GilmerFreePress.net

Lewis County

Lewis County

2016: Area High School Football Scoreboard: Week 6

The Gilmer Free Press

Area High School Football Scoreboard
Week 6 Games
Gilmer County (4-0)   Braxton County (2-2)  
Midland Trail (3-2)   Liberty Harrison (3-2)  
South Harrison (4-0)   Lincoln (3-2)  
Calhoun County (1-4)   Lewis County (4-1)  
Ravenswood (1-4)   Webster County (2-2)  
Ritchie County (0-5)   Summers County (3-1)  
Doddridge County (3-2)   Notre Dame (2-3)  
Wirt County (1-4)   Mount View (2-2)  
Phillip Barbour (0-5)   Cameron (4-0)  
Petersburg (2-2)   Paden City (1-3)  
St. Marys (4-0)   Valley (Wetzel) (1-4)  
Williamstown (4-1)   Parkersburg Catholic (2-2)  
Parkersburg South (2-3)   Richwood (0-5)  
Point Pleasant (5-0)   Van (4-1)  
Nicholas County (4-0)   Robert C. Byrd (1-4)  
James Monroe (4-0)   Grafton (3-2)  
East Fairmont (1-3)   Independence (4-1)  
Bridgeport (5-0)   Clay County (1-3)  

2016: Area High School Football Scoreboard: Week 5

The Gilmer Free Press

Area High School Football Scoreboard
Week 5 Games
Tyler Consolidated (3-2) 47 Roane County (4-1) 22
Calhoun County (1-4) 0 Braxton County (2-2) 12
Doddridge County (3-2) 48 Lewis County (4-1) 28
Ritchie County (0-5) 8 Grafton (3-2) 21
Buckhannon-Upshur (1-3) 6 Williamstown (4-1) 55
Princeton (4-1) 35 Ravenswood (1-4) 12
Sherman (4-1) 59 Hundred (0-5) 0
Wirt County (1-4) 6 Paden City (1-3) 59
Webster County (2-2) 12 South Harrison (4-0) 26
Notre Dame (2-3) 21 Moorefield (4-1) 6
Phillip Barbour (0-6) 7 Bishop Donahue (3-1) 20
Tucker County (2-3) 21 Cameron (4-0) 30
Clay County (1-3) 33 Pocahontas County (2-3) 54
Liberty Raleigh (3-1) 38 Richwood (0-5) 12
Bridgeport (5-0) 24 Clay-Battelle (4-0) 49
Lincoln (3-2) 0 Valley (Wetzel) (1-4) 21
Liberty Harrison (3-2) 49 Parkersburg South (2-3) 44
Robert C. Byrd (1-4) 27 John Marshall (0-5) 12
Parkersburg (1-4) 13    
Marietta, OH 49    

Community and Conservation Groups Condemn FERC’s Review of Proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline

The Free Press WV

Federal regulators today released a draft environmental review for the proposed fracked-gas Mountain Valley Pipeline that public interest advocates say fails to adequately assess the public need for the project and the widespread threats to private property, public lands, local communities, water quality and the climate.


The controversial $3.2 billion pipeline, proposed by EQT and NextEra, would cut 301 miles through West Virginia and Virginia—- crossing public lands and more than 1,000 waterways and wetlands—- and require the construction of three large compressor stations. The Mountain Valley Pipeline is one of six major pipelines proposed for the same region of Virginia and West Virginia where experts warn the gas industry is overbuilding pipeline infrastructure. (See below for a bulleted list of major impacts as defined by FERC.)


In preparing its draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relied heavily on gas company data to assess the public need for the project, the groups say. A report released earlier this month concludes there is enough existing gas supply in Virginia and the Carolinas to meet demand through 2030. The groups also fault the agency for dismissing clean energy alternatives.


In response to requests from numerous elected officials and organizations, FERC has extended the usual 45-day period for public comment to 90 days. Comments are due December 22.


While legal and environmental experts are continuing to review the nearly 2,600-page document, they have identified major gaps in FERC’s analysis, including:

  • The core issue of whether the massive project is needed to meet electricity demand, and whether other alternatives including energy efficiency, solar and wind would be more environmentally responsible sources;

  • A complete analysis of the cumulative, life-cycle climate pollution that would result from the pipeline;

  • Any accounting of other environmental and human health damage from the increased gas fracking in West Virginia that would supply the pipeline; and

  • Thorough analysis of damage to water quality and natural resources throughout the pipeline route.


“It’s shameful that FERC did not prepare a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,” said Joe Lovett, Executive Director of Appalachian Mountain Advocates. “It would allow a private pipeline company to take private property for private profit. Apparently FERC decided it didn’t have to do the hard work necessary to determine whether the MVP is necessary. Such a lack of diligence is remarkable because FERC has the extraordinary power to grant MVP the right to take property that has, in many cases, been in the same families for generations.”


“The resource reports MVP has already submitted to FERC are the alleged backbone upon which the DEIS is created. These reports are, however, uncatalogued collections of partial surveys, studies and desktop engineering notions which are rife with omissions, and inadequate and incorrect data”, said Laurie Ardison, Co-Chair of Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR). “The DEIS is fatally flawed for a variety of process and substance matters, not the least of which is MVP’s insufficient, unsubstantiated foundational material.”


“FERC once again has its blinders on to the full climate consequences of fracked gas,“ said Anne Havemann, General Counsel at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “FERC’s limited review ignores the full lifecycle of pollution the pipeline will trigger by acting as if gas comes from nowhere. FERC also provides no clear explanation of exactly how it arrived at its limited estimate of emissions. If FERC did a full accounting of the climate harm of this fracked-gas project and clean energy alternatives, it would have no choice but to reject it.“


“Recent studies have shown that our region has the necessary energy to meet demand through 2030 already. We know that clean, renewable energy is available and affordable, and by this time, it will be the only choice to preserve our environment and climate. Additional fossil fuel projects like the Mountain Valley project, are not needed to keep the lights on, homes and businesses heated, and industrial facilities in production—despite the claims by MVP developers,” said Kirk Bowers, Pipelines Campaign Manager with the Virginia Chapter of Sierra Club.


“This would be the first fracked-gas pipeline of this size to cross the Alleghany and Blue Ridge mountains. Running a massive gas project through the steep, rugged terrain laced with dozens of rivers and headwater streams is a perfect storm for major damage to our water resources,”  said Lara Mack, Virginia Campaign Field Organizer with Appalachian Voices. ”FERC also fails to meaningfully address the safety issues and other concerns so earnestly voiced by hundreds of homeowners and landowners along the route.”


“The Mountain Valley Pipeline could result in taking people’s  property in West Virginia solely to benefit out-of-state companies,” said Jim Kotcon, West Virginia Sierra Club Chapter Chair.  “To make matters worse, it will affect all West Virginians because it will result in higher gas prices for local consumers.  Low cost energy is one of the few advantages that West Virginia has in attracting new businesses, and this pipeline will make our energy costs higher while lowering costs for competitors in other states.  That pipeline is bad business for West Virginia businesses.”

###


Highlights of major impacts of the MVP route as identified by FERC in the DEIS:

  • About 67% of the MVP route would cross areas susceptible to landslides.

  • The pipeline would cross about 51 miles of karst terrain.

  • Construction would disturb about 4,189 acres of soils that are classified as potential for severe water erosion.

  • Construction would disturb about 2,353 acres of prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance.

  • The pipeline would result in 986 waterbody crossings; 33 are classified as fisheries of special concern.

  • The MVP would cross about 245 miles of forest; in Virginia, it would impact about 938 acres of contiguous interior forest during construction classified as “high” to “outstanding” quality.

  • In West Virginia, the pipeline would result in permanent impacts on about 865 acres of core forest areas which are significant wildlife habitat.

  • The 50-foot wide operational easement would represent a permanent impact on forests.

  • FERC identified 22 federally listed threatened, endangered, candidate, or special concern species potentially in vicinity of the MVP and the Equitrans projects, and 20 state-listed or special concern species.

  • MVP identified 117 residences within 50 feet of its proposed construction right-of-way.

  • Construction would require use of 365 roadways.

  • A still incomplete survey of the route shows the pipeline could potentially affect 166 new archaeological sites and 94 new architectural sites, in addition to crossing the Blue Ridge Parkway Historic District, North Fork Valley Rural Historic District, and Greater Newport Rural Historic District, which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

2016: Area High School Football Scoreboard: Week 4

The Gilmer Free Press

Area High School Football Scoreboard
Week 4 Games
#7 Sherman (3-1) 6 #5 Braxton County (2-1) 35
#11 Gilmer County (4-0) Homecoming 36 #11 Lewis County (3-1) 40
Calhoun County (1-3) 26 #3 Fairmont Senior (3-0) 43
Ritchie County (0-4) 24 #13 Buckhannon-Upshur (1-2) 7
Tygarts Valley (1-3) 14 Parkersburg Catholic (2-2) 41
Doddridge County (2-2) 38 Wirt County (1-3) 0
#13 Roane County (3-1) 0 #7 St. Marys (4-0) 51
#10 Nicholas County (4-0) Thursday 35 Marietta, OH 36
Robert C. Byrd (1-3) 7 #7 Wheeling Central (3-1) 27
#2 Bridgeport (4-0) 41 #16 Williamstown (3-1) 36
#15 Notre Dame (1-3) 14 Valley (Wetzel) (1-3) 6
#15 Grafton (3-1) 34 #12 Bishop Donahue (3-0) 25
Richwood (0-4) 23 #10 Cameron (3-0) 42
Midland Trail (3-1) 42 Frontier, OH 7
#15 Lincoln (3-1) 48 #15 Tyler Consolidated (2-2) 21
East Fairmont (1-3) 0 Ravenswood (1-3) 28
Liberty Harrison (2-2) 32 Paden City (0-3) 28
Phillip Barbour (0-4) 13 Bridgeport, OH 36
Warren Local, OH 16 #1 Huntington (4-0) 28
Parkersburg South (1-3) 39 #16 Parkersburg (1-3) 0
Valley (Fayette) (0-4) 0    
Clay County (1-2) 13    

INVESTMENTS TO BOOST ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS IN WEST VIRGINIA

The Free Press WV

U.S. Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) announced that the Economic Development Administration (EDA) will provide $70,000 to the Region 4 Planning and Development Council and $70,000 to the Region 7 Planning and Development Commission.

This funding will be used to establish an economic development planning framework, process, and strategy that supports private capital investment and job creation in the region.

The Region 4 Planning and Development Council are comprised of following counties:

  • Fayette
  • Greenbrier
  • Nicholas
  • Pocahontas
  • Webster

The Region 7 Planning and Development Commission are comprised of following counties:

  • Barbour
  • Braxton
  • Gilmer
  • Lewis
  • Randolph
  • Tucker
  • Upshur

“In order to boost our economy and improve the economic success in West Virginia, we must ensure that our public and private sectors are working together,” Senator Manchin said. “This funding will help coordinate our resources efficiently to overcome our economic challenges, spur our economic growth and develop new opportunities across West Virginia.”

“I have worked closely with West Virginia’s economic development councils to advance opportunity and create new jobs throughout the state. During this period of economic hardship in West Virginia, we must continue looking for new ways to encourage investment and coordination in the private and public sectors. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I worked to secure this funding, which will help put us on a path toward long-term growth and prosperity,” said Senator Capito.

EDA funding supports the development and implementation of a comprehensive economic development strategy (CEDS). The CEDS process is designed to bring together the public and private sectors in the creation of an economic development roadmap to diversify and strengthen the regional economy.

West Fork Conservation District Awards

The Free Press WV

The following are the West Fork Conservation District’s producers that have been approved for Agricultural Enhancement Program funding:

Robinson, 1015’, WEF, $1,624.00 R. Suan, 13.59 acres, NM, $407.70
J. Kirk, 1500’, WoEF, $2,400.00 B. Ted Stout, 20 acres, NM, $600.00
R. Wentz, 2325’, WoEF, $3,720.00 B. Stout, 20 acres, NM, $600.00
L. White, 2280’, WoEF, $3,648.00 S. Stark, 20 acres, NM, $600.00
R. Freshour III, 4.05 acres, Lime, $214.60 J. Spiker, 20 acres, NM, $600.00
J. Garton, 30.38 acres, Lime, $1,215.20 D. Romine, 15.3 acres, NM, $459.00
M. Cole, 42 acres, Lime, $2,520.00 I. Pritt, 19.8 acres, NM, $594.00
D. Ball, 14 acres, Lime, $840.00 A. Robinson, 13 acres, NM, $390.00
C. Baker, 11.1 acres, Lime, $627.15 J. Newbrough, 18.5 acres, NM, $555.00
S. Bennett, 42.1 acres, Lime, $1,933.00 D. Nestor, 10.6 acres, NM, $318.00
N. Blake, 12.7 acres, Lime, $508.00 I. Maxwell III, 20 acres, NM, $600.00
J. Chapman, 50 acres, Lime, $2,916.00 J. McCray, 15.04 acres, NM, $451.20
R. Chickerell, 50 acres, Lime, $3,000.00 J. Kirk, 20 acres, NM, $600.00
R. Flanagan, 17.63 acres, Lime, $934.40 B. Lowther, 20 acres, NM, $600.00
D. Romine, 42 acres, Lime, $1,674.40 P. Hinterer, 10.75 acres, NM, $322.50
J. Spiker, 28 acres, Lime, $1,120.00 K. Hern, 20 acres, NM, $600.00
R. Suan, 23.7 acres, Lime, $948.00 J. Henderson, 20 acres, NM, $600.00
B. Ted Stout, 26.23 acres, Lime, $1,168.80 S. Dolly, 14.1 acres, NM, $423.00
A. Robinson, 23 acres, Lime, $1,380.00 J. Brake Jr., 10 acres, NM, $300.00
I. Maxwell III, 50 acres, Lime, $2,000.00 M. Benedum, 20 acres, NM, $600.00
A. Ward, 46.9 acres, Lime, $1,876.00 A. Bolyard, 20 acres, NM, $600.00
C. Ward, 50 acres, Lime, $2,094.40 A. Bolyard, 2500’, PDF, $4,000.00
K. Wriston, 50 acres, Lime, $2,650.00 J. McCray, 1810’, PDF, $2,896.00
R. Wentz, 23.11 acres, Lime, $924.40 D. Butcher, 2400’, PDF, $3,840.00
M. Zinn, 45.88 acres, Lime, $2,752.80 A. Robinson, 2500’, PDF, $4,000.00
V. Woodford, 50 acres, Lime, $2,650.00 C. Hinterer, 2300’, PDF, $3,680.00
J. Tichinell, 3.25 acres, Lime, $130.00 C. Ward, 2500’, PDF, $4,000.00
J. McCray, 21.78 acres, Lime, $1,042.80 M. Benedum, 995’, PDF, $1,592.00
D. Nestor, 29.1 acres, Lime, $1,164.00 K. Wriston, 1690’, PDF, $2,704.00
J. Newbrough, 50 acres, Lime, $2,000.00 D. Ball, 830’, PDF, $1,328.00
J. Paugh, 12 acres, Lime, $480.00 I. Pritt, 860’, PDF, $1,376.00
I. Pritt, 48.9 acres, Lime, $1,956.00 D. Light, 1275’, PDF, $2,040.00
J. Roush, 22.89 acres, Lime, $1,213.20 J. Brake Jr., 450’, PDF, $720.00
M. Ryan, 2.5 acres, Lime, $100.00 R. Flanagan, 1WD, $1,500.00
J. Stutler, 9.73 acres, Lime, $389.20 B. Ted Stout, 1WD, 1PT, $2,500.00
K. Hern, 29.8 acres, Lime, $1,320.00 I. Maxwell III, 1SD, 1PT, $3,200.00
C. Hinterer, 50 acres, Lime, $1,300.00 C. Hinterer, 1WD, 1PT, $2,500.00
P. Hinterer, 35.82 acres, Lime, $1,625.20 J. McCray, 1SD, $1,200.00
B. Lowther, 50 acres, Lime, $1,341.00 A. Ward, 1SD, $1,200.00
J. Henderson, 50 acres, Lime, $2,333.40 M. Benedum, 1SD, $1,200.00
D. Butcher, 34 acres, Lime, $2,040.00 K. Hern, 1SD, $1,200.00
S. Mason, 35.19 acres, Lime, $1,487.00 D. Ball, 1PT, $1,000.00
K. Wriston, 20 acres, NM, $600.00 S. Tom Bond, 1WD, $1,500.00
A. Ward, 20 acres, NM, $600.00 R. Wentz, 2SD, $2,400.00
C. Ward, 20 acres, $600.00
Totaling $131,457.35




The following Supervisors have been approved for their practices by the WVCA:

R.Plaugher, NM, $430.50 P. Osborne, Lime, $1,056.00
Totaling $1,486.50

2016: Area High School Football Scoreboard: Week 3

The Gilmer Free Press

Area High School Football Scoreboard
Week 3 Games
Wirt County (1-2) 12 Lewis County (2-1) 21
Gilmer County (3-0) 40 East Fairmont (1-2) 14
Doddridge County (1-2) 32 Berkeley Springs (1-1) 39
Calhoun County (0-3) 0 Ritchie County (0-3) 20
North Marion (2-1) 35 Webster County (2-1) 0
Buckhannon-Upshur (1-1) 14 Tyler Consolidated (2-1) 28
#1 Bridgeport (3-0) 33 Lincoln (2-1) 55
Elkins (0-3) 14 Liberty Harrison (1-2) 13
Robert C. Byrd (1-2) 7 Notre Dame (1-2) 13
Frankfort (1-2) 24 Phillip Barbour (0-3) 12
Ravenswood (0-3) 14 #8 South Harrison (3-0) 40
Roane County (3-0) 51 Grafton (2-1) 14
Parkersburg South (0-3) 19 #4 Williamstown (2-1) 30
#3 Morgantown (3-0) 31 Marietta, OH 44
#5 Capital (2-1) 41 Nicholas County (3-0) 35
Parkersburg (1-2) 19 Wyoming East (0-3) 0
Fayetteville (3-0) 49 #2 St. Marys (3-0) 43
Richwood (0-3) 0 Parkersburg Catholic (1-2)  Saturday 0
Valley (Wetzel) (1-2) 14 Paden City (0-2) 20
Cameron (2-0) Saturday 34 Tygarts Valley (1-2) 47

Public Hearing on Proposed Source Water Protection Plan for West Virginia American Water Weston

The Free Press WV

The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), Bureau for Public Health’s Office of Environmental Health Services will hold a public hearing on Friday, September 16, 2016, to discuss a draft Source Water Protection Plan for West Virginia American Water Weston.

The intent of a Source Water Protection Plan is to identify strategies to minimize potential threats to source water and prepare for spills or other emergencies that could affect water service. If approved, the Plan would be valid for three years.

The public hearing will be held on Friday, September 16, 2016, from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., at the Lewis County Senior Center, 171 West Second Street, Weston, WV.

Public comments, which will be considered by DHHR during the review process, may be submitted during the September 16, 2016 hearing or in writing by September 30, 2016 via mail, fax or email. Written comments should include the name, address and telephone number of the writer and a concise statement of the nature of the issues being raised. Issues should be kept relevant to the draft plan.

Persons interested in submitting comments may do so by using one of the following means:

• U.S. Mail: West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Bureau for Public Health, Office of Environmental Health, 350 Capitol Street, Room 313, Charleston, WV 25301-  3713 Attn: Source Water Protection Program

• Fax: 304.558.4322 with “Protection Plan Comments” written near the top

• Email: with “Protection Plan Comments” in the subject line Questions regarding how to submit comments for the public hearing may be directed to 304.356.4270.

To obtain a copy of the plan, go to the following link and select Weston from the list: http://www.amwater.com/wvaw/water-quality-and-stewardship/source-water-protection/page26237.html.

National Forest and Wildlife Management Area Roads in West Virginia Open to Hunters with Disabilitie

The Free Press WV

Hunters with disabilities possessing a Class Q/QQ hunting permit may hunt on designated roads throughout the Monongahela National Forest, portions of the George Washington/Jefferson National Forest in West Virginia and on selected wildlife management areas,  according to Paul Johansen, chief of the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR) Wildlife Resources Section.

“The designation of these Class Q/QQ roads on national forest lands in West Virginia is a cooperative effort between the U.S.  Forest Service and the DNR,“ Johansen said. “This highly successful program provides hunting access for sportsmen and women who need accommodations.  For the past 20 years, these areas have been well received by hunters.“

To participate in this program, hunters must possess either a Class Q (resident) or Class QQ (nonresident) permit issued by the DNR.  Applications for these permits may be obtained at any DNR office or hunting and fishing license agent. In addition to the Class Q/QQ hunting permit, both resident and nonresident hunters must possess all applicable hunting licenses and stamps. Nonresidents hunting on national forest lands also must possess a National Forest Stamp (Class I).

Hunters with a Class Q/QQ permit must apply in person at the appropriate national forest district office or DNR district office and receive a letter of authorization. This documentation must be in the hunter’s possession while hunting on the designated roads in the program.

The Class Q/QQ permit holders may be accompanied by no more than one assistant, at least 16 years of age, when hunting within a designated area. The assistant cannot hunt while accompanying the Class Q/QQ permit holder.

Authorized hunters will have access to specific gates via a special lock. While behind the gate, hunters must observe all national forest and/or state wildlife management area regulations and all state hunting regulations.

In addition to the special access areas, Class Q/QQ permit holders may participate in special Class Q/QQ antlerless deer hunts Oct. 15 and Dec. 26 and 27, 2016. This special split, antlerless deer season for Youth,  Class Q/QQ and Class XS (Lifetime Senior Citizen) hunters will be held on private land in all counties having a firearms deer hunting season and on all public lands within these counties. The bag limit of one antlerless deer per day will not count toward the hunter’s annual deer season bag limit.

The U.S. Forest Service and DNR are committed to providing quality hunting opportunities for hunters with disabilities and welcome comments and suggestions from participants. For more information concerning access to national forest or wildlife management area Class Q/QQ roads, contact the U.S. Forest Service (304.636.1800) or DNR (304.637.0245). Information is also available on the DNR’s website (www.wvdnr.gov). Specific areas with designated Class Q/QQ roads are listed below.
Class Q/QQ roads available:


Cheat Ranger District (304.478.3251)

  • Forest Road #933 Godwin Road – U.S. Route 219 south from Parsons, near the community of Moore. Turn north onto F.R. 933. Gated portion starts on left at top of ridge.
  • #973 – Brushy Fork – From Parsons, take Route 17 north to Route 21 west, then west onto Route 8.  FR 973 is on the left.
  • #153 / 153A—Five Lick – Take U.S. 33 east from Elkins to Wymer. Turn north onto State Route 10 and drive about 2.5 miles. Turn left onto Forest Road 153.


Potomac Ranger District (304.257.4488)

  • #814 Back Ridge – Drive west of Circleville on State Route 28 for 5.8 miles. Turn right on S.R. 28/10 and drive for 3.2 miles. Road 814 is on the left.


Greenbrier Ranger District (304.456.3335)

  • #385 / 183B Little Beech Mountain – From Elkins, take U.S. 33 east approximately 10 miles to State Route 27 at Alpena. Turn right on S.R. 27 and go about 12 miles to Glady. Turn left onto S.R. 22 and go about 3 miles to F.R. 385 on the right.
  • #224 Span Oak - From Bartow, take US. 250 east approx. 2 miles to State Rt. 28. Turn left on Rt. 28 and go about 2 miles, turn left on FR 14 (near 4-H Camp above Thornwood), go approx. 3.8 miles, turn left on S.R. 250/4 and go about 4 miles to FR 224 on the right.


Marlinton Ranger District (304.799.4334)

  • #300 Marlin Mountain – From Marlinton, drive east on State Route 39 for 4 miles. Turn left onto S.R. 28. Drive 5 miles to F.R. 300 on the left.
  • #251 Crooked Fork – From Marlinton, take U.S. 219 north approximately 12 miles. F.R. 251 is on the left.


White Sulphur Ranger District (304.536.2144)

  • #298 Panther Ridge – From White Sulphur Springs, drive north on State Route 92 8.8 miles to S.R. 16, Blue Bend Road. Turn left and bear left at Camp Wood for 3.4 miles to Rocky Run Road. Turn right and drive uphill for 2.3 miles. Turn left onto F.R. 298 to gate just beyond the top of the hill.
  • #882 Bear Track – From White Sulphur Springs, drive north on State Route 92 14.8 miles to S.R. 14, Lake Sherwood Road. Turn right and drive 3.7 miles to Rucker Gap Road. Turn right and drive uphill 0.8 miles. Turn left on F.R. 882.


Gauley Ranger District (304.846.2695)

  • #731 Frosty Gap – From Richwood, follow Rt. 39/55 east toward Marlinton approximately 20 miles.  Turn left onto F.R. 232 and drive to the top.  F.R. 731 is on the left.
  • #273 Buckeye Branch – Take FR# 76 (Cranberry Road) to Big Rock campground and turn left onto FR# 81. Follow FR# 81 until you pass through an area of private camps, and FR# 273 is about a mile past on the left.


State Wildlife Management Areas with Available Roads:

  • Bluestone Lake, Burnsville Lake, Elk River, Hillcrest,  Hughes River, Lewis Wetzel, Little Indian Creek, McClintic, Sleepy Creek and Stonewall Jackson Lake.

2016: Area High School Football Scoreboard: Week 2

The Gilmer Free Press

Area High School Football Scoreboard
Week 2 Games
Richwood (0-2) 14 Clay County (0-2) 2
Gilmer County (2-0) 28 Braxton County (2-0) 28
Sherman (2-0) 39 Preston (1-1) 7
Calhoun County (0-2) 8 Lewis County (1-1) 28
Tyler Consolidated (1-1) 42 Ritchie County (0-2) 14
Doddridge County (0-2) 12 Parkersburg Catholic (1-1) 41
Roane County (2-0) 43 Ravenswood (0-2) 15
Lincoln County (0-2) 7 Webster County (2-0) 24
Wirt County (1-1) 6 Phillip Barbour (0-2) 12
#2 St. Marys (2-0) 61 Lincoln (1-1) 38
Buckhannon-Upshur (1-0) 32 Shady Spring (0-2) 0
Hampshire (0-2) 27 Nicholas County (2-0) 60
#5 Williamstown (2-0) 34 Valley (Wetzel) (1-1) 6
#8 Magnolia (0-2) 12 #9 South Harrison (2-0) 41
Liberty Harrison (1-1) 42 Elkins (0-2) 14
Notre Dame (0-2) 12 Robert C. Byrd (1-1) (OT) 20
#1 Bridgeport (2-0) 24 #9 University (2-0) 16
#2 Wheeling Park (1-1) 13 Parkersburg South (0-2) 9
Parkersburg (1-1) 18    
Hurricane (2-0) 31    

2016: Area High School Football Scoreboard: Week 1

The Gilmer Free Press

Area High School Football Scoreboard
Week 1 Games
Gilmer County (1-0) 55 Lincoln (0-1)  27
Beallsville, OH 0 Braxton County (1-0) 36
Calhoun County (0-1) 6 Lewis County (0-1) 20 
Wirt County (1-0) 33 #1 Bridgeport (1-0) 44
Doddridge County (0-1) 0 Ritchie County (0-1)  8
#9 South Harrison (1-0) 42 #3 St. Marys (1-0) 42
#3 Fairmont Senior (1-0) 49 South Point, OH 22
#7 Robert C. Byrd (0-1) 12 Roane County (1-0) 42
Notre Dame (0-1) 20 #4 Williamstown (1-0) 25
Pendleton County (1-0) 48 Tyler Consolidated (0-1) 14
Fayetteville (A) (1-0) 28 Parkersburg Catholic (0-1) 18
Clay County (0-1) 0 #8 Buffalo (1-0) 45
Grafton (1-0) 23 Cameron (1-0) 54
Phillip Barbour (0-1) 0 Hundred (0-1) 0
Liberty Harrison (0-1)  26 Paden City (0-1) 0
East Fairmont (1-0) 38 Symmes Valley, OH 32
Nicholas County (AA) (1-0) 22 Webster County (1-0) 12
Greenbrier West (0-1) 0 Richwood (0-1) 6
Parkersburg (1-0) 57 Ripley (1-0) 14
St. Albans (0-1) 14 Parkersburg South (0-1) 7
      -
      -

Preliminary District Assessment Results Released

As a follow up to the statewide assessment results released last week, the West Virginia Department of Education is releasing preliminary assessment results for each district in the state. Results reflect the aggregate percentage of students proficient in English language arts, mathematics and science for each of the 55 districts in West Virginia.

Results are considered preliminary because they do not include approximately 2,500 students who took the West Virginia Alternate Assessment and all data have not yet been certified. Final assessment results will be made available this fall and will include scores for the alternate assessment.

The Free Press WV
The Free Press WV

 

Click Below for additional Articles...

Page 1 of 374 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »








The Gilmer Free Press

Copyright MMVIII-MMXVI The Gilmer Free Press. All Rights Reserved