DETERMINATION OF THE RECHARGE AREA FOR THE RIO SPRINGS
GROUNDWATER BASIN, NEAR MUNFORDVTTJ.E, KENTUCKY: AN
APPLICATION OF DYE TRACING AND POTENTIOMETRIC MAPPING
FOR DELINEATION OF SPRINGHEAD AND WELLHEAD PROTECTION
AREAS IN CARBONATE AQUIFERS AND KARST TERRANES
PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT
Prepared for
Ground-Water Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
by
Geary M. Schindel
ECKENFELDER INC.
227 French Landing Drive
Nashville, Tennessee 37228
(615) 255-2288
James F. Quinian, Ph.D.
Quinlan and Associates
Box 110539
Nashville, Tennessee 37222
(615) 833-4324
and
Joseph A. Ray
Groundwater Branch
Kentucky Division of Water
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 564-3410
August 1994
Q:\9094\HIE0829X>OC

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
SUMMARY	1
INTRODUCTION	2
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS	3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION	3
PREVIOUS STUDIES	5
GEOLOGIC SETTING	6
Project Hydrologic Boundary and Estimated Boundary of Basin	8
SEARCH OF PUBLIC GROUNDWATER DATA-BASES	8
Dye Trace Information	8
Water Well Survey	9
Public Water-Supply Resources	10
Compilation of Data	11
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS	11
General	11
Spring Survey	11
Survey for Dye-Injection Locations	12
Sinkholes	12
Sinking Streams	12
Water Wells	13
Potentiometric Mapping	13
DESIGN OF TRACER TESTS	13
Selection of Monitoring Points	14
Selection of Dye-Injection Points	14
Selection of Dyes	14
Recovery of Dyes in the Field	15
Laboratory Analysis for Dyes	16
Documentation of Results	17
Glen Lilly Road Spring to Buckner Spring Cave	17
Charles Ash Sinkhole to Jones School Spring	18
Glen Lilly Sinkhole to Rio Springs	18
Bail Road Ditch Sinkhole to Bailey Falls Spring	18
Knox Creek Sinkhole	18
Christene Dye Well to Johnson Spring	18
Walter Well	18
Route 357 Sinkhole	19
Unrecovered Dyes	19
Q \6094\HIR0829DOC
i

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS	20
REFERENCES	23
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Kentucky Groundwater Tracing Forms
Q \9094\iriR0829DOC
ii

-------
DETERMINATION OF THE RECHARGE AREA FOR THE RIO SPRINGS
GROUNDWATER BASIN, NEAR MUNFORDVTLLE, KENTUCKY: AN
APPLICATION OF DYE TRACING AND POTENTTOMETRIC MAPPING
FOR DELINEATION OF SPRINGHEAD AND WELLHEAD PROTECTION
AREAS IN CARBONATE AQUIFERS AND KARST TERRANES
SUMMARY
Dye traces and a potentiometric map based on water-wells, spring, and stream
elevations were used to delineate the Rio Springs groundwater basin located east of
Munfordville, Kentucky. This investigation was performed as a Springhead
(Wellhead) Delineation Demonstration Project supported by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Kentucky Division of Water, and the Green River Valley Water
District. The results of the series of dye traces were used to iteratively revise the
potentiometric maps that guided the design of successive trace tests. The rationale
for various investigative techniques used and decisions made is included in this
report.
The recharge area for the Rio Springs groundwater basin is approximately
4.9 + 0.5 square miles and is shown in Plate I. The area includes groundwater
drainage from an adjacent surface-water basin, Bacon Creek. Such inclusion is
inferred because the boundary of the Rio Springs groundwater basin is beyond (and
outside) the boundary of its surface water basin (the topographic divide) where this
latter boundary can be drawn.
The long-term, sustained flow of the Rio Springs groundwater basin (its normalized
base flow), as measured by its base flow discharge per square mile, is five to six
times greater than that measured in any other groundwater basin in the Mammoth
Cave area. This significantly greater sustained flow is a response to attenuation
(damping) of aquifer response to storm-induced recharge-attenuation caused by
thick masses of slumped sand and gravel that overlie most of the Rio Springs basin.
The hydrogeologic properties of the sand and gravel increase the time it takes for
the aquifer to respond to storms. They impart a storage that is significantly higher
than that of nearby karst aquifers which lack a thick granular, non-clay mantle
above the carbonate bedrock.
Q \9O0<\IHRO829DOC
1

-------
Normalized base flow can be used to reliably estimate the recharge area of a spring
but only if its probable geology is already known. This principle, quantified during
this investigation, should be widely applicable elsewhere.
The results of this investigation may be used for response to environmental
emergencies, local and regional planning, resource protection through a Springhead
Protection Program for the Rio Springs area, and public education.
Many results of this delineation project are relevant to the	study, interpretation,
and protection of water supplies in other karst terranes.	These results, plus
conclusions applicable to maximizing the efficiency and	reliability of similar
investigations elsewhere, are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
This report describes the findings of a hydrogeologic study of the Rio Springs
groundwater basin, east of Munfordville, Kentucky. Rio Springs is a raw water
source for the Green River Valley Water District (GRVWD). This study was
conducted to define the area of recharge as part of a Karst Springhead (Wellhead)
Protection Demonstration Project for public water supply springs. This
hydrogeologic study was designed to delineate the recharge area of the Rio Springs
groundwater basin. Tasks included the collection and review of background
information, determination of physical setting, field reconnaissance, tracer-test
design, tracer testing, and report generation.
A spring and the conduit network draining to it can be considered as a near-
horizontal well. It follows, then, that springhead is the spring-equivalent of a
wellhead.
This project completion report is written as a tutorial for technical personnel and
others who may be considering establishment of a wellhead protection program in a
carbonate rock terrane elsewhere. Accordingly, we have included background
information to give perspective, and discussion of the rationale for why many
decisions were made. However, this is not a "how-to" manual for tracing delineation
of wellhead protection in non-carbonate rocks, or for organization of a wellhead
Q.\SOS< \1ETEOS29DOC
2

-------
protection program. The latter two topics are well described by U.S. EPA (1987,
1989).
Although many wellhead protection studies routinely include analysis of fracture-
traces and lineaments as a guide to flow direction and routing of groundwater, such
a study would have been irrelevant in the Rio Springs area and was not performed.
In spite of the excesses described by Wise (1982, 1983), these features have been
repeatedly shown to be a guide to the siting of highest-yield wells, and they do
indicate the most easily recognized possible flow routes, but they are not a predictor
of flow destination (Blavoux et al., 1992), or of major flow routes in carbonate
aquifers. Most flow in carbonate aquifers of the Mammoth Cave/Rio Springs area is
in conduits developed near-parallel to bedding planes rather than along joints.
Accordingly, although much orientation data could have been acquired, analyzed,
and presented, we did not consider fracture-trace and lineament analysis to be
judicious, cost-efficient, or relevant to springhead delineation in the study area.
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
Project participants included ECKENFELDER INC., Nashville, Tennessee;
Quinlan & Associates, Nashville, Tennessee; Groundwater Branch, Kentucky
Division of Water, Frankfort, Kentucky; the Green River Valley Water District,
Cave City, Kentucky; and ATEC Associates Inc., Nashville, Tennessee. Funding for
this project was supplied by the Ground Water Branch, U.S. EPA, Region IV,
Atlanta, Georgia. The Kentucky Division of Water and the Green River Valley
Water District also contributed personnel to work on this project. Most of the field
work for this project was carried out by Joseph Ray, Kentucky Division of Water;
Geary Schindel, ECKENFELDER INC.; and Tray Lyons, Green River Valley Water
District. Robert Olive, Environmental Scientist, USEPA, Ground Water Branch was
Project Coordinator for the EPA.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The GRVWD supplies more than 25,000 people with rural service connections in
Hart County and portions of Green, LaRue, Barren, Metcalfe, and Edmonson
Counties. It supplies water directly to Mammoth Cave National Park and to the
cities of Horse Cave and Cave City, to the LaRue County Water District
Q.\9094\inR0829X>OC
3

-------
(2,627 people), the Green-Taylor Water District (8,751 people), Bonnieville Water
District (752 people), and the Munfordville Water District (2,627 people). Rio
Springs is also the water source for the Glenbrook Trout Farm, located below the Rio
Springs reservoir.
Rio Springs consists of several contiguous springs on the north side of the Green
River, near the former community of Rio in Hart County, Kentucky. The springs are
approximately one-half mile west of U.S. Highway 31E and one-quarter mile north
of the Green River. All perennial flows are on the west bank of a small south-
flowing intermittent tributary of Rocky Hollow. None of the springs are shown on
the U.S. Geological Survey Canmer, Kentucky, 7.5-minute topographic map, but
they are shown on Plate I of this report as Sites 6 and 7.
The stream which flows from the springs has been dammed with a concrete
structure to form a small reservoir covering less than one acre. The natural spring
orifices were backflooded by the reservoir and aggraded by sand. This reservoir is
presently fed by seven perennial springs located on the west side of the ravine.
Three of these flows comprise the major portion of Rio Springs. During high-flow
conditions, a 0.6-mile long intermittent stream, draining south from the community
of Linwood, conveys surface water to the reservoir. The total discharge of Rio
Springs is approximately 4.8 cubic feet per second, as averaged from two
measurements reported by the U.S. Geological Survey (Donald S. Mull, oral
communication, June 1993). A subsequent gauging on September 3, 1993
determined a discharge of 4.4 cubic feet per second.
The Green River Valley Water District reports an average use of 500,000 gallons of
water a day from Rio Springs and approximately 1,500,000 gallons a day from the
Green River. However, during some months of the year, no water from Rio Springs
is used by the GRVWD. The District would prefer to use additional water from Rio
Springs because it requires less treatment than water from the Green River.
However, there is a conflict regarding allocation of water between the GRVWD and
the trout farm, which also requires a high-quality water supply.
Map coverage of the study area is available on four 7.5-minute, 1:24,000 scale
topographic and geologic maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey: the
Canmer, Hammonville, Hudgins, and Magnolia quadrangles. Each of the
Q \eO04\irmO629DOC
4

-------
topographic and geologic maps was reviewed for the presence of surface streams,
sinking streams, springs, caves, and other karst features. Most of the Canmer
quadrangle and a small part of each of the other three topographic maps were
assembled into a working project map which was photographically reproduced and
used to plot all points possibly suitable for tracer injection and monitoring.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
Although there are no previous hydrogeologic studies of the Rio Springs basin,
extensive investigations were conducted in the area adjacent to Rio Springs by
James F. Quinlan and Joseph A. Ray when each was employed by the National Park
Service at Mammoth Cave National Park. Those investigations north of the Green
River were not completed and have not been published. Their work on groundwater
basins south of the Green River has been published (Quinlan and Ray, 1989).
Available information from the following organizations was also reviewed: Kentucky
Division of Water, Groundwater Branch; Green River Valley Water District; U.S.
Geological Survey, Kentucky District; and Kentucky Geological Survey. A map of
Buckner Spring Cave was graciously provided by Dr. Joseph Saunders.
Data on dye traces in the Johnson Spring and Lanes Mill Spring groundwater
basins, adjacent to the Rio Springs groundwater basin, were obtained from James F.
Quinlan. Discharge and water-quality data for Rio Springs, plus well location and
water-level data on 14 of the 61 wells shown on Plate I, were obtained from the U.S.
Geological Survey. The Kentucky Division of Water supplied available records of
water wells drilled after 1985. The National Park Service supplied water-well
locations and water-level data for wells drilled before 1986. James F. Quinlan
supplied information on the location of numerous springs found by him and
Joseph A. Ray during pre-1986 studies.
The most recent syntheses of regional hydrogeology of the karst have been published
by White and White (1989) and Quinlan et al. (1983) but neither of these original
works specifically address the Rio Springs area.
A published potentiometric map at a scale of 1:250,000 (about 1 inch = 4 miles)
includes the area of Plate I (Plebuch et al., 1985), but it was contoured at a 50-foot
interval. For the Mammoth Cave area south of the Green River, it reproduced the
Q-\9O04\IIIRO829.DOC
5

-------
1981 version of Quinlan and Ray (1989), but partially recontoured at a 50-foot
interval. [The Quinlan and Ray map averaged about 100 wells per quadrangle
(approximately two per square mile) and had been published with a 20-foot contour
interval.] For most of the remaining coverage of the Plebuch et al. map, there are
significantly fewer wells measured per quadrangle, commonly less than 15, than
were used in this report. Also, no springs are shown on it. Accordingly, the Plebuch
et al. map can be used for only very general predictions. It does not include, nor can
it be used to determine, boundaries of groundwater basins, or for response to
environmental incidents.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The Rio Springs groundwater basin, located in west-central Kentucky near the
southeastern edge of the Illinois Basin, is in Mississippian-age limestones overlain
by Mississippian and Pennsylvanian sandstones. The rocks throughout most of the
map area shown in Plate I dip gently to the west at about 20 to 50 feet per mile.
The north edge of Plate I coincides approximately with the axis of an anticline
extending to the east; the anticline is used as the Magnolia Gas Storage Field
(Moore, 1975). The stratigraphic units in the study area, from oldest to youngest,
include the Salem-Warsaw, St. Louis, Site. Genevieve, and Girkin Limestones, the
Big Clifty Sandstone, and the Caseyville and Tradewater Formations (mostly
sandstone and conglomerate highly weathered to sand and gravel).
The Rio Springs area is a karst terrane. It is characterized by sinkholes, sinking
streams (most of which are ephemeral), caves, springs, and a well-integrated
subsurface drainage network. Much of the study area is a highly dissected part of
the Mammoth Cave Plateau (Dicken, 1935), which is also known as the Chester
Cuesta (Quinlan, 1970). The northern half of Plate I includes a sandy terrane that
is known as the Brush Creek Hills (Sauer, 1927). The sand and gravel is part of the
west-southwest-trending Brownsville Channel, which occupies a paleo-valley up to
several hundred feet deep that is filled with Pennsylvanian sandstone, shale, and
conglomerate that unconformably overlie several of the Mississippian limestone and
sandstone formations. Much of this has been intensely weathered, disaggregated,
and lowered during dissolutionally-induced subsidence.
Q:\9094 \lnR0829DOC
6

-------
All land south of the Green River is part of the Sinkhole Plain that, at Sims Bend
and Davis Bend, extends up to 3 miles north of the river. All of Plate I is underlain
by the same relatively pure limestones that crop out in the Mammoth Cave area and
which are locally capped by the Big Clifty Sandstone.
A geologic map has been published for each of the four topographic map quadrangles
listed above (Miller, 1969; Miller and Moore, 1969; Moore, 1972, 1975). These maps
were spliced together and interpreted in order to determine what relationships may
exist between stratigraphy, structure, and the distribution of springs.
Extensive field observations in this area, coupled with interpretation of published
geologic maps, have shown that there are three lithologic controls on groundwater
movement in the karst of the Rio Springs area. They are:
1.	Impermeability of the Big Clifty Sandstone and associated shale. This
locally preserves the caves below from erosion and dissolutional
destruction, but favors the development of vertical shafts that help
accomplish such destruction at the edge of ridges. The impermeability of
the Big Clifty is much less important in the study area where the ridges
are narrower and more highly dissected than to the west, where the beds
dip slightly more steeply, dissection is less, and the ridges are wider.
2.	Impermeability of the clayey, silty limestones at the top of the Salem-
Warsaw Limestone and lowermost part of the overlying St. Louis
Limestone, about 40 feet above their contact. Rio Springs and several
other springs appear to be perched on these upper beds. Many additional
springs are perched on the top of the Salem-Warsaw.
3.	Recharge attenuation and storage capacity of up to several hundred feet
of slumped sand and gravel (disaggregated sandstone and conglomerate)
that overlie the limestones in the northern half of Plate I. This
widespread sand and gravel impede rapid or direct recharge into the
aquifer at sinkholes; limestone outcrops are uncommon. As a result,
many of the springs have a more subdued response to storms and lower
turbidity than those appreciably fed by sinking streams and sinkholes
draining into open holes in limestone.
Q \9094\HIR0829J)OC
7

-------
Project Hydrologic Boundary and Estimated Boundary of Basin
The preliminaiy project hydrologic boundary for Rio Springs and immediately
adjacent groundwater basins was determined from review of the topographic and
geologic maps and from interpretation of previous water-tracing studies of the region
conducted by Quinlan and Ray. It was defined as the major surface and subsurface
streams adjacent to Rio Springs which most probably act as a boundary for near-
surface groundwater flow in the region. This boundary was identified as: Green
River, to the south; Lynn Camp Creek, to the east; Laurel Branch, Brushy Fork, and
Bacon Creek, to the north; and the inferred southward flowline of the dye trace from
near Bolton Church to Johnson Spring, to the west. Some of these streams were
known to be beyond the estimated boundary of the actual groundwater basin.
Stream incision along the Green River and the lower part of Lynn Camp Creek has
exposed clayey, silty beds that perch springs at and near the contact between the
St. Louis, and Salem-Warsaw. These beds and the top of the Salem-Warsaw were
considered to be the basal hydrologic boundary of the near-surface aquifer.
Interpretation of the map of Buckner Spring Cave (the spring location shown on the
published topographic map is about 120 feet above its actual elevation), plus the
pre-project trace to Lanes Mill Spring, suggested that the actual boundary of the
Buckner Spring Cave basin would be closer to Rio Springs. The orientation of
Buckner Spring Cave led its mapper, Dr. Joseph Saunders, to hypothesize that the
cave functioned as a high-level overflow for Rio Springs. Such a distributary could
exist, but it was not demonstrated during this study.
SEARCH OF PUBLIC GROUNDWATER DATA-BASES
Dye Trace Information
The Kentucky Division of Water and the Kentucky Geological Survey had no records
of dye traces in the study area. Karst researchers known to be actively working in
this region of Kentucky were contacted for background information and to determine
if any dye tracing was currently being conducted in the area; none was. The
Q:\9094\irTK0829X)OC
8

-------
unpublished tracing studies by Quinlan and Ray are the only previous work known
in the area.
Water Well Survey
The Kentucky Division of Water's Water-Well Drillers Program, supplied a copy of
logs from two wells drilled within the area of Plate I since 1985. One well was
inaccessible for measuring of water level; the other could not be found. A copy of
unpublished data on well locations and water levels, based on pre-1986 field work by
Quinlan and Ray and inclusive of data from the U.S. Geological Survey, was
obtained from the files of the National Park Service. These data had been used by
them to construct a draft potentiometric map of the region north of Green River, but
more well data were needed for the Rio Springs area. That draft map guided much
of the field reconnaissance for this project and was basically correct, but its contours
were repeatedly modified after additional water-level data and tracing results were
acquired and interpreted.
Experience has repeatedly shown that, unless a locally intensive well survey has
already been made, state and federal records in many states rarely include more
than about 10 percent of the wells that exist in an area. Accordingly, most of the
well survey was performed by conducting a house-to-house quest for wells. The
pre-1986 survey north of the Green River was part of a research program. Field
work in that study yielded 0 to 12 measurable wells per day and averaged about 5,
but this was a function of local stratigraphy and population density. Daily
productivity of water-level data was higher in the Sinkhole Plain to the south.
When a measurable well was found, project-relevant data was recorded. Location
and ground-surface elevation was estimated from the topographic map, and water
level was measured with an electric tape. Data from all measurable wells was
collected during low-flow conditions. Some of the wells first measured by the U.S.
Geological Survey were remeasured in order to confirm the static conditions.
U.S. Geological Survey national mapping standards require that 90 percent of the
elevations on a topographic map have a error of no more than half a contour
interval. The practical application of this standard is ambiguous, however, unless,
one has information on the statistical distribution of the errors contributory to
Q \9094\TnROS2SJDOC
9

-------
meeting or failing the standard. But if it is assumed that: 1) the maximum possible
error is half a contour interval, and 2) the study area is in a low relief, non-forested
terrane such as the Sinkhole Plain where most homes and barns are shown on the
topographic map, the elevation of a well can be estimated to about one-fifth of a
contour interval. The two sources of error can be added to calculate the maximum
error. Therefore, where the contour interval is 10 feet, the elevation of most wells
can be estimated to within + 7 feet; where the contour interval is 20 feet, twice as
much.
For most of the area of Plate I, the slope of the potentiometric surface ranges from
about 40 to 100 feet per mile. Therefore, the elevation "noise" on the potentiometric
surface in the study area (+ 7 or 14 feet, depending upon the contour interval) does
not greatly affect the accuracy of the surface being contoured.
The effects of possible error induced by some of the "topography" having been locally
contoured on vegetation canopy rather than on the ground surface has not been
evaluated by us. It could be a problem in some of the more densely wooded parts of
the study area.
The potentiometric surface in Plate I was contoured manually rather than with a
computer program. The surface is subjective and was revised as tracing data
became available. The working maps with the revised potentiometric contours and
tracer-test results were used to guide planning and interpretation of additional
tracer tests.
Public Water-Supply Resources
The Kentucky Division of Water's Water Withdrawal Program, furnished
information on three water-withdrawal permits for the area: The Green River
Valley Water District is permitted to remove approximately 2.6 million gallons per
day (mgd) from Rio Springs and the Green River; the Glenbrook Trout Farm is
permitted to use 1.446 mgd from Rio Springs; and the Powder Mill Trout Ranch,
Inc., adjacent to Lynn Camp Creek and near Sites 14 and 15, near the eastern edge
of Plate I, used an average of 0.735 mgd in 1992.
Q:\9094\inTO829X)OC
10

-------
Compilation of Data
Data collected as part of the background study for this project were compiled onto a
working map produced from the four topographic maps. These data included the
injection and recovery points for the previous dye traces performed by Quinlan and
Ray, locations and depths to water in domestic water wells, and the locations of
springs near and within the estimated hydrologic boundary of the Rio Springs basin.
These data were used to construct a potentiometric surface map and to identify
areas where additional field work was required.
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
General
Field reconnaissance was made of the area near the estimated hydrologic boundary
not checked during the earlier studies by Quinlan and Ray. Most of this field work
centered on the northern part of the map area and included Martis Branch, Tampa
Branch, Laurel Branch, and Brushy Fork. Twenty-eight locations (19 springs and
9 streams) were initially identified for the placement of dye receptors (detector).
One spring outside of the estimated hydrologic boundary, Handy Culvert Spring
(Site No. 13 on Plate I) was monitored as a quality control procedure. It drained
from the east.
Spring Survey
A spring survey was conducted in order to find springs at or within the preliminary
hydrologic boundary of the study area. Springs identified during the uncompleted
pre-1986 field work by Quinlan and Ray were incorporated into this survey.
Additional springs were also located during field work for this project.
Only 4 of the 19 springs monitored during this study are shown on the U.S.
Geological Survey topographic maps. An additional spring (James School Spring,
Site No. 21) is shown on a geologic map but not on the corresponding topographic
map. All other springs were found as a result of field work. Only 1 of the 19 springs
found in the area may have been detectable on aerial photos. [Throughout the
Q • \ 9094 \ I rTR0829 X) OC
11

-------
Mammoth Cave area and most of the U.S., generally less than 5 percent of springs
relevant to regional hydrology of karst terranes are shown on topographic maps.]
Survey for Dye-Iryection Locations
Field reconnaissance for dye-injection locations, conducted near the estimated
hydrologic boundary of the Rio Springs basin, was done concurrently with the spring
survey. An attempt was made to identify sinkholes, sink-points (swallets) of sinking
streams, and water wells that might be usable for injecting dye into the aquifer.
Suitable dye-injection sites are rare in the study area; locating them required a
significant field effort.
Sinkholes. Sinkholes with an opening through which water might drain readily,
especially after storms, were sought during field reconnaissance and plotted on the
working map. Many sinkholes drain runoff only after heavy storms. Therefore,
each potential dye-injection site had to be evaluated for its accessibility by tank-
trucks or other sources of water. All sinks judged to have potential as dye-injection
points were also evaluated for their proximity to the estimated boundary between
the Rio Springs basin and adjacent groundwater basins. A site for potential
injection of dye could be technically excellent, but if it were near the probable middle
of the Rio Springs basin rather than near its boundary, tracing from it was
considered unnecessary.
Sinking Streams. Although there are many sinking streams in the area shown on
Plate I, fewer than five of those shown as such on the 7.5-minute topographic maps
occur within or adjacent to the estimated boundaries of the Rio Springs basin.
These few are all ephemeral, flowing only after major storms, and they are all in
locations either near the probable middle of the basin or obviously, on the basis of
pre-project tracer tests, draining to other basins. Other ephemeral sinking streams
exist within or adjacent to the Rio Springs basin but are not shown on the
topographic maps.
One perennial sinking stream was identified for which the sink-point shifts,
depending on stage height. Extensive field work was done in order to locate
ephemeral streams that convey stormwater runoff to discrete sink-points. The few
perennial and ephemeral sink-points found were plotted on the working map and
Q \9OO4\irT7lO820DOC
12

-------
evaluated for location relative to the estimated groundwater boundary of the Rio
Springs Basin. The sink-points were further evaluated for their ease of access by a
tank-truck or other source of water.
Water Wells. Several unused water wells were found during pre-project
investigations by Quinlan and Ray. High priority was given during this study to
finding additional unused wells suitable for injection of dye because of their
accessibility and their location relative to the tentatively inferred boundary of the
Rio Springs basin. Landowners were extremely cooperative. The presence of
unused water wells was generally a consequence of the availability in recent years of
public water from the Green River Valley Water District.
Potentiometric Mapping
There are fewer domestic water wells per square mile in the Rio Springs area than
in most of the area south of Green River previously studied by Quinlan and Ray
(1989). In part, this is because of the lower population density near Rio Springs,
and because the thickness and loose nature of slumped sands reportedly makes it
difficult for local drillers to complete a well successfully without it collapsing or
producing excessive sand. An intensive house-to-house search for additional wells
was made, but only five more were found.
DESIGN OF TRACER TESTS
Information obtained from the background study and field reconnaissance was used
to design the tracer tests. Evaluation of these data indicated that multiple-dye
traces, using up to four dyes for each series of tests, could be conducted
simultaneously. The use of multiple dyes allowed for greater cost efficiency in
collection, analysis, and evaluation of dye receptors (detector). Data from each
series of dye tests were evaluated and additional dye-injection sites were selected.
After each series of tracer tests, the location and number of monitoring sites were
evaluated for their relevance to the study objectives.
Q \9OO4\THKO820DOC
13

-------
Selection of Monitoring Points
Springs and streams were evaluated as potential monitoring sites for the tracer
tests. Major springs were individually monitored with dye detectors. In areas
where no major springs could be found, streams were monitored instead. After
careful evaluation and in an effort to reduce costs, some springs were monitored at
their confluence or in streams. If dyes were to be recovered, there would be time to
place dye detectors in individual springs before dye cleared from the system.
Twenty-eight locations, including 19 springs, were initially identified for the
placement of dye detectors. Additional stream sites were added after the tests
began. Plate I shows the name and location of all monitoring points used.
Selection of Dye-Ii\jection Points
Approximately 15 potentially usable dye-injection points were identified in the study
area. These included sinkholes, sinking streams, and water wells. Tracer-test
injection points selected for use were those considered likely to yield access to the
aquifer and to be near the suspected boundary of the Rio Springs basin, as inferred
from the working draft of the potentiometric map.
Selection of Dyes
Four types of fluorescent dye were selected for use in this study. They were picked
on the basis of non-toxicity, availability, analytical detectability, low cost, and ease
of use. All of these dyes have been previously used as tracers and their properties
have been documented in the karst-related literature. The following dyes were
used:
Dye	Colour Index Generic Name	
Rhodamine WT
Fluorescein (Uranine)
Solophenyl
Optical Brightener
Acid Red 388
Acid Yellow 73
Direct Yellow 96
Burcofluor AF Solution
Fluorescent Brightening Agent 28
Fluorescent Brightening Agent 351
Tinopal CBS-X
Q:\9094\IUR0829DOC
14

-------
The quantity of dyes used in this study was based on the experience of the authors
in similar terranes. Factors evaluated in determining those quantities include:
detection limit of the analytical method to be used for dye analysis, a desire not to
induce visible coloration to spring waters or streams, and a desire not to "overload"
the aquifer with dye that would persist for a much longer time than if a minimal
quantity was employed (thus delaying completion of the project). The desire not to
induce visible coloration to waters was a matter of aesthetics and public relations,
not possible toxicity. All of the dyes used are non-toxic (non-carcinogenic, non-
mutagenic, non-tumorogenic, non-teratogenic, non-poisonous, etc.), especially in the
concentrations to which they were diluted and discharged at springs (Smart, 1984;
Field et al., in review), and posed no threat to the quality of private or public water
supplies. Non-toxic, fluorescent dyes rather than other tracing agents are used
because they are safe, practical, most cost-efficient, and most easily detected tracers
available.
Recovery Of Dyes in the Field
The rationale and the techniques for conducting tracer tests and methods for the
analysis of dyes are discussed by Alexander and Quinlan (1992). They are
summarized briefly in this report.
Dye detectors, consisting of either granular activated charcoal or non-fluorescent
cotton, both of which sorb dye, are used in lieu of water samples for two reasons:
economy and enhancement of dye concentration. More specifically, detectors yield
an integrated sample, that barring interference from other organic compounds, is a
product of continual sorption of dye, whenever dye is present in water. Therefore
sampling can be weekly or biweekly rather than hourly or daily. Some tracer tests
require, for various reasons, quantification of frequently collected water samples.
However, most projects, including this one, are only interested in determining if dye
was "present or absent" from a monitoring site. The consequent cost-savings in
time, labor, materials, and analysis can be considerable. Further, the amount of dye
accumulated on a detector increase with time. Charcoal, for example, when left for
a week in a spring or stream that has had a constant concentration of dye, will
commonly yield an elutant that has a dye-concentration of 100 to 400 times greater
than ever present in the stream. Therefore, use of detectors rather than water
Q. \ 9094\1 rm0829DOC
15

-------
samples enables one to sense the presence of dye that might not be detectable in a
water sample.
Optical brighteners were detected with the use of non-fluorescent cotton which had
been checked with an ultraviolet light before use. Both the cotton and charcoal were
placed in nylon-screen bags and suspended in water from a wire attached to a
concrete stand (gum drop) or wired brick. Detectors were generally changed once a
week. However, the collection of detectors was dependent upon weather and access.
A longer period of time between detector collections was used during the last part of
the investigation.
Detectors were set, collected, analyzed, and evaluated for background concentrations
of dye or dye-like substances over a period of several weeks before any dyes were put
into the ground. Once it was established that there was no background, or that the
background present was manageable, the final decisions could be made about what
dye would be most suitable for tracing to a given site.
All sites at which dye was detected were monitored for its continued presence until
the dye was either no longer detectable or was present at a concentration so low as
to not interfere with the interpretation of any subsequent tracer tests. This allowed
time for the dye to be possibly detected at additional sites if connections existed.
Data on the frequency and duration of monitoring for each site, along with what
dyes it was tested for, and whether they were present, are summarized in
Appendix A.
Laboratory Analysis for Dyes
Each detector was placed in an individually marked bag in the field and shipped to
the laboratory for analysis. All detectors were thoroughly washed with a high-
intensity jet of tap water before being analyzed. Cotton detectors were evaluated by
using an ultraviolet light over a dark, light-proof box. Cotton that was positive for
brightener fluoresced a brilliant blue-white. Cotton that was positive for Solophenyl
fluoresced canary yellow. The results of detector evaluation were recorded on a
Tracer Test Form by date (see Appendix A). Charcoal detectors were evaluated by
eluting them for one hour in a solution containing 95 percent of a 70 percent solution
Q \9094 \UTR0829J)OC
16

-------
of isopropyl alcohol in water and 5 percent of ammonium hydroxide. The elutant
was then decanted for storage in a closed, labeled glass vial until analyzed.
Laboratory analyses for fluorescein were conducted with a Turner Designs Model 10
filter fluorometer by ECKENFELDER INC. Analysis for Rhodamine WT was
performed with a Turner Associates Model 111 filter fluorometer by
ECKENFELDER INC. Analyses for both dyes were performed with a Shimadzu
RF-540 scanning spectrofluorophotometer by Quinlan & Associates. Although it
was not critical for this study, because the dye concentrations in elutant were not
minimal and were well above detection limits, a scanning spectrofluorophotometer is
the optimal instrument for dye analysis because it can unambiguously detect
smaller concentrations of dye than a filter fluorometer and can readily and
unambiguously separate three or more dyes used simultaneously. More
importantly, a scanning spectrofluorophotometer can unambiguously distinguish
between dyes and non-dyes that may have fluorescence which overlaps that of dyes.
A filter fluorometer is an optimal instrument where one or more dyes are to be
detected in a setting not likely to have industrial contaminants that may fluoresce,
when fluorescein and Rhodamine WT are recovered in sub-equal quantities, or when
the concentration of one dye does not exceed that of the other by more than a factor
of about 20.
Documentation of Results
Results of the tracer tests are shown in Plate I. The data sheets supporting it are
included in this report as Appendix A, which is comprised of Spring Survey Forms
and Tracer Test Forms.
The following summaries state where and when dyes were injected and recovered,
and for how long they were recovered. For details of what other sites were
monitored, for when and for how long all sites were monitored, and for how long
dyes were subsequently detectable, see Appendix A.
Glen Lilly Road Spring to Buckner Spring Cave (Dye Trace A). Two pounds of
Rhodamine WT (20 percent solution) were injected into the Glen Lilly Road Spring
on March 3, 1993. This dye was first recovered on a detector collected at Buckner
Spring Cave (Site 5) on March 12, 1993. It was present for five weeks.
Q. \ 9094 \ 1HK0829D0C
17

-------
Charles Ash Sinkhole to Jones School Spring (Dye Trace B). Seven pounds of
fluorescein were injected into the Charles Ash Sinkhole on March 3, 1993. This dye
was first recovered on a detector collected at Jones School Spring (Site 21) on
March 12, 1993. It was present for four weeks.
Glen Lilly Sinkhole to Rio Springs (Dye Trace C). Six and one-half pounds of
Solophenyl were injected into the Glen Lilly Sinkhole on March 25, 1993. The
presence of dye was first indicated on a detector collected at Rio Springs and Rio
Springs East (Sites 6 and 7) on April 2, 1993. It was present for three weeks.
Bail Road Ditch Sinkhole to Bailey Falls Spring (Dye Trace D). Forty and
one-half pounds (4.5 gallons) of optical brightener were injected into the Bail Road
Ditch Sinkhole on March 25, 1993. This dye was first recovered on a detector
collected at Bailey Falls Spring on April 2, 1993. It was present for two weeks.
Knox Creek Sinkhole (Dye Trace E). Fifteen pounds (1.75 gallons) of optical
brightener were injected into the Knox Creek Sinkhole on April 24, 1993 and was
not detected. The trace was repeated on June 16, 1993 using 6 pounds of another
optical brightener (as a powder). Again, the dye was not detected in samples
collected over a one-month period. The trace was repeated on July 16, 1993 with
3 pounds of fluorescein. This trace was repeated on March 19, 1994 with 5 pounds
of fluorescein. This trace was positive at Lanes Mill Spring on March 21, 1994.
Christene Dye Well to Johnson Spring (Dye Trace F). Eleven pounds of
fluorescein were injected into the Christene Dye [sic, owner's name] Well on
April 24, 1993. This dye was first recovered on a detector collected from Johnson
Spring on May 9, 1993. Prior to this test, a small quantity of fluorescein was
present as background at this spring, but the fluorescein recovered had
concentrations several orders of magnitude higher than the background, and the
progressive decrease in its concentration was characteristic of tracer-test results. It
was present for five weeks.
Walter Well (Dye Trace G). Twelve pounds of Rhodamine WT (20 percent solution)
were injected into the Walter Well on April 24, 1993. As of August 15, 1993, this
dye was not found by analysis of detectors collected on a weekly to bi-weekly basis
Q \9OP4\imi0829JDOC
18

-------
(see section on unrecovered dyes, below). It is assumed to have flowed to Johnson
Spring, as shown on Plate I.
Route 357 Sinkhole (Dye Trace H). Three pounds of Solophenyl were injected into
the Route 357 Sinkhole on April 24, 1993. This dye was never recovered (see section
on unrecovered dyes, below).
Unrecovered Dyes
Eight tracer tests were conducted, as shown on Plate I. Two of them, Walter Well
(Site G), and Route 357 Sinkhole (Site H), were unsuccessful.
The Walter well test (Site G) was considered during its design to be a difficult one.
It was thought likely that the dye might be injected into the slumped sand and
gravel above the limestone rather than into it directly. Flow through slumped sand
could result in a very long time of travel and sorption onto the formation matrix.
Dye could be diluted to below the detection limits of the analytical instruments used.
Alternatively, the dye might have been (or will be) discharged at one of the 14 small
springs shown down-gradient along Bacon Creek [their discharge ranges from 0.05
to 0.2 cubic feet per second] or at other springs beyond the west edge of Plate I. The
fact that dye was not detected at the Wabash Bridge (Site 28) could be a
consequence of its dilution by Bacon Creek or non-discharge into it. Flow could also
be partially through sand to Jones School Spring (Site 21) or even to Rio Springs
(Sites 6 and 7), but, after six months, it was not yet detected in any spring. Each,
some, and all of these explanations could be correct. If the test were to be repeated,
a greater quantity of a different dye should be used.
The Route 357 Sinkhole test (Site H) was conducted simultaneously with that from
the Christene Dye well (Site F). The rationale for this test was that the project was
drawing to a close and that if Site F were to drain to Rio Springs, it would be
desirable to test the other side of the inferred boundary between sites F and H. But
there would not be time to do so. More dye should have been used but the results of
the test from Site F makes repetition of the Route 357 Sinkhole test unnecessary.
Site H most certainly flows to Johnson Spring (Site 2); the injection point at Site H
is bracketed on each side by flow to this spring.
(J \MfM\HmO820.DOC
19

-------
In summary of this section, and in retrospect, Site G was a known gamble and was
conducted prudently. Site H was a technical and strategic decision and is now both
academic, obvious, and unnecessary. These tests were not failures; there just was
not sufficient time (or funding) in the project schedule to complete them by changing
methodology or reinjection. On a more positive note, all other tracer tests, both
those done as part of this project and those done before it, were conducted at optimal
locations that allowed accurate approximation of the actual boundary of the Rio
Springs groundwater basin.
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
There are at least 16 important general conclusions that can be made relevant to
goal attainment, predictability and accuracy of results, logistics, and interpretation
of results of this project. Although some of these conclusions have also been made
concerning other projects in karst terranes of Kentucky and elsewhere, they have
been reinforced by the Rio Springs project and they are listed and discussed here.
These conclusions are:
1. The position and configuration of the boundary of the Rio Springs
groundwater basin, shown in Plate I, is based primarily on inferences
from six successful tracer tests, interpretation of the configuration of the
potentiometric surface, and deductions from field observations of the
highest perennially flowing reaches of seepage-fed surface streams. To a
far lesser extent, in part because we are aware of the fallacy of using
negative evidence to prove anything, the boundary position is also
influenced by the non-recovery of dye in one unsuccessful tracer test that
is tentatively interpreted to have gone to somewhere other than to Rio
Springs. [The rationale for this interpretation is: If some of the more
than adequate amount of dye injected had reached Rio Springs, it would
have been easily detected there.] We would prefer to have conducted
additional tracer tests, especially within the basin, but budget and time
constraints limited the number of tests that could be performed.
2. Delineation of groundwater basins in karst terranes can be done. It
requires extensive field work, sometimes under difficult conditions. But
groundwater tracing yields a greater quantity of highly reliable data
Q \9094\irTR0829DOC
20

-------
concerning the flow direction, velocity, destination, and sometimes
routing of groundwater and pollutants in karst terranes than any other
technique for investigation.
3.	Delineation of the Rio Springs groundwater basin was done empirically,
by tracing. It could only have been done by tracing . No analytical model
or computer model now available would have been capable of doing such
delineation with similar accuracy.
4.	The Rio Springs groundwater basin has an area of 4.9 +0.5 square miles.
This area was determined by using a compensating polar planimeter to
trace its boundary. This boundary is approximate and subjective, but
usable for planning, protection, and emergency response. The
+0.5 square mile error is estimated.
5.	Although many groundwater basins in carbonate terranes have been
properly delineated - by tracer tests performed on each side of their
inferred boundary (see, for example, Quinlan and Ray, 1989) -- and tracer
tests have been routinely employed by state agencies and various
consultants in the delineation of numerous wellhead and springhead
protection areas, we believe the Rio Springs Basin is the first springhead
protection area in the U.S. to have been delineated as such and to have a
published map showing the inferred relations between the boundary, the
path between dye-injection and dj'e-recovery points, and the
potentiometric surface.
6.	The general dip within the Rio Spring basin is west (at about 20 to 30 feet
per mile); flow within it is generally south, along the strike, as shown in
Plate I. Basins to the east of it flow up-dip or along the strike. Those to
the west generally flow down-dip and then along the strike. Those to the
north generally flow northwest to west, along the strike.
7.	The distribution of data points makes it likely that the boundary of much
of the Rio Springs groundwater basin north of the 600-foot potentiometric
contour could be shifted east or west by up to 1,000 feet. Nevertheless,
we have attained a reasonably accurate representation of the probable
Q \9094\inRO829JDOC
21

-------
boundary and general flow within the Rio Springs basin. If this map
were to be used for evaluating potential threats to water quality in the
basin by a facility proposed within a mile beyond the boundary north of
the 600-foot potentiometric contour, site-specific additional tracing would
have to be done.
8.	The inferred divide between groundwater draining south to the Green
River and groundwater draining north and west to Bacon Creek, a
tributary of the Nolin River, is locally more than two miles north of the
surface water (topographic) divide between the two streams. This
subsurface piracy of surface drainage is dramatically shown in the
western area of Plate I where three traces that went to the south were
injected significantly north of the surface-water divide, well within the
surface-watershed of Bacon Creek. Although the topographic map shows
blueline streams draining northwest from the topographic divide, these
are actually intermittent waterways utilized only during storm events.
The Green River, because of the relatively steeper gradient to it, is
capturing groundwater from the flanks of Bacon Creek. [Unpublished
tracing results by Quinlan and Ray show this relationship even more
dramatically in the contiguous extensive area west of Plate I.] Rio
Springs includes drainage from beyond the northern surface-water divide
of its basin. This fact is extremely relevant to spill-response and
protection of water quality.
9.	The basin boundary is shown by smooth curvilinear lines. In actuality,
the boundary could be irregular, even interdigitate, and it could
temporarily shift in response to storms and seasonal changes in static
water levels. The northern boundary of the Rio Springs groundwater
basin was inferred to be nominally midway between the topographic
divide (shown as a line of dots in Plate I) and the imaginary line formed
by linking the highest perennially flowing segment of the easternmost
five small steams (shown as arrow heads) draining to Bacon Creek.
These flowing segments are fed by groundwater. Therefore, barring
perching, the groundwater divide must be southeast of them. No attempt
was made to locate additional highest perennially flowing stream
segments west of State Highway 357.
Q \9094\IUR0829DOC
22

-------
10.	Previous studies have shown that topographic maps, both in Kentucky
and generally, show less than five percent of relevant springs and actual
sink-points of sinking streams. Similar observations were made during
this study. The topographic maps and geological maps are an essential
guide for planning field work, but interpretation of them is not a
substitute for field work. Field work is required for locating karst
features and must be done. The field work necessary for design of a
rigorous tracing plan can require use of 20 to 50 percent of a project
budget. Aerial photographs are rarely useful in field work for the design
of a tracer test. Most of the project-relevant karst features are too small
to be recognized in photos. Alternatively, in humid climates, they are
obscured by vegetation.
11.	There are not enough accessible wells in the area of Plate I to accurately
map the potentiometric surface. The surface shown is subjective but
consistent with a prudent, skeptical interpretation of all available
groundwater elevations (at springs, perennial streams, and wells) and
tracing data.
12.	In a karst terrane similar to the one studied, it is necessary to extend the
field work at least three miles beyond the estimated boundary of the
basin being studied. This is because delineation of a groundwater basin
must entail partial delineation of each of the basins adjacent to it - in
fulfillment of the maxim that "A boundary is not a boundary until and
unless it has been tested by traces on each side of its alleged position."
Data for interpretation of the potentiometric surface of an area similar to
that shown in Plate I, if it is to be reliably contoured, must also be
acquired from the area at least a mile (and preferably at least two miles)
beyond the map edges.
13.	Dry weather significantly slowed completion of the project because of the
rarity of wet weather flow; many potential sites for dye injection had no
water draining into them --except after major storms. These problems
were solved by scheduling tracing during the rainy season, when flow
velocities are faster, test duration is shorter and, consequently, analytical
Q \9094\imW829X)OC
23

-------
and labor costs are less. Where water was not naturally entering the
proposed injection point, alternative sources were used: siphoning by
hose from a pond, injecting tap water via a garden hose from two homes
on Green River Valley Water District line, and employing a 1,500-gallon
tank-truck.
14.	A potentiometric map, if based on an adequate amount of data (preferably
about 2 wells per square mile in areas similar to the one described herein;
only 0.73 wells per square mile could be measured in the area of Plate I
north of the Green River), and where there are not extensive perching
beds within an aquifer, is an extremely useful guide to the design of a
tracer test. Nevertheless, as tracing results are acquired, the draft
potentiometric map needs to be repeatedly revised in order to be
consistent with tracing data. Tracing data are real; all potentiometric
maps are inferential and subjective.
15.	The approximate normalized base flow (NBF) of the 4.9-square-mile Rio
Springs basin is 0.90 cubic feet per second per square mile (cfsm). In
contrast, the approximate NBF of six other groundwater basins in the
Mammoth Cave area south of Green River ranges from 0.15 to 0.20 cfsm,
with a mean of 0.17. These six basins range in size from 8.8 to
190 square miles but there is no significant correlation between the area
of these basins and their NBF. The NBF of what has been called conduit-
flow (low-storage) karst aquifers ranges from about 0.01 to 0.2; the NBF
of diffuse-flow (high-storage) karst aquifers ranges from about 0.2 to 0.4
(White, 1975). [The continuum between what have been called conduit-
flow and diffuse-flow aquifers is reflected in the continuity of NBF values
from 0.01 to OA]* For granular aquifers, the NBF is commonly 0.5 or
"The terms conduit flow and diffuse flow have been used in at least four different senses
since 1971, to refer to idealized end-members of continua describing types of discharge,
recharge, flow, and storage. The consequent ambiguity of these concepts, and the
ambiguity of their implied properties for the carbonate aquifers they purportedly describe,
have caused much confusion, both to investigators and to regulators. Worthington
et al. (1992) analyzed data in the world literature and concluded that the traditional
criterion for distinguishing between types of recharge and types of flow within aquifers in
temperate, climate, hardness (or its directly related surrogate, specific conductivity), was
invalid. Hardness and conductivity of aquifer discharge are, instead, a measure of
percentage of recharge from sinking streams. Worthington et al. (1992), followed by
Q \9094\IITTt0829-DOC
24

-------
more. Why, then, is the NBF of the Rio Springs basin almost six times
higher than the regional average? We believe this higher ratio is a
consequence of differences in storage and yield of the aquifers. The five
basins south of the Green River (Echo River, Pike Spring, Turnhole
Spring, Lower Blue Hole, Graham Springs, and Bear Wallow) have low
storage, respond rapidly to storms, and drain rapidly. The NBF of the Rio
Springs basin is significantly higher for four reasons: A) Approximately
75 percent of its recharge area is sand-mantled (Miller, 1969), more than
any other basin yet delineated in the Mammoth cave area; there is no
sand and gravel mantle in the five basins that are compared to the Rio
Springs basin. B) Open sinkholes are rare in the Rio Springs basin; they
are common in the other five. C) There is relatively higher storage of
available water in the thick sand and gravel that overlie the limestone.
And D) the relatively non-flashy response of Rio Springs to storms occurs
because there is attenuation of its rate of recharge and discharge by this
sand and gravel above the limestone. They enhance the quality and yield
of waters from Rio Springs, making them unique and perhaps the best in
the Mammoth Cave area for use as a water supply.
16. We estimate that the inferred 4.9-square-mile area of the Rio Springs
basin is accurate to within + 10 percent. Even if its actual size were
30 percent larger than is shown (6.4 square miles), the normalized base
flow would be 0.69 - still significantly higher than the mean NBF of other
basins in the Mammoth Cave area and supportive of the hypothesis that
Quinlan et al. (1993) and Davies and Quinlan (1993), interpreted the velocities of 1,800+
tracer tests in carbonate aquifers of 25 countries and concluded that flow should be divided,
on the basis of velocity, into two types, rapid-flow and slow-flow, with 0.001 meters/second
being the separation value between them. This holds no matter whether flow is through
conduits or through small, dissolutionally enlarged pores and joints. [This 0.001 m/s value
is empirical, being based on the tracer-test velocities, rather than arbitrary.] For all these
reasons, Daves and Quinlan (1993) recommended that the terms conduit flow and diffuse
flow be abandoned, except to non-generically distinguish between flow within conduits and
flow within pores and minimally enlarged joints. In support of the rapid-flow/slow-flow
paradigm Davies (1992), Davies and Quinlan (1993), show that neither long-term, almost
daily measurements of temperature variation of springs, nor similar measurements of their
conductivity, can be explained by invoking conduit flow or diffuse flow (in any of the
aforementioned sense of these terms). The variations can only be explained by invoking
mixed proportions of rapid flow and slow flow. The bottom line: One cannot use the
concepts of conduit flow or diffuse flow to validly justify decisions about springhead or
wellhead protection area boundaries or groundwater monitoring strategy.
Q \9094UriR0829DOC
25

-------
the hydrologic responses of the Rio Springs basin are damped by the
effects of the thick sands that blanket most of its recharge area.
REFERENCES
Alexander, E. C., Jr. and Quinlan, J. F. 1992. Practical Tracing of Groundwater,
with Emphasis on Karst Terranes. Short-course manual for Geological Society
of American Annual Meeting. Geological Society of America, Boulder,
Colorado. 2 vols. 161 + 130 p.
Davies, G. J. 1992. Water Temperature Variation at Springs in the Knox Group
near Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in Quinlan, J. F., and Stanley, A., eds. Conference
on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring, and Management of Ground Water in
Karst Terranes (3rd, Nashville, Tennessee, 1991), Proceedings. National
Ground Water Association, Dublin, Ohio.
Davies, G. J., and Quinlan, J. F. 1993. There is no such thing as a diffuse-flow
carbonate aquifer if that aquifer is unconfined and subaerially exposed [abs.]
Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 25, No. 6, p. 211.
Dicken, S. N. 1935. Kentucky Karst Landscapes. Journal of Geology, v. 43,
p. 708-728.
Field, M. S., Wilhelm, R. G., and Quinlan, J. F. In review. Use and toxicity of
fluorescent dyes for tracing groundwaters. Submitted to Ground Water and in
revision.]
Hess, J. W., and White, W. B. 1988. Water Budget and Physical Hydrology, in
White, W. B., and White, E. L., eds. Karst Hydrology: Concepts from the
Mammoth Cave Area. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. p. 105-126.
Miller, R. C. 1969. Geologic map of the Canmer quadrangle, Kentucky. U.S.
Geological Survey, Geologic Map GQ-816.
Miller, R. C., and Moore, S. L. 1969. Geologic map of the Hudgins quadrangle,
Kentucky. U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Map GQ-834.
Miller, R. C., and Moore, F. B. 1972. Geologic map of the Hammonville quadrangle,
Kentucky. U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Map GQ-1051.
Miller, R. C., and Moore, F. B. 1975. Geologic map of the Magnolia quadrangle,
Kentucky. U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Map GQ-1280.
Plebuch, R. O, Faust, R. O., and Townsend, M. A. 1985. Potentiometric surface and
water quality in the principal aquifer, Mississippian Plateaus region. U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 84-4102. 45 p.
Q \9C94 \TrTR0829X>OC
26

-------
Quinlan, J. F. 1970. Central Kentucky Karst, Mediterranee, Etudes et Travaux,
v. 7, p. 235-253.
Quinlan, J. F., Davis, G. J., and Worthington, S.R.H. 1993. Review of "Ground-
Water Quality Monitoring Network Design" by Loaiciga, H. A., et al., 1992.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 19, no. 12, p. 1136-1141. [Discussion,
with reply, p. 1141-1142.]
Quinlan, J. F., Ewers, R. O., Ray, J. A., Powell, R. L., and Krothe, N. C. 1983.
Groundwater Hydrology and Geomorphology of the Mammoth Cave Region,
Kentucky, and of the Mitchell Plain, Indiana, in Shaver, R. H., and
Sunderman, V. A., eds. Field Trips in Midwestern Geology. Geological Society
of America and Indiana Geological Survey, v. 2, p. 1-85
Quinlan, J. F. and Ray, J. A. 1989. Groundwater Basins in the Mammoth Cave
Region, Kentucky, showing Springs, Major Caves, Flow Routes, and
Potentiometric Surface. Friends of the Karst. Occasional Publication No. 2
[revised edition of map first published 1981].
Sauer, C. O. 1927. Geography of the Pennyroyal. Kentucky Geological Survey,
Series 6, v. 25. 303 p.
Smart, P. L. 1984 [1986]. A Review of the Toxicity of Twelve Fluorescent Dyes Used
for Water Tracing. National Speleological Society [NSS] Bulletin, v. 46, no. 2,
p. 21-33.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Guidelines for
Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas. Office of Ground-Water Protection,
Washington, DC. 209 p.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Wellhead Protection
Programs: Tools for Local Governments. Offices of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA 440/6-89-002. 50 p.
White, E. L. 1977. Sustained Flow in Small Appalachian Watersheds Underlain by
Carbonate Rocks. Journal of Hydrology, v. 32, P. 71-86.
White W. B. 1988. Geomorphology and Hydrology of Karst Terranes. Oxford
University Press, New York. 464 p.
White, W. B., and White, E. L., eds. 1989. Karst Hydrology: Concepts from the
Mammoth Cave Area. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 346 p.
Worthington, S.R.H. Davies, G. J., and Quinlan, J. F. 1992. Geochemistry of
Springs in Temperate Carbonate Aquifers: Recharge Type Explains Most of
the Variation. Colloque d'Hydrologie in Pays Calcaire et en Milieu Fissure
(5th, Neuchatel, Switzerland), Proceedings. Annales Scientifiques de
l'Universite de Besangon, Geologie - Memoires Hors Serie, no. 11, v. 2,
p. 341-347.
Q \ 9094 \ IITRO820 J50C
27

-------
APPENDIX A
KENTUCKY GROUNDWATER TRACING FORMS

-------
TRACER INJECTION SITE
ETOa
#J-	
1. Name of Dye Trace (Site Location): Ash Farm Trace - Cliafks
2.	Date of Injection:	March	/ 3 / 1993	Time: 10:45	(x)a.m. ( ) p.m.
Month	Day	Year
3.	Owner of Injection Site: Charles Ash Farm	Phone: (	) N/A	
A.	Quadrangle/County: Hammonville Quad, KY	/ Hart County
5.	Elevation: 780	(*)map ( ) measured	 ( ) unknown
6.	Latitude: ^7 ^ ^ ^	Longitude: 85 45' 27" W	
7.	Description of Injection Site:
( ) sinking stream	( ) losing stream	( ) karst window	(x ) sinkhole
( ) cave	( ) water well	( ) injection well	( ) monitoring well
( ) lagoon	( ) septic system	other	
Remarks	
8.	Formation Receiving Tracer Injection: Stc, Genevieve Limestone	
9.	Flow Conditions: ( ) low (x) moderate ( ) high	
10.	Field Conditions (precipitation, runoff, etc): runoff occurring into sinkhole	
used water from nearby pond to flush dye into sinkhole	
11.	Rate of Flow: 2-3 ' ( ) cfs (x)gpm ( ) l/s ( ) cms	( ) measured (x) estimated
( ) permanent injection site ( ) intermittent
( ) multiple sites possible	
12.	Induced Flow? ( ) no (x)yes 30-50 gal / 200 gallons 120 _ minutes
Pre-injection Post-injection	Elapsed Time
13.	Tracing Agent:	Color	% Active
Index	Ingredient
Sodium Fluorescein	Acid Yellow 73	80 percent
( )RhodamineWT				
( ) Optical Brightener				
( ) Direct Yellow 96				
Other
14.	Reason for Investigation: Rio Springs Wellhead delineation Project
15.	Principal Investigator: Geary Schindel	
16.	Agency or Organization: ECKENFELDER INC.	
227 French Landing Drive	Nashville	TN	37228
Address	City	State	Zip
( 615 ) 255-2288	(	)	
Phone	FAX #
17.	Field Personnel: Joe Ray - Geary Schindel	
Amount
7 pound
IDENTIFY INJECTION SITE ON PHOTOCOPY OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE
#R-
ProjectRio Springs Wellhead Delineation Proi ect Inlectjon Date / ฃ> 3 / 9"S
Month Day Yea;
NameofDveTracedni&ctlonstte) C-A&r/e-Z As/) SiwkUof'C. Tracer /~//j0 &HA
Principal Investiqator Geary Schindel Field Personnel Joe Ray - Trav Lyons
Precipitation before&durincjtrace

Date

z-i i-IZ.
S'/f
3-zs
*-2
q-/o



Duration










ID
Location of Dye Detectors
Back-
ground
Results
1
Boiling Springs Conflul
—
—
	 1 —
—
- I I

2
Johnson Spring

ฃ
—
—
—
i i i
— 1 - 1 !

3
Cottrell Sprine


—
—
—
-
—

I
k
Log Spring

—
—ฆ
—
—
—
—ฆ



5
Buckner Spring

-
—
—
—
—
-



6
Rio Springs Conflu.

-
—
—
-
-
—
!

7
Rio Springs East

-
—
—
—
—
—



8
Rio Springs Creek

-
—
—
-
—
—



9
Scotty Spring

-
—
-
-
—
—
! !
10
Lanes Mill Spring

—
—
-
—
— 1 ~
! !
11 1 Bridge Serine

-
—
—
—
_ j _

i
1?
Xnox^Creek Spring

-
—
-
- I-
—
! i
13 Handv Culvert Spring


—
—
—
—
—
i

14
Powder Mill Trout Conf

-
—
—
-
—
—



IS
Powder Kill Sn.-- Spring

—
-
—
—
-
		 j j

lfi
Railpv Falls Spring

-
—
—-
—
~
—



17
Mvsterv Springs Conf.

-
—
-
—
—
- j


1?
Rumble Spring

—
—
—
—
—
-



19
Aetna Furnace at Bdg.

-
—
—
—
—
! i 1
~ 1 1 i
20 -
Branch Fork at Bridge

-
+ + 1 t
t

i-

j
21 I Jones School Spring

-
ฆM-F

+ +ฆ
+
•h
i 1
i !
22
Jones School Creek

i
—
—
-
- i ! i
— Negative Results B Perceptible Background (slight)
+ Positive B+ Significant Background ^problematic)
Legend; ++ VeryPositrve NR Not Recovered (high water, stolen receptor, etc)
+ + + Extremely Positive L Receptor lost
/ Receptor Not Changed G New or Extra Receptor Installed
Remarks I^^ckc'Ia Ccn/^ S
interpretation CXtyz, ds'llenr.*.

-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE
#R-
Pro|ectRio Springs Wellhead Delineation Project ln|ectionDate 3 t O 3 / ^3
Montfi Day Year
NameofDveTraceflnlectlonsite^^WigJ? 5/Mfch<s Tracer/-/upVz^&tslLI
Principal Investiqator Geary Schindel Field Personnel Joe Rav - Tray Lvons
Precipitation before & durinq trace

Date

3-1
3-/Z
3 -If 3-U
t/'Z-
y-'o



Duration



|





ID
Location of Dye Detectors
Back-
ground
Results
23
Tampa Branch

—
—
- i - 1 "
-



| 1
24 iMartis Branch 1
-
—
—
i 	
~ i
—
!

25
Gaddie Cemetery Creek

- | ~

- I "
—
!

26
Honey Run Creek

—





i

27
Warren East Creek

—
—
—
—
—
—
I

28
Bacon Ck./Wabash Bde.

—
—
—
I

29
Honey Run at Bridge

MM
Nm NM
>
1
h/M



30
Martis Branch @ Beaver
Dam
A!(Vt
NM NM Hwi\nm
UM


31
Tanrpa Branch East


Nm 1 fJM l/KM/ \A/n4 JV141
!
32
Tampa Branch South

HWl
nm \mm IW ivm !

33 I Tampa Branch at Bridee

Aw
MM \AIM
/tyty1 i f/yv)

! I

|
!' I i

1




I
i
1 1
1 1

|




i













t
i






























|

!








! 1 i !

|

|
i i
I !
i |
1 i

i
1







! !





j i
1 i
i I

— Negative Results B Percepuble Background (s)ight)
+ Positive B + Significant Background tproblematjc)
L6Q6nd! ++ Very Positive NR Not Recovered (high water, stolen receptor, etc)
+ + + Extremely Positive L Receptor lost
/ Receptor Not Changed G New or Extra Receptor Installed .
Remarks /l/^1 C
Interpretation

-------
TRACER RECOVERY SITE(S)
AKGWA#
#C-
1. Name of Recovery She: J&n&S ScMoo/ Spr/ftc^
2. Owner: UH f\\AOUJt'A
3.	Quadranale/Courrrv: /%y <^IAq//C*^
4.	Elevation: ฃ>0O ' (^fmap ( (measured

5. Latitude: 37 2 3 3/ M Longitude: */ 3 "S'S bO
( ) karst window
onrloring well other	
7. Discharge rt Baseflow:
6. Srte Description:
(~ispnng ( ) cave	( ) stream
( ) water well ( ) monitoring well other_
O	( ป"']fest. ( ) measured
Unit
ฃ. Background Status:	Fluor	Rhod	OB	DY	other
9. Dye Detected: (i^Fluor
other 	
( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( ) DY
10. Method of Detection:
( "j charcoal/cotlon
( ) on-site fluorometer
( ) grab sample
( ) visual other_
( ) aulo sampler
11. Method of Analysis:
( ) visible in elutant
(^spectrophotometer ( -"ftlu
tluorometer
other
12.	Date of Detection^ fMairoh.
Wontfi
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough:	
/ 2U /

Day	V^a/
	( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
/Y A
14.	Duration of Dye Curve:	
15.	Principal Investigator:	/
16.
Field Personnel: /ZoAt 5 ""
AKGWA#
#C-
1.	Name of Recovery She:_
2.	Owner: 	
3.	Quadrnngle/County:_
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latitude:	
/
( ) map ( ) measured
	Longitude:	
6. Site Description:
spring (
cave	( ) stream
water well ( ) monitoring well
( ) karst window
7.	Discharge ei Baseflow:	
8.	Background Status:	Fluor
other	
	 ( ) est. ( ) measured
Unit
Rhod
9. Dye Detecled: (
other 	
Fluor ( ) Rhod
_OB	DY	other
(JOB ( ) DY
10.	Method of Detectlo"'
( ) charcoal/cotton ( ) grab sample ( ) aulo sampler
( ) on-she fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis:
( ) visible in elutant ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
other
12.	Date of Detection:	
Montfi
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough:	
14.	Duration of Dye Curve:
15.	Principal lnvestigator:_
16.	Field Personnel:
Day	Y t&J
	( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
AKGWA#
#C-
AKGWA#
#C-
1.	Name of Recovery Site:_
2.	Owner:
1.	Name of Recovery Site:_
2.	Owner:
3.	Quadrangle/Gounty:_
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latitude:
/
( ) map ( ) measured
	Longitude:	
3.	Quadrangle/County:
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latitude:
/
( ) map ( ) measured _
	Longitude:	
6. Site Description:
( ) spring ( ) cave ( ) stream ( ) karst window
( ) water well ( ) monitoring well other	
7. Discharge at Baseflow:
( ) est ( ) measured
Background Status:	Fluor	Rhod	OB
DY
other
6.	Site Description:
( ) spring ( ) cave ( ) stream
( ) water well ( ) monrtoring well other_
7.	Discharge at Baseflow:	
8.	Background Status:	Fluor
( ) karst window
9. Dye Delected: ( ) Fluor ( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( ) DY
other	
10 Method of Detection:
( ) charcoal/cotton ( ) grab sample ( ) aulo sampler
( ) on-site fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis:
( ) visible in elutant ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
oih e r	
12.	Date of Detection:	 /	/		
Month
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough:	
9. Dye Detected: ( ) Fluor
other
( ) est ( ) measured
	 	OB	DY	other
( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( ) DY
Uni*.
Rhod
10.	Method of Detection:
( ) charcoal/cotton ( ) grab sample ( ) aulo sampler
( ) on-site fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis:
( ) visible in elutant ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
other
Daj	Year
	( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
14.	Duration of Dye Curve:
15.	Principal Investigator:	
1 6. Field Personnel:
12.	Date of Detection:	
MontTi
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough:	
14. Duration of Dye Curve:_
1 5. Principal Investigator:	
16. Field Personnel:
Day	Yea/
	' ( ) a.m. ( ) p.m
IDENTIFY RECOVERY SITE(S) ON PHOTOCOPY OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

-------
.luiionville,
11330000. N
ASH FARM TRACE-CHARLES ASH SINKHOLE
HAMMOHVILLE, KY QUAD
' 'N*
Q>
4 7'30"
*08
• 1 ~-V> - - -I/ ^	(&>,
85ฐ4 5'
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
•	# IN TERIOn — GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, RCSTON Vlซ G'Nl a—1 96 2
6flQ000m f	\ LINWOOO 2 4 Ml
GLASGOW 28 Ml
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
Heavy-duty	Light-duty
Mediu.-r duty .	=—=—=—= Unimproved dirt
ฃ3 U S Route	(3 State Route
HAMMONViLLE. KY.
NE/4 MUNFORDVILLE 15' QUADRANGLE
N3722 5—W 8545/7 5
-37ฐ22ฐ0//

1954
PHOTOREVISED 1982
DMA 3858 IV NE - SERIES V853

-------
TRACER INJECTION SITE
#j-
1. Name of Dye Trace (Site Location): Glen Lilly Road Spring
2. Date of Injection:
March
/
3 / 1993
Time: 1:10
Month
Day
Year
( )a.m. (x)p.m.
3. Owner of Injection Site: Royce Noe
Phone: ( 502 ) 528-5730
4. Quadrangle/County: CANMER
/ Hart County
5.	Elevation: 750 feet
6.	Latitude:
37 20' 12" N
(X)map ( ) measured _
( )unknown
Longltude:_
85 461 39" W
7. Description of Injection Site:
(X) sinking stream	( ) losing stream	( ) karst window	( ) sinkhole
( ) cave	( ) water well	( ) injection well	( ) monitoring well
( ) lagoon	(	) septic system	other	
Remarks
8. Formation Receiving Tracer ln|ectlon: Ste. Genevieve Limestone
9. Flow Conditions: ( ) low (x) moderate ( ) high_
10. Field Conditions (precipitation, runoff, etc): water flows from small spring beneath shelf of
rock and sinks at base of small sinkhole.
11. Rate of Flow:
5-7
( ) cfs (xi gpm ( ) l/s ( ) cms
( ) measured ( ) estimated
( ) permanent injection site ( ) intermittent
( ) multiple sites possible	
12.	Induced Flow? no ( )yes
13.	Tracing Agent:
( ) Sodium Fluorescein
(X) Rhodamine WT
( ) Optical Brightener
( ) Direct Yellow 96
Other
/
minutes
Pre-injection
Post-injection
Elapsed Time
Color
Index
% Active
Ingredient
Amount
Acid Red 388
Z0 percent
?. ponnrlq
14.	Reason for Investigation: Rio Springs Wellhead Delineation Projert
15.	Principal Investigator: Geary Schindel	
16. Agency or Organization:
ECKENFELDER INC.
227 French Landing Drive
Nashville
TN
37228
Address
( 615 ) 255-2370
City
State
Zip

17. Field Personnel:
Phone
Joe Ray - Geary Schindel
FAX #
IDENTIFY INJECTION SITE ON PHOTOCOPY OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE




#R-







Prolect Rio Springs Wellhead Delineation Proiect Infection Date 0 3 / 3 / 3
Month Day
NameofDveTrace (injection site) /v/e/1 L)LLv fZoard Tracer Knoclfi mirte.
Yon/
U?T

Principal investigator Geary Schindel

Field Personnel Joe Ray
- Trav Lvons

Precipitation before & during trace

























Date

3-/2
13V?
1*21,
*t-z
V-/P

\fr



Duration






\bo.okc^ypiMtf
ID
Locatlon of Dye Detectors
Back-
ground
Results
1
Boiling Springs Conflu
[
—
—
—

—
i -
l
2
I Johnson Spring

i
—
i
-
-
—

- ! !
3
Cottrell Spring

—
-
-
*ปฆป
—

—


4
Loe Serine


~
—
.—
—
~ 1
—


5
Buckner Spring


H-t
hf
4-
-h
i4

~ 1

6
Rio Springs Conflu.

—
—
-
—


—


7
Rio Springs East

—
/"s.
-
-
—

—


8
Rio Springs Creek

~

-
—
—

-


9
Scottv Spring

—
—
—
—
—

-
i
i
10
Lanes Mill Spring

-
—


~ i
__ i

11
Bridge Spring


-

-
—
j
-
!
17.
Knox Creek Spring

—
—
-
—
-

- ! i
13
Handv Culvert Spring

1 -
~ 1
-
-


— I

14
Powder Mill Trout Conf

-
—
—
—
-

~
1
IS
Powrlpr Mill Sn.
-Snrinf

- 1 -
-
—
-
i ;
1 ~ 1

16
Kailev Falls Spring

-
-
-
—
-




17
Mvsterv Springs Conf.

—
—
-
-
-

~
|
18
Rumble Spring


-
—
-
-

—


19 !
Aetna Furnace at Bdg.

-
-
-
-
-

- i i
20 I-Branch-Fork at
Bridge


-
~
—
-

- |

21
Jones School Spring

—
-
!
-

i |
22 1
Jones School Creek 1

!
—
-
-
—
i ~ !

Legend:
— Negative Results
+ Positive
+ + Very Positive
+ + + ExUemely Positive
/ Receptor Not Changed


B Perceptible Background (slight)
B + Significant Background (problematic)
N R Not Recovered (high water, stolen receptor, etc)
L Receptor lost
G New or Extra Receptor Installed


Remarks

























Interpretation /Is 777








J






-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE
#R-
Prolect Rio Springs Wellhead Delineation Proiect Injection Date O 3 / <5> 3 /
Month Day Year
Nameof DyeTrace (iniectlon site) Ll!~l~V IZbaS. Tracer $.U ocQawitf-f, UjT~
Principal Investigator Geary Schindel Field Personnel Joe Rav - Tray Lyons
Precipitation before & durinq trace

Date

J-12
j-/?
1
V-2

1

Duration



I

i

ID
Location of Dye Detectors
Back-
ground
Results
23
Tampa Branch

—
—
- i ~ 1 ~
i -


24 IMartis Branch

—
—
—
- !- I
~ i

25
Gaddie Cemetery Creek

—
-
•—
-
—
! ^

26 !Honey Run Creek







~ 1

27
Warren East Creek

—
-
—
-
-

—


28 iBacon Ck./Wabash Bde.

-
—
~
—
—

— |

29 ! Honey Run at Bridge

blrrt





i




	
30 iMartis Branch @ Beaver
Dam
AIM


1




31 ^Tampa Branch East

A/W

i 1 -





1 ' >
i
32 1 Tampa Branch South

A/W

I


1
!


1
V>
33 Tampa Branch at Bridge!
fl/w
i
! --




i
—i—
1
!







i

!




!



i
1




i




i
I






i i
i i










i


















i











!
i 1
1





i
1
i

1

j
i




i

i

!



i i
i !

— Negative Resulls B Percepuble Background (slight)
+ Positive B + Significant Background (problematic)
Legend: ++ Very Positive NR Not Recovered (high water, stolen receptor, etc)
+ + + Extremely Positive L Receptor lost
/ Recepior Not Changed G New or Extra Receptor Installed
Remarks N*"
Interpretation

-------
TRACER RECOVERY SITE(S)
fiTS
AKGWA#
#C-
1. Name of Recovery She:
Owner: UWK\A&UJVt
X Quadrangla/Courrty: j^CA
4. Elevation:		(<^map ( ) measured	
5.	Lathude: 37* / %' ฅ7 /V Longitude: "SS" */%'}*/ CU
6.	She Description:
P
) wa
spring ( t^cave ( ) stream ( ) karst window
water well ( ) monitoring well other	
7. Discharge rt Baseflow: #7?>/
ฃ. Background Status:^
Fluor
CPy (
Unit
Rhod
9. Dye Delected: ( ) Fluor
other	
(/) Rhod
OB	
( )0B
) measured
DY	other
( )DY
10. Method of Detection:
(XT charcoal/cotton
( j on-she fluorometer
) grab sample
) visual other_
( ) auto sampler
11. Method of Analysis:	>ป	—
( ) visible in elutant ( f/\ spectrophotometer ( Knluorometer
other		
12.	Dale of Detection:_ tUaccsk,
Montn
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough:	
YA_
/ z. / /4"? 3
Dey	YซJ
	( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
14. Duration of Dye Curve:
AVf
15. Principal Investigator: *5?>b/l/f C^-C f
16. Field
Personnel:
AKGWA#
#C-
1. Name of Recovery She:_
2_ Owner:		
3.	Quadrปngle/County:_
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latitude:		
/
( ) map ( ) measured _
	Longitude:	
6. She Description:
spring (
) cave	( ) stream
water well ( ) monitoring well
other
( ) karst window
7.	Discharge at Baseflow:	
8.	Background Status:	Fluor
9.	Dye Detecled: ( ) Fluor
other
( ) est. ( ) measured
	 	OB	DY	other
( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( ) DY
Unh
Rhod
10.	Method of Detectio":
( ) charcoal/cotton ( ) grab sample ( ) auto sampler
( ) on-stle (luorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis:
( ) visible in elutant (
other
spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
12.	Date of Detection:	
MontTi
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough:	
14.	Duration of Dye Curve:_
15.	Principal investigator:_
16.	Field Personnel:
Day	Ye-aJ
	( ) a-m. ( ) p.m.
AKGWA#
#C-
AKGV/A#
#C-
1.	Name of Recovery Site:_
2.	Owner:
1.	Name of Recovery Site
2.	Owner:
3.	Ouadrangle/CoL!rify:_
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latitude:
/
( ) map ( ) measured _
	Longitude:	
3.	Quadrangle/County:_
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latitude:
/
( ) map ( ) measured _
	Longitude:	
6. Site Description:
( ) spring ( ) cave ( ) stream ( ) karst window
( ) water well ( ) monitoring well other	
7.	Discharge at Baseflow:	
8.	Background Status:	Fluor
Uni;
Rhod
( ) esl ( ) measured
OB DY other
6.	Site Description:
( ) spring ( ) cave ( ) stream (
( ) water well ( ) monitoring well other	
7.	Discharge at Baseflow:	
karst window
( ) est ( ) measured
9. Dye Detected: ( ) Fluor ( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( ) DY
other	
10.	Method of Detection:
( ) charcoal/cotton ( ) grab sample ( ) auto sampler
( ) on-site fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis:
( ) visible in elulant ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
other
12.	Date of Detection:	
Month
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough'	
14. Duration of Dye Curve:
1 5. Principal Investigator:	
1 6. Field Personnel:
/
/
Day	Yea;
	( ) a m. ( ) p.m.
ฃ. Background Status:	Fluor	Rhod	OB	DY	other
9. Dye Detected: ( ) Fluor ( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( ) DY
other	
10.	Method of Detection:
( } charcoal/cotion ( ) grab sample { ) auto sampler
( ) on-site fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis.
( ) visible in elulant ( ) spect/opholometer ( ) fluorometer
other 	
12.	Date of Detection:	/	/	
Montfi
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough.	
Day	Yea,'
	 ( ) a-m. ( ) p.m.
14. Duration of Dye Curve*
1 5. Principal Investigator:
1 6. Field Personnel"
IDENTIFY RECOVERY SITE(S) ON PHOTOCOPY OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

-------
CAMviER QUADRANGLE
KENTUCKY —HART CO.
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
RD
A
A7'30"
,1 990 000 FjET
SEH l.'.UNFORDVILLE 15' QUADRANGLE
HOOG€ NVILLF 17 M/ .
eQ$VACNOLIA 5 3/.'/ '	, 6]Q
V

.- -
"M-y-'iUr-s?
85ฐ4 5'
4-37ฐ22'30"
37
V e-
-soo^ci' -

- c\\
•/'Friendship'	.*Vr-
,C.
CV-. 7.
' 'ฆ	^	! ) r> >S\ !~p
r\f 1'- ฆ --r—iJ ฐr d\;rV"


rj_'; /'0: •	i	^*
ฆ ~vX Xfu^iGgSi


-0 CAHHER, KY QUAD

-------
TRACER INJECTION SITE


#J-

1.
Name of Dye Trace (Site Location): Glen Lilly Sink

2.
Datedf Inlectlon: March / 25 / 1993 Time: 12: AO
( ) a.m. fcx) p.m.

Month Day Year

3.
Owner of Injection Site: N/A Phone: ( )

4.
Quadrangle/County: Canmer Ouad., KY / Hart Co.

5.
Elevation: 890 map ( ) measured
( )unknown
6.
Latitude: 37ฐ 21' 06" N Longitude: 85ฐ 47' 12" W

7.
Description of Injection Site:
(O!) sinking stream ( ) losing stream ( ) karst window
( ) cave ( ) water well ( ) injection well
( ) laaoon ( ) septic system other
( ) sinkhole
( ) monitoring well

Remarks

8.
Formation Recelvlnq Tracer Inlectlon: Girkin Formation

9.
Flow Conditions: ( ) low (xKmoderate ( ) hiqh

10.
Field Conditions (precipitation, runoff, etc): Dye injected after rain on previous day -

hard rain on evening after trace.

11.
Rate of Flow: i o_i s ( ) cfs kx) ppm ( ) l/s ( ) cms ( ) measured ฃx) estimated
( ) permanent injection site (XJJ intermittent
( ) multiple sites possible
12.
Induced Flow? (x)no ( ) yes / minutes

Pre-injection Post-injection Elapsed Time

13.
Tracing Agent: Color % Active
Index Ingredient
( ) Sodium Fluorescein
Amount

( )RhodamineWT


( ) Optical Briqhtener


(x>) Direct Yellow 96 unknown
6.5 lbs

Other Solophenyl (formerly marketed as Diphenyl
Brilliant Flavine
14.
Reason for Investigation: Rio Springs Wellhead delineation Project

15.
Principal Investigator: Geary Schindel

16.
Agency or Organization: ECKENFELDER INC.


227 French Landing Drive Nashville TN
37228

Address City State
Zip

( 615 ) 255-2288 ( )


Phone FAX #

17.
Field Personnel: Joe Ray - Geary Schindel





TGFj
IDENTIFY INJECTION SITE ON PHOTOCOPY OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE
#R-
Pro]ectRlo Springs Wellhead Delineation Project Injection Date O3 I Z 5~~ / 3
Day
Year
Name of Dye Trace (injection stie) CrleiA		Tracer Solvphe.ny/ OY96
Principal Investigator Geary Schindel	Field Personnel Joe Ray - Trav Lyons	
Precipitation before & during trace	

Date

3J/9 ! 3-2d V- V-/6
<7-/71 !


Duration





1



ID
Location of Dye Detectors
Back-
ground
Results
1
Boiling Springs Conflui
— j —
_
—
| |

2
Johnson Spring 1
1 !
	.
—
j |


3
Cottrell Sprine

—
ฆ—
-—
—
-




A
Log Spring

—
—
— j —
—




5
Buckner Spring

- 1 -
—
— — j


6
Rio Springs Conflu.

—
—
tf-t
t
+


I
7
Rio Sprines East

—
—
•ht
t-
—




8
Rio Springs Creek

—
—
—
—
- 1 1
1
9
Scotty Spring !
—
—
-1-1 -
! i !
10
Lanes Kill Serine 1
—
—
—
—
- ! !

11
Bridge Spring

— ! —
-
- i - 1


1? ! Knox Crp.ek Spring


—
—
~ i
I ! i
13 1 Handy Culvert Sprine

-
—-
—
—
—




14
1
Powder Mill Trout Confl.
—
—-
—
—
—
1
1


IS 1 Powder Mill So.-" Sirrind
—
	 j
~
	 | j


16
Railpv Falls Spring

—
—
—
—
—
j


17
Mvsterv Springs Conf.

-
—
—
—
—
j
1
1
18
Rumble Sprine

—
—
—
—
—
|
I
19
Aetna Furnace at Bdg. 1
I _
1
— j — j -
! 1 •
1 I !
20 -
"Branch- Fork at Bridge !
-
—
—
—
—
J 1
j 1

21
Jones School Sprine i
—
•—
— ! — I —-

i !
22 i Jones School Creek !
!
—
—
—
i i

— Negarive Results
+ Positive
Lcgsnd;	++ Very Positive
+ + + Ext/emely Positive
/ Receptor Not Changed
B	Percepuble Background (slight)
B +	Significant Background (problematic)
H R	Not Flecovered (high water, stolen recopior, etc)
L	Receptor los;
G	New or Extra Receptor Installed
Remarks /€/<	/- $/<&? 5/g^^y f-
Inlerpretation

-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE




#R-






Prolect Rio Springs Wellhead Delineation Proiect Injection Date ft 3 /
25T / <9-3
NameofDveTraceflnlectlonsite} Cc/t.Y) LiLLy
Month Day Voar
Tracer ^p/opkfJWI DV?

Principal Investigator Geary
Schindel

Field Personnel Joe Ray
/ '
- Tray Lvons
Precipitation before & during trace























Date

3V?

5?-2.
9-10
V-'7






Duration










ID
Location of Dye Detectors
Back-
ground
Results
23
Tampa Branch

—
—
—
—
—

j

24
i
Martis Branch 1
—
ฆ—
—
-


I

25
Gaddie Cemetery
Creek

—
ฆ—
—
—
—

!

26
Honey Run Creek

—
—
—
—
—




27
Warren East Creek

-*
ฆ—
—
—
—




28
Bacon Ck./Wabash Bdg.

ฆ—
—
—
—
—

!

29
Honey Run at Bridge










30
Martis Branch P
Beaver
Dam



I




31
Tampa Branch East



| |




32
Tanroa Branch South





i
i

33
Tamoa Branch at
Bridge

1

i




1







! !





|
1 i







i












1 i
! 1































i
|








I
i !

|




1
1

i
i

! 1

|



i !





i i
1 i
i !

Legend:
— Negative Results
+ Positive
+ + Very Positive
+ + +- Ext/emely Positive
/ Recepior Not Changed


B Percepubfe Background (slight)
B + Significant Background (problematic)
N R Not Recovered (high water, stolen receptor, etc)
L Roceptor lost
G New or Exira Preceptor Installed

Remarks












Interpretation














-------
TRACER RECOVERY SITE(S)
AKGWA#
#C-
1.	Name of Recovery Stte: fc-&~
2. Quadrangle/County: {sOtfl	jr-&
4.	Elevation: ^~-y */Q	( ^ map ( ) measured	
5.	Latitude: 3~7	Sฃ7A/Longitude: &5~ */&'
6.	Stte Description:
spring ( ) cave ( ) stream ( ) karst window
( ) water well ( ) monitoring well other	
7.	Discharge at Basefiow: <3~~ 61 CjP? (infest. ( (measured
Unit
8.	Background Status:	Fluor	Rhod	OB	DY	other
9.	Dye Detected: ( ) Fluor ( ) Rhod ( ) OB	DY
other 	 		
} auto sampler
10.	Method ot Detection:
(><5charcoal/cotlon	( ) grab sample
( ) on-site fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method ot Analysis:
( ) visible in elutant ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
other
UV L~'c,kJlt
12. Date of Detection:	/

Month \ j /f\	YeA/
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough:	A///r ( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
14.	Duration of Dye Curve: /V'//งฆ	
15.	Principal Investigator:	ll/Mclf, /	
16.	Field Personnel: ฃ~yc>(1 < — f^CuV ~~	f
AKGWA#
#C-
1. Name of Recovery She:_
2 Owner:		
3.	Quadrangle/County:
4.	EJevatlon:	
5.	Latitude: 	
/
( ) map ( ) measured _
	Longitude:	
6. She Description:
spring j
( }
water well ( ) monrtonng well
) cave
) m
7. Discharge al Basefiow:
stream
other
( ) karst window
U nil
Rhod
8. Background Status:	Fluor	
S, Dye Detected: ( ) Fluor ( ) Rhod
other
( ) est ( ) measured
	OB	DY	other
( )OB ( ) DY
10.	Method of Detection
( ) charcoal/cotton ( ) grab sample ( ) aulo sampler
( ) on-sile fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis:
( ) visible in elutant ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
other
12.	Date of Detection:	
Montr*
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough:	
14. Duration of Dye Curve:_
1 5. Principal lnvestigator:_
16. Field Personnel:
Day	Ye-t/
	( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
AKGWAฃ
#C-
AKGWA#
#C-
1.	Name of Recovery Si1e:_
2.	Owner:
1.	Name of Recovery Si1e:_
2.	Owner:
3.	Quadrsngle/Gounty:_
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latitude:
/
( ) map ( ) measured
	Longitude:	
3.	Quadrangie/County:_
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latitude:
/
( ) map ( ) measured
	Longitude:	
6. Site Description:
( ) spring ( ) cave ( ) stream ( ) karst window
( ) water well ( ) monitoring well other	
6. Site Description:
( ) spring ( ) cave ( ) stream ( ) karst window
( ) water well ( ) monitoring well other	
7. Discharge at Baseflow:_
{ ) est ( ) measured
8.	Background Status:	Fluor	Rhod	OB	DY	other
9.	Dye Detected' ( ) Fluor ( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( ) DY
otner	
10.	Method of Detection'
( ) charcoal/cotton ( ) grab sample ( ) auto sampler
( ) on-sile fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis:
( ) visible in elutanl ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
other
7.	Discharge at Baseflow:	
8.	Background Status:	Fluor
Unr
Rhod
( ) est ( ) measured
OB DY other
12 Date of Detection:
/
/
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough:
14.	Duration of Dye Curve:	
1 5. Principal Investigator:	
1 6. Field Personnel:
Day	Yea.'
	( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
9.	Dye Delected: ( ) Fluor ( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( ) DY
other	
10.	Method of Detection:
( ) charcoal/conon ( ) grab sample ( ) aulo sampler
( ) on-site fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis:
( ) visible in elutant ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
other	
12.	Date of Detection:	 /	/
Montr*
13.	initial Dye Breakthrough:	
Day	Yta/
	 ( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
14 Duration of Dye Curve:
15. Principal Investigator._
1 6. Field Personnel'
IDENTIFY RECOVERY SITE(S) ON PHOTOCOPY OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

-------
L.Ainivit.K UDAUrcAJNULL
KENTUCKY—HART CO
RD
7
.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) ^


4 7'30"
il 990 000 FfET
sliv.

"J
SE/4 MUNFORDVILLE 15' GUADRANGLE
^ODGCNVILLF 17 Ml ,	D-O'C
tQftVA GNOLIA 5 3 Ml \	.6)0	CO J 5'
nr.-c nrrxi4r?2'30"
( V
"s0ฐ^_. Cs

y Cb--


KS^Ja''
- BM\

_ ,C " 'A ,
V rSr^y
'"T — ซr — E

,77^">p%>:
~\(ir>.''' •' ฐ ''ฆ'r'X-
-
T"\ V YCV
//;•
\, I


3>*$
ฆ~\\
V
ฆ , J ฆ /--/
^ l l, IN'—ฆ" '
J J s
"36


m
ry	\\ \ \\v
T-
& v\
^VVS:
' (/ฆ;{' |y^*\Ov

')/ \v
y i,
:7-
/#-
: y v"
1/ w ^
IV '. I 76o-
vTi
\ - X
ฆ-/-
"35
"M
78p\ 'Unwood
Ci&5
r'J



&
CD ฆ;ฆ •"'

ii
io>r
- ' \
3M"
Y _ •=/658 ,
. o
ฆVC'V; N
<\V
Us ?-0\ P; •
V'-^v'-)." "rvfvCn/v'"i
pv -S-'	oo^O	. -,
'669
• <, ^ / .O /,
: 0/'
,9 '
0
c

^ > )\
V1 Y !
v 1G1
',h,
$D.
V,;Jr
\v
71:

t3

'0,
-V

Grirfdstonfe
/.
- ฆ-'{<-
'N>! 0
l,i.
S
i' f<<' '-_=5



73^ r-.v
:o;
y/v.i
V. ฆv-^oS'
'--.Ni 'o,
"?n/.

-:Sn
20'
'32

^Ro9l/f/4ฃ o ฆ-

^ฆฆ'jrcioo.—.-rL.
..x:<
A/?
Si
,	 ซ v \ v

)Knc
-ฆ-I .;

sy '0
, Three_li^i|^
nob\ /


.-n-'-p'-3

-------
TRACER INJECTION SITE



1.
Name of Dye Trace (Site Location): Bail Road Ditch

2.
Date of Injection: March / 25 / 1993 Time: 2:20
( ) a.m. ) p.m.

Month Day Year

3.
Owner of Injection Site: County Highway Dept. Right of Way Phone: ( )

4.
Quadranqle/County: Hudgins Quad., KY / Hart County

5.
Elevation: ?30 (x)map ( ) measured
( )unknown
6.
Latitude: 37 21' 44 N Longitude: 85 44' 27" W

7.
Description of Injection Site:
(x) sinking stream ( ) losing stream ( ) karst window
( ) cave ( ) water well ( ) injection well
( ) laqoon ( ) septic system other
( ) sinkhole
( ) monitoring well

Remarks Placed dye in water sinking in ditch along N side of road

8.
Formation Recelvlnq Tracer Infection: ste. Genevieve Limestone

9.
Flow Conditions: ( ) low (x) moderate ( ) hiqh

10.
Field Conditions (precipitation, runoff, etc): Dye iniected after rain on previous day -

hard rain after trace

11.
Rate of Flow: 1 to 3 ( ) cfs (x)qpm ( ) l/s ( ) cms ( ) measured (x) estimated
( ) permanent injection site (x) intermittent
( ) multiple sites possible
12.
Induced Flow? (x)no ( ) yes / minutes
Pre-injection Post-injeclion Elapsed Time
13.
Tracing Agent: Color % Active
Index Ingredient
( ) Sodium Fluorescein
Amount

( )RhodamineWT


(x) Optical Briqhtener Fluorescent Brightening Agent 28
40.5 pounds

( ) Direct Yellow 96


Other

14.
Reason for Investigation: Rio Springs Wellhead Delineation Project

15.
Principal Investiqator: Geary Schindel

16.
Agency or Orqanization: ECKENFELDER INC.


227 French Landing Drive Nashville TN
37228

Address City State
Zip

( 615 ) 255-228 ( 615 ) 256-8332


Phone FAX it

17.
Field Personnel: Joe Ray - Geary Schindel





IDENTIFY INJECTION SITE ON PHOTOCOPY OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE
#R-
Pro|ectRio Springs Wellhead Delineation Proi ect ln|ectlon Date d>~*> 1 Z 5" / *7" 3
Month Day Yea;
Name of DveTrace Cinlection sttel R&/I *5/1 (clwfcl racer ($p"tiC^uf
Principal Irrvestlqator Geary Schindel Field Personnel Joe Ray - Tray Lyons
Precipitation before &.durinq trace

Date

J-/9 1
y-z.

ฃW 7




Duration










ID
Location of Dye Detectors
Back-
ground
Results
1
Boiling- Springs Conflui
—
—
— | —
—
1


2
Johnson Spring

ฆ—
—
—
-
—
1


3
Cottrell Sprinc

—
—
—
—
—




4
Log Spring

—
—
—
—
—




5
Buckner Sprinc

1 —
—
•— 1 '




6
Rio Springs Conflu.

—-
ฆ—
—
—
—




7
Rio Springs East

—
—
—
—
—




8
Rio Springs Creek

—
—
—
—
—




9
Scottv Spring

—
—
— —
-

! 1
10
Lanes Mill Spring

—
—
—-
—
- i 1 1 1
! ! 1 i
11
Bridge Spring !
.—
ฆ—
—
—
—


i
1?
Knox Creek Spring

—
—
—
~ ! -

i |
n
Handy Culvert Spring

—
—
-
—
—
!


14
Powder Mill Trout Oonf

-—
.—
—
—
—




1 s
Pnwdpr Mill Sr>-' Spring

—
•—
—
—
"


lfi
Railev Falls Spring-


—
-hi-
-h
—




17
Mvsterv Springs Conf.

—
—ฆ
~ 1 -
—




18
Rumble Sprine

—
.—
—
—
—
1


19
Aetna Furnace at Bde.

s ! -
—
—
—
i i i
20'-'-Branch-Fork at Bridge 1
—
—
—
—
1
- 1
j
I 1
21 1 Jones School Spring '
—
—
-—
—
- 1
i i
i i
22
i
Jones School Creek !
_ j _
—
—
•—
i i

— Negative Result B Percepuble Background (slight)
+ PostUve B + Significant Background (problemauc)
Legend: ฆ+ฆ + VeryPositTve NR Not Recovered (htgh water, stolen receptor, etc)
ฆ+• + + Ejo/emely Positive L Receptor lost
/ Receptor Not Changed G New or Exira Receptor Installed
Remarks
Interpretation ง-6t//s

-------
RECORD-OF DYE TRACE
#R-
Pro|ectRio Springs Wellhead Delineation Pro-ject ln|eclionDate d> 3 / 26T / ^5
Month Day Year
Nameof DveTrace infection stte)/3^// ft/licM. .S^/WtTracerC^^C/c^c^t &ri<^U"ฃcri
Principal Irrvestiqalor Geary Schindel Field Personnel Joe Ray - Tray Lvons
Preclpftation before & durinq trace

Date

JVf y-/7




Duration







ID
Location of Dye Detectors
Back-
ground
Results
23
Tampa Branch

—
-
— i r-
—

1

24 Partis Branch

•—
—
—
j 		

i
!

25
Gaddie Cemetery Creek

—
—
—
—

1

26
Honey Run Creek


!
—




27
Warren East Creek

_ | ~ |__
—
ฆ—




28
Bacon Ck./Wabash Bdg.

-h h
—
—

!

29
Honey Run at Bridge

1




i

30
Martis Branch P Beaver
Dam



|




31
Tanrpa Branch East



j !




32 !Tampa Branch South





i
i

33 1 Tampa Branch at Bridge




i


j
1




!

I

|




!
i i
i i







j




!
1

i



i i
i i





























i


! I





i
!
i i







i
i
I 1
| >

1
1







i
i






i !
i !

~~ Negative Results B Fercepuble Background (slight)
+ Positive B+ Significant Background (problematic)
Legend: + + Very Positive NR Not Recovered (high water, stolen receptor, eic)
-f++Exi/emely Positive L Receptor lost
I Receptor Not Changed G Ne>v or Extr^ Receptor Installed
Remarks
Interpretation

-------
TRACER RECOVERY SITE(S)
AKGWAjf
#C-
1. Name of Recovery She: f3u/by tz*//s
Owner: UldfctAOlVt'i
3.	Quadrangle/Courrty:_
4.	Elevation:
fains ijjgrtr
(kfrnap ( ) measured
5.	Latitude: 3 T Z/' ป "/V Longitude:	^/Z.'
6.	Sfte De&ฎrip1lon:
(*^spnng ( ) cave ( ) stream ( ) karst window
( ) water well ( ) monitoring well other	
7.	Discharge at Bac-eflow: /~~Z~
8. Background Statue:
Fluor
C&> ( Infest. ( ) measured
Unit
Rhod
9. Dye Detected. (
other
) Fluor ( ) Rhod
OB	DV	other
( *>f6B ( ) DY
10. Metho^of Detection:
(#^f*charcoal/cotlon
( ) on-site fluorometer
( ) grab sample
( ) visual other_
11. Method of Analysis:
( ) visible in elutant ( ] spectrophotometer
other C/\/
( ) aulo sampler
( ) fluorometer
1Z Date of Detection: _
'Montft
13. Initial Dye Breakthrough^
Apr) f
2L ,/?93
A//A
Day	Yca;
	( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
H/A-
14.	Duration of Dye Curve:_
15.	Principal Investigator:	Mf
1 6.
S. Field Personnel:
AKGWA#
#C-
1.	Name of Recovery Stte:_
2.	Owner: 	
3.	Quadrangle/County:
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latitude:	
/
) map ( ) measured
	Longitude:	
6. Srle Description:
spring (
ave ( )
water well { ) monrtoring well
stream
other
( ) karst window
7.	Discharge Bl Baseflow:	
8.	Background Statue:	Fluor
9.	Dye Detected: ( ) Fluor
other	
( ) est. ( ) measured
	 	OB	DY	other
( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( )DY
Unit
Rhod
( ) aulo sampler
10.	Method of Detectlo":
( ) charcoal/cotion ( ) grab sample
( ) on-srte fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis:
( ) visible in elutant ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
other	
12.	Date of Detection:	/	/	
Month
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough:	
Day	YtaJ
	( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
14.	Duration of Dye Curve:_
15.	Principal lnvestigator:__
16.	Field Personnel:
AKGWA#
#C-
AKGV/A#
#C-
1.	Name of Recovery Site:_
2.	Owner:
1.	Name of Recovery Site:_
2.	Owner: 	
3.	Quadrangle/County:
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latitude:
/
( ) map ( ) measured
	Longitude:	
6.	Site Description:
( ) spring ( ) cave	( ) stream
( ) water well ( ) monrtoring well other_
7.	Discharge at Baseflow:	
( ) karst window
( ) est ( ) measured
8. Background Status:	Fluor	Rhod	OB
DY
other
9. Dye Delected: ( ) Fluor ( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( ) DY
x other	
10.	Method of Detection:
( ) charcoal/cotton ( ) grab sample ( ) auto sampler
( ) on-site fluorometer ( j visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis:
( ) visiole in elutan! ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
other
12. Date of Detection'
/
/
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough'
14.	Duration of Dye Curve:
t 5. Principal Investigator:	
16. Field Personnel;
Day	Year
	( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
3.	Quadrangle/County:_
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latrtude:		
/
( ) map ( ) measured
	Longitude:	
6. Site Description:
( ) spnng ( ) cave ( ) stream ( ) karst window
( ) water well ( ) monitoring well other	
7. Discharge at Baseflow:_
( ) est. ( ) measured
8. Background Status:	Fluor	Rhod	OB	DY
other
9.	Dye Detected: ( ) Fluor ( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( ) DY
other	
10.	Method of Detection:
( ) charcoal/conon ( ) grab sample ( ) auto sampler
( ) on-site fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis:
( ) visiole in elutant ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
other
12.	Date of Detection:	
Monrn
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough:	
14. Duration of Dye Curve:
1 5. Principal Investigator:	
16. Field Personnel.
/
/
Day	Year
	( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
IDENTIFY RECOVERY SITE(S) ON PHOTOCOPY OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

-------
'ฆV


UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
37
85ฐ45'v
ฆ •
3 6 Ml TO KY 3
57	612000m ฃ /J4 Ml ro KY 556
42'30"
4136ฐOOm N -]=ฆ

-------
TRACER INJECTION SITE



1.
Name of Dye Trace (Site Location): Knox Creek Sink

2.
Date of Injection: April / 24 / 1993 Time: 1:15
( ) a.m. (x) p.m.

Month Day Year

3.
Owner of Infection Site: County Highway Right of Way Phone: ( )

4.
Quadranqle/County: Canmer Quad., KY / Hart County

5.
Elevation: 690 feet (x)map ( ) measured
( )unknown
6.
Latitude: 37 21' 36" N Longitude: 85ฐ 45' 11" W

7.
Description of Injection Site:
( ) sinking stream ( ) losing stream ( ) karst window
( ) cave ( ) water well ( ) injection well
( ) laaoon ( ) septic svstem other
(x) sinkhole
( ) monitoring well

Remarks Water iniected into sinkhole in bed of .Knox Creek

8.
Formation Receivlnq Tracer ln|ection: Ste. Genevieve - St. Louis Limestone

9.
Flow Conditions: (x) low ( ) moderate ( ) hiqh

10.
Field Conditions (precipitation, runoff, etc): Cool, clear dav - No precipitation




11.
Rate of Flow: 100 ( ) cfs (x)cjpm ( ) l/s ( ) cms ( ) measured Gc ) estimated
( ) permanent injection site ( ) intermittent
( ) multiple sites possible
12.
induced Flow? ( ) no (x)ves 1,000 gal / 500 15 minutes
Pre-injection Post-injection Elapsed Time
13.
Tracing Agent: Color % Active
Index Ingredient
( ) Sodium Fluorescein
Amount

( ) RhodamineWT


(x) Optical Briqhtener Fluorescent Brightening Agent 28
15 pounds

( ) Direct Yellow 96


Other

14.
Reason for Investiqation: Rio Springs Wellhead Delineation Proiect

I 5.
Principal Investigator: Geary Schindel

16.
Aqency or Organization: ECKENFELDER INC.


227 French Landing Drive Nashville TN
37228

Address City State
Zip

( 615 ) 255-2288 ( 615 ) 256-8332


Phone FAX #

17.
Field Personnel: Joe Ray - Geary Schindel





IDENTIFY INJECTION SITE ON PHOTOCOPY OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE
#R-
Pro|ect Rio Springs Wellhead Delineation Proiect ln|ection Date ^ 3
Man On Ooy Year
NameofDveTraceCiniectionstte) kw.6)ฃ CsVfjCsfc 'Dl7rao&xC)DZ!(C>u/
Principal Investlqator Geary Schindel Field Personnel Joe Ray - Tray Lyons
Precipitation before & during trace

Date

f-z3l 9-1

5-/ฃ
2.1 ฃ-/? 7/23 7/1)
Duration








ID
Location of Dye Detectors
Back-
ground
Results
1
Boiling Springs Conflu!.
—
—
1 —
ฆ—
— j •—
— 1 —
2
Johnson Sprine 1
—
-
**
—
—

—
3
Cottrell Sprine

—
—
-
—
— | — | —
— I"
A
Log Spring

—
—
- | —
—
—
—
—
—
5
Buckner Sprine

— j —
—
.— j _
—
ฆ—
—
—
6
Rio Springs Conflu.


—-
-
—
—
—
—
~
—ฆ
1
7 i Rio Serines East


—

—
—
—
—
—
—
8
Rio Sprines Creek

—
—ฆ
—






9
Scotty Sprine

-
—
— | __
—
— 1 — i —
—
10
Lanes Mill Spring

	
—
—.
—
— i —
! *
—
11 ' Bridge Spring !
' 1 —
—
-—
j
—
.
17 1 Knox Creek Sprine

-
—
--
—
—
—
ฆ— i — i
n
Handv Culvert Spring

-
—
—
—
—-
—
—ฆ
—
—
14
Pj2sdiix Mill TrouLConf

—
— |.—
•	
—
—•
•—
—
—
IS
Powrlp.r Kill Snr-' Snrinp!
i
—
—
—
j 	
— 1 —
16
Rail pv Falls .Spring

^ | -
—
•	
—
— —
—
—
17
Mvstery Springs Conf.

—
—
/y m
Nm
Nw
Aw \MD{ Nm 1 Nw.
18
Rumble Spring


—
Nm 1 NlM
N!M Mm MM /VIM MW
i
19 1 Aetna Furnace at Bde.

- ! - nw i^!m
nu urn 1 Nm iiYw
20"
:_Bxanch-Fork at J$ridjiฃ_

—
- /m Mpj fVm
N(a\ Nm \Nm \jVW
21
1
Jones School Serine '
-
_ j — | —ฆ ฆ— j — ฆ—- j — |
22
Jones School Creek

—
—
—
—
—1 ~ i — i ~~ !—
— Negative Results B Percepuble Background (slight)
+ Posiuve B + Significant Background (problemauc)
LGQGnd! ฆ+- Verv PositTve NR Not Recovered (high water, stolen receptor, etc)
+ฆ + + Exuemely Positive L RecepiorJosi
/ Recepior Not Changed G New or Exira Receptor Installed
Remarks ^5 s-JjeJ&fs^pZ-/?
Interpretation i>e_fA:?of&S~f7

-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE




#R-







Prolect Rio Springs Wellhead Delineation Proiect ln|ectionDate / 2-4^ / ^3








Month
Day
Year

NameofDyeTrace (injection sfte) /liTtvฃ.rr


1 racerOrffaoaf
Principal Investigator Geary
Schindel

Field Personnel Joe Ray
- Trav Lvons

Precipitation before & during trace

























Date

^-23 lr-/
5-7 15-/6
ฃT-zฃ 16-26
7^7 [7-5/


Duration





1 1
ID
Location of Dye Detectors
Back-
ground
Results
23
Tampa Branch

—
—
A<\M
Mm
/\jlM
tytM

AfW
24
1
Harris Branch 1
—
—
/V
-------
TRACER INJECTION SITE
1. Name of Dye Trace (She Location): Knox Creek Sink

Year - "Trปoe# - Initials
2. Date of Injection:
March
/
19
/
94
Time:
1:00
Month
Day
Year
.( ) a.m. (, ) p.m.
3.	Owner of Injection Site: County Highway Right of Way phone; ( }	
4.	Quadrangle/County: Canmer Quad., Ky	j	
5.	Elevation: 690 (x) map ( ) measured 6. Latitude: 37 21' 36" N Longitude:**? 45 11
7. Description of Injection Site:
fe) sinking stream (	) sinkhole	( ) water well
( ) losing stream	(	) karst window	( ) monitoring well
( ) lagoon	(	) cave stream	(	) other
Sinkhole in dry stream bed of Knox Creek
U
( ) injection well
( ) septic system
Remarks
8.	Formation Receiving Tracer Injection:	
9.	Flow Conditions: (x) low ( ) moderate
10.	Induced Flow? ( ) no (x)yes 	1,500 )
Ste. Genevieve - St. Louis Limestone
( ) high
/ l,5Qft
39
minutes
11. Tracing Agent: Amt 5 lbs
Pre-injeclion Post-injeclion	Elapsed Time
ft) Fluor. ( ) Rhod. WT ( ) OB ( ) DY96 ( ) other_
RECORD OF DYE TRACE
Principal Investigator Schindel
Field Personnel
G. Schindel, Joe Ray
Precipitation before & during trace Heavy rain night after trace, Appro. 1.5 inches
Date |3/12
Duration
3/1|8 3/2jl
I
ID
Location of Dye Receptors'B*ck'
J	~ | ground
Results
Rio Springs
10
Lanes Mill

11
Bridge Spring

12 | Knox Creek Spring
13 I Handy Culvert Spring
14 1 Powder Mill Trout Sp.
16
Baily Falls
21 Jones School Sp
22 j Brushy FcJrk
33	| Tampa Branch at Bdg
34	j Mouth of Knox Creek
35
Green River at Rio Sp
I
I	+ Positive
Legend. ++ Very Positive
+ + •+ Extremely Positive
— Negatrve Resuto
B	Perceptible Background (slight)
B+	Significant Background (pioblemfllic)
NR	Not Recovered (high waier, stolen receptor, eic)
r	Receptor removed
/ Receptor No! Changed
L Receptor Jos!
N New Receptor Installed
Remarks Dye was injected during low flow condition, recovered during high flow
Interpretation flow conditions.		
Please identity injection and recovery sites on photocopy of topographic map. Kemucky D^ion oi waier 10/1993

-------
47'30"
~T-
I' ^
r-
I \ 990 000 F^ET
—J	It	;	"C	
\boo
o>--" ฆ
- \ 0	.
V.	, " (	"* /"*'/'	'	/
a -	'o[\r
^ A in IV] t.K UUAUKANGLE
KENTUCKY—HART CO.
7 5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
SE/4 MUNFORDVILLE 15' QUADRANGLE
HOOGCNVILLF 17 VI .
. 6Q9 \-ACKOLIA 5 3 '•'! ^	• 610	Cฐ
ซP A: ; /> rs'. -^N
r>z\~3)JAK	,-
'iX ' ) ' (n' ง'.
;•ง?'- #*: v	ซ-
^ > S \	k'	iff.-	z"-,. *
U -ป,'?o
nV )
."' 1>t.

,.. ,.. ./(-
' ( /~ '//vOiK
' <-y; r ; - -

.->/ \ \
,7i
ฆฉ"
ฆ'rA/ nn
:v
ฆ
[J
r: , \ v ฆ
7>"~*
i/-:
%


\c. \ *V ' .
7,
KNOX- CREEK- SINK
CANMER, KY QUAD
*' A'O .
:7.'.U.


>>/•

. tir?


I'I-	. r..
'Ltnwoo^
. 41
'35

\
/
C 2^5 ฆ
- ^ ~t\,
, VU .6



a^'C
Kv
.n
V" ^
X) --.
-J

' / ฆ ฆ 195.2!

K-3:

-X
fj

't
71-

:ฆ&

W

F6ฐฐ
\\v.

c 9^\ ,[0
0' A
• -.-o o / \:
ooo Q0
Xt "c;
{ • ^ x\ ^sy\ <
C\ CXC
-.N Vo ^
n*C
\OA(
ฐo'
l6>7 !
j BM '
\ r~-
1
vV_
'•ฅ655 \
f 6P9.
;g VJ
ฆฃT
) sf'
'	\ i
rO/

:/r; ^
Gteq
'ฆ>)
)' i: \
'-C3

Grir
ฆMr- ฆ-
it'll
20'

*


73ซ
'/ / " •/ //
' "32
:\

Q^:
'SK-

=%X-

J.

,0.
9<ฃ)'

: - ^ysL ฆ y

Thre.e	tSiln/

'Knob-
/
-X " /
I ฆ X7
iy-
ฆ-&
f\

-------
TRACER INJECTION SITE


#J-



1.
Name of Dye Trace (Site Location): Christene Dye
Well


2.
Date of Injection: April
/ 24 /
1993
Time: 3:45
( ) a.m. fOO p.m.

Month
Day
Yea/


3.
Owner of Infection Site: Christene Dye

Phone: ( )

4.
Quadrangle/County: Canmer
Ouad • > KY

/ Hart

5.
Elevation: 830'
map ( ) measured

( )unknown
6.
Latitude: 37ฐ 21' 59" N
Longitude:
85ฐ 47' 43" W

7.
Description of Injection Site:
( ) sinking stream
( ) cave
( ) lagoon
( ) losing stream
(X) water well
( ) septic system
( ) karst window
( ) injection well
other
( ) sinkhole
( ) monitoring well

Remarks Abandoned Private Water Well



8.
Formation Recelvinq Tracer ln|ectlon: Girken Formation/St
e. Genevieve Limestone
9.
Flow Conditions: (x) low (
) moderate ( ) high



10.
Field Conditions (precipitation, runoff, etc): Cool clear day -
no precipitation







11.
Rate of Flow: 3 ( ) cfs fOQ qpm ( ) l/s
(20$ permanent injection site ( ) intermittent
( ) multiple sites possible
( ) cms
(X)$ measured ( ) estimated
12.
Induced Flow? ( ) no (X)yes
30 gallons /300
gallons
100 minutes


Pre-injection Post-injection
Elapsed Time

13.
Tracing Agent:
(X) Sodium Fluorescein
Color
Index
Acid Yellow 73
% Active
Ingredient
80 percent
Amount
11 lbs

( )RhodamineWT





( ) Optical Brightener





( ) Direct Yellow 96





Other




14.
Reason for Investigation: Riฐ Springs Wellhead Delineation Project

15.
Principal Investigator: Geary
Schindel



16.
Agency or Organization: ECKENFELDER INC.




227 French Landing Drive
Nashville

TN
37228

Address
City

State
Zip

( 615 ) 255-2288
(
)



Phone


FAX #

17.
Field Personnel: Joe Ray
- Geary Schindel










IDENTIFY INJECTION SITE ON PHOTOCOPY OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE
#R-
Pro)ectRio Springs Wellhead Delineation Proi ect ln|ecUon Date 01 1 ^ S
Morrth Day Vo&r
NameofDveTraceflniectlonsfte)(^^r'/ซjr^e^/'. 0V&(f Tracerpfi/orcsctJiA
Principal Irrvestlqator Geary Schindel Field Personnel Joe Ray - Tray Lvons
Precipitation before &durinq trace

Date


€T-ef
$"/ฃ

7-23
Duration





I

ID
Location of Dye Detectors
Back-
ground
Results
1
Boiline Serines Conflui




~ 1 -


2
Johnson Spring

ฆ—
—
ฆH-t
*•+{++ฆ ! */- 1 +ฆ i
	

3
Cottrell Spring

—
~
—
—
—
-
—
—

A
Log Spring

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
ฆ	

5
Buckner Spring

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
ฆ	

6
Rio Springs Conflu.

—
—
—
—
—
—
— 1 —

7
Rio Springs East

—
—
—
—
—
-
—
—

8
Rio Springs Creek

—
—
—
—
—
—ฆ
—
	

9
Scottv St>rine

.—
—
~ i "~
—
—
—
		

10
Lanes Mill Spring

—
—
—
—
— j —
* !

11
Bridge Spring







1
12 1 Knox Creek Spring

—
ฆ—
—
—
—
— I — j — i
13 1 Handv Culvert Sdtine

—
—
—






14
Powder Mill Trout Conf.
——
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

1 S
Pnvrfpr Mill Sot" Spring1!
— 1 —
—
—
—
— j _
—

16
Hail pv "Falls Snrinp 1
-
—
—
—
—
—
~~
—

17
Mvsterv Springs Conf.

—-
—
Nw-


i
—=*


i

18
Rumble Spring

—
—ฆ


! 1 —1


! i i
19
Aetna Fnmare at Bde.

!
/V/H


i 1 "=>



1 ! ^
20'-1-Branch" Fork at Bridce

—
—
/Yjvi

	i I
s


l i

1
21 ! Jones School Snrine

—
—
— j —
—
—
- i - !
22
Jones School Creek

i__
^ i
-
—
—
— 1 — ! —

— Negative Results 6 Pcrcepuble Background (slight)
+ Posi'jve B + Significant Background (problematic)
Legend: ++ VervPositTve NR Not Recovered (high water, stolen receptor. eic)
+ + +Extremely Positive L Receptor los;
/ Receptor Not Cha/iaed G New or Extra Receptor Installed
Remarks filM c f\fpC
Interpretation

-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE
#R-
ProlectRlo Springs Wellhead Delineation Proiect Injection Date O1/ / 2 ฅ ! S
Month Day Yoa/
NameofDveTraceCinlectlonstte^^/lH463^
24
ttartis Branch

-—
N\M 1 			

	L-S5,

25
Gaddie Cemetery Creek

•—
A/w
NW1



1 -1




ฆ >ป
26
Honey Run Creek

—
Nvrf
A/*J

i
L i ซs


i
r 1 >
27
Warren East Creek

.—
—
—
.—
.—
—
—
—

28
Bacon Ck./Wabash Bds.

—
—
—
—
—

ฆ— 1 —

29
Honey Run at Bridee









30
Martis Branch @ Beaver
Dam
—
—
—
—- 1 —
- 1 -
—

31
Tampa Branch East

•—
—
— | —
—
—

—

32 I Tampa Branch South

-—
—
—
—
- j —. | — j _

33 1 Tampa Branch at Bridee

.—
•—
— j — j —
—ฆ
—
—

!



1
i
i !

i




!

j







i




i
i

i



i i
i i







!

i





















i






j
!
i i







i
i

I
i

!
i







i





i i
1 I
i ! i
Negative Results 8 Percepuble Background (slight)
+ Positive B + Significant Background (problemaljc)
Legend: + -f Very Positive MR Noi Recovered (high water. stolen receptor, etc)
+ +4-Exuemely Positive L Receptor lost
/ Receptor Not Changed G New or Extra Piece pic* Installed
Remarks
Interpretation /2^ r , MAs

-------
TRACER RECOVERY SITE(S)
AS
AKGWA#
#C-
1.	Name of Recovery
2.	Owner: C/i&y' Q\
sue: /ytajar
'r/-' Wlutf (btrcPi/f		
3. Quadrangle/County: ('jCiW/W
A. Elevation: *5~&Q (*-fmap ( ) measured	
5. Latitude: ~i"7C>~?>C>	A/ LongHude: "519 Sty UJ
6. SHe D&atfription:
/~j spring ( ) cave ( ) stream
( ) water well ( ) monhonng well other_
( ) karst window
7. Discharge el Baseflow: ฃ	CSฃ$> ( ffest ( ) measured
UntI
Rhod
8.	Background Status:	Fluor
9.	Dye Detected: ( /f'Pluor ( ) Rhod
other		
OB	DY	other
()08 ( )DY
sthod-c
( charcoal/cotton
( ) on-site fluorometer
11. Methog_of Analysis:
( /-"[visible in elutant
other
) grab sample
) visual other
| auto sampler
( .''^'spectrophotometer (i^Tlluorometer
Ml/
Mofoi
12.	Date ot Detection^
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough:
14.	Duration of Dye Curve:
f I
a/A
a/A
Day	Yta;
	( ) a-m. ( ) p.m.
15.	Principal Investiqalor:	(M (Js?, (	
16.	Field Personnel: /ฆy&ti 5 — /Q<^y -	(
AKGWAif
#C-
1.	Name of Recovery Stte:_
2.	Owner:	
3.	Quadrangle/County:
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latitude:	
/
( ) map ( ) measured _
	Longitude:	
6. She Description:
( ) spring
( ) water well ( ) monitoring well other
spring ( ) cave	( J stream
( ) karst window
7.	Discharge al Baseflow:	
8.	Background Status:	Fluor
9.	Dye Detected: ( ) Fluor
other 	
( ) est. ( ) measured
	 	OB	DY	other
( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( ) DY
Untl
Rhod
10.	Method of Detection;
( ) charcoal/cotton ( ) grab sample ( ) auto sampler
( ) on-site fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis:
( ) visible in elutant ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
other
12.	Date of Detection:	
13.	Initial Dye Breakthrough:	
14.	Duration of Dye Curve:_
15.	Principal lnvestigator:_
16.	Field Personnel:	
Day	Yea/
	( ) a-m. ( ) p-m.
AKGWA#
#C-
AKGWA#
#C-
1.	Name of Recovery Site:_
2.	Owner:
1.	Name of Recovery Si1e:_
2.	Owner:	
3.	Quadrangle/County:_
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latitude:
/
( ) mep ( ) measured _
	Longitude:	
3.	Quadrangle/County:_
4.	Elevation:	
5.	Latitude:
/
( ) map ( ) measured
Lonaitude:
6. Site Description:
( ) spring ( ) cave ( ) stream ( ) karst window
( j water well ( ) monitoring well other	
7. Discharge at Baseflow:_
( ) est. ( ) measured
8.	Background Status'	Fluor	Rhod	OB	DY	other
9.	Dye Delected: ( ) Fluor ( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( ) DY
other	
10 Method o( Detection:
( ) charcoal/cotton ( ) grab sample ( ) auto sampler
( ) on-site fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11. Method ot Analysis:
( ) visible in elutant ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
oth e r	________
1 2. Date of Detection:	 /	/		
Montn
13. Initial Dye Breaklhrough-	
6.	Site Description:
( ) spring ( ) cave	( ) stream
( ) water well ( ) monitoring well other_
7.	Discharge at Baseflow:	
8.	Background Status:	Fluor
9.	Dye Detected: ( ) Fluor
other
( ) karst window
( ) est. ( ) measured
	OB	DY	 other
( ) Rhod ( ) OB ( ) DY
Unr,
Rhod
( ) auto sampler
10.	Method of Detection:
( ) charcoal/cotton ( ) grab sample
( ) on-site fluorometer ( ) visual other	
11.	Method of Analysis:
( ) visible in elutant ( ) spectrophotometer ( ) fluorometer
other
Dav	YeaJ
	( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
14.	Duration of Dye Curve:_
15.	Principal Investigator:	
1 6. Field Personnel.
12.	Date of Detection:	
Montn
13.	Initial Dye Breaklhrough:	
14. Duration of Dye Curve:
1 5. Principal Investigator:	
1 6. Field Personnel:
Day	Yea;
	( ) a.m. ( ) p.m.
IDENTIFY RECOVERY SITE(S) ON PHOTOCOPY OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

-------
CASNiviER QUADRANGLE
KENTUCKY—HART CO.
RD
ifV-
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) -tf3 c?

4 7'30"
j 1 990 000 F^ET
. 609*:/: CNOL
SE/4 MUNFORDVILLE 15' QUADRANGLE
610	85ฐ4 5'
HODGC NVJLLE )7 Ml .
L 15 3 I \

\eoO-^ 0
_ • ,'P -/Frien<3stap_!	-A~' —

i ( \ . c\\- ฆฆ r\ .Roo>.,i' i
t .

/
'/j CHRISTENE DYE WELL r>"
^ CANMER, KY QUAD	tt

-BMl
_e/
t *:?.<-

A M "3s

-jj
1 rriJ '

bit

A\

' Ay

AA/



wf / V1^.;

t _?rv'-=[y
A

' r . — -
m

f

s^wa
Try.

' / " I
C-
AA
"35
Yfr 'V
"Unwoo^'

:rr


ov\
A$a"
V-
.;i ifN> ' ฆ
{\,
-~-C oA;
/A J—'V
0
1	A
•0 a

3<=o
V
'•ฅ65?
re
-7[ 669
;SA_*-ฃ-
/"
NX.
\
A" \;.-N5ix,
"oHf" ' -

\V
)VA'.'W
& . J? pi '-J
. v; *

i\,
l >!: ฆ/ //!
20'
"32
^'Vn
,^-7


' - j->-e"52'
'Afc^Ao'-

aa:
nox -
'V7



n: ~J.
;\
Thre.e	K,ilr
^Knob% /
; /

-------
TRACER INJECTION SITE

1. Name of Dye Trace (Site Location): Walter's Well
2. Date of Injection:
April
Month	Day
3. Owner of Injection Site: Ms. Walter	
/ 24 / 1993
Year
Time: 12:12
.( )a.m. k)P-m.
Phone: (	)
4. Quadrangle/County: Hammonville, KY
J	Hart County
5.	Elevation: 845 feet
6.	Latitude:
37 23' 18" N
(x)map ( ) measured_
( )unknown
7. Description of Injection Site:
( ) sinking stream	( ) losing stream
( ) cave	(x) water well
( ) lagoon	( ) septic system
Longltude:_
85 45* 25" W
( ) karst window
( ) injection well
other
( ) sinkhole
( ) monitoring well
Remarks Abandoned private water supply well - casing hnrip.H hp1nซ gT-nnnrl	
8.	Formation Receiving Tracer Injection: Beaver Bend and Paoli Limestone - Slumppd Sandsmnp
9.	Flow Conditions: (x) low ( ) moderate ( ) high	
10. Field Conditions (precipitation, runoff, etc): Cool, clear dav - nn prernpi t-at-inn - wli w-i^
behind house beneath concrete slab, approximately 2 to 3 feet below ground
11. Rate of Flow:
( ) cfs ( ) gpm ( ) l/s ( ) cms
( ) measured ( ) estimated
( ) permanent injection site ( ) intermittent
( ) multiple sites possible	
12. Induced Flow? ( ) no (x)yes 75 gal / 440 gal
Pre-injection Post-injection
_1AฃL
minutes
Elapsed Time
13. Tracing Agent:
Color
Index
Acid Red 388
( ) Sodium Fluorescein
(x) Rhodamine WT
( ) Optical Brightener
( ) Direct Yellow 96
Other
14.	Reason for Investigation:	
15.	Principal Investigator: Gearv Schindel
% Active
Ingredient
Amount
20 percent
17 lbs
Rio Springs Wellhead Dplinparinn Prnjprr
16. Agency or Organization: ECKENFELDER INC.
227 French Landing Drive
Nashville
TN
37228
Address
( 615 ) 255-2288
Zip
17. Field Personnel:
Phone
Joe Ray - Geary Schindel
FAX if
IDENTIFY INJECTION SITE ON PHOTOCOPY OF TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE
#R-
Projec! Rio Springs Wellhead Delineation Proiect Inlectlon Date ^ 3
MottOi Day Von-'
NameoiDveTrsceClnlectlonefte) LOCA-l~7~Csf IaM/1 ! Tracer /2 h/vd & Laj7~~
Principal Irrvestlqalor Gearr Schindel Held Personnel Joe Ray - Tray Lyons
PreclphatJon before & during trace

Date

^-23l ?-(
S-Cf
S--/6 &-/tf \6-24>\ 7-23 7/3/
Duration




1 1
ID
Location of Dye Detectors jgr"0cukn'd
Results
1
Boiling' Springs Couflui
—
—
— I —
-
— 1
— 1 —
2
Johnson Spring 1
	
—
—
—
-
! —
_
3
Cottrell Sprine

	
—
-
—
—
— j —
-
-
A
Log Sprine


.—
—
—
—
—
—
—
	ฆ
5
Buckner Spring










6
Rio Springs Conflu.

	
—
-
—
-
—
— 1 —
—
7
Rio Springs East

|



- i-
—
-
8
Rio Springs Creek

—
—
—
—
—
—
- 1 -
	
9
Scotty Sprine 1
1
~ 1 -


- 1- ! -
10
Lanes Mill Sprine

—
—
-
-
- i -
- ! -
—
1J
Bridge Spring !
—
—
—
—
j
- j — ! —
1 ?
Knox Ctp.p1: S-nrinp-

,—
~
—
—
—
— ! ~~ ! — i -
13 1 Handy Culvert Spring


—
-
!
—
—

	
U
Powder Mill Trout Confl.
	
—
—
— j —~
—
—.
— | —.
IS ' PnwfipT Mill Srv.-- SprincJ
- I~



- I - 1 -

1 1
16 1 Tiailpv 'FpII^ Sn-rinp- 1
•—
—
j
—-
—
-
—
	
17 1 Mvstery Springs Conf.

—
— A/m

1
! -e-f

1

18
Rumble Spring !
— | — A/kV]

1 1



! I i

1 9


! ~ N/vi \ —!	
' [ i
20 -
"Branch-Fork at Bridge I
ฆ—
—
Ailw i
1 ' 1 , l"
i 1 i ! i ฆ">
21
Jones School Snring

—
! i
—
—
	 j |	
22
i
Jones School Creek 1
— !~ f -



	
— Negative F^csulls G Perc^puble Background (sUoh;)
+ Posture 0 + Signrhcanf Background 'jxotWemauc)
LGQ6ndl ++ Verv Posilrve NR Noi Recovered (ntgn waief. nolen re-cepior. cic)
+ 4-4- Extremely Positive L Receptor los;
/ Preceptor No! Chanced G New or Extra P-s-sepio' Insialle-d
Remarks CM - Ne&fa(0M/'Cbr&di
Interpretation

-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE
#R-
ProjedR-in Sj>t"1tic;s Wellhead Delineation Proi ect Infection Date OH / "2-V / <^3
Monm Day Year
NameofDveTraoeCinlecllonsfte) lASCsK Tracer Lo?~~
Princlpallnvestiqator Geary Schindel Field Personnel Joe Ray - Tray Lyons
Precipitation before & durinatrace

Date

^-23l

7-Z.5 7-5/
Duration





1


ID
Location of Dye Detectors
Back-
ground
Results
23
Tanrpa Branch

—
—
NiM
1 I

		 ฆฆ -4	

1 *	1	

1

Ik
Martis Branch

-—
-—-
tywl
l
I i

ซ	1
1 !

25
Gaddie Cemetery Creek


N

- i
1

27
Warren East Creek

-—
—ฆ
—
—
ฆ—
—
	
	ฆ
•—
28
Bacon Ck./Wabash BdK-

—
—
ฆ—
—
—
•—
	 1 	
—-
29
Honey Run at Bridee

-—
—







30
Martis Branch P Beaver
Dam
•—-
—

— 1 -
i i

31
Tanrpa Branch East





—
—
	
—
32 !Tampa Branch South


-i -

- i -
1
—
1 |
33 ITamoa Branch at Bridee i
—
—
— j ~ i —
- —
- 		
!


1 1 ! ! ! !

1




!

i j






!




i
i
i

i


III!






i
i

|









|


1 1
1 1

! 1

i
i

|
! ! i ! i !




i 1 1

! |
1 j
j



i


• i
1



1
1
i !
i i

— Neoanve Results B Percepuble Background (slicht)
•+- Positive B + Signif>cant Background (problemauc)
LGQEndi ++ Verv Positive KR Not Recovered (r^on waier. stolen receptor, cic)
-1-++ฃxt/emely Positive L Receptor k>s'ซ
/ Receptor Not Changed G New or Extra Receptor Installed
Remarks fjfs(pfcpVl&y)/ tiosccfl
Interpretation

-------
immonville
J ซ138000m N
47-30
SflgOOOm ฃ
ERIO"—GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESTOn vixQiNiA	I9b2
^ LirJWOOD 2 4 Ml
^ GLA SGOW 28 Ml
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
^ lb''ฆ
(fe, , j
—^—1—11	'— ' J -37ฐ22'3C
85'"^5'
Heavy-duty
Medium ouly ;
Light-duty
Unimproved dirt ;
%ฐQ.
~ U S. Route	(^) State Route
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
HAMMONVILLE. KY.
NE/4 MUNFOROV1LLE 15' QUADRANGLE
N 3722.5-W 8545/7 5
1954
PHOTOREVISED 1932
DMA 3858 IV N E - SERIES V853

-------
TRACER INJECTION SITE

#j-
1.	Name of Dye Trace (Site Location): Route 357 Sinkhole
April	24	1993
2.	Date of Injection:	
/
/
11:00 X
Time:	( )a.m. ( ) p.m.
Month
Day
Year
3. Owner of Injection Site: Unknown
Phone: (_
4.	Quadrangle/County:	ky	/ hW
-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE
#R-	
Project Rio Springs Wellhead Delineation Project Injection Date ฃ>Lf' /	^ 3
Worrtfi	Day	Yea/
Name cr( Dye Trace (injection site) Roqฃ>C- ~3S~7 'Si wfziw /iS-- Tracer ^lopUc^y/- PY ?ฃ>
Principal Investigator Geary Schindel	Field Personnel Joe Pvay - Trav L?ons
Precipitation before & during trace		

Date

ฅ-Z 3 1 5~"l 9 -*f ฃ-t6 b- 2^ 6 V?l


Duration




|


ID
Location of Dye Detectors [p"0cUn'd
Results
1
Boilinc Springs Conflui
— _
— i —
— ! — i


2
Johnson Spring

—
—
—
I j 	



3
Cottrell Spring

•—
—
—
—
-
!


A
Loc Spring

	
ฆ—
— ! —
— i — I


5
Buckxier Spring

	
—
—
—
—
—



6
Rio Springs Conflu.

		
—
—
—
—
-
!

7 ! Rio Springs East

•	
—
—
—
—
—



8
Rio Springs Creek

		
•—
ฆ—
—
-
— i


9
Scottv Spring

^	
—
— I —
—
—

(
I
i
10
Lanes Kill Spring

.	
—
—
ฆ—
— i ~ I !

11
Bridge Spring !
		 | —
—
—
—ฆ i

j
1 ?
Knox Creek Sprint*

-1-
ฆ—ฆ
ฆ—
-l-l i i
13 1 Handv Culvert Sprine

		 | —
—
—
—
—



U
Powder Mill Trout Conf.
ฆ—
—
—
ฆ— 1 —
ฆ—



1 s
Powder Mill Sn.-'SprinpJ
•— 1 —
—
—
	1 	 j j j
1 6
Ran lev Fa"ll<5 ^nrinc 1
	 [ -—
—
ฆ—ฆ i ~—
- i i

1 7
Mvsfp.TT Snrinps Conf.

—
—
Hm
1
i
1
r „
i
7 i "
__ 18
Parmble Sprin? 1
.—. J —
Hw\

!




' s
i i
19 1 Aetna Furnace at Bdp. 1
1
\Nw\
i


i
!
!
>
20 '-l-Branctr Fork at Bridge

—
—
WM i	
i
	f—>
i i
i i
|
21 i Jones School Spring

—
! 1
-
—
I !
22
Jones School Creek

! j
	
—- | — i 1

— Noganve fvjsults	B	Peroepuble Background (slight)
Posfuve	B+	Stgnjfican; Background (problematic)
Lcgsndi	-r + Very Positive	NR	Not ftecoverec! (r>ign water, noien receptor, etc)
+ ++Exi/emelv Positive	L	Fveospior los".
/ FWcepior Not Changed	G	Ncwor cxirz P^ceptor Installed
Remarks
Interpretation	^

-------
RECORD OF DYE TRACE
#R-
Project Rio Springs Wellhead Delineation Pro-j ect Infection Date / /
Month Day Voor
NameofDveTracednlectlonsfte) Tracer
Principal Investiqator Geary Schindel Field Personnel Joe Ray - Tray Lyons
Precipitation before & durino trace

Date

-S'-zsl 5~~l
S-'-zPt
<ฃ>-/?



Duration






|

ID
Location of Dye Detectors
B a c K ฆ
pround
Results
23
Tampa Branch

— —
NM \ •	


i

2k
Martis Branch

—
-
/vm ฆ—i	
1 !

25
Gaddie Cemetery Creek

—


—
!

26
Honey Run Creek

—ฆ


	i	
i 1
27
Warren East Creek

—
—
—
— j ~
—-

I
28
Bacon Ck./Wabash Bde. 1
—

.—
—
•—
—
I

29
Honey Run at Bridge

—
	
.—
•—ฆ
—
ฆ—
i

30
Martis Branch @ Beaver
Dam
—

ฆ—
— 1 ~
-—


31
Tampa Branch East

—
—.
~~ i
—


!
1 i
32 1 Tampa Branch South 1

—
—
—
— j -—
i

33 1 Tampa Branch at Bridee


		
— j — i - | —



!



1 |
! ! 1
1 |



!

j

I




i




i
i

!



I 1 1
! 1 |






i








1
!














;


i i

! ! !
i 1





i 1 I i
i
i

i
i

1
1
I I
1 !


1
I


i i
ฆ
i !

— Ncganve fVesulls B Perccpubie &acKoround (slichl)
+ Positive B + Significant Background (problematic)
L6a 6 fid. ++ Very Positive NR No! BecovereO (nigh vปปaier, stolen reccplor. eic)
•^ + -t- Exucnely Positive L Receptor los.
/ Receptor Not Changed G New or Exvra Receptor Installed
Remarks
Interpretation

-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------