spatial analysis of coal mining impacts on eastern ...€¦ · mining activities. the analysis...

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

http://nhd.usgs.gov/

http://mapping.usgs.gov/standards/

http://kygeonet.ky.gov/

http://minemaps.ky.gov/ftpdownload.htm?image.x=59&image.y=34

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

http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm

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


[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


Less than 1% - 3%

4% - 10%

11% - 23%

24% - 46%






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


Less than 1% - 3%

4% - 10%

11% - 23%

24% - 46%






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


Less than 1% - 3%

4% - 10%

11% - 23%

24% - 46%






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


Less than 1% - 3%

4% - 10%

11% - 23%

24% - 46%






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


[North

Estimated Minimum Impact to Streams (Percent Impact in HUC 14 Watershed)

Less than 1% - 4%

5% - 11%

12% - 22%

23% - 40%






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


Less than 1% - 4%

5% - 11%

12% - 22%

23% - 40%






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


Less than 1% - 4%

5% - 11%

12% - 22%

23% - 40%






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


Less than 1% - 4%

5% - 11%

12% - 22%

23% - 40%






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


Less than 1% - 4%

5% - 11%

12% - 22%

23% - 40%






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


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



0 6 12 183Miles

spatial analysis of coal mining impacts on eastern ...€¦ · mining activities. the analysis...

Documents