DOCSLIB.ORG

Groundwater Quality in Watersheds of the Kentucky River, Salt River, Licking River, Big Sandy River, Little Sandy River, And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Groundwater Quality in Watersheds of the Kentucky River, Salt River, Licking River, Big Sandy River, Little Sandy River, And 1 Groundwater Quality in Watersheds of the Kentucky River, Salt River, Licking River, Big Sandy River, Little Sandy River, and Tygarts Creek (Kentucky Basin Management Units 1, 2, and 5) R. Stephen Fisher1 Bart Davidson1 Peter T. Goodmann2 Abstract The Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky, and the Kentucky Division of Water (of the Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet) are evaluating ground- water quality throughout the commonwealth to determine regional conditions, assess impacts of nonpoint-source pollutants, establish a basis for detecting changes, and provide essential informa- tion for environmental-protection and resource-management decisions. These evaluations are being conducted in stages. Under the Kentucky Watershed manage- ment Framework, Kentucky’s 12 major river basins and tributaries of the Ohio River were grouped into fi ve basin management units (BMU’s). A previous report summarized and evaluated ground- water quality in BMU 3 (watersheds of the Upper Cumberland River, Lower Cumberland River, Tennessee River, the Jackson Purchase Region, and adjacent Ohio River tributaries). That report is available on the KGS Web site (www.uky.edu/KGS/water/RI_15/). This report summarizes results of analyses of groundwater samples from wells and springs in BMU 1 (Kentucky River watershed and adjacent Ohio River tributaries), BMU 2 (Salt River and Licking River watersheds and adjacent Ohio River tributaries), and BMU 5 (Big Sandy River, Little Sandy River, and Tygarts Creek watersheds, and adjacent Ohio River tributaries). Analytical results for selected water properties, major and minor inorganic ions, metals, nu- trients, pesticides, and volatile organic chemicals were retrieved from the Kentucky Groundwater Data Repository. The repository is maintained by the Kentucky Geological Survey and contains reports received from the Division of Water’s Ambient Groundwater Monitoring Program as well as data from investigations by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, Kentucky Geological Survey, Kentucky Division of Pesticide Regu- lation, and other agencies. The Kentucky Division of Water provided water-quality standards. Statistics such as the number of measurements reported, the number of sites sampled, quartile con- centration values, and the number of sites at which water-quality standards were met or exceeded are used to summarize the data. Maps show sampled locations and sites where water-quality stan- dards were met or exceeded. Cumulative data plots are used to show concentration distributions 1Kentucky Geological Survey 2Kentucky Division of Water 2 Abstract in each basin management unit. Box-and-whisker diagrams compare values between physiographic regions, major watersheds, wells and springs, and total versus dissolved metal concentrations. Plots of analyte concentrations ver- sus well depth compare groundwater quality in shallow, intermediate, and deep groundwater fl ow systems. Table A1 summarizes the fi ndings. General water-quality properties, inorganic anions, and metals are pri- marily controlled by natural factors such as bedrock lithology. Some exceptionally high values of conductance, hardness, chloride, and sulfate may be affected by nearby oil and gas production or improperly sealed oil and gas wells, leaking waste-disposal systems, or other man-made factors, and some exceptionally low pH values probably result from acid mine drainage. Nitrate concentrations show a strong contribution from agricultural and waste-disposal practices, whereas orthophosphate and total phosphorus concentrations are largely determined Table A1. Summary of evidence for nonpoint-source impacts on groundwater quality in basin management units 1, 2, and 5. No Strong Evidence for Evidence for Some Evidence for Defi nite Parameter Widespread Nonpoint- Nonpoint-Source Impact Nonpoint-Source Impact Source Impact Conductance X Hardness X Water pH X Properties Total dissolved solids X Total suspended solids X Chloride X Inorganic Sulfate X Ions Fluoride X Arsenic X Barium X Metals Iron X Manganese X Mercury X Ammonia-nitrogen X Nitrate-nitrogen X Nutrients Nitrite-nitrogen X Orthophosphate X Total phosphorus X 2,4-D X Alachlor X Pesticides Atrazine X Cyanazine X Metolachlor X Simazine X Benzene X Volatile Ethylbenzene X Organic Toluene X Compounds Xylenes X MTBE X 1 Methyl tertiary-butyl ether Previous Investigations 3 by the chemical composition of limestone bedrock and coal strata. Synthetic organic chemicals such as pesticides and refi ned volatile organic compounds do not occur naturally in groundwater. Although these chemicals rarely exceed water-quality criteria in the project area, the detection of these man-made chemicals in springs and shallow wells indicates there has been some degradation of groundwater quality. Monitoring of these synthetic, potentially health-threatening chemicals should continue, and efforts to protect the groundwater resources from them should be a priority for the commonwealth of Kentucky. tors make replacing groundwater with surface-water Introduction supplies expensive or impractical in rural areas, and Purpose because some cities along the Ohio River are turning Evaluating groundwater quality is essential for to groundwater from alluvial deposits for urban water determining its suitability for various uses and the supplies. An estimated 400,000 Kentuckians will still sources of dissolved chemicals, and because regional depend on private, domestic water supplies in the year groundwater quality provides a sensitive indicator of 2020 (Kentucky Geological Survey, 1999). the general condition of the natural environment. This Both natural and man-made processes affect report summarizes groundwater quality in the north- groundwater quality. The major natural processes that eastern part of Kentucky (watersheds of the Kentucky contribute cations, anions, metals, nutrients, and sedi- River, Salt River, Licking River, Big Sandy River, Little ment to groundwater are dissolution of atmospheric Sandy River, and Tygarts Creek, and Ohio River tribu- gases as rain falls through the atmosphere, dissolution taries adjacent to those watersheds). Similar reports on of soil particles and physical transport of chemicals groundwater quality in the southwestern part of Ken- and sediment as rainfall fl ows across the land surface, tucky were previously completed (Fisher and others, dissolution of soil gases and reactions with inorganic 2004). and organic material in the soil zone above the water table, and reactions with gases, minerals, and organic Goals material beneath the water table. The goals of this report are to summarize regional Groundwater quality is also affected by human values for a group of groundwater-quality parameters activities that contribute synthetic organic chemicals and to determine whether nonpoint-source chemicals such as pesticides, fertilizers, and volatile organic com- have affected groundwater systems. The results identi- pounds, as well as cations, anions, metals, nutrients, fy natural and anomalous concentrations of dissolved and sediment, to the water system. Nearly all activities chemicals, show areas where nonpoint-source chemi- that threaten surface waters and aquatic ecosystems cals have entered the groundwater system and imple- also endanger groundwater systems. Agriculture, con- mentation of best management practices are needed, fi ned animal-feeding operations, forestry, mining, oil provide information for Kentucky Division of Water and gas production, waste disposal, and urban storm- watershed assessment reports, provide groundwater- water runoff can deliver pesticides, fertilizers, nutri- quality data to the DOW’s Groundwater Protection ents, metals, and hydrocarbons to groundwater. program, help the DOW’s Wellhead Protection pro- gram set priorities to protect areas and activities, and Previous Investigations provide critical information for long-term protection Numerous reports covering the study area or and management of water resources. nearby areas describe the hydrology, groundwater re- sources, and general water quality of the study area. Background Few address the issue of nonpoint-source contamina- Evaluating groundwater quality is particularly tion, however. In the 1960’s and early 1970’s, the U.S. important in Kentucky because groundwater use is Geological Survey published reconnaissance studies extensive and will continue to be so. The 1990 cen- of the geology, groundwater supplies, and general sus data and recent DOW estimates indicate that ap- groundwater quality in Kentucky. These reports in- proximately 60 percent of public water-supply compa- clude a Hydrologic Atlas series, which was made in nies use groundwater as a sole or contributing water conjunction with the Kentucky Geological Survey; source, more than 25 percent of the population uses each atlas covers from two to 10 counties across the groundwater for domestic purposes, and more than state (except in the Jackson Purchase area, which had 226 million gallons of groundwater are consumed dai- coverage for each 7.5-minute quadrangle). Each atlas ly by individuals, municipalities, utilities, businesses, includes three sheets showing geology, lithology, and and farms. Groundwater will continue to be important availability of groundwater. The atlases have been to Kentuckians because economic and logistical fac- 4 Project Area scanned and are currently available online (www.uky. The project area includes six of Kentucky’s phys- edu/KGS/water/library/USGSHA.html).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 57/Friday, March 25, 2005/Rules
    15228 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 57 / Friday, March 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Impact Statement is not required. The David B. Olson, Headquarters EA may be reviewed by contacting the Department of the Army; Corps of Regulatory Branch, Washington, DC at District office listed at the end of the Engineers (202) 761–4922, or Ms. Amy S. Babey, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, section, above. 33 CFR Part 334 at (502) 315–6691. d. Unfunded Mandates Act SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant United States Army Danger Zone; Salt This rule does not impose an River, Rolling Fork River, and Otter to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat enforceable duty among the private Creek; U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Knox sector and, therefore, is not a Federal Military Reservation; Fort Knox, KY 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX, of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 private sector mandate and is not AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (40 Stat 892; 33 U.S.C. 3) the Corps is subject to the requirements of Section DoD. amending the danger zone regulations 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates ACTION: Final rule. in 33 CFR part 334 by adding Section Act. We have also found under Section 334.855, which establishes a danger 203 of the Act, that small governments SUMMARY: The Corps of Engineers is zone in the navigable portions of Salt would not be significantly and uniquely amending its regulations to establish a River and Rolling Fork River, and non- affected by this rulemaking.
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary Ecological Study of Areas to Be Impounded in the Salt River Basin of Kentucky Digital Object Identifier
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge KWRRI Research Reports Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute 9-1971 A Preliminary Ecological Study of Areas to be Impounded in the Salt River Basin of Kentucky Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13023/kwrri.rr.43 Louis A. Krumholz University of Louisville Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits oy u. Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kwrri_reports Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Repository Citation Krumholz, Louis A., "A Preliminary Ecological Study of Areas to be Impounded in the Salt River Basin of Kentucky" (1971). KWRRI Research Reports. 152. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kwrri_reports/152 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in KWRRI Research Reports by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Research Report No. 43 A PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL STUDY OF AREAS TO BE IMPOUNDED IN THE SALT RIVER BASIN OF KENTUCKY Dr. Louis A. Krumholz Principal Investigator Project Number B-005-KY Agreement Number 14-01-0001-1908 Technical Research Project Completion Report University of Louisville Water Resources Laboratory Louisville, Kentucky 40208 Tbe work on which this report is based was supported in part by funds provided by the Office of Water Resources Research, United States Depart­ ment of the Interior, as authorized under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964. September 19 71 ABSTRACT This report covers work that is an extension of Project No.
    [Show full text]
  • January 2021
    January 2021 Holly Hill 21 January 2021 Purchasing Manager Kenton County Fiscal Court 1840 Simon Kenton Way Covington, KY 41011 RE: Licking River Blue Water Trail Study Ms. Hill, Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Copperhead) is pleased to submit the attached proposal to analyze approximately 122 miles of river and stream associated with the Licking River from Paris, Kentucky to the Ohio River to evaluate the potential for outdoor recreation and tourism. We have assembled a team of biologists, GIS specialists, archeologists, economic developers, recreational specialists, planners, and watershed specialists to support this project. Along with Copperhead biologists, planners, and writers, we have partnered with Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. for archeological and historical services, EHI Consultants to support economic analyses and plan development, OutrageGIS Mapping to support mapping, and the University of Kentucky to develop initial outreach products for this project. Our multi-faceted expertise makes us ideally suited to serve your environmental service needs. The following document outlines select project experience examples and implementation plans. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or clarifications needed. Sincerely, Marty Marchaterre Environmental Planner (859) 684-9387 [email protected] OVERVIEW Kentucky’s natural resources are a tourism draw for residents of the Commonwealth and visitors alike. The Licking River watershed is home to navigable waters, interesting plant and animal species, attractive geological features, fascinating historical and archeological stories, and an overall natural beauty. The Licking River, along with the South Fork of the Licking River and Stoner Creek from Paris, Kentucky to the Ohio River near Cincinnati, Ohio (hereafter referred to as the Study Corridor), has the potential to be promoted for outdoor recreation and tourism through fishing, boating, bird watching, heritage tourism, and educational opportunities, to name a few.
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork of the Licking River Rapid Watershed Assessment
    South Fork of the Licking River Rapid Watershed Assessment Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) 05100102 October 2008 USDA-NRCS, Lexington, Kentucky South Fork of the Licking River near Cynthiana, KY Photo: Tom Leith, USDA Kentucky Rapid Watershed Assessment, 2008_______________________________________________________Page 1 of 36 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………….3 Geology and Soils……………………………………………………………………5 Threatened and Endangered Species………………………………………………6 Land Use/Land Cover……………………………………………………………….7 County Data………………………………………………………………………… 9 Stakeholder Participation and Conservation Needs…………………………….. 10 Prime Farmland Soils……………………………………………………………... 13 Highly Erodible Land………………………………………………………………15 Hay and Pasturelands……………………………………………………………... 16 Croplands…………………………………………………………………………... 17 Hydric Soils………………………………………………………………………… 19 Wildlife Priority Conservation Areas…………………………………………….. 21 Water Resources…………………………………………………………………… 23 List of Impaired Streams………………………………………………………….. 26 Sinkholes…………………………………………………………………………….28 Demographics……………………………………………………………………… 29 NRCS Conservation Program Data…………………………………………..….. 30 References…………………………………………………………………………..34 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) Suite 210, 771 Corporate Drive, Lexington, KY 40503 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,
    [Show full text]
  • Profiles for Counties in the Licking
    Major Licking River Watershed County Profiles The Licking River Watershed or River Basin physically includes Magoffin*, Morgan*, Rowan*, Bath*, Fleming*, Bourbon, Harrison*, Nicholas*, Robertson*, the majority of Pendleton*, and parts of Menifee*, Montgomery, Clark, Elliott, Lewis, Mason, Bracken, Campbell*, Kenton*, Boone, and Grant counties.1 The Licking River Region report also includes Gallatin and a portion of Carroll counties. Hinkston and Stoner Creeks join in Bourbon County to form the South Fork of the Licking River which joins the main stem in Falmouth. The North Fork joins the Licking River near Sunrise, north of Claysville, in Harrison County, around its northern border with Pendleton County. The North Fork forms the border between Bracken and Robertson counties. The Licking River was officially discovered by Thomas Walker in June of 1750 who named it Frederick’s River. The Native Americans called it Nepernine and used the river to transport goods for trade and to travel to the central Kentucky grassland areas for hunting. Charles Kerr’s History of Kentucky (1922) says that the Licking means “land with springs and meadows.” An earlier name, Great Salt Lick Creek, referred to the salt licks along the river. The Licking River was first officially surveyed in 1835. The Licking River is noted to be 320 miles long. The Licking River was an important route of transportation for timber operations that floated logs down the river to Covington. Cave Run Lake, the only impoundment on the river, was formed in 1974. It has a summer pool of approximately 8,200 acres. Cave Run Lake is one of the most productive muskie fisheries in the Eastern United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Condition of the Salt River Watershed, Kentucky, Floyds Fork and the Minor Ohio River Tributaries in the Area November 1998 Upper Salt River
    State of the River A report on the condition of the Salt River watershed, Kentucky, Floyds Fork and the minor Ohio River tributaries in the area November 1998 Upper Salt River Lower Salt River INSIDE wThe Salt River Watershed and minor Ohio River tributaries wWhat is the water quality? wWhat are the Rolling Fork primary concerns? wWhat can be done? What is a watershed? Streams No matter where you live, work, or play, you are in a Streams relatively little impact on the waters within the watershed. watershed. A watershed is a geographic area where all water However, a poorly managed forest that is harvested for lumber running off the land drains to a specific location. This location may impact the watershed through soil erosion from logging Divide Minor Drainage divide may be a stream, river, lake, wetland, or ocean; or the water Watershed for larger roads. may drain underground into the groundwater. You may live on Watershed a creek, which is considered a small watershed. Your creek may Residential land includes small communities and suburban areas join a river, which is a larger watershed. The river may have many of homes. Land disturbance during construction as well as land smaller creeks, known as tributaries, that drain into it and each of changes affect the hydrology of streams. Many homes depend these tributaries has a small watershed associated with it, and each on septic tanks which are sources of bacteria, pathogens, and is part of the larger watershed of the river. nutrients. Chemicals applied to lawns, trees and shrubs by homeowners, such as fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides, are Groundwater carried off by stormwater and may harm the quality of the water in How does land use affect the watershed? (Aquifer) the creeks or harm the animals and plants in the creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Bullitt County
    Western Kentucky University TopSCHOLAR® Bullitt ounC ty Industrial Reports for Kentucky Counties 1980 Industrial Resources: Bullitt ounC ty - Shepherdsville, Mt. Washington, and Lebanon Junction Kentucky Library Research Collections Western Kentucky University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/bullitt_cty Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Growth and Development Commons, and the Infrastructure Commons Recommended Citation Kentucky Library Research Collections, "Industrial Resources: Bullitt ounC ty - Shepherdsville, Mt. Washington, and Lebanon Junction" (1980). Bullitt County. Paper 8. https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/bullitt_cty/8 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bullitt ounC ty by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact [email protected]. j-f". oa.il'L'c 1 INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES tuiiirr covNrr EPARTMENT OF COMMERCE For more information contact Ronald Florence, Bullitt County Chamber Industrial Sites—1980 of Commerce, P. 0. Box 485, Shepherdsville, Kentucky 40165, or the Kentucky Department of Commerce, Industrial Development Division, Shepherdsville, Capital Plaza Tower, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. Kentucky i/K '-J Water Tank 50.000 gall Tract I • 80 acres. \/'>^ --iSem I V/% V/'-' i SerVjjje 1// ^*2 FacllHies ^ Site 280 Site 180 w Tract 11 - 70 Acres// *5/0 II Gem Static t HANGEfS Shephferd Site 180 - 87 Acres LOCATION; Partially within
    [Show full text]
  • Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843
    Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843 Ohio Historical Society www.ohiohistory.org $4.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS Historical Background 03 Trails and Settlements 03 Shelters and Dwellings 04 Clothing and Dress 07 Arts and Crafts 08 Religions 09 Medicine 10 Agriculture, Hunting, and Fishing 11 The Fur Trade 12 Five Major Tribes of Ohio 13 Adapting Each Other’s Ways 16 Removal of the American Indian 18 Ohio Historical Society Indian Sites 20 Ohio Historical Marker Sites 20 Timeline 32 Glossary 36 The Ohio Historical Society 1982 Velma Avenue Columbus, OH 43211 2 Ohio Historical Society www.ohiohistory.org Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In Ohio, the last of the prehistoric Indians, the Erie and the Fort Ancient people, were destroyed or driven away by the Iroquois about 1655. Some ethnologists believe the Shawnee descended from the Fort Ancient people. The Shawnees were wanderers, who lived in many places in the south. They became associated closely with the Delaware in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Able fighters, the Shawnees stubbornly resisted white pressures until the Treaty of Greene Ville in 1795. At the time of the arrival of the European explorers on the shores of the North American continent, the American Indians were living in a network of highly developed cultures. Each group lived in similar housing, wore similar clothing, ate similar food, and enjoyed similar tribal life. In the geographical northeastern part of North America, the principal American Indian tribes were: Abittibi, Abenaki, Algonquin, Beothuk, Cayuga, Chippewa, Delaware, Eastern Cree, Erie, Forest Potawatomi, Huron, Iroquois, Illinois, Kickapoo, Mohicans, Maliseet, Massachusetts, Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mississauga, Mohawk, Montagnais, Munsee, Muskekowug, Nanticoke, Narragansett, Naskapi, Neutral, Nipissing, Ojibwa, Oneida, Onondaga, Ottawa, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, Peoria, Pequot, Piankashaw, Prairie Potawatomi, Sauk-Fox, Seneca, Susquehanna, Swamp-Cree, Tuscarora, Winnebago, and Wyandot.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix K-1 – Endangered Species Habitat and Wildlife Technical Report
    I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX K-1 Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report Clarification Note for Central Alternative 1: Central Alternatives 1A and 1B as described in the DEIS are physically the same alternative. The only difference between them is that Central Alternative 1A would include tolls on both the new I-69 bridge and on the US 41 bridge. Central Alternative 1B would only include tolls on the new I-69 bridge. Any reference in this document to Central Alternative 1 applies to both Central Alternative 1A and Central Alternative 1B. Appendices October 15 , 2018 (1'$1*(5('7+5($7(1(' $1'5$5(63(&,(6+$%,7$7 $66(660(17 $1':,/'/,)( 7( CHNICAL 5(3257 I-69I-69 O OHIOHI O RRIVERIVER CCROSSINGROSS IN G PPROJECTROJ ECT Evansville, IN and Henderson, KY I N D O T Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project Evansville, IN and Henderson, KY Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project ETR Species Habitat Assessment and Wildlife Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1-1 West Alternative 1 ............................................................................................. 1-4 West Alternative 2 ............................................................................................. 1-6 Central Alternative 1 .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Catalog of Hydrologic Units in Kentucky
    James C. Cobb, State Director and Geologist Kentucky Geological Survey UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY CATALOG OF HYDROLOGIC UNITS IN KENTUCKY Daniel I. Carey 2003 CONTENTS HYDROLOGIC UNITS.............................................................................................................................................................................4 Ohio River Basin - Region 05 (38,080 sq. mi.)..........................................................................................................................................5 Big Sandy River Basin - Subregion 0507 (2,290 sq. mi.) ......................................................................................................................5 Big Sandy River - Accounting Unit 050702 (2,290 sq. mi.)...........................................................................................................5 Big Sandy River - Catalog Unit 05070201 (478 sq. mi.) ..............................................................................................................5 Upper Levisa Fork - Catalog Unit 05070202 (359 sq. mi.).........................................................................................................7 Levisa Fork - Catalog Unit 05070203 (1,116 sq. mi.)...............................................................................................................12 Big Sandy River, Blaine Creek - Catalog Unit 05070204 (337 sq. mi.).......................................................................................18 Tygarts Creek, Little Sandy River,
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of March 1964 Along the Ohio River
    Floods of March 1964 Along the Ohio River GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1840-A Prepared in cooperation with the States of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and with agencies of the Federal Government Floods of March 1964 Along the Ohio River By H. C. BEABER and J. O. ROSTVEDT FLOODS OF 1964 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1840-A Prepared in cooperation with the States of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and with agencies of the Federal Government UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 65 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract ------------------------------------------------------- Al Introduction.______-_-______--_____--__--_--___-_--__-_-__-__-____ 1 The storms.__---_------------__------------------------_----_--_- 6 The floods.___-__.______--____-._____.__ ._-__-.....__._____ 8 Pennsylvania.. _._-.------._-_-----___-__---_-___-_--_ ..___ 8 West Virginia.--.-._____--_--____--_-----_-----_---__--_-_-__- 11 Ohio.-.------.---_-_-_.__--_-._---__.____.-__._--..____ 11 Muskingum River basin._---___-__---___---________________ 11 Hocking River basin_______________________________________ 12 Scioto River basin______.__________________________________ 13 Little Miami River basin.__-____-_.___._-._____________.__. 13 Kentucky._.__.___.___---___----_------_--_-______-___-_-_-__
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the Potential of Hydroelectric Power in Kentucky
    An Analysis of the Potential of Hydroelectric Power in Kentucky A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the College of Science and Technology Morehead State University In Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Science Morehead State University by Terry White June 15, 2007 J T\ ) VI ~ I rlC-.)C:-} 3 3 3. 9 /'-; W 5 880..; Accepted by the faculty of the College of Science and Technology, Morehead State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science degree. l'lLJ z~rJ <11'i Director of Thesis Master's Committee: A ~~ ZQ rf e:Jr/ , Chair u Date An Analysis of Hydroelectric Power in Kentucky Terry White Morehead State University 2007 Director of Thesis: J:J/1'11 t1-J. zar 1CK ft J ABSTRACT Problem Statement The research presented in this thesis attempted to explore the possible use of hydropower as an alternative energy resource for the local area of Morehead, Kentucky and for the state of Kentucky in order to provide a possible alternative to the continued dependence on fossil fuels. This study attempted to analyze the potential energy of hydropower if it were implemented at the Triplett Creek Dam, the Cave Run Lake Dam, and at a total of various sites across the state of Kentucky. Methodology The researcher utilized different methods of analysis to address each of the four research questions. The first step in the assessment of the potential of a hydroelectric system was to determine the amount of obtainable power at all of the potential sites.
    [Show full text]