation of water 

from soil, and transpiration of water by trees. Of these, 

only evaporation from soils is likely to be increased by 

surface mining.

In a forest ecosystem, rain first passes through the 

forest canopy and soils and satisfies any moisture deficits 

before it can run off to a stream or recharge an aquifer. 

About 10 percent of rain is intercepted in deciduous 

forests in the United States when leaves are open (Helvey 

and Patric, 1965; Helvey and Patric, 1988). Water 

intercepted by the forest canopy evaporates while rain 

continues to fall as long as relative humidity in the canopy 

is less than 100 percent. Plants transpire water in order to 

photosynthesize, and use transpiration as a pump to pull 

dissolved soil nutrients into leaves (Brewer, 1988). 

Transpiration rates increase as relative humidity increases, 

because guard cells in leaves open during humid periods 

when water loss and wilting decrease. A difference in 

relative humidity between the canopy and soil is the 

mechanism that powers transpiration, however, so that 

when relative humidity is near or at 100 percent, 

transpiration decreases or temporarily stops. 

Evapotranspiration rates are generally at their annual 

maximum for deciduous trees during the first months after 

leaves fully open. In southern West Virginia, leaves open 

during late April, and transpiration is greatest during May, 

June, and July. After July, some tree species begin to lose 

leaves, which decreases interception, and transpiration 

rates decrease in most species.
Relations Between Precipitation and Flow in Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds 17

COMMON LOGARITHM OF MONTHLY TOTAL PRECIPITATION,

IN INCHES, FOR THE BALLARD FORK WATERSHED

COMMON LOGARITHM OF MONTHLY TOTAL PRECIPITATION,

IN INCHES, FOR DUNLOW, WV

-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.0

R2 = 0.846, p > 0.001

Y = 0.0175 + 0.969X

Figure 9. Relation between monthly total precipitation in the Ballard Fork Watershed and at Dunlow, West Virginia, 1999–2001.

Leaf litter, at the interface between vegetation and 

soil, can intercept a substantial amount of rain, but the 

amount depends on antecedent moisture conditions. 

Helvey (1964) reports that leaf litter becomes fully 

saturated with water only after about 1 inch of throughfall, 

but estimates that leaf litter in a study site in a southern 

Appalachian hardwood forest at the Coweeta, NC, LongTerm Ecological Research Station, intercepted 2 to 

4 in. of rain annually, or about 2 to 5 percent of annual 

precipitation. Interception by leaf litter is greatest in the 

autumn, immediately after leaves fall, and decreases as 

dead leaves are consumed by animals, fungi, and bacteria 

or are mechanically broken down. Leaf litter also reduces 

evaporation from forest soils by shading them. Soilmoisture evaporation is greatly reduced in a forest not 

only because of leaf litter, but because wind speeds are 

greatly reduced (Brewer, 1988). Leaf litter and windspeed reduction decrease evaporation from forest soils 

year-round, so that evapotranspiration may be less from a 

deciduous forest than an open area, such as a surface 

mine, during part of the year. 

Estimated Evapotranspiration

There is no regional aquifer system in southern 

West Virginia. Valley fills in the study area had been in 

place for several years prior to the study and therefore 

ground-water storage in them was probably at equilibrium 

with precipitation, so that the study area met assumptions 

for estimating evapotranspiration. One exception was that 

in this study, stream-gaging stations were not installed by 

October 1, 1999, so that estimating evapotranspiration 

using a standard water year was not possible. When 

stream-gaging stations were installed and operating, on 

November 6, 1999, streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed 

were above base flow because of rains on November 2; 
18 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

therefore, analyzing flow statistics for a study year 

beginning November 6 would have introduced substantial 

error into evapotranspiration estimates. For this study, 

using a study year beginning November 15 and ending 

November 14 best met the storage assumptions for 

estimating evapotranspiration. 

Evapotranspiration, as a percentage of 

total rainfall, decreased substantially from the first 

to the second, drier, year in the Unnamed Tributary 

Watershed, from 61 percent to 49 percent; but was 

about the same during both years in the Spring Branch 

(77 and 76 percent) and Ballard Fork (73 and 76 percent) 

Watersheds. Evapotranspiration from the Unnamed 

Tributary Watershed was less during both years of the 

study than from either the Spring Branch or Ballard Fork 

Watersheds. 

Evapotranspiration as a percentage of total rainfall 

from the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek Watershed was 

greater during the study period (78 percent both years) 

than the 1965–2001 average (60 percent). Seasonality of 

precipitation during the study period explains the high 

evapotranspiration rate. As discussed previously, 

precipitation in the first year of the study was well below 

normal for winter and spring but above normal for 

summer, and greatly below normal in the second year of 

the study except for a storm in May and a storm in July. 

Differences in total unit flow among the three 

streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed probably 

reflect the differences in evapotranspiration among the 

three watersheds. Although quantitative information on 

leaf area and litter thickness is not available for the study 

area, the qualitative differences in these characteristics 

are obvious from inspection of the study area; interception 

of rainwater by foliage and litter is undoubtedly 

much greater in the forested areas than mined areas. 

Transpiration by plants is also undoubtedly much greater 

in forested areas than in mined areas because of obvious 

differences in plant biomass and species composition. 

Before water can be transpired, however, it must be stored 

in soil. Field reconnaissance showed that the mined parts 

of the watershed were covered with thin, compacted soil, 

therefore, soil storage that would allow transpiration is 

probably decreased in the mined areas.

Seasonal Flow-Evapotranspiration Partitioning

Changes in monthly mean unit flow per monthly 

total precipitation (referred to from here forward as 

“monthly flow per precipitation”) represent how the 

relation between runoff and evapotranspiration changes 

seasonally. Monthly flow per precipitation from Spring 

Branch only exceeded that from the Unnamed Tributary 

during late winter and early spring, in February–April 

2000, and February–March 2001, the season when 

evaporation from soils is most likely to be the most 

important mechanism of evapotransporation (fig. 10). 

Monthly flow per precipitation from the Ballard Fork 

Watershed was usually closer in magnitude to that from 

the Spring Branch Watershed than to that from the 

Unnamed Tributary Watershed, except during February 

and March during both years, when unit monthly mean 

flow from Spring Branch exceeded unit monthly mean 

flow from the Unnamed Tributary, and during June 2000. 

Log-transformed monthly flow per precipitation 

was significantly related to log-transformed unit monthly 

mean flow for Spring Branch (R2 = 0.698, p < 0.001) and 

Ballard Fork (R2 = 0.550, p < 0.001), but not for the 

Unnamed Tributary (R2 = 0.042, p = 0.335) (fig. 11). For 

the East Fork of Twelvepole Creek Watershed, long-term 

log-transformed monthly flow per precipitation was 

significantly correlated with log-transformed monthly 

flow (R2 = 0.872, p < 0.001) (fig. 12). Comparing 

monthly unit flow to monthly flow per precipitation shows 

that monthly flow per precipitation was high in the 

Unnamed Tributary in some months when flow was low 

(fig. 11). 

The relation between log-transformed monthly 

precipitation and flow was significant (p < 0.01) for all 

three streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed (fig. 13), and 

was strongest for the Unnamed Tributary (R2 = 0.493) and 

Ballard Fork (R2 = 0.531). The relation was weaker for 

Spring Branch (R2 = 0.354). The relation at Spring 

Branch is probably weaker because seasonal changes in 

evapotranspiration are more important in the Spring 

Branch Watershed than in the the Unnamed Tributary 

Watershed and other mined parts of the study area. 
Relations Between Precipitation and Flow in Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds 19

UNIT MONTHLY MEAN FLOW PER MONTHLY TOTAL PRECIPITATION, IN CUBIC

FEET PER SECOND PER INCH PER SQUARE MILE

1999 2000 2001

Dec.

Nov.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

July

July

Sum of streamflow variance

MONTH AND YEAR

Unnamed Tributary to Ballard Fork near MudSpring Branch near MudBallard Fork near Mud

1.00.80.60.40.20.0

Figure 10. Unit monthly mean flow per monthly total precipitation for three sites in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, 1999–2001. Error bars represent the sum of daily mean 

streamflow variance determined from estimates of data quality made by Ward and others (2001, 2002). Spring Branch had an average flow of zero during October 2001.
20 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001 COMMON LOGARITHM OF UNIT MONTHLY MEAN FLOW PER TOTAL MONTHLY PRECIPITATION, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER INCH PER SQUARE MILE

COMMON LOGARITHM OF UNIT MONTHLY MEAN

FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

BALLARD FORK NEAR MUD

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO

BALLARD FORK NEAR MUD

SPRING BRANCH NEAR MUD

R2= 0.042, p = 0.335

Y = -0.402 + 0.176X

R2

 = 0.550, p < 0.001

Y = -0.584 + 0.509X

Y = -0.638 + 0.621X

R2

 = 0.698, p < 0.001

-1.0 0.0 1.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

-2.0

-2.0

-1.0 0.0 1.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

-2.0

-2.0

-1.0 0.0 1.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

-2.0

-2.0

Figure 11. Relation between monthly mean flow and monthly mean flow per monthly total 

precipitation for three streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, 1999–2001.
Relations Between Precipitation and Flow in Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds 21

Y = -0.136 + 0.864X

R2

 = 0.872, P = 0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

COMMON LOGARITHM OF MONTHLY MEAN FLOW PER

MONTHLY TOTAL PRECIPITATION, IN CUBIC FEET PER 

SECOND PER INCH

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

COMMON LOGARITHM OF MONTHLY MEAN FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

4.0

Figure 12. Relation between monthly mean flow and monthly mean flow per monthly total precipitation for East Fork Twelvepole Creek 

near Dunlow, West Virginia, 1965–2001.

Monthly flow per precipitation from the Unnamed 

Tributary Watershed greatly exceeded that from the 

Spring Branch Watershed during several months, and 

monthly flow per precipitation from the Spring Branch 

Watershed never greatly exceeded that from the Unnamed 

Tributary (fig. 10). Five of the months when monthly 

flow per precipitation from the Unnamed Tributary 

Watershed greatly exceeded that from the Spring Branch 

Watershed were summer or fall months, suggesting an 

evapotranspiration difference. However, a limitation of 

analyzing the partitioning between evapotranspiration and 

flow on a monthly basis is that frequently, precipitation 

that is received near the end of a month does not leave the 

watershed as flow until the following month (Black, 

1996). In fact, four of the months when monthly flow per 

precipitation from the Unnamed Tributary Watershed 

greatly exceeded that from Spring Branch followed 

months when the average precipitation for the study area 

during the last week of the month was 0.75 in. or more 

(table 4). Recessions on the Unnamed Tributary from 

most storms took longer and contained more unit flow 

than on Spring Branch (Messinger, 2003). Usually, flow 

on the Unnamed Tributary was still higher than pre-storm 

base flows 4 or 5 days after a storm, in contrast to Spring 

Branch, where storm flows returned to near pre-storm 

flows within 12 to 24 hours of the end of rainfall 

(Messinger, 2003). During some months when monthly 

flow per precipitation from the Unnamed Tributary 

greatly exceeded that from Spring Branch, much of the 

extra water might have been delayed flow from the 

previous month’s rain. 

Flow Duration

Unit flow-duration curves for the index site, East 

Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow, were computed for 

the period November through October for the entire 

length of record (1965–2001) and for the study period 

(2000–2001). The flow duration curve computed for East 

Fork Twelvepole Creek for the period of record (1965–

2001) generally plots above the flow duration curve 

computed for the study period (fig. 14). The relative 

postitions of the two curves for the index site indicate that 

the flows for the study period were below average. 
22 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

BALLARD FORK NEAR MUD

SPRING BRANCH NEAR MUD

COMMON LOGARITHM OF UNIT MONTHLY MEAN FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

COMMON LOGARITHM OF TOTAL MONTHLY

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

-0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

R2 = 0.531, p < 0.001

Y = -0.755 + 1.08X

-0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8

R2 = 0.354, p < 0.01

Y = -1.18 + 1.58X

-1.5

-2.0

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

-0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8

R2 = 0.493, p < 0.001

Y -0.207 + 0.598X

-1.5

-2.0

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO 

BALLARD FORK 

NEAR MUD

Figure 13. Relation between monthly mean flow and monthly total precipitation for three streams in the 

Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, 1999–2001.
Relations Between Precipitation and Flow in Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds 23

Unnamed Tributary to

Ballard Fork near Mud

Ballard Fork near Mud

East Fork Twelvepole

Creek near Dunlow,

(study period)

East Fork Twelvepole

Creek near Dunlow,

(1965–2001)

Spring Branch near Mud

UNIT FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND PER SQUARE MILE

5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95

PERCENT OF TIME FLOW WAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED

0.01

0.1

1.0

10.0

Figure 14. Flow duration of three streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed and of East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow, West 

Virginia.

The low part of the unit flow-duration curve for the 

Unnamed Tributary plots above the flow-duration curve 

for Ballard Fork, and both curves plot above the curve for 

Spring Branch. The low parts of both unit flow-duration 

curves for East Fork Twelvepole Creek near Dunlow are 

similar to the curve for Spring Branch. 

This relationship among flow-duration curves 

at low flow indicates that the lowest unit flow was in 

Spring Branch, which dries up; the greatest unit 

flow was in the Unnamed Tributary and intermediate unit 

flow was in Ballard Fork (fig. 14). The flow-duration 

curves indicate that unit low flows were greater in the 

Unnamed Tributary, probably because of (1) less 

evapotranspiration on the mined areas as compared to 

forested areas and (2) drainage of water stored in the 

valley fill. Unit flows from the Ballard Fork Watershed 

also are greater than from the Spring Branch Watershed. 

The unit 90-percent-duration flow in other small streams 

that emerge from the toes of valley fills is about six to 

seven times greater than in nearby streams that drain 

unmined watersheds (Wiley and others, 2001).

The high parts of the unit-flow duration curves for 

East Fork Twelvepole Creek during the study period, 

Spring Branch, and Ballard Fork are approximately 

together, slightly below the curve for the Unnamed 

Tributary (fig. 14). These relative positions indicate that 

above-median flows were increased by mining activities. 

The duration curves were not compared above 5 percent 

or below 95 percent because the short period of record 

makes the extremes of the curve unreliable. For example, 

the stage sensor for the Spring Branch stream-gaging 

station malfunctioned on several days in May 2001, when 

flow at Ballard Fork was highest during the study period.
24 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

Flow Variability

One index of flow variability is the standard 

deviation of the logarithms of flow values from the flowduration curve at 5-percent intervals, from 5 to 95 percent. 

Larger index values represent greater variability. Friel and 

others (1989) geographically categorized this flowvariability index for West Virginia on the basis of longterm flow records and surficial geology. Statewide values 

ranged from 0.32 to 0.99; the Ballard Fork Watershed is in 

an area with a value of 0.85. Flow-variability index values 

for the 2-year period of record for the Unnamed Tributary 

(0.24) and Ballard Fork (0.46) were substantially less than 

values at nearby stream-gaging stations, and the index 

value for the Unnamed Tributary was smaller than any 

long-term value in West Virginia. The flow-variability 

indexes calculated for East Fork Twelvepole Creek near 

Dunlow for the study period (0.62) and for the period of 

record (0.70) were both less than values for nearby 

stream-gaging stations. The flow-variability index could 

not be calculated for Spring Branch, because Spring 

Branch recorded periods of no flow, so the Unnamed 

Tributary and Ballard Fork could best be contrasted with 

the index value for their area (0.85). The low values of the 

flow-variability index for the mined watersheds reflect 

increased low flows downstream from mined areas. 

High Flows1

During storms when rainfall intensity exceeded 

about 1 inch per hour, peak unit runoff from the Unnamed 

Tributary (the mined watershed) exceeded peak unit 

runoff from Spring Branch (the unmined watershed) 

(Messinger, 2003). During most storms—those with 

intensity less than about 1 inch per hour—peak unit flows 

were greater from the unmined watershed than the mined 

watershed. One storm that produced less than an inch of 

rain before flow from the previous storm had receded 

caused peak unit flow from the Unnamed Tributary to 

exceed peak unit flow from Spring Branch. Peak unit flow 

was usually similar in Spring Branch and in Ballard Fork. 

Peak unit flows are expected to decrease with increasing 

watershed size in homogeneous watersheds. 

After all storms in which maximum rainfall 

intensity exceeded about 0.25 in. per hour, the storm 

hydrograph from the Unnamed Tributary showed a double 

peak, as a sharp initial rise was followed by a decrease in 

flow and then a delayed secondary peak of water that had 

apparently flowed through the valley fill (Messinger, 

2003). The initial peak appears to be caused by Hortonian 

(excess overland) flow from areas with compacted soil; 

this flow was possibly conveyed through drainage 

structures on the mine. Ballard Fork and the unmined 

watershed had hydrographs with single peaks, typical of 

elsewhere in West Virginia. Runoff patterns from the 

mined watershed are influenced by the compaction of 

soils on the mine, the apparent low maximum infiltration 

rate into the valley fill compared to the forested watershed, 

storage of water in the valley fill, and the absence of 

interception from trees and leaf litter. 

During all storms with 1-hour rainfall greater than 

0.75 in. or 24-hour rainfall greater than 1.75 in. and with a 

complete record at all three stream-gaging stations, the 

Unnamed Tributary yielded the most total unit flow 

(Messinger, 2003). In three selected major storms, total 

unit flow from the Unnamed Tributary was greatest during 

recessions, and its total unit flow was greatest among the 

streams during all three recessions. 

No storms during this study produced 1-hour or 24-

hour rainfall in excess of the rainfall with the 5-year return 

period, and flow during this study never exceeded a 

magnitude equivalent to the flow with the 1.5-year return 

period; relative peak unit flow among the three streams in 

this study could be different in larger storms (Messinger, 

2003). Rainfall-runoff relations on altered landscapes are 

site-specific, and aspects of mining and reclamation 

practice that affect storm response may vary among 

mines.

1This section is based on another report, which discusses storm 

response of the streams in the Ballard Fork Watershed in more detail 

(Messinger, 2003).
Summary and Conclusions 25

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Unit daily mean flow was higher from the 

Unnamed Tributary, which drains a predominantly mined 

watershed, than from Spring Branch, which drains an 

unmined, forested watershed, at all flows between 5- and 

95-percent duration. The proportional difference was 

greatest at lower flows. Unit daily mean flows from 

Ballard Fork, which drains a watershed including both of 

the other streams and is about 30 percent mined, were 

about the same as those from Spring Branch at higher 

flows (greater than about 15-percent duration), and were 

intermediate between the Unnamed Tributary and Spring 

Branch the rest of the time. Spring Branch dried up during 

both years of the study, and its mean flow in October 2001 

was zero; the Unnamed Tributary had flow throughout the 

study period. Some of the flow from the mined area is 

delayed. Storage of water in or under the valley fill is the 

most likely mechanism. 

Total unit flow for the 2-year study period on the 

Unnamed Tributary (11,700 ft3/s/mi2) was almost twice 

that on Spring Branch (6,260 ft3/s/mi2), and about 1.75 

times that on Ballard Fork (6,690 ft3/s/mi2). Storage of 

water in the valley fills does not seem likely to cause this 

difference, because all the flow in the Ballard Fork 

Watershed originated as precipitation, and precipitation 

was the same on mined and unmined areas. Reduced 

evapotranspiration in the mined areas probably accounts 

for the difference in total flow. Evapotranspiration from 

mined areas was probably less than that from forested 

areas because most mechanisms of evapotranspiration, 

such as interception and transpiration, are functions of 

plants and plant biomass and species composition are 

much different in mined areas than in unmined areas. 

Differences in interception by foliage and litter are caused 

by the differences in plant biomass and species 

composition. Differences in transpiration are related to the 

differences in vegetation and also to different storage 

properties in mined areas, as soil is thinner and more 

compacted in mined areas than in unmined areas. The 

difference in total flow and low flow between the mined 

and unmined areas will probably change as soil, plant 

biomass, and plant-species composition change on the 

reclaimed mines.

The daily hydrograph shows that summer and 

autumn flows were higher in the Unnamed Tributary than 

Ballard Fork, and higher in Ballard Fork than in Spring 

Branch. Spring Branch was dry during much of October 

and November 2000, and its monthly mean flow for 

October 2001 was zero. Ballard Fork and the Unnamed 

Tributary had flow throughout the study period. Logtransformed daily mean flow was significantly (p < 0.01) 

correlated among the three streams in the Ballard Fork 

Watershed. This correlation was strongest between Spring 

Branch and Ballard Fork (R2 = 0.813), weakest between 

Spring Branch and the Unnamed Tributary (R2 = 0.406), 

and intermediate between Ballard Fork and the Unnamed 

Tributary (R2 = 0.578). 

The highest monthly flow in the study period in 

Ballard Fork was during May 2001, because of a series of 

thunderstorms that produced 6.22 in. of rain in 8 days 

(May 15 to May 22). The maximum monthly total flow on 

the Unnamed Tributary was in June 2001, although flows 

were similar from May through July 2001, the usual 

period of maximum evapotranspiration in forested 

watersheds. 

Flow-duration curves show the lowest unit flows 

from Spring Branch, the highest unit flows from the 

Unnamed Tributary, and intermediate unit flows from 

Ballard Fork. Unit flow from the Unnamed Tributary 

Watershed was the highest of the three streams at all flows 

analyzed, between 5- and 95-percent flow duration, but 

the proportional difference was greatest for low flows. 

Low flows in the Unnamed Tributary were probably 

increased because of decreased evapotranspiration from 

the mine as compared to the forest and delayed drainage 

of water stored in the valley fill. Unit flows from Ballard 

Fork and Spring Branch were about the same at higher 

flows, but unit flow from Ballard Fork was much higher 

than that from Spring Branch at low flow.
26 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

Reduced evapotranspiration in mined areas 

probably accounts for the marked differences in total and 

low unit flow between the Unnamed Tributary and Spring 

Branch Watersheds. Evapotranspiration, as a percentage 

of total rainfall, decreased from the first to the second year 

from the Unnamed Tributary Watershed (from 61 percent 

to 49 percent) but changed little from the Spring Branch 

(from 77 to 76 percent) and Ballard Fork (73 to 76 

percent) Watersheds. Evapotranspiration from the East 

Fork of Twelvepole Creek Watershed was much higher 

during the study period (76 percent the first year, and 78 

percent the second year) than the 1965–2001 average (60 

percent). Rates of evapotranspiration from most 

mechanisms appear to be lower on reclaimed surface 

mines than in forests, because most mechanisms evolved 

in plants to use or conserve water. Plant biomass in the 

mined areas is much less than in forested areas. 

Unit flow per unit precipitation from Spring Branch 

only exceeded that from the Unnamed Tributary during 

February to April 2000 and February to March 2001, 

periods before leaves emerged, but even then, exceeded it 

by less than measurement error. Unit flow per unit 

precipitation from the Unnamed Tributary Watershed 

exceeded that from the Spring Branch Watershed during 

summer and fall months. 

Long-term conditions were assessed by comparison 

with nearby sites with long periods of record. Hydrologic 

conditions observed during the study period were drier 

than long-term averages at three nearby long-term sites, 

the USGS stream-gaging station East Fork Twelvepole 

Creek near Dunlow, West Virginia, and two NOAA rain 

gages at Madison and Dunlow. Total precipitation in 2000 

at both Madison and Dunlow (46.2 and 47.4 in., 

respectively) was close to long-term averages (47.8 and 

45.7 in., respectively, 1971–2000), but was substantially 

less in 2001 (40.2 and 35.0 in., respectively). Flow at East 

Fork Twelvepole Creek was well below the long-term 

average during both years. The disparity between normal 

precipitation and low flow in 2000 resulted from a large 

proportion of that year’s precipitation being received 

during the summer, when much of it was evaporated or 

transpired. Precipitation at Madison was 4.71 in. below 

average from November 1999 through March 2000, the 

season of maximum recharge and runoff, and exceeded 

the long-term average during only 3 months, April (by 

0.24 in.), June (by 1.76 in.), and July (by 0.20 in.), in the 

period of maximum evapotranspiration.

This study did not address mechanisms of water 

movement through valley fills, or details of valley-fill 

structure. Water is likely to move differently through 

valley fills that are different structurally than those in the 

Ballard Fork Watershed, and streams draining them are 

likely to have different flow characteristics than the 

streams in this study. Determining mechanisms of water 

movement across the mine and through the fill in relation 

to vegetation, soil characteristics, and fill structure would 

provide valuable information for mine regulators and 

operators, but was outside the scope of this study. 

Measuring the same flow characteristics as in this study in 

another set of watersheds would provide valuable 

information on the transferability of this study’s results; 

without such reproduction, the results of this study should 

not be considered to apply to other watersheds with 

different geology, landforms, and mining practices and 

permit details. Continuing to operate the stream-gaging 

stations and precipitation gages from this study could 

provide valuable information on trends and on changes in 

flow characteristics in the mined parts of the watershed, as 

vegetation and soils continue to develop following 

reclamation.

REFERENCES

Black, P.E., 1996, Watershed hydrology: Englewood Cliffs, 

N.J., Prentice Hall, 449 p.

Bragg v. Robertson, Civil Action No. 2:98-636 [S.D. W.Va.], 

accessed February 13, 2003, at http://www.osmre.gov/ 

pdf/022399f.pdf

Brewer, R., 1988, The science of ecology: Philadelphia, 

Saunders College Publishing, 922 p.

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.

Energy Information Administration, 2002, Coal production data 

from the coal industry annual: accessed February 13, 

2003, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/cia/ 

pr_tabs.html

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

New York, McGraw-Hill, 714 p.

Friel, E.A., Embree, W.N., Jack, A.R., and Atkins, J.T., Jr., 

1989, Low-flow characteristics of streams in West 

Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 88-4072, 34 p.
References 27

Hawkins, J.W., 1998, Hydrogeologic characteristics of 

surface mine spoil, Chapter 3 in Brady, K.B.C., 

Smith, M.W., and Schueck, Joseph, eds., Coal mine 

drainage prediction and pollution prevention in 

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection, 371 p. Accessed February 13, 2003, at 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/districts/ 

cmdp/chap03.html

Helvey, J.D., 1964, Rainfall interception by hardwood forest 

litter in the Southern Appalachians: U.S. Forest Service 

Research Paper SE-8, 9 p.

Helvey, J.D., and Patric, J.H., 1965, Canopy and litter 

interception of rainfall by hardwoods of eastern United 

States: Water Resources Research, v. 1, p. 193-206.

_____1988, Research on interception losses and soil moisture 

relationships, in Swank, W.T. and Crossley, D.A. Jr., eds, 

Forest hydrology and ecology at Coweeta—Ecological 

Studies: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 129–137 .

Loeb, Penny, 1997, Shear madness: U.S. News and World 

Report, August 11, 1997.

Messinger, Terence, 2003, Comparison of storm response of 

streams in small, unmined and mountaintop-removal 

mined watersheds, 1999–2001, Ballard Fork, West 

Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 02-4303, 22 p.

Messinger, Terence, and Hughes, C.A., 2001, 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. 

National Climatic Data Center, 2002, National climatic data 

center—the world’s largest archive of weather data: 

accessed February 13, 2003, at http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/ 

oa/ncdc.html

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1992, 

Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and 

heating and cooling degree days, 1961–1990, West 

Virginia: Climatography of the United States, monthly 

station normals, no. 81, unpaginated.

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

streamflow—Volume 1. Measurement of stage and 

discharge; Volume 2. Computation of discharge: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 631 p. 

Ward, S.M., Taylor, B.C., and Crosby, G.R., 2001, Water 

resources data, West Virginia, water year 2000: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Data Report WV-00-1, 262 p.

Ward, S.M., Taylor, B.C., and Crosby, G.R., 2002, Water 

resources data, West Virginia, water year 2001: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Data Report WV-01-1, 255 p.

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, 2003, 

Mining permit information: accessed February 13, 2003, 

at http://www.dep.state.wv.us/WebApp/_dep/search/ 

Permits/Omr/Permitsearchpage.cfm?office=OMR

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Flood 

Advisory Task Force, 2002, Runoff analyses of Seng, 

Scrabble, and Sycamore Creeks, Part 1: accessed February 

13, 2003, at http://www.dep.state.wv.us/Docs/ 

1593Part%20I.pdf, 123 p.

Wiley, J.B., Evaldi, R.D., Eychaner, J.H., and Chambers, D.B., 

2001, Reconnaissance of stream geomorphology, low 

stream flow, and stream temperature in the mountaintop 

coal-mining region of southern West Virginia: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

01-4092, 34 p.

Table 4

Table 4 31

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001

[--, no data]

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average

November 1999

1 0.02 -- 0.02 -- 0.02

2 .87 -- 1.17 -- 1.02

3 .18 -- .00 -- .09

4 .00 -- .00 -- .00

5 .00 -- .00 -- .00

6 .00 -- .00 0.00 .00

7 .00 -- .00 .00 .00

8 .00 -- .00 .00 .00

9 .00 -- .00 .00 .00

10 .00 -- .00 .00 .00

11 .00 0.00 .00 .00 .00

12 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

13 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

14 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

16 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

17 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

18 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

19 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

20 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

21 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

22 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

23 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

24 .52 .39 .59 .43 .48

25 1.38 2.16 2.17 2.14 1.96

26 1.17 .67 .47 .67 .75

27 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

28 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

29 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

December 1999

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

3 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

4 .02 .04 .03 .04 .03

5 .13 .16 .14 .16 .15
32 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average

December 1999—Continued

6 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03

7 .00 .00 .00 .02 .01

8 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

9 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

10 .57 .60 .60 .62 .60

11 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

12 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

13 .79 .63 1.13 .64 .80

14 .96 1.15 .72 1.41 1.06

15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

16 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

17 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

18 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

19 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

20 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

21 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

22 .05 .09 -- .09 .08

23 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

24 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

25 .02 .04 -- .00 .02

26 .00 .05 -- .08 .04

27 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

28 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

29 .02 .08 -- .08 .06

30 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

31 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

January 2000

1 0.01 0.02 -- 0.01 0.01

2 .00 .00 -- .01 .00

3 .02 .03 -- .04 .03

4 .42 .47 -- .45 .45

5 .00 .01 -- .01 .01

6 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

7 .00 .00 -- .01 .00

8 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

9 .18 .20 -- .20 .19

10 .03 .03 -- .03 .03
Table 4 33

January 2000—Continued

11 0.00 0.02 -- 0.02 0.01

12 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

13 .02 .02 0.03 .02 .02

14 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

16 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

17 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

18 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

19 .02 .04 .02 .04 .03

20 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00

21 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00

22 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

23 .08 .17 .04 .18 .12

24 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

25 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

26 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

27 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

28 .00 .02 .00 .02 .01

29 .27 .35 .26 .34 .31

30 .15 .21 .15 .19 .18

31 .00 .01 .00 .01 .01

February 2000

1 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

3 .01 .02 .01 .02 .02

4 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00

5 .00 .07 .01 .04 .03

6 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00

7 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

8 .00 .02 .00 .00 .01

9 .00 .00 -- .01 .00

10 .02 .00 -- .00 .01

11 .04 .04 .03 .04 .04

12 .04 .08 .07 .08 .07

13 .39 .42 .42 .42 .41

14 .56 .56 .57 .56 .56

15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
34 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

February 2000—Continued

16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

17 .01 .01 .01 .02 .01

18 1.49 1.73 1.60 1.66 1.62

19 .05 .05 .05 .04 .05

20 .00 .01 .00 .01 .01

21 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

22 .03 .05 .03 .04 .04

23 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

24 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

25 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

26 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

27 .33 .36 .34 .35 .35

28 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

29 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

March 2000

1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

3 .01 .02 .02 .02 .02

4 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

5 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

6 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

7 .01 .01 .02 .01 .01

8 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

9 .33 .30 .20 .19 .26

10 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

11 .83 .90 .90 .92 .89

12 .01 .02 .00 .02 .01

13 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

14 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

16 .33 .37 .36 .39 .36

17 .10 .16 .11 .15 .13

18 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

19 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

20 .48 .51 .49 .47 .49

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
Table 4 35

March 2000—Continued

21 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08

22 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

23 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

24 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

25 .02 .03 .05 .03 .03

26 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

27 .03 .04 .05 .06 .05

28 .09 .10 .12 .08 .10

29 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

31 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

April 2000

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00

3 .73 .81 .76 .78 .77

4 .49 .55 .51 .54 .52

5 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

6 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

7 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

8 .60 .68 .65 .69 .66

9 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

10 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

\11 .26 .27 .26 .29 .27

12 .05 .09 .06 .08 .07

13 .01 .01 .01 .02 .01

14 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

16 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

17 .33 .39 .42 .47 .40

18 .08 .12 .09 .10 .10

19 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01

20 .06 .07 .09 .10 .08

21 .39 .41 .40 .43 .41

22 .07 .10 .07 .10 .09

23 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

24 .41 .45 .43 .44 .43

25 .31 .33 .33 .33 .33

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
36 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

April 2000—Continued

26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

28 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

29 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

May 2000

1 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.07

2 .18 .20 .18 .19 .19

3 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

4 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

5 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

6 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

7 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

8 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

9 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

10 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

11 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

12 .13 .02 .01 .01 .04

13 .62 .74 .64 .69 .67

14 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00

15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

16 .01 .02 .01 .02 .02

17 .05 .06 .05 .05 .05

18 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

19 .94 1.03 .90 1.01 .97

20 .04 .05 .05 .05 .05

21 .04 .05 .06 .06 .05

22 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

23 .73 .76 .80 .78 .77

24 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

25 .01 .02 .02 .03 .02

26 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

27 1.69 1.97 1.99 2.21 1.97

28 .03 .04 .03 .03 .03

29 .02 .03 .04 .06 .04

30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

31 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
Table 4 37

June 2000

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 .05 .06 .07 .07 .06

3 .01 .02 .02 .04 .02

4 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

5 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

6 .02 .03 .02 .02 .02

7 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

8 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

9 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

10 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

11 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

12 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

13 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

14 .10 .13 .19 .17 .15

15 .56 .67 .66 .74 .66

16 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

17 1.61 1.73 1.51 1.43 1.57

18 .67 .73 .66 .73 .70

19 .34 .33 .34 .32 .33

20 .32 .30 .23 .26 .28

21 1.52 1.67 1.59 1.71 1.62

22 .15 .15 .15 .15 .15

23 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

24 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

25 .15 .18 .11 .17 .15

26 .10 .11 .11 .12 .11

27 .33 .32 .29 .31 .31

28 .19 .19 .19 .19 .19

29 .00 .01 .01 .01 .01

30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

July 2000

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

3 .55 .70 .70 .75 .68

4 .16 .13 .15 .18 .16

5 .07 .08 .08 .11 .09

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
38 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

July 2000—Continued

6 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02

7 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

8 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

9 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

10 1.62 1.64 -- 1.45 1.57

11 .23 .38 -- .51 .37

12 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

13 .00 .00 -- .00 .00

14 -- .93 -- .76 .85

15 -- .00 -- .00 .00

16 -- .12 -- .07 .10

17 -- .01 -- .00 .01

18 -- .00 -- .00 .00

19 -- .69 -- .70 .70

20 -- .01 -- .01 .01

21 -- .00 -- .00 .00

22 -- .00 -- .00 .00

23 -- .00 -- .00 .00

24 -- .12 -- .04 .08

25 -- .00 -- .00 .00

26 -- .00 -- .00 .00

27 -- .00 -- .00 .00

28 -- .17 -- .15 .16

29 -- .49 -- .52 .51

30 -- .02 -- .02 .02

31 -- .08 -- .07 .08

August 2000

1 -- 0.51 -- 0.66 0.59

2 -- .01 -- .01 .01

3 -- .07 -- .05 .06

4 -- .00 -- .00 .00

5 -- .00 -- .00 .00

6 -- .01 -- .00 .01

7 -- .75 -- .78 .77

8 -- .82 -- .78 .80

9 -- .71 -- .70 .71

10 -- .13 -- .14 .14

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
Table 4 39

August 2000—Continued

11 -- 0.00 -- 0.00 0.00

12 -- .00 -- .00 .00

13 -- .00 -- .00 .00

14 -- .00 -- .00 .00

15 -- .00 -- .00 .00

16 -- .00 -- .00 .00

17 -- .01 -- .01 .01

18 -- .35 -- .35 .35

19 -- .00 -- .00 .00

20 -- .00 -- .00 .00

21 -- .00 -- .00 .00

22 -- .00 -- .00 .00

23 -- .00 -- .00 .00

24 -- .23 -- .24 .24

25 0.00 .00 0.00 .00 .00

26 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

27 .52 .54 .58 .54 .55

28 .01 .00 .00 .01 .01

29 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

31 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

September 2000

1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.07

2 -- .38 .38 .26 .34

3 -- .01 .01 .01 .01

4 -- .12 .11 .22 .15

5 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

6 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

7 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

8 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

9 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

10 -- 1.08 .90 .84 .94

11 -- .00 .02 .03 .02

12 -- .00 .00 .01 .00

13 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

14 -- .02 .01 .01 .01

15 -- .02 .01 .02 .02

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
40 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

September 2000—Continued

16 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

17 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

18 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

19 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

20 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

21 -- .15 .16 .18 .16

22 -- .01 .00 .01 .01

23 -- .00 .02 .01 .01

24 -- .16 .16 .17 .16

25 -- .95 .96 .94 .95

26 -- .05 .03 .05 .04

27 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

28 -- .01 .02 .01 .01

29 0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00

30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

October 2000

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

3 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

4 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

5 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

6 .00 .05 .05 .06 .04

7 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

8 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

9 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

10 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

11 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

12 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

13 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

14 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

16 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

17 -- .42 .43 .44 .43

18 -- .07 .07 .07 .07

19 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

20 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
Table 4 41

October 2000—Continued

21 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 -- .01 .02 .00 .01

23 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

24 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

25 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

26 -- .03 .00 .00 .01

27 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

28 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

29 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

30 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

31 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

November 2000

1 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

3 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

4 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

5 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

6 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

7 -- .12 .08 .11 .10

8 -- .05 .05 .06 .05

9 -- .58 .52 .59 .56

10 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

11 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

12 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

13 -- .07 .06 .08 .07

14 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

15 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

16 -- .01 .00 .01 .01

17 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

18 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

19 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

20 -- .07 .02 .06 .05

21 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

22 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

23 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

24 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

25 -- .18 .16 .21 .18

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
42 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

November 2000—Continued

26 -- 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.07

27 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

28 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

29 -- .09 .05 .09 .08

30 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

December 2000

1 -- 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03

2 -- .03 .01 .03 .02

3 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

4 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

5 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

6 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

7 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

8 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

9 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

10 -- .11 .09 .11 .10

11 -- .01 .01 .01 .01

12 -- .00 .01 .00 .00

13 -- 1.19 1.15 1.17 1.17

14 -- .26 .24 .27 .26

15 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

16 -- .48 .45 .48 .47

17 -- .33 .32 .33 .33

18 -- .00 .00 .01 .00

19 -- .00 .01 .00 .00

20 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

21 -- .01 .00 .05 .02

22 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

23 -- .01 .00 .00 .00

24 -- .03 .00 .01 .01

25 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

26 -- .01 .00 .00 .00

27 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

28 -- .00 .00 .01 .00

29 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

30 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

31 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
Table 4 43

January 2001

1 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

3 -- .02 .00 .00 .01

4 -- .12 .02 .18 .11

5 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

6 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

7 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

8 -- .01 .00 .01 .01

9 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

10 -- .00 .00 .01 .00

11 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

12 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

13 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

14 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

15 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

16 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

17 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

18 -- .26 .26 .27 .26

19 -- 1.53 1.44 1.56 1.51

20 -- .02 .00 .01 .01

21 -- .09 .00 .11 .07

22 -- .07 .06 .04 .06

23 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

24 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

25 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

26 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

27 -- .04 .03 .05 .04

28 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

29 -- .21 .17 .21 .20

30 -- .17 .17 .19 .18

31 -- .06 .04 .05 .05

February 2001

1 -- 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

2 -- .02 .01 .02 .02

3 -- .00 .00 .01 .00

4 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

5 -- .02 .00 .02 .01

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
44 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

February 2001—Continued

6 -- 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03

7 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

8 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

9 -- .29 .27 .29 .28

10 -- .00 .00 .01 .00

11 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

12 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

13 -- .01 .01 .01 .01

14 -- .43 .41 .43 .42

15 -- .37 .33 .38 .36

16 -- .90 .90 .91 .90

17 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

18 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

19 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

20 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

21 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

22 -- .09 .05 .12 .09

23 -- .00 .05 .01 .02

24 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

25 -- .10 .10 .11 .10

26 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

27 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

28 -- .06 .04 .07 .06

March 2001

1 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 -- .07 .06 .07 .07

3 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

4 -- .39 .31 .40 .37

5 -- .11 .01 .07 .06

6 -- .04 .00 .06 .03

7 -- .04 .00 .04 .03

8 -- .03 .00 .00 .01

9 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

10 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

11 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

12 -- .34 .32 .37 .34

13 -- .21 .13 .16 .17

14 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

15 -- .35 .34 .39 .36

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
Table 4 45

March 2001—Continued

16 -- 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05

17 -- .01 .02 .02 .02

18 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

19 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

20 -- .03 .03 .04 .03

21 -- .43 .40 .46 .43

22 -- .04 .02 .04 .03

23 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

24 -- .07 .07 .06 .07

25 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

26 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

27 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

28 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

29 -- .71 .67 .70 .69

30 -- .08 .08 .08 .08

31 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

April 2001

1 -- 0.35 0.30 0.36 0.34

2 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

3 -- .19 .17 .19 .18

4 -- .00 .00 .01 .00

5 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

6 -- .18 .16 .19 .18

7 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

8 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

9 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

10 -- .02 .02 .02 .02

11 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

12 -- .00 .01 .01 .01

13 -- .32 .30 .34 .32

14 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

15 -- .05 .04 .06 .05

16 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

17 -- .27 .07 .29 .21

18 -- .02 .02 .02 .02

19 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

20 -- .01 .01 .01 .01

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
46 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

April 2001—Continued

21 -- 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.10

22 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

23 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

24 -- .16 .13 .16 .15

25 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

26 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

27 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

28 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

29 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

30 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

May 2001

1 -- 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03

2 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

3 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

4 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

5 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

6 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

7 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

8 -- .04 .04 .05 .04

9 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

10 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

11 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

12 -- .01 .01 .01 .01

13 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

14 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

15 0.34 .49 .45 .46 .44

16 1.01 1.47 1.53 1.46 1.37

17 .66 .87 .91 .81 .81

18 1.14 2.08 1.91 2.10 1.81

19 .37 .58 .51 .50 .49

20 .01 .01 .00 .00 .01

21 .27 .48 .57 .45 .44

22 .51 .95 1.02 .98 .86

23 .00 .01 .01 .00 .01

24 .75 .34 .99 .31 .60

25 .00 .01 .00 .01 .01

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
Table 4 47

May 2001—Continued

26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 .18 .24 .21 .22 .21

28 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

29 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

31 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

June 2001

1 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.08

2 .21 .28 .28 .28 .26

3 .00 .00 .01 .00 .00

4 .26 .35 .36 .34 .33

5 .18 .26 .21 .24 .22

6 1.26 1.58 1.90 1.51 1.56

7 .04 .07 .08 .06 .06

8 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

9 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

10 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

11 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

12 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

13 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

14 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

16 .04 .14 .14 .14 .12

17 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

18 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

19 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

20 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

21 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

22 .16 .30 .29 .30 .26

23 .20 .27 .41 .22 .28

24 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00

25 .04 .07 .07 .09 .07

26 .06 .10 .08 .11 .09

27 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

28 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

29 .22 .33 .13 .42 .28

30 .04 .07 .13 .13 .09

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
48 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

July 2001

1 0.22 0.28 0.03 0.27 0.20

2 .00 .00 .04 .00 .01

3 .00 .01 .02 .01 .01

4 .36 .52 .01 .50 .35

5 .09 .06 .02 .00 .04

6 .00 .00 .04 .00 .01

7 .00 .00 .04 .00 .01

8 .77 .86 .22 .74 .65

9 .00 .00 .07 .00 .02

10 .00 .00 .04 .00 .01

11 .00 .00 .03 .00 .01

12 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

13 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

14 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

16 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

17 .81 .98 .91 .76 .87

18 .01 .05 .03 .05 .04

19 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

20 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

21 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

22 .55 .53 .46 .43 .49

23 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

24 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

25 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

26 2.91 3.18 3.49 3.06 3.16

27 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00

28 1.33 1.43 1.38 1.49 1.41

29 .94 1.09 1.10 1.07 1.05

30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

31 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

August 2001

1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

3 .16 .27 .54 .35 .33

4 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

5 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
Table 4 49

August 2001—Continued

6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 .03 .05 .08 .05 .05

8 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00

9 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

10 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

11 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

12 .89 1.16 .77 1.00 .96

13 .39 .32 .38 .46 .39

14 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00

15 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

16 .02 .04 .03 .03 .03

17 .00 .01 .00 .01 .01

18 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

19 .02 .02 .03 .05 .03

20 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

21 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

22 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

23 .78 .93 .95 .87 .88

24 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

25 .00 .01 .01 .00 .01

26 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

27 .05 .07 .06 .07 .06

28 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

29 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

31 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

September 2001

1 0.42 0.51 0.46 0.59 0.50

2 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

3 -- .36 .61 .72 .56

4 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

5 -- .00 .00 .01 .00

6 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

7 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

8 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

9 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

10 -- .01 .01 .01 .01

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
50 Relations Between Precipitation and Daily and Monthly Mean Flows in Gaged, Unmined and Valley-Filled Watersheds, Ballard Fork, WV, 1999–2001

September 2001—Continued

11 -- 0.01 0.50 0.01 0.17

12 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

13 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

14 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

15 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

16 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

17 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

18 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

19 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

20 -- .25 .20 .25 .23

21 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

22 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

23 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

24 -- .74 .65 .74 .71

25 -- .18 .13 .18 .16

26 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

27 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

28 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

29 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

30 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

October 2001

1 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

3 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

4 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

5 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

6 -- .34 .28 .34 .32

7 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

8 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

9 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

10 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

11 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

12 -- .19 .15 .19 .18

13 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

14 -- .36 .35 .36 .36

15 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

16 -- .15 .13 .15 .14

17 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

18 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

19 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

20 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average
Table 4 51

October 2001—Continued

21 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

23 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

24 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

25 -- .31 .23 .35 .30

26 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

27 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

28 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

29 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

30 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

31 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

November 2001

1 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 -- .01 .00 .01 .01

3 -- .26 .25 .25 .25

4 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

5 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

6 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

7 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

8 -- .01 .01 .01 .01

9 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

10 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

11 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

12 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

13 -- .00 .00 .03 .01

14 -- .00 .00 .00 .00

Table 4. Daily precipitation, in inches, in the Ballard Fork Watershed, West Virginia, November 1999–November 2001—Continued

Date Sally Fork Mountaintop

(380409081545001)

Sally Fork Valley

(380406081551701)

Left Fork Mountaintop

(380423081553001)

Spring Branch Valley

(380406081561701)

Average