View
6
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF COAL MINING IMPACTS ON EASTERN KENTUCKY WATERSHEDS
Downstream Strategies, LLC 219 Wall Street Morgantown, WV 26505 (304) 292-2450 www.downstreamstrategies.com
Downstream Strategies provides science, research, and tools to organizations, businesses, and agencies. We offer clients an alternative to mainstream environmental consulting by combining sound interdisciplinary skills with a core belief in the importance of protecting the environment and linking economic development with natural resource stewardship.
Kentucky Waterways Alliance 120 Webster Street, Suite 217 Louisville, KY 40206 (502) 589-8008 www.KWAlliance.org
The Kentucky Waterways Alliance (KWA) is a nonprofit, membership organization recognized as tax exempt under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. KWA is a statewide organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the waters of the Commonwealth. KWA represents many members and affiliate organizations united to insure high quality water resources in Kentucky for diverse recreational activities such as swimming, boating, and fishing as well as reliable drinking water supplies and biological habitat.
This project was made possible in part by a grant from The Clean Water Network
The Clean Water Network 218 D Street SE Washington, DC 20003 (202) 547-4208 www.cleanwaternetwork.org
The Clean Water Network (CWN) is a coalition of more than 1,200 public interest organizations across the country, representing more than 5 million people working together to strengthen and implement federal clean water and wetland policy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 5
2. DATA ................................................................................................................................................................... 6
3. METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
5. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 10
APPENDIX A: DATA ............................................................................................................................................... 11
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 STREAMS AND WATERSHEDS ................................................................................................................................... 11 MINING DATA .......................................................................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX B: METHODS ...................................................................................................................................... 13
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 DATA PREPARATION FOR ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 13 INTERSECTION OF WATERSHED BOUNDARIES AND STREAMS WITH MINING DATA .................................................. 14
APPENDIX C: MAPS………………………………………………………………………………………………15 I. Minimum and Maximum Mine Impact Area in all HUC 6 Watersheds II. Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Upper Cumberland Watershed III. Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Middle Ohio – Raccoon Watershed IV. Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Licking Watershed V. Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Kentucky Watershed VI. Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Big Sandy Watershed VII. Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Upper Cumberland Watershed VIII. Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Middle Ohio – Raccoon Watershed IX. Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Licking Watershed X. Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Kentucky Watershed XI. Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Big Sandy Watershed XII. Greater than 50% Stream Impact in HUC 14 Watershed - Estimated Maximum
Impact in all HUC 6 Watersheds
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary Results by Watershed ....................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Summary Results by Watershed Percentage (shown as a percentage of totals) ............... 8 Table 3: Greater than 50% Impact to Streams per HUC 14 watershed .......................................... 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Study Area ....................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Analysis Data .................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3: Mining Impact Data in Study .......................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Impacted streams symbolized by HUC 14 boundaries in the Big Sandy Watershed ...... 7
ABBREVIATIONS
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code NHD National Hydrography Dataset OSM Office of Surface Mining GIS Geographic Information System KOMSL Kentucky Office of Mine Safety and Licensing KYDR Kentucky Department of Revenue KYGEONET Kentucky Division of Geographic Information PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
1. INTRODUCTION Surface coal mining has historically been and continues to be a prevalent industry in the eastern coalfields of Kentucky. Surface mining methods of coal extraction impact the land, air, water, watersheds, local communities and public health.
The Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia: Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) concluded that mountaintop mining and valley fill operations have significantly impacted eastern Kentucky’s waterways and landscape. Kentucky has the distinction of having 60% of the direct stream impacts associated with mountaintop mining and valley fill operations in Appalachia. When the valley fill inventory is evaluated in terms of calculated miles of streams buried under valley fills, generally headwater streams; Kentucky again has the distinction of having the most in Appalachia. The miles of headwater streams being filled in Kentucky are approximately 1.5 times greater than any other state in Appalachia. As continuous Integrated Reports to Congress on Water Quality in Kentucky clearly indicate, Kentucky has not adequately protected the water resources of eastern Kentucky from the degrading impacts associated with mountaintop coal mining operations.
When overburden is cleared or the surface is impacted in order to extract coal, those impacts to the watershed can be calculated based on area and proximity to certain sensitive features. Using publicly accessible data, this report uses GIS to model, quantify, and report those impacts.
Figure 1: Study Area
5
2. DATA
Figure 2: Analysis Data
Surface Mining
Impact Data
Stream Network
HUC 14 Boundaries
Stream networks and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 14 boundaries have been drawn from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). The above graphics illustrate these data layers for the Big Sandy watershed. Surface mining data, shown in the third graphic, has been compiled by combining geographic information system (GIS) datasets from three agencies: the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM), the Kentucky Office of Mine Safety and Licensing (KOMSL), and the Kentucky Department of Revenue (KYDR).
Figure 3: Mining Impact Data in Study
6
3. METHODS Using these data layers, GIS software (ARCMAP 9.2, ESRI) was used to calculate the minimum and maximum cumulative impacts of past and present surface mining on streams and land at various watershed scales. The following two graphics, for example, use color shading to illustrate the percent of impacted stream length and the percent of impacted land area for each HUC 14 subwatershed in the Big Sandy watershed.
Percent of stream impacts was calculated based on the total length of streams within each HUC 14 subwatershed. In addition, total acreage within a HUC 14 watershed boundary was also calculated, therefore determining percentage of impacted areas. This method of analysis presents a cumulative effect of stream and land impacts within a given watershed.
More detailed information on data sources and analysis techniques are outlined in the Data and Methods section of the Appendix.
Figure 4: Impacted streams symbolized by HUC 14 boundaries in the Big Sandy Watershed
Percent of Impacted Streams
Percent of Impacted
Land
7
4. RESULTS The tables listed below identify the impacts to streams and land. Each major (HUC 6) watershed is listed in a table by the minimum and the maximum amount of impact. Maps provided in Appendix C display a variety of ways to graphical depict the impacts and results.
Table 1: Summary Results by Watershed
HUC 6 Watershed ( with HUC 6 ID Number)
Minimum Impact Area
(Acres)
Maximum Impact Area
(Acres)
Minimum Stream Impact (Miles)
Maximum Stream Impact (Miles)
Big Sandy-Guyandotte-050702 71,289 227,221 41 72
Cumberland-051301 26,963 126,905 23 51
Licking-051001 4,335 13,219 2 3
Kentucky-051002 84,179 225,460 46 80
Middle Ohio-050901 4,530 4,725 3 5
Table 2: Summary Results by Watershed Percentage (shown as a percentage of totals)
HUC 6 Watershed Minimum Impact Area
Maximum Impact Area
Minimum Stream Impact
Maximum Stream Impact
Big Sandy-Guyandotte-050702 4.9% 15.5% 1.0% 1.7%
Cumberland-051301 0.8% 3.8% 0.3% 0.6%
Licking-051001 0.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%
Kentucky-051002 3.5% 9.5% 0.6% 1.1%
Middle Ohio-050901 0.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2%
8
Listed in the following table are the HUC 14 subwatersheds within the larger HUC 8 and HUC 6 watersheds that have a greater than 50% impact to streams based on the maximum mine impact dataset. Also listed in the table are the minimum and maximum surface impacts to each subwatershed. The table illustrates the correlation between the data quality and the impact results. Cells highlighted in red are greater than 50% impacted by the maximum mine impact and the minimum impact is within 30% of the maximum impact. This correlation helps define the potential for actual impact to land and streams. Conversely, the data illustrate the discrepancies between the minimum and maximum impact data sets. For example, Stonecoal Branch has a maximum land impact of 94.1%, but only a 2.2% minimum impact. The overview highlights the limitations of the data analysis and the need for refined mining information and spatial data.
Table 3: Greater than 50% Impact to Streams per HUC 14 watershed
HUC 6 Watershed HUC 8 Watershed HUC 14 Watershed
Minimum Impact Area
Maximum Impact Area
Minimum Stream Impact
Maximum Stream Impact
Big Sandy
Tug. Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia.
Dotson Fork 48.1% 54.6% 59.3% 59.3%
Left Fork of Petercave Fork 25.1% 72.7% 92.1% 92.1%
Pawpaw Creek 7.2% 79.7% 37.3% 68.1%
Upper Levisa. Kentucky, Virginia. Grape Branch 26.8% 48.9% 52.7% 63.9%
Lower Levisa. Kentucky.
Doty Branch 2.2% 83.8% 0.0% 55.7%
Long Branch 69.9% 72.2% 75.0% 75.0%
Stonecoal Branch 2.2% 94.1% 0.0% 56.6%
Kentucky North Fork Kentucky. Kentucky.
Hurricane Branch 43.9% 83.5% 49.4% 67.1%
Left Fork of Elk Fork 9.3% 82.7% 0.0% 50.2%
Little Creek 3.8% 94.6% 16.4% 54.1%
Quillen Fork 0.3% 97.5% 0.0% 69.6%
Right Fork of Clover Fork 20.4% 73.6% 64.1% 64.1%
Left Fork of Lewis Creek 32.2% 80.5% 25.0% 53.2%
Upper Cumberland
Upper Cumberland. Kentucky, Tennessee.
Gap Branch 0.0% 85.8% 0.0% 68.1%
Right Fork of Cranks Creek 0.0% 94.7% 0.0% 51.7%
Wieser Branch 0.7% 69.6% 3.8% 50.5%
9
5. RECOMMENDATIONS This analysis was performed in the eastern coalfields of Kentucky to gain a greater understanding of the amount of surface damage and stream impacts that are caused by surface mining activities. The analysis utilized the best publicly available data. Data gaps, lack of detailed metadata, and spatial accuracy are all data limitations that can have an undesired affect on analysis results.
The data provide an overview of community impacts of surface mining in the eastern coalfields of Kentucky. The power of this research lies within the detailed examination of resources in a given watershed. In addition to the data tables and maps provided in this report, geo-spatial data has been generated to provide the ability to analyze impacts within specific streams and watersheds in the future.
10
APPENDIX A: DATA
Introduction
The data used in this analysis came from varying sources, from the federal to the state level. All the datasets were created by the given government agency, as detailed in the following sections. No data were created or digitized for the purpose of this analysis.
Streams and Watersheds
A. Streams. Streams used for the GIS analysis from the USGS National Hydrography High Resolution Dataset (NHD) (http://nhd.usgs.gov/) on March 25, 2008. Stream data were extracted from this dataset, using 1:24,000 or 1:12,000-scale data (the NHD flowline component of the dataset). NHD standards can be found at http://mapping.usgs.gov/standards/. Streams were then clipped based on watershed and subwatershed boundaries. No other modifications were made to the stream data. The data reported here include intermittent and perennial streams as well as NHD “connector” and NHD “artificial path” segments.
B. Watersheds. The watershed boundaries were downloaded from the Kentucky Division of Geographic Information (KYGEONET) (http://kygeonet.ky.gov/) on March 25, 2008. The HUC 14 watershed boundaries were extracted from the HUC 14 data layer in the KYGEONET geo-database.
Mining Data
A. Mined Out Areas. Composite Mined Out Areas in NAD83 Single Zone State Plane (KY1Z) were downloaded from the Kentucky Mine Mapping Information System (KYMMIS) (http://minemaps.ky.gov/ftpdownload.htm?image.x=59&image.y=34) on March 25, 2008. The metadata that accompanied the dataset are limited. According to KOMSL staff, the data was created from existing mine maps scanned and georeferenced by the KOMSL office, then sent to KYDR, where that staff digitized the GIS data and made it available to the public via the KYMMIS website. Only mined areas have been digitized, broken down by the type of mining activity: surface, auger, or underground. The data type field also lists a significant amount of unknown mining types; according to the KYDMP, no effort by the KYMMIS, KOMSL or the KYDR is being made to update the unknown status. This dataset was created to show areas that have been mined, so exploration opportunities can be investigated in the future.
1. Mined Out Areas from surface mines (not including Unknown type of mining). As stated above the Mined Out Areas dataset lists several types of mining activities. For analysis purposes, a subset of these data that includes only the surface and auger mining activities were created. This dataset represents the minimum amount of surface mining activity from this dataset that would have taken place.
11
2. Mined Out Areas from surface mines (including Unknown type of mining). A second subset of data was created that includes the surface, auger, and unknown mining activities. This dataset represents the maximum amount of surface mining activity from this dataset that would have taken place.
B. Valley Fill Areas. After discussions with KOMSL staff on November 9, 2007, this project was directed to the regional Office of Surface Mining (OSM) in Lexington, Kentucky. The OSM had additional valley fill data that were used in various reports. On November 10, 2007, OSM supplied the data via a mailed CD. These valley fills are all known to be associated with surface mines. The data are digitized polygons of valley fill areas in Kentucky. OSM staff stated that the data was used in the “Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia: Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Final PEIS)” report. (http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm).
12
APPENDIX B: METHODS
Introduction
The methods described here utilized ArcGIS standard toolsets. These toolsets and models are listed in this section and help explain the processes with which the analysis was undertaken.
Data Preparation for Analysis
The data that were used for the analysis were reformatted to ensure quality reporting. The preparation and data reformatting are listed below.
A. Mining data. As stated earlier, the mined out datasets had a type field which indicated mining activity status for each digitized polygon. The type field was queried to exclude any underground mining activity. However, there are a significant amount of “unknown” data types. Two datasets were created from the single data source. In addition, the valley fill data were merged with the mined out areas data set to create a single data set of surface mining activity. Listed below are the final two datasets used in the analysis.
1. Mining impact minimum: This dataset combines the mined out areas from surface mining (not including unknown type of mining) dataset with the valley fill areas dataset. This dataset represents the minimum amount of surface mining activity that would have taken place in the watershed.
2. Mining impact areas maximum: This dataset combines the mined out areas from surface mining (not including unknown type of mining) dataset with the valley fill areas dataset. This dataset represents the maximum amount of surface mining activity that would have taken place in the watershed.
Mined out areas maximum
Mined out areas minimum Raw Data
Yellow: Mined out areas excluding unknowns and underground types Orange: Mined out areas including unknowns and excluding underground Green: Valley fill data
13
3. Streams and watersheds. The data were reviewed to ensure a broad level of quality assurance and to make the analysis easier for reporting. To ensure that each reach is unique and no miscalculation of reach length occurred, the length field was dissolved so that each reach code was unique to the dataset. A recalculation of stream length and watershed area was completed to ensure a consistency of measurement with the analysis.
Intersection of Watershed Boundaries and Streams with Mining Data
A. Stream impacts. Impacts were calculated by intersecting the two mining data sets with the stream network. The resulting intersected dataset provided stream impact length, which was used to derive the percentage of impacted reaches and the ability to summarize the data by HUC 14 subwatershed areas. B. Land impacts. Impacts were calculated by intersecting the two mining data sets with the HUC 14 boundaries. The resulting intersected dataset provided land acreage impact, which was used to derive percentage of surface impact to HUC 14 subwatershed areas.
14
15
APPENDIX C: MAPS
I. Minimum and Maximum Mine Impact Area in all HUC 6 Watersheds
II. Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the Upper Cumberland Watershed
III. Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Middle Ohio – Raccoon Watershed
IV. Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the Licking Watershed
V. Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Kentucky Watershed
VI. Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the Big Sandy Watershed
VII. Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Upper Cumberland Watershed
VIII. Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the Middle Ohio – Raccoon Watershed
IX. Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Licking Watershed
X. Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the Kentucky Watershed
XI. Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed) in the
Big Sandy Watershed
XII. Greater than 50% Stream Impact in HUC 14 Watershed - Estimated Maximum Impact in all HUC 6 Watersheds
Chaplin River
Red River
Kentucky River
North Fork Licking River
Salt River
Tug Fork
V i r g i n i a
W e s tV i r g i n i a
T e n n e s s e e
O h i oI n d i a n a
OhioRiverOhio
River
LakeCumberland
DaleHollowLake
OhioRiver
U p p e rU p p e rC u m b e r l a n dC u m b e r l a n dW a t e r s h e dW a t e r s h e d
M i d d l e O h i o -M i d d l e O h i o -R a c c o o nR a c c o o n
W a t e r s h e dW a t e r s h e d
M i d d l e O h i o - L i t t l e M i a m i W a t e r s h e dM i d d l e O h i o - L i t t l e M i a m i W a t e r s h e d
L o w e rL o w e rO h i o - S a l tO h i o - S a l t
W a t e r s h e dW a t e r s h e d
L i c k i n gL i c k i n gW a t e r s h e dW a t e r s h e d
K e n t u c k yK e n t u c k yW a t e r s h e dW a t e r s h e d
G r e e nG r e e nW a t e r s h e dW a t e r s h e d
B i g S a n d yB i g S a n d yW a t e r s h e dW a t e r s h e d
Minimum Mine Impact AreaMaximum Mine Impact AreaHUC 6 Watershed Boundary
Ch apli n R iver
Red River
Ro ll ing Fork
Ke ntu ck y Ri ver
Sal t Ri ver
L ic k ing R ive r
Fl oyd
s For k
Buck Cre ekRockcast le R ive r
Lick Creek
Russ ell Creek
Beech F ork
S la t e Cr
eek
C l inch River
Green R ive r
Cumberland R iver
East Fork
Obey R ive r
Dix River
South E lkhorn Cr eek
Dadd
ys Creek
New Ri ve
r
South F or k
Ken tucky River
C lear C reek
Blaine
Creek
N or th Fork Ken tucky Rive rH in kston Creek
Cane
y Fork
B ig Pitman Creek
Bull run Cre ek
Midd le Fork Ke ntucky River
Poor F ork Cumberland River
Si lv er Cree k
Troublesome C reekNorth Elkhorn Cre ek
Red B ird Riv er
Calfk
il le
r Rive r Beave r Cree kObed River
S tone r
Cree
k
L i tt le
South Fork
N ol ichucky R ive r
Poplar C reek
Righ t Fo rk B eav er Cr eek
Fa l l ing Water River
Qu icksand Creek
Hols to
n River
Stu r
g eon
C ree
k
Pi tm
a n Creek
Wes
t For
k Ob
e y Ri
v er
Han g
ing F o
rk C reek
Cle
ar Fork
Pigeo n River
Ri chland Creek
Sou th Fo rk L i ttl e Ba r ren Rive r
Pain t L ick Cre ek
Le ft F or k Bea ver C reek
M udd
y Cr
eek
Litt l
e Fo
r k Li
tt le
San d
y Ri
v er
Beec
h Creek
South Fork Li ck ing R iver
Roar ing Ri ver
Wallen Cree k
Line Fork
Eas t Fo rk Li t t le Bar re n Riv er
Lau re l R iver
Guis t
Cree
k
S t ra igh t Creek
Wol f River
Cutsh in Cree k
S outh Fork Rockca stle R iver
South For k Station Camp Creek
Fox Cree
k
G reasy Creek
Spring CreekHard ins C ree k
Fish
ing
Cree
k
G oose Creek
Stink
ing Creek
Bulls
kin C r
eek
Powell Rive r
Sout
h Fo
rk C u
mberl
and Ri ve
r
Je ll ico C reek
Rock Cre ek
French Broad Rive r
B lackwat er Creek
Elk For k Creek
DouglasLakeClear
Creek
CherokeeLake
Black FoxCreek
PowellRiver
HinesCreek
LakeCumberland
DaleHollowLake
OhioRiver
Upper Cumberland Watershed
[North
Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed)
Less than 1% - 3%
4% - 10%
11% - 23%
24% - 46%
47% - 92% HUC 6 Boundary
HUC 14 BoundaryPrepared by Downstream Strategies - GIS Solutions
*Refer to supplementary report for data source and explanation
Percent of Stream Impacts
Eastern Coalfields of Kentucky Mine Impact Analysis
0 9 18 274.5Miles
No Impact
Tygarts Creek
Blaine Creek
East F o r k Li tt le
Sa ndy R ive r
P ine Cr eek
Little
Fork
Litt le
San d
y River
Little
S and
y Rive
r
Kinn
ic on ick Creek
Big Sa nd y R i v er
OhioRiver
Middle Ohio-Raccoon Watershed
[North
Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed)
Less than 1% - 3%
4% - 10%
11% - 23%
24% - 46%
47% - 92% HUC 6 Boundary
HUC 14 BoundaryPrepared by Downstream Strategies - GIS Solutions
*Refer to supplementary report for data source and explanation
Percent of Stream Impacts
Eastern Coalfields of Kentucky Mine Impact Analysis
0 2.5 5 7.51.25Miles
No Impact
Red River
North Fork L icki ng R iver
Tyga
r ts C re e
k
L icking River
S la t
e C r
eek
North Fork Kentucky R iver
Hinks to n Cre ek
Si lver C ree kNorth E lkhor n
Creek
Kentucky River
Stoner Creek
Qu icksand Creek
South Elkhor n
Creek
F lemi
ng Cr
eek
O h io B r
ush
C ree
k
Pai n t L ick Cree k
Mud dy Cre ek
White O
ak Cr
eek
Dix RiverL it
tle F o
r k Lit
t le S a
ndy
R ive
r
K innicon ick C re ek
South Fork L icking Ri ver
Fox Creek L it
tl e Sa
ndy Rive
r
M idd le Fork Kentucky Rive r
Sou th Fork S ta tion Camp Creek
North Fo
rk Tr i
pl et t C
reek
West Fork Ohio Brush Creek
Eagle Creek
OhioRiver
Licking Watershed
[North
Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed)
Less than 1% - 3%
4% - 10%
11% - 23%
24% - 46%
47% - 92% HUC 6 Boundary
HUC 14 BoundaryPrepared by Downstream Strategies - GIS Solutions
*Refer to supplementary report for data source and explanation
Percent of Stream Impacts
Eastern Coalfields of Kentucky Mine Impact Analysis
0 5 10 152.5Miles
No Impact
Red River
Chapli n R ive rKentucky River
Nor th F ork Lick ing River
Tyg a
r t s Cr
eek
Sa lt Riv er
Li ck ing R ive r
Buck Cree k
Rock
cas tl
e River
S lat
e C r
eek
Eag le Creek
Green River
Beech Fork
D ix River
Cumberland River
Bla ine
C reek
So uth Elkho r n
C re e k
Sou th Fo rk
K en tucky River
Levis
a For k
No rt h Fork Kentucky River
H inkston C reek
Midd le Fo rk
Ke ntu cky River
Poor Fork Cumberland R iver
Silver Cr eek
Troub lesome Cre ek
Nor th Elkho rn C reek
Red B ird River
Powel l R iver
East F o rk Lit tle Sa ndy
Riv er
S to n e r C r
eek
Righ t For k Be av er C reek
Qu icksand Creek
Sturg
eon Creek
F leming Creek
Li tt le
Scio t
o Ri
ver
P itm an C reek
Pine Cr e ek
Hang
i ng F o
rk Creek
Oh io Br
ush
Cree
k
Pain t L ick Creek
L ef t Fork B ea ve r C ree k
M ud dy Cr
eek
L it t l
e F o
r k Li
t t le
S and
y R i
ver
K i nn icon ick C reek
Line Fo rk
Fox C reek
Laurel River
Li ttle
Sand
y R iver
Sixm
il e Cr
eek Sou th
For k L i cki ng River
St ra igh t Creek
Cutshin Cree k
South Fork Rockcas tle Riv er
South Fo rk Stat ion Camp C reek
North
F ork
Tri p l
e t t Cr
eek
Greasy Creek
Whit
e O a
k Cre
ek
Fi shi ng Creek
Goose Creek
Big
San d
y Rive
r
OhioRiver
LakeCumberland
OhioRiver
Kentucky Watershed
[North
Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed)
Less than 1% - 3%
4% - 10%
11% - 23%
24% - 46%
47% - 92% HUC 6 Boundary
HUC 14 BoundaryPrepared by Downstream Strategies - GIS Solutions
*Refer to supplementary report for data source and explanation
Percent of Stream Impacts
Eastern Coalfields of Kentucky Mine Impact Analysis
0 7 14 213.5Miles
No Impact
Gu yan do tte R ive r
Li ck ing River
B la in
e Creek
Tug Fork
Levis
a Fork
West Fork Twelv epole Creek
Johns Creek
Mud River
Trouble so me Creek
Righ t Fork Beav er Creek
P ig eon Riv er
Tyg arts Creek
Left Fork Be a ve r C r ee k
East Fo rk L it tle Sa ndy River
Lit t l
e Fo
rk L i
tt le
S and
y Rive
r
East Fork Twelvepole Creek
Quicksand Creek
Little
C oal
R ive
r
She lb
y Cree
k
Spru
c e F o
r k
E lkho rn C reek
Big Sand y
Rive r Coa l R iver
Kn ox C ree k
Big Sandy Watershed
[North
Estimated Maximum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed)
Less than 1% - 3%
4% - 10%
11% - 23%
24% - 46%
47% - 92% HUC 6 Boundary
HUC 14 BoundaryPrepared by Downstream Strategies - GIS Solutions
*Refer to supplementary report for data source and explanation
Percent of Stream Impacts
Eastern Coalfields of Kentucky Mine Impact Analysis
0 4 8 122Miles
No Impact
Ch apli n R iver
Red River
Ro ll ing Fork
Ke ntu ck y Ri ver
Sal t Ri ver
L ic k ing R ive r
Fl oyd
s For k
Buck Cre ekRockcast le R ive r
Lick Creek
Russ ell Creek
Beech F ork
S la t e Cr
eek
C l inch River
Green R ive r
Cumberland R iver
East Fork
Obey R ive r
Dix River
South E lkhorn Cr eek
Dadd
ys Creek
New Ri ve
r
South F or k
Ken tucky River
C lear C reek
Blaine
Creek
N or th Fork Ken tucky Rive rH in kston Creek
Cane
y Fork
B ig Pitman Creek
Bull run Cre ek
Midd le Fork Ke ntucky River
Poor F ork Cumberland River
Si lv er Cree k
Troublesome C reekNorth Elkhorn Cre ek
Red B ird Riv er
Calfk
il le
r Rive r Beave r Cree kObed River
S tone r
Cree
k
L i tt le
South Fork
N ol ichucky R ive r
Poplar C reek
Righ t Fo rk B eav er Cr eek
Fa l l ing Water River
Qu icksand Creek
Hols to
n River
Stu r
g eon
C ree
k
Pi tm
a n Creek
Wes
t For
k Ob
e y Ri
v er
Han g
ing F o
rk C reek
Cle
ar Fork
Pigeo n River
Ri chland Creek
Sou th Fo rk L i ttl e Ba r ren Rive r
Pain t L ick Cre ek
Le ft F or k Bea ver C reek
M udd
y Cr
eek
Litt l
e Fo
r k Li
tt le
San d
y Ri
v er
Beec
h Creek
South Fork Li ck ing R iver
Roar ing Ri ver
Wallen Cree k
Line Fork
Eas t Fo rk Li t t le Bar re n Riv er
Lau re l R iver
Guis t
Cree
k
S t ra igh t Creek
Wol f River
Cutsh in Cree k
S outh Fork Rockca stle R iver
South For k Station Camp Creek
Fox Cree
k
G reasy Creek
Spring CreekHard ins C ree k
Fish
ing
Cree
k
G oose Creek
Stink
ing Creek
Bulls
kin C r
eek
Powell Rive r
Sout
h Fo
rk C u
mberl
and Ri ve
r
Je ll ico C reek
Rock Cre ek
French Broad Rive r
B lackwat er Creek
Elk For k Creek
DouglasLakeClear
Creek
CherokeeLake
Black FoxCreek
PowellRiver
HinesCreek
LakeCumberland
DaleHollowLake
OhioRiver
Upper Cumberland Watershed
[North
Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed)
Less than 1% - 4%
5% - 11%
12% - 22%
23% - 40%
41% - 92% HUC 6 Boundary
HUC 14 BoundaryPrepared by Downstream Strategies - GIS Solutions
*Refer to supplementary report for data source and explanation
Percent of Stream Impacts
Eastern Coalfields of Kentucky Mine Impact Analysis
0 9 18 274.5Miles
No Impact
Tygarts Creek
Blaine Creek
East F o r k Li tt le
Sa ndy R ive r
P ine Cr eek
Little
Fork
Litt le
San d
y River
Little
S and
y Rive
r
Kinn
ic on ick Creek
Big Sa nd y R i v er
OhioRiver
Middle Ohio-Raccoon Watershed
[North
Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed)
Less than 1% - 4%
5% - 11%
12% - 22%
23% - 40%
41% - 92% HUC 6 Boundary
HUC 14 BoundaryPrepared by Downstream Strategies - GIS Solutions
*Refer to supplementary report for data source and explanation
Percent of Stream Impacts
Eastern Coalfields of Kentucky Mine Impact Analysis
0 2.5 5 7.51.25Miles
No Impact
Red River
North Fork L icki ng R iver
Tyga
r ts C re e
k
L icking River
S la t
e C r
eek
North Fork Kentucky R iver
Hinks to n Cre ek
Si lver C ree kNorth E lkhor n
Creek
Kentucky River
Stoner Creek
Qu icksand Creek
South Elkhor n
Creek
F lemi
ng Cr
eek
O h io B r
ush
C ree
k
Pai n t L ick Cree k
Mud dy Cre ek
White O
ak Cr
eek
Dix RiverL it
tle F o
r k Lit
t le S a
ndy
R ive
r
K innicon ick C re ek
South Fork L icking Ri ver
Fox Creek L it
tl e Sa
ndy Rive
r
M idd le Fork Kentucky Rive r
Sou th Fork S ta tion Camp Creek
North Fo
rk Tr i
pl et t C
reek
West Fork Ohio Brush Creek
Eagle Creek
OhioRiver
Licking Watershed
[North
Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed)
Less than 1% - 4%
5% - 11%
12% - 22%
23% - 40%
41% - 92% HUC 6 Boundary
HUC 14 BoundaryPrepared by Downstream Strategies - GIS Solutions
*Refer to supplementary report for data source and explanation
Percent of Stream Impacts
Eastern Coalfields of Kentucky Mine Impact Analysis
0 5 10 152.5Miles
No Impact
Red River
Chapli n R ive rKentucky River
Nor th F ork Lick ing River
Tyg a
r t s Cr
eek
Sa lt Riv er
Li ck ing R ive r
Buck Cree k
Rock
cas tl
e River
S lat
e C r
eek
Eag le Creek
Green River
Beech Fork
D ix River
Cumberland River
Bla ine
C reek
So uth Elkho r n
C re e k
Sou th Fo rk
K en tucky River
Levis
a For k
No rt h Fork Kentucky River
H inkston C reek
Midd le Fo rk
Ke ntu cky River
Poor Fork Cumberland R iver
Silver Cr eek
Troub lesome Cre ek
Nor th Elkho rn C reek
Red B ird River
Powel l R iver
East F o rk Lit tle Sa ndy
Riv er
S to n e r C r
eek
Righ t For k Be av er C reek
Qu icksand Creek
Sturg
eon Creek
F leming Creek
Li tt le
Scio t
o Ri
ver
P itm an C reek
Pine Cr e ek
Hang
i ng F o
rk Creek
Oh io Br
ush
Cree
k
Pain t L ick Creek
L ef t Fork B ea ve r C ree k
M ud dy Cr
eek
L it t l
e F o
r k Li
t t le
S and
y R i
ver
K i nn icon ick C reek
Line Fo rk
Fox C reek
Laurel River
Li ttle
Sand
y R iver
Sixm
il e Cr
eek Sou th
For k L i cki ng River
St ra igh t Creek
Cutshin Cree k
South Fork Rockcas tle Riv er
South Fo rk Stat ion Camp C reek
North
F ork
Tri p l
e t t Cr
eek
Greasy Creek
Whit
e O a
k Cre
ek
Fi shi ng Creek
Goose Creek
Big
San d
y Rive
r
OhioRiver
LakeCumberland
OhioRiver
Kentucky Watershed
[North
Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed)
Less than 1% - 4%
5% - 11%
12% - 22%
23% - 40%
41% - 92% HUC 6 Boundary
HUC 14 BoundaryPrepared by Downstream Strategies - GIS Solutions
*Refer to supplementary report for data source and explanation
Percent of Stream Impacts
Eastern Coalfields of Kentucky Mine Impact Analysis
0 7 14 213.5Miles
No Impact
Gu yan do tte R ive r
Li ck ing River
B la in
e Creek
Tug Fork
Levis
a Fork
West Fork Twelv epole Creek
Johns Creek
Mud River
Trouble so me Creek
Righ t Fork Beav er Creek
P ig eon Riv er
Tyg arts Creek
Left Fork Be a ve r C r ee k
East Fo rk L it tle Sa ndy River
Lit t l
e Fo
rk L i
tt le
S and
y Rive
r
East Fork Twelvepole Creek
Quicksand Creek
Little
C oal
R ive
r
She lb
y Cree
k
Spru
c e F o
r k
E lkho rn C reek
Big Sand y
Rive r Coa l R iver
Kn ox C ree k
Big Sandy Watershed
[North
Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed)
Less than 1% - 4%
5% - 11%
12% - 22%
23% - 40%
41% - 92% HUC 6 Boundary
HUC 14 BoundaryPrepared by Downstream Strategies - GIS Solutions
*Refer to supplementary report for data source and explanation
Percent of Stream Impacts
Eastern Coalfields of Kentucky Mine Impact Analysis
0 4 8 122Miles
No Impact
UpperCumberland
MiddleOhio-
RaccoonLicking
Kentucky
BigSandy
Little Creek
QuillenFork Grape
Branch
GapBranch
LongBranch
DotsonFork
PawpawCreek
DotyBranch
Stonecoal Branch
Left Fork ofPetercave Fork
HurricaneBranch
Left Forkof LewisCreek
Right Fork of Clover Fork
Left Forkof Elk Fork
WieserBranch
Right Fork of Cranks Creek
Lick ing Ri ver
Red River
Sla t e Creek
Tug Fork
South Fork Kentucky River
No rth Fo rk Holst on River
L ev is
a Fo
r k
No r th Fo rk Ken tucky Ri ve r
Johns Creek
Middl e For k
Ken tuc ky River
Poor Fork Cum ber la nd R iver
Copper Cree k
Re d Bird
River
B i g Moccas in C reek
Wes t Fork Twelvepo le Creek
C l in ch River
B lain
e Cree
k
Right Fork Beav er Creek
Quicksand Creek
Cumberland Ri ve r
Pi geon R iver
Guyandotte River
Stur
geon
Cree
k
Guest River
Kentucky R ive r
Hols ton Rive r
Left F or k Be a ve r C r eek
Wal len C reek
L ine Fo rk
East Fork Twel vepol e Creek
Straigh t C reek
Cutshin Creek
Greasy C reek
Shelb
y Creek
Goos
e Creek E lkhorn Creek
Russel l Fork
Powel l R iver
Beav
er
Creek
Blackwa te r Cr eek
North Fork
Cli nch River
Powell River
Upper Cumberland Watershed
North
Greater than 50% Stream Impact in HUC 14 Watershed - Estimated Maximum Impact
HUC 14 Boundaries Greater than 50% ImpactedHUC 6 BoundaryHUC 14 Boundary Prepared by Downstream Strategies - GIS Solutions
*Refer to supplementary report for data source and explanation
Eastern Coalfields of Kentucky Mine Impact Analysis
0 6 12 183Miles
Recommended