DOCSLIB.ORG

GPS Mapping of Stone Fences City of Forest Hills, Davidson County, Tennessee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GPS Mapping of Stone Fences City of Forest Hills, Davidson County, Tennessee November 2007 Prepared for: City of Forest Hills 4012 Hillsboro Pike, Ste. 5 Nashville, Tennessee 37215 GPS Mapping of Stone Fences City of Forest Hills, Davidson County, Tennessee Prepared by: Zada Law, M.A. Thomas Nolan, Ph.D., Director R.O. Fullerton Laboratory for Spatial Technology Department of Geosciences Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37132 615-898-2726 GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills Management Summary During the summer of 2007, the staff of the R.O. Fullerton Laboratory for Spatial Technology at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) mapped the locations of stone fences in the City of Forest Hills, a small residential city in south-central Davidson County, Tennessee. The mapping project was initiated at the request of Forest Hills Commissioner William Coke with the objective of developing a spatial database of stone fence locations that could be used in municipal land use and development planning as well as conservation of this landscape feature. A differentially-corrected GPS unit was used to map location coordinates with a high degree of accuracy. The precision of the GPS-collected data was verified using high resolution color aerial imagery. The aerial imagery was also used to identify possible locations of other stone fence remnants. The geospatial survey mapped 21,960.06 linear feet (4.16 miles) of stone fence segments. This total includes the previously-recorded segments inventoried in 2001 (Allen 2001) plus an additional 6,082.25 linear feet (1.15 miles) of stone fence segments recorded subsequent to the 2001 inventory, including a previously-unrecorded fence identified from color orthophoto imagery and verified by field-checking. The GPS-mapped stone fences include over 11,207 linear feet (2.12 miles) of stone fence segments that do not appear on a fence and retaining wall digital data layer provided by Nashville’s Metropolitan Planning Commission. To evaluate whether historic maps could be used to provide contexts for developing chronological indicators for stone fence types for Middle Tennessee, the GPS-mapped stone fence segments were overlaid on photocopies of the 1903 and 1932 Nashville, Tennessee U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangles that had been scanned and georeferenced. While georeferencing is best done with scans of original maps to provide good spatial accuracy, this preliminary analysis suggests that historic topographic maps of the Forest Hills area could be useful in determining the ages of specific sections of stone fences, interpreting function and developing chronological sequences of stone fence construction typologies. Finally, a potential new stone wall or fence subtype was identified by the survey. The type of stone wall built along an intermittent tributary at 5906 Hillsboro Pike does not appear as a subtype in the stone wall and fence categories proposed by Murray-Wooley and Raitz (1992) for the Lexington, Kentucky region. The stone fence along the drainage may represent a new subtype of early twentieth century landscape element that can be added to the Murray-Wooley and Raitz model. i y GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills Table of Contents Management Summary ............................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ ii Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. .. 1 Background …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ... 1 Stone fence damage and loss ......................................................................................................... 2 Conservation efforts in Forest Hills .............................................................................................. 2 Scope of work ................................................................................................................................ 3 Project Area .................................................................................................................................. 3 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Method s…………………….................................................................................................................. ............ 5 Assessing GPS coordinate accuracy .............................................................................................. 6 Results…………………….................................................................................................................. ............... 7 Comparison of results with 2001 inventory .................................................................................. 7 Identifying stone fences from aerial photos .................................................................................. 8 Comparison of results with Metro Planning Commission fence inventory ................................ 11 Comparison of results with historic maps ...................................................................................12 Stone fence types ......................................................................................................................... 14 Stone fences along waterways ......................................................................................... 15 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ... 17 Finding stone fences on aerial photos .......................................................................................... 17 Fence conditions and construction patterns ............................................................................... 18 Integration with historic and archaeological resource databases .............................................. 18 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19 Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................... 20 References Cited ....................................................................................................................................... 20 ii y GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills Figures 1. City of Forest Hills, Davidson County, Tennessee ......................................................................... 1 2. Forest Hills project area ................................................................................................................ 4 3. Results of GPS mapping of stone fences in Forest Hills ............................................................... 8 4. Comparison of 2001 and 2007 stone fence inventories ............................................................. 10 5. Example of potential and verified stone fence locations from aerial photos .............................. 11 6. Comparison of GPS-mapped stone fence locations with Metro Planning fence inventory ........12 7. Stone fences in Forest Hills overlaid on 1903 topographic map. ................................................ 13 8. Stone fences in Forest Hills overlaid on 1932 topographic map. ................................................ 13 9. Compton Cemetery, 1645 Tyne Boulevard ................................................................................... 15 10. Stone walls along drainage, 5906 Hillsboro Pike ....................................................................... 16 Tables 1. GPS-mapped fence segments ........................................................................................................ 9 2. Comparison of fence lengths derived from 2001 inventory map with GPS-mapped lengths .... 10 iii y GPS Mapping of Stone Fences in Forest Hills GPS Mapping of Stone Fences City of Forest Hills, Davidson County, Tennessee During the summer of 2007, the staff of the R.O. Fullerton Laboratory for Spatial Technology at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU) mapped the locations of stone fences in the City of Forest Hills, a small residential city in south-central Davidson County, Tennessee (Figure 1). The mapping project was initiated at the request of Forest Hills Commissioner William Coke with the objective of developing a GIS (Geographic Information System) spatial data layer of stone fence locations to incorporate into land use and development planning in the municipality. Accurate mapping of stone fences would also assist in conservation of this landscape feature. The MTSU team used Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to accurately record the locations of the stone fences in the field and converted the GPS data into a digital geospatial database. GIS technology was then used to overlay the stone fence location digital data layer on high resolution color aerial imagery to verify the accuracy of the GPS data collection and identify possible locations of other stone fence remnants. The stone fence locations were also overlaid on Figure 1. City of Forest Hills, Davidson County, Tennessee historic maps to interpret relative age and function. Background Dry-stacked limestone fences are common cultural landscape features along roadways, in pastures and enclosing cemeteries in the Middle Tennessee region. A popular perception is that stone fences in the southeastern United States were built by slaves prior to the Civil War. However, research by Murray- Wooley and Raitz (1992) suggests that the eighteenth and nineteenth-century
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Water-Resources Investigations in Tennessee: Programs and Activities of the U.S
    WATER-RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS IN TENNESSEE: PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1988-89 by Ferdinand Quinones, Barbara H. Balthrop, and Eva G. Baker U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 89-379 Nashville, Tennessee 1989 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this rpeort can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section A-413 Federal Building Federal Center U.S. Courthouse Box 25425 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS A message from the Tennessee District Chief v Hydrologic Data Section 1 Surface-water monitoring network 2 Ground-water level network 3 Water-quality network 4 Suspended-sediment investigations 5 Water-use program 6 Flood investigations 7 Hydrologic Investigations Section 8 Ground-water quality network in Tennessee 9 Effects of urbanization and detention storage on flood-peak discharges in Murfreesboro, Tennessee 10 Water quality of farmstead wells in Tennessee 11 Sediment chemistry at Reelfoot Lake evaluated for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 12 Investigation of scour at bridges throughout Tennessee 13 Application of soil-gas analysis for detection of volatile organic compounds and delineation of areas of subsurface contamination 14 Source of recharge and transport of volatile organic compounds to Hackett's Spring, Brentwood, Tennessee 16 Water quality in the Clinch and Powell Rivers, East Tennessee
    [Show full text]
  • A HISTORY of RAVENSWOOD Excerpt from the Bugle, a Publication of the Brentwood Historical Society August 2011 by Preston Bain
    A HISTORY OF RAVENSWOOD Excerpt from The Bugle, a publication of the Brentwood Historical Society August 2011 By Preston Bain Thomas Wilson immigrated to America from Ireland in the mid 1700’s and followed the migration trail down through Virginia and the Carolinas and finally over into Tennessee where he settled in the late 1700’s. His grandson, James Hazard Wilson II, who built Ravenswood was born in 1800 and would be one of several children by James Hazard Wilson, Sr. and Ruth Davidson Wilson. James II grew up in Williamson County and chose to remain here and start a family while his brother, Samuel, moved west to Texas and became one of the first Secretaries of State after it’s admission to the Union in 1845. In March of 1821, James Hazard Wilson II married his cousin Emeline Wilson. Prominent Tennessee and Texas historical figure Sam Houston served as the best man at his wedding. James and Emeline would settle in Brentwood and build their home in 1825. The home was christened Ravenswood in honor of their friend Sam Houston whose Cherokee Indian name was “the Raven”, most likely due to the jet black hair of his youth. Sam Houston ran away from home when he turned 16 and went to live with the Cherokee Indians near the Hiawassee River. The tribal chief became a father figure to Sam and gave him the Cherokee name Colonneh, meaning "the Raven”. Sam lived with the Cherokee for about 3 years before returning home to Maryville, TN and enlisting to fight in the War of 1812.
    [Show full text]
  • Iiiutamaon (Houtttg ^Iatonral ^Timfjer 6
    iiiUtamaon (Houtttg ^iatonral ^timfjEr 6 \ \ ■<l-> N ! w L S N i i •>. ^4^pt*d y< •Vh W ^Aaa'i : C/^35y \ >' :3 £- )p r0}0£> C*^. 1974-1975 WlitlAMSON COUNTY HISTORICAL JOURNAL Number 6 Spring 1975 Published By Williamson County Historical Society Franklin, Tennessee 1975 WILLIAMSON COUNTY HISTORICAL JOURNAL Number 6 Published by the Williamson County Historical Society Mrs. Eilene Plummer- Publication Chairman OFFICERS President . James A. Crutchfield Vice-President . Mrs. Brent Cook Treasurer . Herman Major Corresponding Secretary . ... .. Mary Trim Anderson Recording Secretary . .. .. Mrs. Dobson Johnsoh PUBLICATION COMMITTEE Mrs. 6. R. Plummer, Chairman Thomas Vance Little Mrs. Clyde Lynch Mary Trim Anderson Mrs. Mile Grace The WILLIAMSON COUNTY HISTORICAL JOURNAL is sent to all members of the Williamson County Historical Society. The annual membership dues are $5, which includes this publication and a mbhthly NEWSLETTER to all members. Correspondence concerning additional copies of the WILLIAMSON COUNTY HISTORICAL JOURNAL should be addressed to Mrs. Clyde Lynch, Route 5, Franklin, Tennessee 37064. Contributions to future issues of the WILLIAMSON COUNTY HISTORICAL JOURNAL should be addressed to Thomas Vance Little, Beech Grove Farm, Brentwood, Tennessee 37027. Correspondence concerning membership and payment of dues should be addressed to Herman Major, Treasurer, Hillsboro Road, Franklin, Tennessee 37064. n It is with extreme pleasure that we present the 1974-75 Williamson County Historical Journal. As always, we feel that this year's issue is outstanding in its contributions to local history. We have always felt that the Society's journals would pass the test of time and pro vide invaluable material for researchers, both present and future.
    [Show full text]
  • Tmdl) for Waters in the Harpeth River Watershed (Huc 05130204
    FINAL ORGANIC ENRICHMENT/LOW DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) FOR WATERS IN THE HARPETH RIVER WATERSHED (HUC 05130204) September 2004 Harpeth River Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved Oxygen September 2004 Executive Summary The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) included several waters in the Harpeth River Basin on its §303(d) list of impaired waters for the pollutant causes, “organic enrichment/Low DO” and “Low DO” including the segments identified in the Table below. The TMDLs established in this report will address these waters and pollutant causes. Water Quality Limited Segments and Pollutant Causes Addressed by the TMDLs Waterbody CAUSE (waterbody ID#) Impacted Waterbody (Pollutant) Harpeth River – West Harpeth River to Spencer Creek Organic enrichment/low TN05130204 016 – 1000 dissolved oxygen Harpeth River – Spencer Creek to Watson Creek Organic enrichment/low TN05130204 016 – 2000 dissolved oxygen Harpeth River – Watson Creek to Mayes Creek TN05130204 016 – 3000 Low DO Harpeth River – Mayes Creek to Wilson Branch TN05130204 016 – 4000 Low DO HARPETH RIVER TRIBUTARIES Organic enrichment/low Arrington Cr, Spencer Cr, Watson Br, 5-mile Cr, TN05130204 016 dissolved oxygen Lynnwood Cr, and Starnes Cr Concord Creek Organic enrichment/low TN051300204 018 – 0200 dissolved oxygen Kelley Creek Organic enrichment/low TN051300204 018 – 0300 dissolved oxygen Harpeth River – unnamed trib. To headwaters TN051300204 018 – 3000 Low DO HARPETH RIVER TRIBUTARIES Organic enrichment/low Newsome Cr, Trace Cr, and
    [Show full text]
  • City of Brentwood, Tennessee FISCAL YEAR 2009 (July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009) ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
    City of Brentwood, Tennessee FISCAL YEAR 2009 (July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009) ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET Brentwood Board of Commissioners Joe Reagan Paul L. Webb Mayor Vice Mayor Betsy S. Crossley Anne Dunn City Commissioner City Commissioner Alex Noble Regina R. Smithson City Commissioner City Commissioner Brian J. Sweeney City Commissioner City Staff Michael W. Walker City Manager Kirk E. Bednar Assistant City Manager Carson K. Swinford Finance Director The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award to the City of Brentwood, Tennessee for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2007. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan and as a communications device. The award is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements, and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another award. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. BUDGET MESSAGE City Manager’s Transmittal Memorandum i - xii II. BUDGET OVERVIEW/SUMMARIES Organization Chart 2 Appropriations Ordinance 3-15 Tax Levy Ordinance 17 Operating Budget Policies 18 Revenue Policies 21 Budget Format 22 Budget Procedure 24 Budget Calendar 26 Long-Term Goals and Objectives - Brentwood 2020 Plan 29-61 Budget Summaries 63-86 III. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 87-101 IV. GENERAL FUND General Fund Revenues
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 238/Tuesday, December 13, 2005
    Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 73677 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: certifies that this proposed rule is SECURITY Doug Bellomo, P.E., Hazard exempt from the requirements of the Identification Section, Mitigation Regulatory Flexibility Act because Federal Emergency Management Division, Federal Emergency proposed or modified BFEs are required Agency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2903. 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required 44 CFR Part 67 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA to establish and maintain community proposes to make determinations of eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory [Docket No. FEMA–B–7454] BFEs and modified BFEs for each flexibility analysis has been prepared. community listed below, in accordance Regulatory Classification. This Proposed Flood Elevation with section 110 of the Flood Disaster proposed rule is not a significant Determinations Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, regulatory action under the criteria of AGENCY: Federal Emergency and 44 CFR 67.4(a). section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of Management Agency (FEMA), These proposed BFEs and modified September 30, 1993, Regulatory Department of Homeland Security. BFEs, together with the floodplain Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. Executive Order 12612, Federalism. ACTION: Proposed rule. management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. This proposed rule involves no policies SUMMARY: Technical information or They should not be construed to mean that have federalism implications under comments are requested on the that the community must change any Executive Order 12612, Federalism, proposed Base (1% annual-chance) existing ordinances that are more dated October 26, 1987.
    [Show full text]
  • Harpeth River, Tennessee: Technical Appendices
    Harpeth River, Tennessee: Technical Appendices Appendix A: Acronyms & Abbreviations Appendix B: Study Area Maps Appendix C: Scoping Letter, Responses, & Letters of Intent Appendix D: Hydrology & Hydraulics Appendix E: Hazardous, Toxic, & Radioactive Waste Appendix F: References Appendix A Acronyms & Abbreviations (This page intentionally left blank for two sided printing) Appendix A Acronyms & Abbreviations Acronyms and Abbreviations BMP Best Management Practice BWSC Barge, Waggoner, Sumner, and Cannon CE Common Era DO Dissolved Oxygen FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FRM Flood Risk Management HRWA Harpeth River Watershed Association HTRW Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste IA Individual Assistance Metro Metropolitan Nashville MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NED National Economic Development NER National Ecosystem Restoration SR State Route TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation TWRA Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency WMA Wildlife Management Area WRDA Water Resources Development Act Harpeth River, Tennessee 1 Appendix A May 2012 Appendix B Study Area Maps (This page intentionally left blank for two sided printing) Appendix B Study Area Maps Harpeth River, Tennessee 3 Appendix B May 2012 Appendix B Study Area Maps Harpeth River, Tennessee 4 Appendix B May 2012 Appendix B Study Area Maps Harpeth River, Tennessee 5 Appendix B May 2012 Appendix C Scoping Letter, Responses, and Letters of Intent (This page intentionally left blank for two sided printing) Appendix C Scoping
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Archaeology 9(2) Summer 2018
    TENNESSEE ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 9 Summer 2018 Number 2 EDITORIAL COORDINATORS Michael C. Moore Tennessee Division of Archaeology TENNESSEE ARCHAEOLOGY Kevin E. Smith Middle Tennessee State University VOLUME 9 Summer 2018 NUMBER 2 EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 81 Editors Corner Paul Avery KEVIN E. SMITH AND MICHAEL C. MOORE Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. 87 Introduction to the Special Issue Jared Barrett J. SCOTT JONES TRC Inc. 89 Interpretation of the Structure and Variation of Middle Sierra Bow Cumberland Mississippian Stone-Box Cemeteries University of Tennessee J. SCOTT JONES Stephen Carmody Troy University 103 Return to the Great Mound Group: 2016 Investigations at Mound Bottom State Archaeological Area. Sarah Levithol Eckhardt AARON DETER-WOLF, SUNNY FLEMING, AND SARAH Tennessee Division of Archaeology LEVITHOL ECKHARDT Paul N. Eubanks 117 A Preliminary Assessment of Mississippian Middle Tennessee State University Settlement in the Little Harpeth River Watershed: The Hannah Guidry Inglehame Farm Site (40WM342) Revisited Tennessee Department of Transportation MICHAEL C. MOORE Phillip Hodge 135 The Copper Creek Site (40SU317): A Multicomponent Tennessee Department of Transportation Mortuary Site in Goodlettsville, Sumner County, Tennessee Kandi Hollenbach SARAH LEVITHOL ECKHARDT AND HANNAH GUIDRY University of Tennessee 156 Relationships and Trauma: Lived Perspectives at Ryan Parish Averbuch University of Memphis GIOVANNA M. VIDOLI AND HEATHER WORNE Tanya M. Peres Florida State University 170 Middle Cumberland Mississippian Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions Paige Silcox KEVIN E. SMITH AND MICHAEL C. MOORE Tennessee Division of Archaeology RESEARCH REPORTS Tennessee Archaeology is published semi-annually in electronic print format 201 Five New Prehistoric Cave Art Sites in Tennessee under the auspices of the Tennessee 2005 Council for Professional Archaeology.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Tennessee
    TENNESSEE WI LDLl FE RESOURCES AGENCY ELL1NGTON AGRICULTURAL CENTER P. 0.BOX 40747 NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37204 February 26,2003 Water Docket U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mailcode 4 101 T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 Attention: Docket ID No. OW-2002-0050 03-03-03 A10:43 JN Re: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemalung U.S. Environmental Protection Agency US. Army Corps of Engineers Definition of “Water of the United States” Attention: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency provides the following comments and recommendations regarding the EPNCOE proposal to change the accepted and customary definition of “Waters of the United States” to remove Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) protection for isolated wetlands and non-navigable streams. Removal of CWA protection for isolated wetlands and non-navigable streams would drastically change more than three decades of progress toward restoring and protecting waters of the United States. This would be a significant retreat from the goals of the CWA and should be addressed through preparation of a comprehensive evaluation of the consequences. 0 Consideration should be given to amending the CWA to insure the definition of “Waters of the United States” is consistent with the customary and accepted usage of the term as The State of Tennessee AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ,­ established since passage of the CWA. e Removal of federal CWS protection for isolated wetlands effectively abandons the long- standing national policy of “no overall net loss” of wetlands. The national goal of conservation and protection of wetlands resources is based on appreciation for the benefits derived, including water quality and quantity, flood control, waterfowl, and sustained biological diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
    NPS Form 10-900-b OMB No. 1024-0018 (March 1992) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items. _X_ New Submission __ Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Historic and Architectural Resources of Forest Hills, Tennessee B. Associated Historic Contexts (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each.) 19th and Early 20th Century residential Buildings, ca. 1819 - 1957 C. Form Prepared by name/title _Philip Thomason/Principal organization _Thomason and Associates______________ date_April 23, 2003 street & number _P. O. Box 121225_______ telephone _(615) 385-4960_____ city or town _Nashville______________ state_TN__ zip code_37212 D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Surface-Water Records to September 30,1955
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 383 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS TO SEPTEMBER 30,1955 PART 3. OHIO RIVER BASIN REPRINTED 1959 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fred A. Seaton, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 383 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS TO SEPTEMBER 30,1955 PART 3.-OHIO RIVER BASIN By P. R. Speer REPRINTED 1959 Washington, D. C., 1956 Free on application to the Geological Survey, Washington 25, D. C. INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS TO SEPTEMBER 30,1955 PART 3. OHIO RIVER BASIN By P. R. Speer EXPLANATION This index lists the streamflow and reservoir stations in the Ohio River basin for which records have been or are to be published in reports of the Geological Survey for periods prior to .September 30, 1955. Periods'of record for the same station published by other agencies are listed only when they contain more detailed information or are for periods not reported in pub­ lications of the Geological Survey. The stations are listed in the downstream order first adopted for use in the 1951 series of water-supply papers on surface-water supply of the United States. Starting at the headwater of each stream all stations are listed in a downstream direction. Tributary streams are indicated by indention and are inserted between main-stem stations in the order in which they entey the main stream. To indicate the rank of any tributary on which a record is available and the stream to which it is immediately tributary, each indention in the listing of stations represents one rank.
    [Show full text]
  • Harpeth Watershed 22 Unnamed Tributaries to Little Harpeth River 23 Unnamed Tributary to Harpeth River Are Considered 24 Brown Creek 25 Murray Branch Impaired
    Our mission is to enhance the health and Cumberland River Compact enjoyment of the Cumberland River and its The Bridge Building tributaries through education, collaboration Two Victory Avenue, Suite 300 and action. Nashville, Tennessee 37213 615.837.1151 Our water. Our future. cumberlandrivercompact.org UV386 R!Goodlettsville 0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 ¤£31 UV235 Miles 12 ¤£431 UV k R! UV249 ee Cr ¤£41 R! Slayden e ¨¦§24 Ashland CityUV49 n ¤£31W ¤£31E o Hendersonville UV49 H! b ¤£41A w o Ü r 45 . UV Sumner Old r J R a ackie 45 Hickory hB M UV B et i County 49 r. rp g 65 C UV49 UV a B ¨¦§ Lake e e d t H C a h u r Su a m Vanleer g M n b a e C k a y r r R! e r n C l . e k ca r a 155 r ee mp n Cr. n UV C r B d Johnson C r. s R n 31W UV48 iv ¤£ £70N o e ¤ t Tu r. r r rni pseed C 431 41 UV155 a ¤£ ¤£ P k . 249 12 Mount Juliet e r UV UV B e e £31E Cr. r B ¤ UV49 a rs R! W b C k e o Br. lph e 155 n n u e UV Ha i p o ll B l u r r t a C r l dy s m S S . i Br. e d a ¤£41A am r c . tones n r r S s o Cheatham County 49 o a r UV B B 65 1 J § g ¨¦ J e % , r Charlotte .
    [Show full text]