08/07/2009 9:24 Am
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
1 Lakes Sampled by Ohio EPA/Ohio DNR for Fish Tissue Ohio EPA
Lakes Sampled by Ohio EPA/Ohio DNR for Fish Tissue Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water February 29, 2012 Lake County(ies) Year(s) Acton Lake Butler 1994, 2005 Adams Lake Adams 1998, 2007 Alum Creek Reservoir Delaware 1989, 1993, 2004 Amicks Reservoir Morrow 2000 Apple Valley Lake Knox 2007 Archbold #2 Fulton 2000 Atwood Lake Tuscarawas 1993, 1994 Barnesville Reservoir #1 Belmont 2010 Barnesville Reservoir #2 Belmont 2010 Barnesville Reservoir #3 Belmont 1999, 2009, 2010 Beach City Reservoir Stark, 2006 Tuscarawas Beaver Creek Reservoir Seneca 1999, 2002, 2009 Bellevue Reservoir #5 Huron 2005 Belmont Lake Belmont 1999 Berlin Lake Mahoning, 1977, 1989, 1992, 1993,1998, 2003, 2005 Portage, Summit Big Cobb Pond Portage 1995 Bresler Reservoir Allen 1994 Buckeye Lake Licking 1989, 1992, 2004, 2008 Bucyrus Reservoir #2 Crawford 1999, 2002 Burr Oak Lake Athens 2005 C.J. Brown Lake Clark 1993, 2004, 2005 Caesar Creek Reservoir Warren 1993, 2004, 2010 Caldwell Lake Noble 2006, 2011 Charles Mill Reservoir Ashland 1990, 1992, 1993, 2004 Clark Lake Clark 1995, 2008 Clear Fork Reservoir Richland 1993, 2004, 2008 Clendening Lake Harrison 1994 Cowan Lake Clinton 1993, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Cutler Lake Muskingum 2008 Daugherty Lake/Fostoria # 1 Hancock 2001 Dayton Hydrobowl Reservoir Montgomery 1989 Deer Creek Lake Pickaway 1994, 2005, 2011 Deer Creek Reservoir Stark 1996, 2006, 2008 Delaware Lake Delaware 1993, 2004 Delta Reservoir #1 Fulton 2000 Delta Reservoir #2 Fulton 2005 Dillon Reservoir Muskingum 1990, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2008 1 Lake County(ies) Year(s) Dow Lake Athens 1990, 2004, 2006 East Branch Reservoir Geauga 1996, 2010 East Fork Lake Clermont 1993, 1994, 2006, 2010 East Reservoir Summit 2008 Eastwood Lake Montgomery 1993, 1994, 1998, 2004, 2005 Ferguson Reservoir Allen 1995 Findlay Reservoir #1 Hancock 1999 Findlay Reservoir #2 Hancock 1994, 2006 Findley Lake Lorain 1997, 1999, 2009, 2011 Forked Run Lake Meigs 2003, 2005 Fox Lake Athens 1999 Friendship Park Lake Jefferson 2008 Grand Lake St. -
Public Water System Harmful Algal Bloom Response Strategy
May 2012 Public Water System Harmful Algal Bloom Response Strategy John R. Kasich, Governor Mary Taylor, Lt. Governor Scott J. Nally, Director — Ohio Environmental Protection Agency [Type text] ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sections of this document were excerpted from the 2011 State of Ohio Harmful Algal Bloom Response Strategy. That strategy was developed as a collaborative effort between Ohio EPA, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and Ohio Department of Health. This document focuses on responding to harmful algal blooms on public water supply source waters. Revisions to the 2011 Strategy were contributed by: Holly Kaloz, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Drinking and Ground Waters Heather Raymond, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Drinking and Ground Waters Laura Webb, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Drinking and Ground Waters 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 3 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Purpose, Focus -
January 22, 2004
Lakes Sampled by Ohio EPA/Ohio DNR for Fish Tissue (through 2012) Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water February 13, 2014 Lake County(ies) Year(s) Acton Lake Butler 1994, 2005 Adams Lake Adams 1998, 2007 Alum Creek Reservoir Delaware 1989, 1993, 2004 Amicks Reservoir Morrow 2000 Apple Valley Lake Knox 2007 Archbold #2 Fulton 2000 Atwood Lake Tuscarawas 1993, 1994 Barnesville Reservoir #1 Belmont 2010 Barnesville Reservoir #2 Belmont 2010 Barnesville Reservoir #3 Belmont 1999, 2009, 2010 Beach City Reservoir Stark, 2006 Tuscarawas Beaver Creek Reservoir Seneca 1999, 2002, 2009 Bellevue Reservoir #5 Huron 2005 Belmont Lake Belmont 1999 Berlin Lake Mahoning, 1977, 1989, 1992, 1993,1998, 2003, 2005 Portage, Summit Big Cobb Pond Portage 1995 Bresler Reservoir Allen 1994 Buckeye Lake Licking 1989, 1992, 2004, 2008 Bucyrus Reservoir #2 Crawford 1999, 2002 Burr Oak Lake Athens 2005 C.J. Brown Lake Clark 1993, 2004, 2005 Caesar Creek Reservoir Warren 1993, 2004, 2010, 2012 Caldwell Lake Noble 2006, 2011 Charles Mill Reservoir Ashland 1990, 1992, 1993, 2004 Clark Lake Clark 1995, 2008 Clear Fork Reservoir Richland 1993, 2004, 2008 Clendening Lake Harrison 1994, 2012 Confluence Park Ponds Summit 2012 Cowan Lake Clinton 1993, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Cutler Lake Muskingum 2008 Daugherty Lake/Fostoria # 1 Hancock 2001 Dayton Hydrobowl Reservoir Montgomery 1989 Deer Creek Lake Pickaway 1994, 2005, 2011 Deer Creek Reservoir Stark 1996, 2006, 2008 Delaware Lake Delaware 1993, 2004 Delta Reservoir #1 Fulton 2000 Delta Reservoir #2 Fulton 2005 1 Lake -
The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District
THE OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE VOL. XXXVIII MAY, 1938 No. 3 THE MUSKINGUM WATERSHED CONSERVANCY DISTRICT CHARLES C. HUNTINGTON Department of Geography, The Ohio State University The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District is an important example of co-operation for resources conservation by the Federal Government, a State, and the people of a local political subdivision. The Muskingum Watershed, a part of the Mississippi Drainage Basin, is the largest in Ohio, including 8,038 square miles. This area, together with the 289 square miles drained by Duck Creek, constitutes about one-fifth of the area of the state. Physiographically, it lies mostly in the unglaciated Appalachian Plateau, the northern and western part, however, being within the glaciated portion. (Plate I.) Politically, the Conservancy District consists of eighteen counties forming a political subdivision whose boundaries follow roughly those of the drainage basin. From an economic and social point of view, this Con- servancy District, created June 3, 1933, under the Conservancy Act of Ohio, passed soon after the great flood of 1913,1 includes approximately half the major land-use problem areas of the State.2 This very hilly section of Ohio was the first settled, but contains large areas not well adapted to arable farming on account of the difficulty of using modern farm machinery, the serious erosion due to the rapid run-off from long denuded slopes and the impoverished soils mostly of sandstone and shale origin. The average yearly rainfall of the area is approximately 39 inches, but the run-off is high especially during the winter and Massed February 6, 1914, Page's Annotated Ohio General Code, Sees. -
QW-Monitoring
Baseline Water Quality of an Area Undergoing Shale-Gas Development in the Muskingum River Watershed, Ohio, 2015-16 Presented to: Workgroup for Water Resources Monitoring Alex Covert, USGS, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana (OKI) Water Science Center Whole Lot of Drilling Going On… Purpose of this study Characterize current, baseline surface- water quality prior to more shale gas development Focuses on parameters that would help detect the influence of shale gas development Can be compared to future water-quality data Science of the Project Study Area • 6 lakes (Atwood, Leesville, Tappan, Clendening, Piedmont, and Senecaville) in Muskingum River watershed in eastern Ohio. Sampling Plan • 6 samples were collected at each of 30 sites to characterize surface-water chemistry over a range of hydrologic conditions. Parameters • Water-quality data collected for this study included field parameters and major ion, metals, trace elements, nutrients, VOCs, radionuclides, and suspended-sediment. Study Area Varying Hydrologic Conditions The sampling events generally occurred during relatively low flows (periods of greater groundwater contribution) rather than during runoff events (periods of high stage, decreased specific conductance), although a runoff event in March 2016 was captured at some sites. Parameters (62) Field Parameters: dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, temperature, turbidity, alkalinity, total sulfide Major ions (minerals or salts): total dissolved solids, magnesium, sodium, calcium, potassium, chloride, sulfate Suspended Sediment Nutrients: nitrogen and phosphorus Trace Element: arsenic, iron, manganese, aluminum, barium, strontium, bromide Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene Radionuclides: Radium 226 and 228 Types of Water Trilinear diagrams of major ion chemistry revealed three main types of water in the study area: 1. -
Low-Flow Characteristics of Streams in Ohio Through Water Year 1997
In cooperation with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Low-Flow Characteristics of Streams in Ohio through Water Year 1997 Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4140 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Scioto River north of Bellepoint, Ohio (view to the north, from Ostrander Road bridge; photo by R.P. Frehs, U.S. Geological Survey) U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Low-Flow Characteristics of Streams in Ohio through Water Year 1997 By David E. Straub Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4140 In cooperation with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water U.S. Department of the Interior GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director Any 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 6480 Doubletree Avenue Columbus, OH 43229-1111 Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S.Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225-0286 Or call: 1-888-ASK-USGS Columbus, Ohio 2000 CONTENTS Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and scope ........................................................................................................................ -
1996 Ohio Water Resource Inventory: Volume 3: Ohio's Public Lakes, Ponds, & Reservoirs
Ohio Water Resource Inventory Volume 3: Ohio's Public Lakes, Ponds, & Reservoirs Division of Surface Water Robert D. Davic Ph.D. Dale Eicher Jeff DeShon 1996 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049 1800 WaterMark Drive Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149 1996 Ohio Water Resource Inventory: Volume 3: Ohio's Public Lakes, Ponds, & Reservoirs Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin MAS/1997-10-2 Robert D. Davic Ph.D. Dale Eicher Jeff DeShon Jan 31, 1997 State Of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Section 1685 Westbelt Drive Columbus, Ohio 43228 http://www.epa.ohio.gov 1996 Ohio Water Resource Inventory Introduction A. Background. Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each state to report on the water quality of its lakes/ponds/reservoirs that are classified under State Water Quality Standards. In addition, Section 314 of the Act (Clean Lakes Program) re- quires each state to report on the overall condition of its public lakes including trophic state, impaired/threatened uses, impact from toxic chemicals, and status and trends of water quality. This report is submitted to fulfill these requirements and revises the 1980, 1982, 1988, 1990, 1992, and 1994 State of Ohio 305(b) lake water quality inventory reports. This report also summarizes data collected by the Ohio EPA in 1993, 1994, and 1995 for Section 314 Lake Water Quality Assessment grants (see Appendix I). This report also restates the Ohio Lake Condition Index (Ohio EPA 1988a, 1990b; Davic and DeShon, 1989). The Ohio Lake Condition In- dex (LCI) was developed by the Ohio EPA for the 1988 305(b) reporting cycle, and is used in this report to: 1) determine if Ohio’s public lakes are meeting Clean Water Act goals of fishable and swimmable waters, (2) determine the extent that Ohio’s lakes are meeting designated uses under Ohio Water Quality Standards, (3) document temporal changes in the status of lake water quality, and (4) classify the overall ecosystem condition of Ohio’s inland lakes. -
An Analysis of Potential Water Availability from the Charles Mill
Prepared in cooperation with the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District An Analysis of Potential Water Availability from the Charles Mill, Clendening, Piedmont, Pleasant Hill, Senecaville, and Wills Creek Lakes in the Muskingum River Watershed, Ohio Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5071 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: View of Charles Mill Lake outlet works and outlet channel, Muskingum River Watershed, Ohio. Rendering based on original photograph provided by the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (used with permission). An Analysis of Potential Water Availability from the Charles Mill, Clendening, Piedmont, Pleasant Hill, Senecaville, and Wills Creek Lakes in the Muskingum River Watershed, Ohio By G.F. Koltun Prepared in cooperation with the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5071 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2014 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. -
Value to the Nation Fast Facts: USACE Recreation 2019 Division Report, Great Lakes & Ohio River
VALUE TO THE NATION FAST FACTS USACE RECREATION 2019 DIVISION REPORT Great Lakes & Ohio River Natural and recreational resources at USACE lakes provide social, economic and environmental benefits for all Americans. The following information highlights some of the benefits related to USACE's role in managing natural and recreational resources in the Great Lakes & Ohio River Division. SOCIAL BENEFITS Facilities in FY 2019 Visits (person-days/nights) in FY 2019 Benefits in Perspective • 890 recreation areas • 51,682,690 in total By providing opportunities for active • 5,689 picnic sites • 7,859,089 picnickers recreation, USACE lakes help combat • 14,758 camping sites • 7,175,529 campers/overnight visitors one of the most significant of the • 479 playgrounds • 10,760,333 swimmers nation's health problems: lack of • 122 swimming areas • 6,129,086 walkers/hikers/joggers physical activity. • 807 trails • 12,971,820 boaters Recreational programs and activities • 1,941 trail miles • 14,895,867 sightseers at USACE lakes also help strengthen • • 200 fishing docks and piers 5,307,655 anglers family ties and friendships; provide • 606 boat ramps • 1,944,737 special event attendees opportunities for children to develop • 29,553 marina slips • 1,861,605 others personal skills, social values, and self- esteem; and increase water safety. Public Outreach in FY 2019 • 653,829 public outreach contacts ECONOMIC BENEFITS Economic Data in FY 2019 Benefits in Perspective 51,682,690 visits per year resulted in: With multiplier effects, visitor trip spending The money spent by visitors to USACE • $ 2,156,199,493 in visitor spending resulted in: lakes on trip expenses adds to the within 30 miles of USACE lakes • $ 1,873,689,932 in total sales local and national economies by • $ 1,158,896,089 in sales within 30 miles • 22,431 jobs supporting jobs and generating of USACE lakes • $ 700,218,537 in labor income income. -
Hydrogeologic Concerns Regarding Hydraulic
Hydrogeologic Concerns Regarding Hydraulic Fracturing within the Muskingum River Watershed In Eastern Ohio with Justification & Recommendations in Support of a Drilling Moratorium within Reservoir Watersheds and Statewide Legislation Banning Hydraulic Fracturing Prepared for: Southeast Ohio Alliance to Save Our Water PO Box 473 Grand Rapids, Ohio 43522 October 17, 2012 Hydrogeologic Concerns Regarding Hydraulic Fracturing; Muskingum River Watershed, Eastern Ohio Prepared by HydroQuest for Southeastern Ohio Alliance to Save Our Water, October 17, 2012 Table of Contents Page 1.0 Purpose of Study 1 2.0 HydroQuest Qualifications 1 3.0 Introduction 2 4.0 Water Quality Protection of Reservoirs 5 4.1 New York City Based Protection of Aquifers and Reservoirs 6 4.2 Challenge Claiming Safety of Hydraulic Fracturing with Reference to New York State 7 5.0 Hydrogeologic Setting 7 5.1 Coal Mine beneath Senecaville Lake Reservoir 10 6.0 Hydrogeologic and Geologic Reasons to Ban Hydraulic Fracturing in the Muskingum River Watershed 10 6.1 Hydrogeologic Risk & Concerns 10 6.2 Five Year Life Expectancy of Casing Material 12 6.3 Evaluation of Post-Production Plugging and Reclamation of Oil and Gas Wells 12 6.4 Seismic Risk 13 7.0 Reasons to Not Sell Reservoir Water (Possible Impacts of Exploitation) 14 7.1 Adverse Health Impacts Associated with Gas Exploitation 15 7.2 Ethical Issues 17 8.0 Overall Risk Factor Conclusion 18 9.0 Recommendations 18 9.1 Recommended Immediate Actions 19 9.2 Recommended Actions in Advance of Completing Horizontal Gas Well Installations 21 (If Permitted) 9.3 Recommended Statewide Legislative Action 22 9.4 Recommended Long-term Comparative Study 23 List of Figures 1A. -
Soil Erosion Analysis of Watersheds in Series a Thesis Presented to The
Soil Erosion Analysis of Watersheds in Series A thesis presented to the faculty of the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Andrew K. Lucas June 2012 © 2012 Andrew K. Lucas: All Rights Reserved 2 This thesis titled Soil Erosion Analysis of Watersheds in Series by ANDREW K. LUCAS has been approved for the Department of Civil Engineering and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by Tiao J. Chang Professor of Civil Engineering Dennis Irwin Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology 3 Abstract LUCAS, ANDREW K., M. S., May 2012, Civil Engineering Soil Erosion Analysis of Watersheds in Series Director of Thesis: Tiao J. Chang The objective of this study is to determine the relationship between soil erosion and sedimentation within Wills Creek, Senecaville Lake, and Salt Fork watersheds of Ohio. Both Senecaville Lake and Salt Fork Lake watersheds are entirely located within the watershed of Wills Creek Lake. Experimental results using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation and a sediment delivery equation in conjunction with Geographic Information Systems are compared to sedimentation reports prepared by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Results of this comparison show that the type of land cover has the highest impact on the amount of soil erosion, specifically the lands associated with cultivated crops. Furthermore, the sediment yield of a watershed is not accurately calculated based on average annual sedimentation and present RUSLE erosion potential. Approved: Tiao J. Chang Professor of Civil Engineering 4 Acknowledgements I would like to thank those involved in the research, development, and completion of my thesis.