FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

LAUREL RIVER LAKE CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN LAUREL RIVER KENTUCKY

Prepared by U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NASHVILLE NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

February 1975 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

I PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.01 AUTHORIZATION. The Laurel River Dam and Lake vas authorized under the Flood Control Act of 14 July I960 (Public Lav; 86-645, 86th Congress) as amended !>y Public Law 83-253 (enacted 30 December 1943), in accordance with the recommendations contained In the survey report published as House Document 413, 86th Congress, 2nd Session. The current benefit-cost ratio Is 1.10 to 1. Supplemental project economic data are presented In attach­ ment 4.

1.02 LOCATION OF PROJECT. The project area lies entirely within Whitley and Laurel Counties Kentucky. The damslte and the reservoir, for almost three-quarters of Its length, fall Inside the proclamation boundaries of the Daniel Boone National Forest. As a result, provision and management of the recreation and other related management activities associated with the lake will be the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service under a Memorandum of Understanding.

1.03 DESCRIPTION OF DAM. The Laurel damslte is at mile 2.3 on the Laurel River, a tributary of the Cumberland River, in south-central Kentucky. The stream flows Into Lake Cumberland, a major downstream Impoundment formed by Wolf Creek Dam. As authorized, primary project purposes.are.recreation _aad_production.J3f-liydroelectrlc power. Major project structures include a rockflll dam approximately 282 feet high and 1,420 feet In length, a single unit powerhouse, and an uncontrolled spillway section.

1.04 DESCRIPTION OF LAKE. The proposed lake will have a surface area of 6,060 acres at spillway crest, elevation 1,013.5, and 206 miles of shore­ line. A maximum drawdown of 36.5 feet for power production will result In a minimum elevation of 932, with 4,200 surface acres of water and 161 miles of shoreline. The project pool extends 19.2 miles upstream along Laurel River to the site of the Corbin water supply dam. Craig Creek, a right bank tributary near the dam, will also have a pool extending about 6 miles to the northeast. Maximum reservoir widths will be in the order of about one-half mile and narrowing to around 400 feet In the upper section. Maximum depths will be about 250 feet. Other statistical data are presented In attachment 1.

1.05 CONSTRUCTION DATA AND SCHEDULE. Construction of the Laurel project was Initiated in 1964 with the award of a contract for the access road located on the right descending bank of the river. Additional contracts which have been completed include the diversion tunnel and phase I con­ struction of the dam which consisted primarily of overburden excavation. Phase II of the construction of the dam which includes the main rockflll structure, spillway, and water intake was completed as of May 1973. Total construction is presently 71 percent complete. Land acquisition is an esti­ mated 93 percent complete. (See photo, attachment 2). Work items still to be completed are property relocations and construction of the powerhouse and recreation facilities. Construction of one major highway relocation consisting of about 4,000 feet of roadway and a bridge is now complete. Construction of the powerhouse began on 10 July 1973, and at present is 14 percent complete. The U.S. Forest Service is proceeding with plans for the development of the recreation areas associated with the project. Closure of the dam was accom­ plished on 22 September 1973.

1.06. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - BETWEEN CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE. Under a "Memorandum of Understanding" signed by the Secretaries of the Array and Agriculture in 1964, the Forest Service agreed to assume certain responsibilities. It will administer all reservoir management acti­ vities, exclusive of the darasite area, including operation of public recrea­ tion facilities around the lake. Sites will contain developments ranging from only a small access point to areas with facilities available for launching, picnicking, camping, and commercial services.

1.07 FOREST SERVICE RECREATION PLAN. The Forest Service has prepared a composite recreation plan to provide for the initial and future recreational development and administration of the reservoir and the area surrounding it. The plan will serve as a policy guide to engineers, landscape archi­ tects, line officers, and others of both agencies who will be involved in preparing detailed site plans, action plans, and programs of work.

1.03 RECREATION CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE. Recreation construction and maintenance !'.y the Forest Service will be a continuing program throughout the life if the project. Recreation facilities included in the Forest Service Laurel River Lake Recreation Master Ilan will be programmed and phased over a number of years as demand and funds dictate. Public Facilities now in place, as well as those shown below as planned in the future, are needed as an integral part of the total project benefits.

1.09 There are 4 levels of recreational development planned within the area. The levels of environmental modification and recreation experiences to be planned for on Forest Service recreation sites include: #1 (irimitive) #2 (Semi-primitive) 73 (Intermediate) and #4 (Secondary modern)

1.10 Campgrounds and aiarina facilities developed by concessioners will be developed to experience level ,75 (modern). For the most part, those facilities that will be developed In a general forest environment atmos­ phere will be located along each side of the Craigs Greek embayment and the western end of the Laurel River embayment. The Forest Service is the major landowner in these areas, and the high aesthetic quality of the environment is conducive to this type of development. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT LAUREL RIVER LAKE

TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph Title Page

I - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.01 Authorization 1 1.02 Location of Project 1 1.03 Description of Dam 1 1.04 Description of Lake 1 1.05 Construction Data and Schedule 1 1.04 Memorandum of Agreement - Between Corps of Engineers ^ and U.S. Forest Service 1.0/ Forest Service Recreation Plan 2 1.0)5 Recreation Construction and Maintenance 2 1.14 Use Demand 4 1.1'* Hunting and Fishing /■ 1.14 Wildlife Management 4

1.17 Relocations '• l.lfl Operation of Lake Water Levels c 1.19 Power Production 5

1.20 Access 5

1.21 Plan of Development; Cumberland River and Tributaries 4 1.22 Management Planning Objectives 4

1.22.1 General 4 1.22.1.1 Protection of the Environment fi 1.22.1.2 Management of Natural Resources 6 1.22.1.3 Management of Human Resources 7

II ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT 2.01 General Description of Project Setting 9 2.02 Ceology 9 2.03 Seismic Risk 9 Paragraph Title page 2.04 Demography 10 2.07 Area Economy 10 2.11 Agriculture 11 2.13 Displacement of People 11 2.14 Forests 11

2.13 Wildlife 11 2.16 Recreation 12 2.17 Archeology 12 2.18 History 12 2.19 Climatology 13

2.20 Water Quality 13 2.23 General Remarks 14

III liELATIONSHIP OF THE PROJECT TO LAND USE PLANS 3.01 General 15

IV ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.01 Conversion of Stream to Lake 17 '».02 Relocations 17 4.03 Inundation of Terrestrial Space 17 4.04 Gain in Diversified Recreation Opportunities 17 4.0) Hydroelectric Power Production 17 4.06 Effects on Wildlife 18 4.07 Water Supply and Human Health 13 4.08 Pollution IS 4.0) Sedimentation 19 4.10 Waterfowl 19 4.11 Tourism 19 4.12 Effects on Farm Land Values 19 4.13 Effect of Project Construction 19 4.14 Soli Protection 21 1.11 The north and south shore of the eastern portion of the Laurel River embayment is characterized by a majority of private landholdings outside the 300-foot public ownership strip. The land is generally open and non- forested. This general area of the project is where private and concessioner development will be encouraged to complement the overall public development program.

1.12 The Forest Service's initial development thrust has been, and will continue to be, completion of water access facilities. These include access roads, boat ramps, marinas, and boat access campgrounds. The second major thrust within the 1974-1984 period will be towards the development of major public campgrounds and several picnic areas complemented by visitor information services. The following table Indicates the facilities planned for development during the next 10 years: Facilities Planned for Development During the Ten-Year Period 1974-1984 People at One Site Facilities Time (PAOT) Hightop 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/80 Parking Spaces 200 200-Slip Marina w/131 Parking Spaces 400 50 Picnic Units 250 Laurel Bridge 1-Lane Boat Ramp w/40 Parking Spaces 200 40 Picnic Units 200 Frozen Camp 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/40 Parking'. Spaces 200 Flatwoods 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/60 Parking Spaces 300 White Oak 70 Camping Units, Boat-In & Hike-In 350 Only Scale #2 Sams Branch 200 Camping Units 1000 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/8C Parking Spaces 400 Scale #3 (Intermediate) Holly Bay 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/60 Parking-Spaces 300 200-Slip Marina w/131 Parking Spaces 400 Mouth of Laurel 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/60 Parking Spaces 300 Old Mill 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/80 Parking Spaces 400 Grove 80 Picnic Units 400 Scale #4 (Secondary Modern) Mill Creek Concessioner - 200 Camping Units 1000 Big Fields 50 Picnic Units 250

1.13 Concessioner developments, such as a lodge and associated facilities, will also be considered within the 10-year development period. Interest in concessioner facilities will be solicited by the Forest Service through standard prospectus and invitation to bid procedures. 1.14 USE DEMAND. The determination of demand and recreational use expected for the first *Eive (5) years after construction of the Laurel River Reser­ voir is based primarily on information contained in Design Memorandum No. 7A, Preliminary Master Plan. This plan states that the reservoir will receive approximately 500,000 visits within three to five years after im­ poundment. Projected visitation for the period 1974-1978 is as follows: ANNUAL VISITOR USE 1974 - 1978 Activity Percentage Visits Camping 15 75,000 Picnicking 10 50,000 Boating 13 65,000 Fishing 27 135,000 Hunting 1 5,000 Sightseeing 17 85,000 Water-Skiing 3 15,000 Hiking 5 25,000 Nature Study 4 20,000 Other __5 25.000 100 500,000

1.15 HUNTING AND FISHING. Hunting and fishing are permitted in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws for the protection of fish and game, except in prohibited areas, including the following: 1.15.1 Public access and developed recreation sites in which all hunting is prohibited, as well as the use of firearms of any type. 1.15.2 Prohibited areas designated by the Forest Supervisor. 1.15.3 Prohibited areas designated by Federal and State managing agencies under applicable laws administered by such agency,

1.16 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT. Wildlife habitat management will be conducted by the Forest Service in compliance with policies based on the multiple- use concept of National Forest administration.

1.17 RELOCATIONS. Thirteen family units have been relocated from the project area. Two of the affected parcels of land acquired were classified as improved upland woodland farms, 62.94 acres and 55.25 acres in size; however, only 20.25 acres of the latter was acquired for project purposes. Relocation assistance has been provided under PL 91-646 to all 13 families who are entitled to the benefits of relocation payments for acquisition of decent, safe, and sanitary housing. In addition, such assistance included counseling of displaced farm operators regarding available farms in the area which these operators may purchase. 1.18 OPERATION OF LAKE WATER LEVELS. The lake will be operated In such a manner that maximum overall project benefits will be realized. It will normally be operated between elevation 1018.5 and 982 which will provide a maximum storage capacity of 185,000 acre-feet available for power pro­ duction. During high water periods, however, usually occuring in the winter and spring months, the top of the pool will be exceeded occasionally, and flows will pass over the spillway. The maximum drawdown to elevation 932 will occur infrequently, and any adverse environmental effects therefrom will be minimized to some extent by the steep character of the shore­ line. Estimates based on 33 years of record indicate that the average pool level will be elevation 1010.6 while the average elevation during the recreation season, April through October, will be about 1012. The average recreation season pool area at elevation 1012 will be 5,660 acres. A minimum downstream flow of 30 cfs will be maintained for the purpose of sustaining the tailwater fishery; however, on occasions when a 30 cfs flow cannot be maintained, and a no-discharge period is to exceed 24 hours, flows sufficient to recharge downstream shoal areas that are vital to the fishery will be intermittently released.

1.19 POWER PRODUCTION. In 1960 the Federal Tower Commission commented on the Laurel River Survey Report, dated 15 June 1959, and concluded that the project would fit into the comprehensive development of the Cumberland basin. At the design memorandum stage the Federal Power Commission again evaluated the Laurel River project and in its letter of 1 March 1966 to the Secretary of the Army, it recommended the installation of a 61,000- kilowatt generating unit. The project is currently being constructed for hydroelectric power and recreation with an installation of 61,000 kilowatts which will yield an average annual generation of 67,000 megawatt hours. The project power is scheduled for load supply by July 1976. Federal Power Commission studies indicate that the electricity generated at the project can be utilized in the marketing area as soon as it becomes available. The project will provide economical and reliable hydroelectric peaking power and enhance the dependability of the Cumberland River system power output. It will produce electrical energy without consuming fuels and adding pollutants to the atmosphere and waste heat discharges to nearby streams.

1.20 ACCESS. Regional access to the reservoir area is rather good with U.S. Highway 25W, a main north-south route, lying less than two miles from points along the southern shoreline, and Interstate 75 running a southerly direction through Detroit, Cincinnati, and on to Florida located close to the upper extremity of the reservoir, supplemented by state routes. Access to the river itself, however, is quite limited. On the north, where much of the project is on Forest Service lands, vehicular access to the river, with some exceptions, is over narrow, rough, logging trails impassible to the family conveyance, or on low quality country roads. On the south bank, the river can be reached by automobile more readily, although many of the roads are also of poor quality. The main river in the project area is crossed by State Highway 312 located about one mile below the Corbin water supply dam. (See map, Attachment 3). An approximate 4,000-foot section of High­ way 312 and the existing bridge have been relocated.

1.21 PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT, CUMBERLAND RIVER AIR) TRIBUTARIES. Plate No. 1, Plan of Development, Cumberland River and Tributaries, illustrates the inter-relationships of existing and proposed projects which constitute the Comprehensive Plan for the Development of the Cumberland River Basin.

1.22 MANAGEMENT PLANNING OBJECTIVES. The general Laurel River Lake pro­ ject area is, for the most part, identical to the area encompassed in the Forest Service's Laurel River Management Unit. Therefore, Laurel River Lake will be managed in keeping with the planning objectives of the unit. These objectives are as follows: 1-22.1 General. The major objective of the plan for this unit is to program a balance of resource uses, giving primary consideration to both resource capabilities and public demands. All planned activities will protect and enhance the air, water, soil, vegetation, and natural beauty of the unit. Objectives for management and planning set forth in "Frame­ work for the Future, Guide for Managing the National Forests in the Appalachians," and "Management Directions for the Daniel Boone National Forest" were followed in the preparation of this plan. A summary of the objectives that are applicable to this unit follows: 1.22.1.1 Protection of the Environment.- Evaluate effects of all pro­ posed development activities upon the quality of the environment; and modify, control, eliminate, or oppose development activities not meeting minimum standards. 1.22.1.1.1 Prevent unacceptable soil movement. 1.22.1.1.2 Determine human carrying capacities of National Forest areas of concentration use and dispersed use. 1.22.1.1.3 Determine the need for pest control surveillance. 1.22.1.1.4 Improve, enhance, or not permanently detract from the visual characteristics of the landscape in travel and water influence zones. 1.22.1.1.5 Determine the tolerable number of fires within the unit, and control all fires at 10 acres or less. 1.22.1.2 Management of Natural Resources.- Emphasize quality in all management practices. In case of conflict between quantity and quality, resolve in favor of quality. Set quantity goals which are responsive to quality goals which are responsive to quality standards and financial levels. 1.22.1.2.1 Coordinate planning with other public and private planning organisations. 1.22.1.2.2 Identify State and private forestry tasks which are to be carried out In the management of the unit. 1.22.1.2.3 Determine the need for, and location of, proposed boundary extension or withdrawals. 1.22.1.2.4 Select utility and pipeline corridors. 1.22.1.2.5 Determine the compatibility of removal of mineral resources with surface resources and aesthetics. 1.22.1.2.6 Identify and protect rare, endangered, and unique species of flora and fauna. 1.22.1.2.7 Develop wildlife habitat to produce an optimum supply of fish and wildlife to meet expected needs within capability. 1.22.1.2.8 Aim management of timber stands for optimum distribution of age classes and production of large, high-quality timber of saw and veneer log-site. 1.22.1.2.9 Develop a transportation system for administration of all resources, as well as protecting the ecological environmental factors of the unit. 1.22.1.2.10 Determine policy for off-road vehicle travel. 1.22.1.2.11 Project expected outputs In goods and services to the public based on resource capabilities, expected budget levels, and needs of people. 1.22.1.3 Management for Human Resources.- Improve the quality of life In the area by using National Forest programs to promote the social, economic, and cultural growth of the area. 1.22.1.3.1 Determine needs and methods of assisting local groups, organizations and Individuals in the development and use of private lands. 1.22.1.3.2 Determine the law enforcement program needed to protect Forest visitors, facilities, and resources. 1.22.1.3.3 Identify potential environmental education and visitor Information sites and programs. II ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT

1.01 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SETTING. The reservoir site Is located on the western side of the Cumberland Plateau Province. The Laurel River and its tributaries are Incised in deep, narrow valleys, severely dissecting the plateau, resulting in very rugged topography. Elevations range from about 1,600 feet in the highlands to approximately 665 feet at the mouth of the main stream. The reservoir area is entirely rural with previous land uses being approximately 63 percent woodland, 33 percent cropland, 2 percent permanent pasture, and the remainder in roads, water, idle land, and miscellaneous usage. The beds of streams, as well as portions of their hanks, are rockbound with occassional gravel bars and rock shoals. The principal topographic features of the main stream and creek tributaries consist of narrow or nonexistent flood plains, numerous sharp bends, and loops. Slopes to the uplands are very steep and wooded.

2.02 GEOLOGY. The Laurel River basin is in a region of flat-lying Penn­ sylvanian sandstones and shales. The sandstones are fairly hard when fresh, mostly massive, white or creamy colored, and fine grained, but in a few rones, conglomeratic. Weathered sandstones are softer, and some break down to sand when crushed. The shales, when fresh, are a gray to black "cemented shale" (some are actually silt-shales) which have fair compressive strength but slake rather rapidly when exposed to weather. The shale ranges from almost massive to thin bedded, and various degrees of mixture and inter­ bedding with sandstone also occur. When severely weathered, the shales approach clay in character.

2.03 SEISMIC RISK. The damsite is in a zone of minor seismic risk as indicated by the "Seismic Risk Map of the United States" shown on plate 2. Design parameters were established for the various components of the project to correlate with the zone of potential seismic activity. The foundation of the Laurel Dam has been sufficiently explored to show that its strength and watertightness are adequate, and that sufficient foundation data were collected as basis for design of a safe structure. Data are being collected continually and are processed and analyzed to determine the condition of the structure. There are 17 piezometers which are read weekly by the Operations Division, Corps of Engineers, to determine the piezometric level within the embankment. There are 20 surface movement monuments and 6 slope indicators which are normally surveyed twice each year but have been surveyed every quarter during filling of the reservoir to determine the surface and internal movement of the embankment. By the end of 1974, two or three seismic units will be installed to record response to earthquake. Two formal inspections have been completed at Laurel Dam. The next formal inspection is scheduled for 15-16 April 1975. Inspections will be scheduled each year until 1978 then at 5-year intervals unless in the interim it is determined that more frequent inspections are needed. Procedures are in effect to report any occurrances during construction and operations by Corps personnel who are on the site. 2.04 DEMOGRAPHY. The largest cities In the general vicinity, less than 25 miles from the reservoir and located in Kentucky, and their 1970 popu­ lations, are: Corbin-7,217, London-4,256, Williamsburg-3,759, Barbourville- 3,420, and Somerset-10,389.

2.05 An overall decrease of 3.8 percent in population has occurred over the last decade as reflected in the following table:

POPULATIONS OF SIX RESERVOIR AREA COUNTIES - 1970 and I960 Percent Change County 1970 1960 1960 to 1970 Laurel 26,984 24,901 8.4 Whitley 23,501 25,815 -9.0 Knox 23,547 25,258 6.8 Clay 17,601 20,748 -15.2 Pulaski 34,541 34,403 0.4 McCreary 12,204 12.463 -2.1 138,378 143,588 -3.8

Source: Kentucky Department of Commerce - Deskbook of Kentucky Economic Statistics.

2.06 Projections published by the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of Commerce show that populations will begin to increase in the six counties listed above by 1980. Some of the projected increase will probably result from the effects of the newly constructed Interstate Highway 75.

2.07 AREA ECONOMY. According to the 1968 Kentucky Department of Commerce statistics, the six counties (Laurel, Whitley, Knox, Clay, Pulaski, and McCreary) most closely related to the impoundment site have respective per capita Incomes ranging from $1,671 to $804 as compared with the State average of $2,630. The City of Corbin, the only large population center adjacent to the project, has a corresponding per capita income of $1,662.

2.08 Corbin acts as a retail trade market for a radius of 50 to 75 miles. It is also a railroad and coal shipping center. Tourist business and some light Industry add to Its economy. The city is served by the Louis­ ville and Nashville Railroad, several commercial trucking lines, and the London-Corbin Airport.

2.09 Small farmsteads with modest developments occupy private land in the vicinity of the reservoir. Major crops include corn, hay, and tobacco. Some cattle and poultry operations, as well as a few sawmill sites, exist in the area. 2.10 Even though statistics indicate a slightly increasing trend in trade and per capita income for the area, the economy is depressed and is continu­ ally regressing. The reservoir lies within an area designated by the Department of Commerce, Area Redevelopment Administration, as one of chronic and severe unemployment and/or underemployment.

2.11 AGRICULTURE. Agriculture has been historically impeded by rough topography. Hie steep slopes are as a rule, heavily wooded, with cleared areas generally restricted to the tops of ridges. More often than not, these areas, cleared in the past, have been abandoned insofar as cultivation is concerned and are now used for limited livestock grazing or are reverting to woodland. Farming in the bottoms is on a small scale since access along the river is practically impossible except by foot or by horsedrawn vehicles. The dominant soils are clay on the uplands; chert and gravel on the slopes; and clay, silt, and sandy loam on the bottom lands.

2.12 Practically all of the owners or tenants live on the ridges along county gravel roads of fair quality, or in the neighboring towns. Improve­ ments located on the nearby farmsteads above reservoir effects are as a whole sub-standard. There are no towns or other population centers located in the immediate project area.

2.13 DISPLACEMENT OF PEOPLE. Asstated in chapter 1, Project Description, thirteen family units (41 residents) have been relocated from the project area into standard, safe, and sanitary housing under PL 91-646. Due to the remote and scattered geographic pattern of the affected homesties, these people have generally relocated closer to community services and because of their small number (13 families or 41 persons), there will.be no serious destruction or disruption of community cohesion or availability of public facilities and services. There will be no known adverse employment effects; injurious dis­ placement of people, businesses, and farms; and there will be no disuption of desirable community and regional growth.

2.14 FORESTS. The major portion of the area is forested with second growth hardwoods. Oak-hickory type woods dominate the higher levels with maple, poplar, holly, and hemlock found at the lower elevations. Pine, cedar, laurel, and rhododendron are scattered throughout the general area. The forest quality is noticeably better in those sections under the management of the U.S. Forest Service. Most of the timberland in private ownership has been cut over in recent years. A complete list of the major tree species of the project area are presented in appendix C.

2.15 WILDLIFE. Under existing conditions, wildlife resources within the project area are of only moderate value, with squirrel considered the prin­ cipal game form. Rabbit, quail, and grouse, however, receive some hunting pressure, with raccoon and fox hunted to a lesser extent. Whitetail deer populations have been increasing steadily and during recent years have provided limited hunting. The Laurel River is generally considered a sraallmouth bass-rockbass stream but as a result of Lake Cumberland, a lake type fishery exists within the lower reach, and walleye utilize the river during the late winter and early spring. Although accessibility is very limited, there is some use of the stream for fishing from the bank and by wading. Complete lists of the mammals and fishes at Laurel Lake are pre­ sented in appendix C. The Bald Eagle and Perigrine Falcon are both residents of the Laurel project area and are classified as rare and endangered species. The Golden Eagle is also a resident and is considered rare. The Nashville District Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Forest Service will exert every effort to promote the protection of these species, through public education, habitat management, and cooperation with other Federal and State agencies. 2.16 RECREATION. Under present conditions this section of the Laurel River receives little recreation use, due primarily to poor access and lack of facilities. Except for the extreme lower section which is affected by the backwaters of Lake Cumberland, boating on the river is extremely limited by shoals and other hazards. The only use, of any significance, is limited stream bank fishing and hunting in the adjacent woodlands. Recreation utilization of the Daniel Boone National Forest as a whole, however, is rather extensive with small areas scattered throughout the Forest developed for picnicking, camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, scenic observation, and other forest-type activities. Two of these areas, Mouth of Laurel and Auger Springs, are located rather close to the Laurel River. These facilities will not be adversely affected by the project. Within a fifty-mile radius of the lake are three Federal reservoirs, one national historic park, eleven State parks, and two small State lakes, which constitute the main recreation attractions of the region. These developments provide a wide spectrum of recreation opportunities such as sightseeing, camping, fishing, boating, water skiing, picnicking, and other water-related day and vacation use activities. Facilities are available which provide overnight accommodations; boat launching, docking, and rental services; and snack and dining services. The area has a relative abundance of freeflowing and near natural streams that will continue to provide a good variety of stream-related recreation opportunities. 2.17 ARCHEOLOGY. An archeological investigation of the reservoir area was made in 1963 by the University of Kentucky Museum of Anthropology under contract with the National Park Service. The results were published in a report entitled Archeological Survey of the Laurel River Reservoir, July 1963. The investigation revealed no archeological material of any kind. Judging from the nature of the terrain, rapidly running x^ater, steep and heavily wooded slopes, and lack of natural shelter, it x^as concluded that if there Xv’as aboriginal use of the area, it was rare and probably consisted only of occasional hunting parties originating outside the area. The report recom­ mended that no further archeological x*ork be carried out in the project area. 2.18 HISTORY. Contacts were made xfith the State Liason Officer for the National Preservation Act of 1966, and no sites of historical significance x-jere found. Also, the National Register of Historic Places has been consulted and no National Register properties xjill be affected by the project. 2.19 CLIMATOLOGY. The Laurel River vicinity has a moderate, inland- continental climate that is locally modified by the mountainous character of the area. It has a generally moderate temperature and abundant preci­ pitation. The temperature averages 58 degrees, with the lowest monthly average of 39 degrees occurring in January and the highest of 77 degrees in July. Annual precipitation for the basin averages about 49 inches with monthly amounts slightly higher in winter and early spring and somewhat lower in late summer and fall. Precipitation of 0.01 inch or more occurs on about 114 days per year and 1.00 inch or more on about 13 days per year. Snowfall, which seldom remains on the ground for more than a few days at a time, averages about 15 inches per year. 2.20 WATER QUALITY. The Laurel River drainage area upstream of the damsite encompasses some 282 square miles. The two major tributaries, Craigs Creek and Laurel River, have average annual flows of 90 and 340 cfs, respectively. Of major importance to the future water quality integrity of this entire area, including Laurel River Lake, are the land uses to which this drainage area will be subjected. A water quality survey, the results of which appear as appendix B of this EIS, was conducted in August 1974. The purpose of the survey was to assay the present quality of waters within this region relative to present water and land use and attempt to predict their influence on pro­ ject purposes. A tentative projection was also made as to the influence of the project itself on water quality, both within and downstream of the im­ poundment. 2.21 There are presently two sources of domestic wastes situated upstream of the lake. These include sewage discharges at London and Corbin, Kentucky. The former is located several miles upstream of the lake headwaters near mile 13 on the Little Laurel River. The latter is situated nearer the lake about two miles upstream of the headwaters on Lynn Camp Creek. London is situated far enough upstream that the equivalent of secondary treatment is effected on wastes long before they ever reach the lake. The Corbin sewage treatment plant (secondary) is considered by Kentucky water quality officials to be currently adequate to handle present domestic waste loadings. The main reason for concern over discharges of this type are their potential threat to lake water quality due to nutrient input and the associated eutrophication processes. The relationship between stream flows and per capita contribution of nitrogen and phosphorus in this basin was investigated and the results weighed against the existing water quality of the lake. This comparison indicates that eutrophication to the point of impairing lake recreational benefits will not become a problem except perhaps in localized headwater areas under certain conditions. This is discussed more fully in appendix B. There is presently some coal mining activity scattered over the Laurel River Basin. The results of chemical and biological analyses of samples collected in August 1974 did not show any severe effects of acid drainage at the stations visited. There were mild indications, however, from those stations sampled on Lynn Camp Creek. Industrial waste discharge within the basin is limited to two sources on Lynn Camp Creek at Corbin. Samples collected downstream of Corbin did not show severe effects of pollution from these industries. 2.22 The Laurel River Lake was surveyed after filling and during severe summer stratification. Analyses from five profiles taken at separate •tatlons show the effects of oxygen demand from soils and decaying vege­ tation within the lower depths (hypolimnion) of the lake. Available nutrients in the upper zone (epilimnion) were not in concentrations high enough to cause any problems associated with high photosynthetic activity. Indeed, the clarity and other chemical and physical parameters indicate very little photosynthetic activity at any station sampled. Tailwater temperature and chemical quality studies were necessarily limited. The time element involved in the development of an adequate math model and the fact that Laurel Dam is nearing completion necessitated a simple comparison of Laurel River Lake with the water quality of older reservoirs in the Upper Cumberland. This comparison indicates that the requirements for a put- and-take tailwater trout fishery relative to the Kentucky Water Quality Standards, dissolved oxygen (6mg/l) and temperature, can probably be met. It is expected, also, that conditions in the tailwater will improve with time as the lake becomes stabilized.

2.23 GENERAL REMARKS: Irregular topography, interesting forest cover, and exposed geological formations combine to give the area a park-like quality and primitive charm that is inspiring to the outdoor enthusiast. This variation of natural environmental features combined with the devel­ opment of transportatioral and recreational facilities should enhance the overall effectiveness of the area to provide the ultimate outdoor recreation experience. This bringing together of man and his environment can be accom­ plished without unduly affecting the aesthetic values of the existing envir­ onment and at the same time making possible personal participation on the part of the majority of citizens rather than a relatively few individuals that are physically able and desire to "rough it." To this end, the sub­ sequent sections of this statement will be utilized to identify and communicate all effects, adverse as well as beneficial, which will result from the project. Ill RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROJECT TO LAND USE PLANS

3.01 GENERAL. There are no known conflicts with land use plans of other agencies. Approximately 44 percent of the acreage required for project purposes was In Forest Service ownership at the time acreage requirements were established. Most of the project area and immediate area of Influence is within the proclamation boundary of the Daniel Boone National Forest, and much of the periphery of the lake is adjacent to Forest Service land. On a long-term basis, the project will be utilized within, rather than in conflict with, the concept of National Forest multiple-use management of the public lands of the Daniel Boone National Forest. The Forest Service and the Corps of Engineers will continue to cooperate with other Federal, State, and local agencies in integrating project objectives into State and local land use plans. IV ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.01 CONVERSION OF STREAM TO LAKE. The formation of Laurel River Lake has converted 25.2 miles of free-flowing river and its tributaries from a stream type environment to a slack water lake with an environment of warmer waters containing higher concentrations of nutrients. The lake is expected to pro­ vide good warm-water fishing as well as put-and-take trout fishing. In­ creased fishing will be especially good during the first few years after impoundment. The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife resources has stocked the lake with rainbow trout, walleye, and threadfin shad. The effects of conversion of the Laurel River to a slack water lake on water quality are presented in Appendix B.

4.02 RELOCATIONS. The Laurel River Lake project has necessitated the relo­ cation of 13 family units, with loss of associated cultural or heritage aspects; approximately 23,500 feet of 16-inch raw waterline; a 0.54 mile section of telephone line; 3.52 miles of power line; and a 4,000-foot section of State Highway 312 including the existing bridge which crosses the river in the upper portions of the project near Corbin, Kentucky.

4.03 INUNDATION OF TERRESTRIAL SPACE. The project has permanently inun­ dated 6,060 acres (including the existing riverbed) of wildlife habitat and terrestrial space. This flooding of manageable land area created cause for concern on the part of other public agencies having local resource management and public health responsibilities. The reservoir will have major effects on the multiple-use and resources management programs of the Forest, requiring a rebuilding of those programs. Most seriously affected are re­ creation programs which must be adjusted to handle the anticipated large increase in visitor utilization, and the Baldrock Experimental Forest which will require partial relocation due to inundation. Other adverse effects include a decrease in the area available for timber production and wildlife habitat. With all factors considered, the Forest Service recognizes and has stated that the beneficial effects of the project, stemming mostly from the increased recreation utilization of that section of the Daniel Boone National Forest, will greatly offset the adverse effects. The Forest Service will provide opportunities for hunting, fishing, camping, sigh- seeing, hiking, nature study, picnicking, boating, and many other water- related activities associated with the lake.

4.04 GAIN IN DIVERSIFIED RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES. A reconnaissance report on recreation resources of the Laurel project was prepared by the National Park Service in 1959. In summary, the report indicates that while the con­ struction of the reservoir would result in a distinct loss of certain existing natural and aesthetic values, the project would create greater opportunities for diversified recreation. The Park Service points out, however, that in reservoir facility development, the backwoods character and forest environment should not be unduly impaired. As discussed in Section 1, about 500,000 recreation visitors per year are expected during the next three to five years.

4.05 HYDROELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION. The project will provide a maximum hydroelectric power production capability of 74 megawatts or an estimated average annual energy output of 67 million kilowatt hours. 4.06 EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE. The fish and wildlife resources of the project were first examined by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 1959. The project was reexamined by the Bureau in early 1963, and the results of that restudy which more or less confirmed the earlier findings were furnished to the District Engineer by letter of 19 February 1963. The studies showed that while there would be some losses to wildlife due to inundation of habitat, fishing resources on the other hand, would be greatly enhanced. The Bureau recommended that certain management practices be established in the interest of fish and wildlife in cooperation with the Forest Service and the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. The clearing plan which generally called for the removal of only that material within the reservoir between elevations 982 and 1020 is expected to be beneficial to fish habitat. Additionally, in accordance with a plan prepared by the Forest Supervisor, fish attractors, consisting of small inlets of uncleared trees, were left at selected points throughout the reservoir. The tops extend above the water surface, in the interest of fishery management.

4.07 WATER SUPPLY AND HUMAN HEALTH. A report was made by the Public Health Service in connection with water supply problems for the City of Corbin, Kentucky. The Service noted that under present growth conditions, the existing Corbin water supply appears adequate to the year 2000 but suggested that consideration be given to providing an increased supply from Laurel River Lake. It was concluded, however, that future water supply require­ ments were too distant and indefinite for consideration at this time. In July 1966, the malaria potential and other possible health hazards of the project were examined by the National Communicable Disease Center. In a letter of 12 April 1967 to the District Engineer, that agency stated that the project would have a very low mosquito potential, and no problems were anticipated.

4.08 POLLUTION. There are no pollution problems of significance at the present time in the affected section of Laurel River. With the provision of the recently completed secondary sewage treatment plant at Corbin, pollutants entering the pool from municipal sources will be minimal. Industrial wastes are regulated by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The industries located at Corbin are presently on an implementation schedule to treat their wastewaters in compliance with present laws. It is considered that the most serious pollution potential is that which can result from pub­ lic recreation use and development. Wastes from houseboats and cruisers along with those originating from shoreline use could create a problem. Consequently, close coordination will be maintained with the Kentucky Department of Health, the agency having the primary responsibility in this area of pollution abatement and control. Additional pollution control is being realized from development of new sanitary landfill projects within the project vicinity. At London, Kentucky, an old strip mine area is being used as a landfill site. The site is privately owned, approved by the State of Kentucky, and will serve the city of London and most of Laurel County. Another landfill project, located two miles west of Corbin, Kentucky, will serve Corbin, and Whitley County. The site is privately owned, approved by the State, and has been in operation for only a few months. The city of Williamsburg owns and operates a new landfill site which is also approved by the State. Strip mining of coal is increasing on the upper Laurel River watershed. The Corps will continue to monitor the water quality of Laurel lake and take necessary action to protect the impoundment from unprecidented damage caused by stripping. The Corps will also continue to monitor the effects of the U.S. Steel coal washer and oil spillage from the L&N Rail­ road, both located at Corbin, on the water quality of Lynn Camp Creek.

A.09 SEDIMENTATION. Because of the high percentage of forested land adjacent tc the reservoir, the only sedimentation problem will be confined to the heads of tributary embayments and is anticipated to be minor. These areas are being avoided, as practical, in siting recreation facilities which could be adversely affected by sedimentation problems.

4.10 WATERFOWL. Although the expanded water area may attract waterfowl use during migration perlaAs, the project area lies some distance from estab­ lished flyways, and studies to date indicate that there may be little Increased use by waterfowl over pre-project conditions.

4.11 TOURISM. The Laurel River Lake will be much more than a local resource. While considerable usage will no doubt originate from the nearby area, the bulk of visitors will originate from the larger urban areas located north of the project. This Increase in tourism should help to relieve the con­ tinually regressing economic conditions of the area.

4.12 EFFECTS ON FARM LAND VALUES. Due to the physical character of the terrain being largely steep and precipitous with very little agricultural potential, there has been little or no impact on farm land values.

4.13 EFFECT OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION. During investigations associated with preparation of this statement, special emphasis was placed on Identifying the effects of completed and continued construction on the environment. The resulting effects are discussed in following paragraphs, 4.13.1 through 4.13.11.

4.13.1 Existing vegetative cover was removed by project clearing operations in the construction of 7.12 miles of haul and access roads, clear­ ing of a large borrow area below the damsite, and clearing of the reservoir pool area. Although significant clearing of vegetation has been necessary, particularly for borrow and disposal sites, all except one of these areas have been located upstream of the dam in the area impounded. To obtain suitable Impervious material for construction of the dam, it was necessary to locate one large borrow area of approximately 43 acres downstream of the structure and outside the pool. This area has already been utilized and effectively rehabilitated; the land form of the area has been reshaped to a near natural appearance; and topsoil has been respread and planted with appropriate grass species. The area is oblong in shape and will re­ forest itself by natural revegetative means from an existing plentiful sur­ rounding supply of large pine seed trees.

4.13.2 Haul roads were generally located along existing roadways, minimizing clearing requirements. Most of these roads will be retained and used for project administrative purposes, fire and timber access, recreation, and proposed future upgrading and Inclusion in the public road system serv­ ing the project area.

4.13.3 Band-type clearing resulted in the removal of vegetative material from elevation 977 to elevation 1020.

4.13.4 As with the other construction features, every effort was and is being made to prevent damage to vegetation outside the area impounded.

4.13.5 Throughout the construction and clearing process, some adverse effects have resulted in the water quality of the river. Downstream turbid­ ity from erosion of exposed borrow and disposal areas and unsurfaced haul, access, and service roads haa been the most significant adverse effect observed; however, the quality of stream flow was not seriously reduced for any significant period.

4.13.6 The effects of noisy conditions associated with construction activity have not been considered serious considering the sparse population within the surrounding area. Much of the construction material was obtained within the immediate area which localized these undesirable conditions; how­ ever, tranquility was temporarily interrupted during reservoir clearing operations by the use of power saws and motorized equipment necessary for cutting and piling of brush. Heavy construction equipment will continue to produce noise during the remaining construction period.

4.13.7 Temporary effects on the atmosphere resulted from brush burning during clearing operations. The clearing and brush disposal program involved 2,200 acres and took place over a period of approximately one year.

4.13.8 Although most of the hauling of earth material has been completed, dust from haul and service roads will continue to have a potential adverse effect on the atmosphere and surrounding vegetation until project construction is completed.

4.13.9 A significant amount of sandstone and shale rock exposure has resulted from access road cuts and excavation of the service roadway, power­ house area, and switchyard area. Although the exposed rock face of the dam is somewhat intrusive on the surrounding area, the use of indigenous material has reduced the visual Impact of the structure. 4.13.10 Due Co the remoteness and low human population densities within the project area, there has been little significant effect on the local cultural stability.

4.13.11 Development and maintenance of recreational facilities by the Forest Service, as proposed in the Laurel River Lake Recreation Master Plan, will have some effect upon the environment. These effects are minor and not considered to be serious.

4.14 SOIL PROTECTION. The following actions have been and are being taken to remedy certain soil erosion problems that were observed during on-site investigations:

4.14.1 The road shoulders along haul roads, service roads, and access roads have been seeded with soil binding grass species for the primary purpose of stabilization of disturbed soil. This treatment Included seeding of heavy equipment parking yards and ail other areas with exposed and erodlble soils.

4.14.2 Watering down of unsurfaced roadways during dry periods is being given close attention to inhibit the raising of dust.

4.14.3 The 43-acre borrow area was closed to vehicular traffic to prevent further cutting of ruts across the area. V ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED

5.01 INUNDATION OF TERRESTRIAL SPACE. The inundation of 6,060 acres of relatively wild land was Inevitable upon Impoundment. The overall effects of this loss of terrestrial "open space" on the total environment cannot be completely eliminated by measures other than through a "no project" approach. However, the corresponding unavoidable loss of wildlife habitat and timber production space can be somewhat ameliorated by the conversion of additional and otherwise unproductive lands to timber plantations and wildlife habitat management units. Such action will be included in natural resource manage­ ment plans which will be prepared for the Laurel Lake Project.

5.02 CONVERSION OF STREAM TO A LAKE. The project converted 19.2 miles of the Laurel River and six miles of Craig Creek from free flowing and rela­ tively cold-water natural streams to a warmer slack-water lake. The ecology of the existing river Is being correspondingly modified to an environment that will favor the production of warm-water and lake type life forms; how­ ever, as previously stated, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources has stocked the impoundment with rainbow trout, contributing an element of cold-water fishery.

5.03 ATTRACTION OF POLLUTION. The project will attract recreationists and associated pollution problems. A strong maintenance program will be required of the Forest Service to minimize the effects of heavy use by the public. The danger of forest fire occurrence will multiply many times with the Influx of recreationists.

5.0A EFFECTS ON AESTHETICS. There will be a net loss of natural aesthetic values associated with impoundment even after the scars resulting from pro­ ject construction are healed. Though every effort Is being made to minimize the effects of construction through rehabilitative measures and well planned landscape design, the scenic values are being altered and/or converted from a free flowing stream environment which possesses a high degree of natural charm, to an artificial lake with associated structures and heavier use. It should be recognized, however, that a manmade lake, in Its own way, also possesses an attractive and valuable scenic and recreational environment that Is desirable to large numbers of citizens.

5.05 EFFECTS OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION. Temporary adverse effects of const­ ruction on water quality, soli cover, atmospheric quality, natural outdoor serenity, and the potential for forest fires, all associated with construct­ ion activities have been from a practical standpoint, unavoidable. Again, although unavoidable, the seriousness of these potential sources of pollu­ tion can be controlled by timely rehabilitation and management efforts such as reseeding with grass for the purpose of temporary soil protection. Dis­ posal of brush by means other than fire could have been accomplished to the benefit of atmospheric quality and forest fire prevention. However, other methods such as hauling, or chipping and hauling, would have been unpre­ cedentedly expensive considering the remoteness of the area Involved In clearing operations. Noise that is generated from construction equipment cannot be avoided to an appreciable degree.

5.06 RELOCATIONS. As stated In paragraph 4.02, thirteen family units, approximately 23,500 feet of waterline, 0.54 mile of telephone line, 3.52 miles of power line, and 4,000 feet of State highway with bridge, were relocated due to project needs. VI ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

6.01 GENERAL. One purpose of the project ts to provide hydroelectric power for use or. the peak of the load power deficiency periods In certain power supply areas of the mid-south. With a multiple-purpose potential, the project was approved also for providing public recreation. The project will provide along with some degree of adversity, other benefits to both the local and regional citizenry, that are In keeping with the comprehensive plan of develop­ ment of the Cumberland River Basin. Although the principles and objectives associated with the proposed action are sound and reasonable, subsequent paragraphs are presented for the purpose of discussing alternatives that were available prior to start of construction and those alternatives avail­ able at this time.

6.02 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED DURING PROJECT FORMULATION. 6.02.1 No Project. If no action were taken, the environmental setting of the vicinity would have probably remained unchanged far Into the future, considering the poor economic conditions and decreasing trend In population of the vicinity. The river would have remained desirable to the ardent out- doorsman Lor Its scenic values, bank fishing, and river-bottom hunting potentials. At this point, a no project approach would mean abandonment of the project after approximately 71 percent completion. Many years of planning and construction work would be forfeited along with the material resources that have been utilized. The Laurel River Lake segment of the Comprehensive Plan of Development of the Cumberland River Basin would be Ignored with no known alternative solution that would provide the same magnitude of benefits with any less adverse effect on the total environment In the projects' area of Influence. 6.02.2 Alternative Locations. Physical characteristics of the Laurel River are such that a number of sites were studied for the construction of a dam and from both geological and environmental standpoints, one site was considered as suitable as another. The extent of the reservoir formed by Wolf Creek Dam, however, presented a downstream limit in establishment of the damslte, and public utilities serving the city of Corbin were restric­ tive upstream on various proposals. Studies were then made in an endeavor to determine where the dam, spillway, and powerhouse should be located and to what maximum practicable height the dam should be constructed. A total of nine alternate project schemes were considered. Three potential damsltes at river miles 1.8, 2.3, and 3.2 were investigated, using alternative dam heights with corresponding full pool elevations varying from 970 to 1,031.4. Available power was proportional to the various full pool elevations. Using these combinations as a basis, further physical, economic, and administra­ tive studies and analyses were carried out. It was concluded that the present damslte at mile 2.3 with a top of dam elevation 1,036, spillway crest and top of power pool 1,018.5, and minimum pool 982, would maximize project benefits. 6.02.3 Alternative Purposes. In the Initial project document plan (H. Doc. 413, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.), the Laurel River project was designed for flood control, power, and recreation. The plan of improvement incorporated 75,000 acre-feet of flood control storage and required corresponding adjust­ ment in operations of Lake Cumberland for flood control and power. However, the project now being constructed differs somewhat from the project document plan. Various deviations, all coming under the purview of the authority available to the Chief of Engineers, have been made as a result of additional detailed engineering investigations. The plan of development new provides no flood control storage allocation to Laurel, leaving a dual-purpose project for hydroelectric power and recreation. The elimination of flood control storage resulted in a slightly lower maximum controlled pool (1020 to 1018.5) which also reduced the overall area of inundation by 100 acres. 6.02.4 No Recreation. The recreational aspects of the project could have been omitted from the plan of development. However, experience gained from other water development projects together with the results of investi­ gations made during the early project formulation period showed outdoor recreation to be feasible, beneficial, and needed as a primary project purpose. Studies were conducted concerning recreational aspects by representatives from several State and Federal agencies. The result of these investigations were transmitted to Congress in a favorable report by the Chief of Engineers on 9 June 1960 (House Document No, 413, 86th Congress, 2nd Session). 6.02.5 Past experience has proven that heavy recreational use will be made of project shorelines at water development projects such as Laurel Lake, even if there are no supportive facilities provided for the using citizenry. If access is not provided, crude user-made rutted roads would eventually be established on adjacent private lands, and without close control, would extend to public lands along the shoreline, causing erosion, forest fire hazards, and poor aesthetic qualities. Likewise, if basic facilities are not provided, fishing, camping, boat launching, picnicking, and other out­ door recreational activities would take place without sanitary facilities such as restrooms, trash recepticles, and potable water. Forest fire danger is far greater when cooking and warming fires are improperly located and con­ tained, as compared with the use of well planned and developed camp and picnic sites. Safety hazards are numerous to the recreationist, and mainte­ nance problems associated with such undeveloped, uncontrolled, and disorgan­ ized recreation conditions and activities are insurmountable. 6.02.6 Other Sources of Power. Other methods of power production could have been utilized such as gas turbine units, fossil fuel and nuclear stream plants, and pumped storage. None of these methods are capable of producing efficient peak load power with any less effect (direct or indirect) on the environment. Further, at the present stage of construction, economic justi­ fication for modifying the project to utilize an alternative method of power production would be difficult. The Federal Power Commission provided the following comments after reviewing the Draft EIS: 6.02.6.1 Power supply from alternative nuclear and fossil fuel steam plants, with present technology, cannot furnish the peak load portion of the total demand as efficiently as the supply from the Laurel River hydro­ electric project. The newer steam-electric plants are better suited to supply the base load portion of the demand. Also, hydroelectric projects do not have the thermal and air-pollution problems associated with steam- electric plants. 6.02.6.2 Alternative gas turbine units may offer a more efficient means of providing economic reserve capacity and peaking power for short durations as compared to steam-electric plant operations. However, fuel and maintenance costs are high and the units are comparatively uneconomical if operated for long periods. Also, these units have a high noise level and emit air pollutants. 6.02.6.3 The possibility of an alternative conventional pumped- storage hydroelectric development may exist. However, owing to the fact that the Laurel River project is about 71 percent complete, we do not con­ sider another hydroelectric project a realistic alternative source of pro­ viding the electrical energy. 6.02.6.4 Not providing power is another alternative; however, fore­ casts indicate that there is a need for additional peaking capacity in the marketing area and that any electricity to be generated at the Laurel River project can be used as soon as it becomes available. Therefore, since an alternative source of energy is not currently available, and if the economy in the area is to be maintained, it would seem reasonable to provide power at the Laurel River Lake project. 6.02.7 Channelisation of Tailwaters. In response to a subsequent proposal by the District Engineer for channelization of the Laurel River below the dam in the interest of power production, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, submitted a letter report dated 5 August 1965, providing data indicating that fishery benefits without channelization would greatly exceed the benefits to power should the excavation be accomplished. The comments of the Bureau were a factor in the later decision of the Corp6 that downstream excavation would not be accomplished.

6.03 ALTERNATIVES REMAINING. 6.03.1 Complete the Project and Modify Use. 6.03.1.1 Reduce or eliminate recreation as a primary purpose. Since few recreation facilities have been constructed at Laurel Lake to date, recreation as a primary project purpose, could somewhat conveniently be omitted and Corps of Engineers and Forest Service Construction schedules could be modified to exclude recreation development. This approach would ignore the findings cited in paragraph 6.02.5 above and would result in an everlasting management crisis in controlling land use that will be attracted to National Forest lands around the perimeter of the lake. 6.03.1.2 Reduce power output. Power production could be reduced or modified to provide a more stable pool. Recreation activities would bene­ fit from pool stablizatlon, but at the expense of power production. The current plan of operation for the Laurel project has been formulated to gain the most optimum arrangement of tradeoffs between power output levels and the quality of recreation opportunities. The plan will remain in effect until project conditions change to the extent that operational concepts need to be adjusted. Complete deletion of power as a primary project purpose would not be practical at the present stage of construction. The permanent diversion tunnel plugs have been placed, restricting the passage of water to either the power tunnel intake at elevation 982.0, or over the concrete spillway at elevation 1018.5. Modification costs that would be required to pass water through the spillway side-channel on a continuous and permanent basis, the installation of additional diversion facilities, or removal of generators and diversion tunel plugs would be enormous and difficult to justify. 6.03.1.3 Introduction of other project purposes. In the future, as economic, social, and environmental conditions change, additional project purposes may be desirable. The trend of future downstream development may dictate the need for flood control, water supply, and possibly other uses of the project's resources. 6.03.1.4 Change the physical or managerial aspects of operation. As partially discussed in subsection 6.03.1.3 above, the current plan of opera­ tion could be modified to compliment any desired change in project purposes which future conditions may require. It is also recognized that recreation management and operation of the dam and hydroelectric plant could be trans­ ferred to agencies, organizations, or contractors other than the Corps of Engineers or Forest Service. 6.03.2 Stop Work and Sacrifice Project Objectives. Work could be stopped and project purposes and expended resources sacrificed. The dam could be removed; land could be drained, reclaimed, and sold or leased; and project purposes could be met by other means. Power could be produced by fossil fuel or nuclear plants, and recreation opportunities could be provided by other water development projects or through other types of facilities. Considering the need for electrical power that can be cleanly generated on a moments notice to satisfy peak load periods, it would be difficult to justify stopping work on the project at this stage of const­ ruction and during this era of energy shortage. VII THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY

7.01 Considering the primary objectives of the Laurel River Lake project, it becomes obvious that short-term uses of local resources are only Inciden­ tal to the overall development effort. Hydroelectric power will be produced, helping to slow the ever-growing differential between supply and demand for electricity, particularly for peaking periods. The recreational values of the locality will be enhanced, not only for providing outdoor recreation for the local and regional citizenry, but at the same time enhancing local economic conditions.

7.02 Previous investigations and plans for power development of the head­ waters of the Cumberland River date back to the early part of the century. Later In the "308" report (HD 38, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session) plans were formulated In full recognition of future needs associated with flooding, power, navigation, pollution abatement, wildlife refuges, and recreation. This early concern for the future development of our water resources, along with acknowledgement of the need for preservation of wildlife and recrea­ tional values, was even then directed toward the maintenance and enhance­ ment of long-term productivity rather than as a mere short-term means to an end.

7.03 From an environmental standpoint, hydroelectric power production imposes a relatively low net Impact on the overall environment as compared to other power producing processes. After the necessary resources have been committed to a hydroelectric project, no fuel Is required for its further operation. This means that no mining (strip or other) Is required and no pipelines, tankers, barges, railroads, coal trains, or other modes of transportation are needed to move the fuel. There is no water consump­ tion, thermal pollution, air pollution, or fire involved. The power units are safe and reliable, have low operational costs, and are relatively Inexpensive to maintain. At the same time, the Initial investment of environmental resources (space, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, etc.) are forfeited only to generate additional recreational benefits such as boating, swimming, skiing, camping, picnicking, lake fishing, and primary benefits such as water supply, irrigation, hydroelectric power, and flood control, depending on the project and location.

7.04 The Laurel River Lake improvements, with a proper maintenance and replacement program, will provide not only some of the local short-term needs of the area but continue to enhance and maintain the long-term productivity of the region for an indefinite period of time. VIII ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH ARE INVOLVED

8.01 The natural resources being permanently committed to the project are reflected in Section 5 of this statement dealing with unavoidable environ­ mental effects. The manpower, money, and materials utilized in the planning, construction, and future management of the project are committed and approxi­ mately 6,060 acres of natural "open space" have been inundated including 25.2 miles of free flowing streams and homesties of 13 family units with associated cultural or heritage aspects. The associated wildlife habitat and stream-type fishery have been committed, and approximately 5,475 acres of National Forest have been taken out of commercial timber production. The Natural aesthetic values of the area will be adversely affected by the installation and utilization of permanent manmade improvements. The commitment of the aforementioned resources will be permanent, for the life of the project, and to some degree for many years thereafter. IX COORDINATION WITH OTHERS

9.01 The following agencies and organizations commented on the draft en­ vironmental impact statement: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of the Interior Federal Power Commission Tennessee Valley Authority Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Office of Economic Opportunity Coast Guard, U.S.D.O.T. Federal Highway Administration, U.S.D.O.T. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Commonwealth of Kentucky National Audubon Society

9.02 The environmental impact statement was coordinated with State and Federal agencies and citizen groups. The letters containing the comments of these agencies and groups are presented in appendix A. The views expressed by each agency are listed below, together with appropriate responses by the Corps.

9.03 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIS: 9.03.1 Forest Service. USDA: Comment: Re: Summary; "Included should be the loss of 25.2 miles of free-flowing streams." (See Appendix A, pg. A-l). Response: The addition has been included in the summary as well as the text of the FEIS. Comment: Re: DEIS text; "Page 2 - Between full paragraphs 2 and 3, the following information is recommended for inclusion — ." (See Forest Service letter of 11 June 1974, appendix A, pages A-l through A-3 of this statement for information recommended for inclusion.) Response: Information has been included in the FEIS text as recommended. Comment: Re: DEIS text; "Page 5 - last full paragraph - Deer species are important. Non-game species may be equally so, especially if they are included in State or Federal threatened or endangered lists. There is no mention of this, although there are endangered species in Kentucky." Response: Concur. A discussion of white-tailed deer and endangered species is included in the taxt of the FEIS. Recognition of the value of non-game species is prevalent at all Corps impoundments. Songbirds and other non-game species benefit highly from the non-commercial timber man­ agement policy followed by the Corps. The narrow bands of timber around the periphery of Corps impoundments are managed for their aesthetic, wild­ life, and recreational values. It is understood that the Forest Service will maintain excellent non-game habitat at Laurel Lake through protection of travel and water influence zones. Comment: "Although sewage treatment plant facilities at Corbin are considered to be quite good, they are not adequate to handle all the sewage at all times. State EPA personnel at Corbin have recorded several instances during the last year when raw sewage bypassed the treatment plant because of volume and ultimately flowed into Lynn Camp Creek. The London sewage treatment plant has similar problems. The overflow of effluent from the London sewage treatment plant flows into Laurel River." Response: A complete discussion of the effects of the sewage treat­ ment plants at Corbin and London has been added to section 2 of the revised EIS text. Comment: "Page 9 - the last paragraph begins a discussion of pollution problems which will affect Laurel Lake. The following statements contain information which should be given serious consideration in pollution abate­ ment planning: Include a discussion of the U.S. Steel coal washer at Corbin, which contributes to pollution in Lynn Camp Creek. Active strip mining of coal exists in the headwaters of Laurel River, with 20-25 mines now in operation. Mining of coal by stripping is increasing and pollution could become a problem. Pollution is anticipated to become a problem along the southern shoreline where private development is being accomplished adjacent to the public lands, only a short distance from the lakefront." Response: Brief discussions of the U.S. Steel coal washer, and strip mining have been added to the statement text. Pollution problems which would result along the shoreline due to adjacent private development will require case by case action. The Corps of Engineers and U.S. Forest Service will cooperate with other Federal and State agencies in controlling pollu­ tion through the cooperative programs and enforcement provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Amendments of 1972. Also, the Corps and Forest Service can effect restrictions through ownership of real estate adjoining project lands by achieving desirable environmental development and management. Comment: Re: Page 11 of DEIS - "add Item K." Response: Item K has been added to the FEIS text. Comment: "The discussion of the conversion of 19.2 miles on Laurel River and 6 miles on Craigs Creek from free flowing and relatively cold water and natural streams to warm slack - water lake suggests that there would be no cold water fisheries available. With a lake as deep as Laurel and with a definite strong thermocline anticipated, would there not also be cold water fisheries available at certain areas within the lake? Such a condition would warrant discussion." Response: Concur. The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources has recently stocked Laurel Lake with rainbow trout. This in­ formation has been added to the text of the FEIS. 9.03.2 Soil Conservation Service. USDA: Comment: "It appears that there are adequate provisions for the soil and water conservation aspects of this project." (See Appendix A, pg. A-5). 9.03.3 U.S. Department of the Interior: Comment: "No reference is made to endangered wildlife. If no endangered fish and wildlife species occur In the project area, a statement to that effect should be Included." (See Appendix A, pg. A-6). Response: The Bald Eagle and Perlgrive Falcon are both seasonal resi­ dents In the Laurel Lake region. A discussion of endangered wildlife was added to the FEIS text. Comment; "Mineral resource production In Laurel and Whitley Counties consists of coal, stone, clay, and petroleum. The project Is in the region of the eastern Kentucky coal fields of Pensylvanla Age. Although we believe the project will not Inundate any mines or coal resources, the environmental statement should specifically Indicate that this aspect was considered by the Corps. The statement should also list how much of the mineral rights in the area was acquired In fee and how much was subordinated to the project." Response: Studies conducted in the Laurel Lake project area revealed that no operating coal mines or evidences of past commercial operations were found. It was also found that there was no commercial oil or gas production in the Laurel Lake or nearby areas. However, approximately 12,150 acres of mineral rights were purchased in fee, below both private and Federally owned tracts. This acreage constitutes almost 99 percent of the total project land area. Comment: "Naturally unstable slopes occur in this region due to over- steepenlng as sandstones are undercut by weathering of lnterbedded weak shales. Rock slides and landslides have been triggered by this process. The final environmental statement should, but does not, discuss the stability of both natural and cut slopes and the consequences of slides Into the reservoir." Response: In the area of the Laurel River Lake,risk of landslides and rockalides in the lake is considered minimal. Above the minimum pool ele­ vation the topography is relatively flat and not susceptable to landslides. Between the minimum and maximum pool elevations the rock exposed is sand­ stone and the exposed slopes are stable. The shale underlying this sand­ stone will not be exposed to weathering by pool fluctuations, eliminating the danger of undercutting the exposed rock. 9.03.4 Federal Power Cotnnlsslon; Comments made by the Federal Power Commission were presented in the form of constructive and informative statements. The Commission's letter of 28 March 1974 is presented in this FEIS on pages A-8 through A-9 in Appendix A. Most of the information furnished through the letter has been added to the text of the FEIS. 9.03.5 Tennessee Valley Authority: Comment: "This project will not have a direct impact on any TVA pro­ jects or programs and we have no comments." (See Appendix A, Pg. A-1G). 9.03.6 Environmental Protection Agency: Comment: "The formation of Laurel River Lake has converted 25.2 miles of free-flowing, cold-water natural streams to a warmer slack-water lake extending to Corbin Water supply dam. We believe the Statement could be improved by describing further the effect of this impoundment on water quality, with particular emphasis on: (1) whether the impoundment will stratify; (2) the effects of stratification within the reservoir; and (3) the effects of stratification on the released water. This description should consider the probability of low dissolved oxygen levels of the releases and current or future provisions (with costs) for maintaining water quality criteria in the releases." (See Appendix A, page A-ll). Response: We agree with this comment. These points have been dis­ cussed in Appendix B, Water Quality, of the revised EIS. Comment: It is stated (page 2) that 30 cfs will be released to sustain the tailwater fisheries except for some periods when "flows sufficient to recharge downstream shoal areas that are vital to the fishery will be inter­ mittently released." Available Information shows that the 7-day, 10-year minimum flow is about 7 cfs near the dam site; therefore, we suggest that maintenance of the historical 7-day, 10-year minimum flow or an instant­ aneous minimum below the dam site be required. Response: The purposes for which the project was designed will not permit the release of an instantaneous miminum of 7 cfs. Maintenance of flows relative to water quality are discussed in Appendix B, Water Quality, of the revised EIS. Comment: In another area of concern, several points in the discussion of the Corbin wastewater facilities (page 7) need clarification. It should be noted that Corbin and other wastewater dischargers into Laurel Lake may have to install nutrient removal as a result of this project and not necessarily due to changes In water quality standards or policies. Cost associated with higher levels of treatment would be attri­ butable to the project and should be reflected as negative benefits (external diseconomy) In the benefit-cost ratio analysis. An Inventory of these other discharges should also be Included. Response: There are two domestic waste dischargers in the Laurel River drainage area. These are located at Corbin and London, Kentucky. It Is not expected that nutrient removal at these sources will be necessary In order to protect the water quality of Laurel Lake. The average annual flow relationships are such that effects on the lake waters will be minimal. This is discussed in detail In Appendix B, Water Quality, of the revised EIS. Comment: We further recommended that the Statement indicate whether provision has been made for multi-level drawoff or whether the supply to the turbines is at a fixed level. Information should also be given as to whether reaeratlonis provided either at the turbine dlsbharge, by the configuration of the tallrace, or by other means. Response: There are no provisions for multilevel drawoff Incorporated Into the design of Laurel Dam. TTie centerline of the intake Is fixed at elevation 956.5. Reaeratlon or maintenance of dissolved oxygen levels in the tailwaters Is a function of several factors involved. This is discussed more fully In Appendix B, Water Duality, of the revised EIS. Comment: In addition, a comparison should be made between the water quality in the free-flowing stream (as given on pages 5 and 6) and the expected or monitored water quality parameters In the reservoir and below the dam. If actual parameters are not avail­ able, a statement should at least be made as to whether dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, alkalinity, fecal coll, turbidity, iron, manganese, etc., will be increased or lessened. Response: A water quality survey of the Laurel River drainage area lias been completed. Although any definite conclusions of the survey are necessarily restricted by the limited data available, certain correlations and predictions have been postulated in regard to questions raised by the above comment; a discussion appears as Appendix 11, Water Quality, of the revised EIS. A long-range monitoring program for Laurel River Lake should detect any future trends or changes in water quality relative to project purposes and/or stream standards. Comment: Furthermore, monitoring of the reservoir and In the stream below the reservoir should be included as a part of the oper­ ating procedure so that fluctuations In water quality can be observed, recorded, and used by Interested agencies. An Indication as to whether monitoring is planned and the extent of such monitoring should be included In the Statement. Response: We agree with the need for future monitoring. Indeed, it is a basic requirement of the Corps of Engineer's Environmental Guidelines Policy Statement to conduct adequate monitoring of operating projects. All appro­ priate parameters will he monitored on a quarterly basis, and/or shorter intervals for some aspects as required. Comment: Finally, assurance should be given that precautions will be taken against water pollution by visitors and boat users. Also, if vege­ tation from land clearing and construction waste materials are disposed of by open burning, assurance should be given that it will be in accordance with applicable State air pollution control regulations. Response: We are confident that the Forest Service will effect appro­ priate controls and prevention programs in regard to pollution. Forest Service plans in respect to management objectives and maintenance has been added to the revised EIS text. 9.03.7 U.S. Department of Health. Education, and Welfare: Comment: "Based upon the data contained in the draft, it is our opinion that this project, which is well along in the construction phase, will have only a minor impact upon the human environment with respects to the concerns of this Department." (See Appendix A, page A-13). 9.03.S Office of Economic Opportunity: Comment: "The Office of Economic Opportunity is in the process of being reorganized. During this period of reorganization, the agency will not under­ take any actions with regard to either Environmental Impact Statements or commenta as to same, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It would be in keeping with the meaning and spirit of the NEPA if future activities were subjected to the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95 clearinghouse procedures and submitted to interested and affected local community groups and organizations for their review and comments." (See Appendix A, page A-14) . Response: The recommendation to utilize 0MB Circular A-95 will be evaluated. 9.03.9 United States Coast Guard: Comment: "The potential for impact on a Coast Guard mission area is related to the expected growth in recreational use of the lake. The Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard can work together to place continued emphasis on education and recreational boating safety." (See Appendix A, page A-15). Response: Concur. 9.03.10 Federal Highway Administration: Comment: "Due to the advanced stage of completion of the highway relocation work on Kentucky Highway 312 and lack of conflict with other highways in the project area, we have no comments on the statement." (See Appendix A, page A-16). 9.03.11 Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection: Comment: "I am happy to report that no inadequacies were detected in the statement's coverage of the impact expected to occur as a result of the project." (See Appendix A, page A-17). 9.03.12 National Audubon Society: Comment: "If it were not for the requirement to update, to distribute a Draft Environmental Statement on a project that is already 677. structur­ ally complete, would closely approximate the nature of an affront to those individuals and agencies from whom you request comments." (See Appendix A, page A-18). Response: Section 102 of Public Law 91-190, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires all agencies of the Federal Government to include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed environmental impact statement. Although construction is near completion, the project is now undergoing transition to the operation, maintenance, and management phase, a major Federal action which warrants environmental impact statement coverage. The FEIS has been expanded to more thoroughly cover operation, maintenance, and management aspects of the project. Comment: "Aside and apart from this undesirable situation, we can hardly believe that you really have a 1.1 to 1.0 Benefit/Cost ratio. If your true purpose is to make maximum use of the pool to augment power supply, the value of the pool as a recreational facility will be the worst imaginable. In this period of energy shortage, very substantial pool changes will inevi­ tably result, thus reducing the recreational benefit to near zero. It would be unsafe as well as impractical to allow recreational use under these conditions."

"In examining 'Alternative Purposes,' under 'No Recreation,' we urge that you give this very serious consideration. With the continuous rise and fall of the pool, we can hardly accept the statement that you investi­ gation showed 'outdoor recreation to be feasible, beneficial, and needed as a primary purpose.' Given the conditions described, the only reason we can see why it would be needed would be to inflate the Benefits so that a better than 1.0 to 1.0 ratio would be achieved." Response: We concur that drawdown for power production affects the quality of recreation at multi-purpose impoundments, however, not as sig­ nificantly as contemplated in the above comment. Past experience has shown that lake flucuations due to power production fail to deter recreation use regardless to whether recreation benefits have been claimed or public use facilities have been constructed. If recreation is allowed, reasonable steps must be taken to provide facilities which will protect natural resources, minimize maintenance, and provide a safe and adequate recreation opportunity for the using public. Comment: "In addition, we question your statement that with the recent improvements to the Corbin sewage treatment facilities, 'the quality of the water is expected to be excellent and highly favorable for recreational use.' We believe that it is more than likely that this plant has been notified through a Special Memorandum from the Division of Water that it will not meet standards."

Response: The FEIS text has been expanded on the water quality aspects of the project. It was stated on page 7 of the draft that the Corbin system will undergo re-evaluation in 1974 and improved thereafter to comply with latest Federal laws.

Comment: "In examining 'alternatives,' it is almost ludicrous to include a 'no project' when the project is almost practically finished."

Response: The "project" has a life expectancy of 100 years from the time of initial construction. The quality of management that the U. S. Forest Service and Corps of Engineers administers over the life of the project could have more effect on the long-term quality of the human environment (good or bad) than any other phase. For this reason the need for an environmental impact statement at this time, and more important, the need for future updates of the statement, are obviously invaluable.

Comment: "We are somewhat dismayed at the way in which this project is being presented. It seems peculiar to attempt justification of such a power project as this on the basis of recreational benefits. In view of the present energy situation, it is almost a certainty, that this plant will be used far more than to augment peak demand. It would seem that a more careful scrutiny of your new 1973 Guidelines on Water and Related Land Resources would provide you with a more realistic approach to your future actions and your Benefit/Cost proposal."

Response: See response to the earlier comment regarding recreational use. It is not contemplated to alter the planned hydro-power operation and in any such consideration, though unlikely, the effects on recreation would be very carefully weighed especially because of being located in the National Forest. BIBLIOGRAPHY

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT LAUREL RIVER LAKE KENTUCKY

Brockman, Prank C. "Trees of North America." Golden Press, New York. 1968

Office of Endangered Species and International Affairs, USDI. "Threatened Wildlife of the United States." Bureau of Sport Fishe­ ries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 1973.

Clay, William M. "A Field Manual of Kentucky Fishes." Kentucky Depart­ ment of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Frankfort, Kentucky. 1962.

Mayes, Sudderth, and Etheredge. "Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan for the Cumberland Valley Area Development District." Cumberland Valley Area Development District, Lexington, Kentucky. June 1973.

Harlow, William M. , Ph. D. and Harrar, Ellwood S., Ph. D. 'Textbook of Dendrology." McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York. 1958.

Robbins, Chandler S. and Zlm, Herbert S. "Birds of North America". Golden Press, New York. 1966.

Ward, Henry Baldwin and Whipple, George Chandler. "Fresh-Water Biology." John Wiley and Sons, New York. 1959.

Zlm, Herbert S., Ph. D. and Hoffmelster, Donald F., Ph. D. "Mammals." Golden Press, 1955.

Zlm, Herbert S., Ph. D. and Smith, Hobart M . , Ph. D. "Reptiles and Amphibians." Golden Press, New York. 1956.

CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN LAUREL RIVER LAKE PROJECT LAUREL RIVER, KENTUCKY

PERTINENT DATA General.

Authorisation ------Flood Control Act of 14 July I960 and PL 88-253 Purpoae ------Power and recreation Location of dam on Laurel River, river mile ------2.3 Location of powerhouse, river mile ------2.1 Drainage area, square miles ------282 Real Estate requirements (estimated) From Daniel Boone National Forest (Department of Agriculture) acres ------5,475 From private ownership (fee simple) acres ------6,825 Total - a c r e s ------12,300

Elevations. Top of dam ------1,036 Top of power pool (spillway crest) ------1018.5 Minimum pool (full drawdown) ------— ------982

RgefJTYglr,. Areas: At elevation 1018.5, acres ------6,060 At elevation 982, a c r e s ------4,200

Storage: Active for power use, elevation 1018.5-982, acre-feet --- 185,000 Dead storage below elevation 982, acre-feet ------250,600 Total for reservoir below elevation 1018.5, acre-feet --- 435,600

Stream flow. Study periods: June 1929 - December 1962

Natural: Maximum average monthly (Jan 1937), cfs ------3,298 Minimum average monthly (Sep 1936), cfs ------1 Average for entire period, cfs ------430 Regulated: Estimated net minimum continuous, c f s ------296 Spillway design flood. Design storm rainfall, amount and duration --- 25.9 inches in 48 hours Losses: Initial loss, inches ------i.o Infiltration loss, inch per hour ----— ------0.1 Total 1os8 for storm, inches — ------5 .2 Peak flows: Inflow to full pool, cfs ------120,000 Outflow, c f s ------86,000 Natural hydrograph at damslte, cfs ------86,000 Elevations: Pool at start of Inflow------1018.5 Maximum reservoir stage ------1030.5 Maximum tallwater at dam ------7 8 6

Standard project flood. Standard project storm rainfall, amount and duration------15.3 inches in 96 hours Losses: Initial loss. Inches ------1.0 Infiltration loss, inch per h o u r ------0.1 Total loss, for storm, Inches------4.5 Peak flows: Inflow to full pool, cfs ------68,500 Outflow, cfs (Spillway 36,400 and turbine 4,100) ...... 40,500 Natural hydrograph at damslte, cfs ------41,500 Pool elevations: At start of inflow ------1018.5 Maximum level ------1025.5

Structural features. Dam: Type ------Rockfill Length (approximate), feet ------1,420 Maximum height of dam (approximate), feet -- 282

Spillway: T y p e ------Uncontrol led Length, f e e t ------750 Diversion: T y p e ------Unlined tunnel Size (diameter), f e e t ------23 Length (approximate), f e e t ------— - 1,190 Power Installation. Estimated operating heads, feet: Maximum with pool elevation 1018.5 ------251 Average net, abou t ------242 Minimum net with pool elevation 982 ------213 Tallwater elevations: Approximate minimum with zero flow ------754 Approximate normal ------764 Tunnel: Number ------1 Diameter, f e e t ------18 Approximate length, feet ------792 Generating units: Number ------1 Nameplate rating, megawatts ------61 Capacity at pool elevation 982, megawatts------60 Maximum capability, megawatts ------74 Estimated normal water capacity, cfs ------3,390 Possible maximum water capacity, cfs ------4,000 Estimated energy output (million kwh): Average annual ------67 Minimum year (1942) ------39 Maximum year (1951) ------108

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT LAUREL RIVER LAKE KENTUCKY

ECONOMIC DATA, EXTRACTED FROM DISTRICT FILES, NASHVILLE ENGINEER DISTRICT. COMPLETE DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE AT U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

*Totai Project Cost: Corps of Engineers $36,400,000 U.S. Forest Service 2,825,000 Total Federal Project Cost $39,225,000

Average Annual Benefits: Power 935,000 Recreation 791,000 Area Redevelopment 306,000 Total $ 2,032,000

Average Annual Charges: 1,838,000

Beneflt/Cost Ratio: 1.1/1

*Based on November 1972 cost estimate. APPENDIX A

LETTERS OF COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES, AND CITIZEN GROUPS U n it e d St a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f Ag r ic u l t u r e FOREST SERVICE 100 Vaught Road Winchester, Kentucky 40391

June 11, 1974_

Col. William F. Brandes District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.0. Box 1070 Nashville, Tennessee 37202 L

Dear Col. Brandes:

The following comnents are submitted for your consideration in the Final Environmental Statement for the Laurel River Lake project.

We would like to see the Final Environmental Statement contain a comprehensive discussion of the public recreational complex associated with the project as planned for development by the U.S. Forest Service, which will be an integral part of the overall Laurel River Lake project.

Following are specific items commented upon:

SUMMARY

B. Adverse and Environmental Effects - Included should be the loss of 25.2 miles of free-flowing streams.

STATEMENT

Page 2 - Between full paragraphs 2 & 3, the following information is recommended for inclusion --

-- Recreation construction and maintenance by the Forest Service will be a continuing program throughout the life of the project. Recreation facilities included in the Forest Service Laurel River Lake Recreation Master Plan will be programmed and phased over a number of years as demand and funds dictate. Public facilities now in place, as well as those shown below as planned in the future, are needed as an integral part of the total project benefits.

Planned Facilities

There are 4 levels of recreational development planned within the area. The levels of environmental modification and recreation experiences to be planned for on-Forest Service recreation sites include: #1 (Primitive) #2 (Semi-primitive) #3 (Intermediate) and #4 (Secondary modern)

Campgrounds and marina facilities developed by concessioners will be developed to experience level #5 (modern). For the most part, those facilities that will be developed in a general forest environ­ ment atmosphere will be located along each side of the Craigs Creek embayment and the western end of the Laurel River embayment. The Forest Service is the major landowner in these areas, and the high aesthetic quality of the environment is conducive to this type of development.

The north and south shore of the eastern portion of the Laurel River embayment is characterized by a majority of private landholdings outside the 300-foot public ownership strip. The land is generally open and nonforested. This general area of the project is where private and concessioner development will be encouraged to complement the overall public development program.

The Forest Service's initial development thrust has been, and will continue to be, completion of water access facilities. These include access roads, boat ramps, marinas and boat access campgrounds. The second major thrust within the 1974-1984 period will be towards the development of major public campgrounds and several picnic areas complemented by visitor information services. The following table indicates the facilities planned for development during the next 10 years. Facilities Planned for Development During the Ten-Year Period 1974-1984

People At One Site Facilities Time (PAOT) 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/80 Parking Spaces 200 Hightop 200-Slip Marina w/131 Parking Spaces 400 1-Lane Boat Ramp w/40 Parking Spaces 200 Laurel Bridge 40 Picnic Units 200 Frozen Camp 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/40 Parkinq Spaces 200 Flatwoods 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/60 Parkinq Spaces 300 70 Camping Units, Boat-In & Hike-in White Oak Only Scale #2 350 200 Camping Units 1000 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/80 Parking Spaces 400 Sams Branch Scale #3 (Intermediate) 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/60 Parking Spaces 300 Holly Bay 200-Slip Marina w/131 Parkinq Spaces 400 Mouth of Laurel 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/60 Parkinq Spaces 300 Old Mill 2-Lane Boat Ramp w/80 Parkinq Spaces 400 80 Picnic Units 400 Grove Scale #4 (Secondary Modern) People At One Site Facilities Time (PAOT)

Hiqhtop 50 Picnic Units 250 Mill Creek Concessioner-200 Camping Units 1000 Big Fields 50 Picnic Units 250

Concessioner developments, such as a lodge and associated facilities, will also be considered within the 10-year development period.

The realization of this will be determined by user demands, concessioner interest, and private sector growth in the area.

Interest in concessioner facilities will be solicited by the Forest Service through standard prospectus and invitation to bid procedures.

Page 5 - last full paragraph --

Deer species are important. Nongame species may be equally so, especially if they are included in State or Federal threatened or endangered lists. There is no mention of this, although there are endangered species in Kentucky.

Page 7 - third paragraph --

Although sewage treatment plant facilities at Corbin are considered to be quite good, they are not adequate to handle all the sewage at all times. State EPA personnel at Corbin have recorded several instances during the last year when raw sewage bypassed the treatment plant because of volume and ultimately flowed into Lynn Camp Creek. The London sewage treatment plant has similar problems. The overflow of effluent from the London sewage treatment plant flows into Laurel River.

Page 9 - the last paragraph begins a discussion of pollution problems which will affect Laurel Lake. The following statements contain informa­ tion which should be given serious consideration in pollution abatement planning --

Include a discussion of the U.S. Steel coal washer at Corbin, which contributes to pollution in Lynn Camp Creek.

Active strip mining of coal exists on the headwaters of Laurel River, with 20-25 mines now in operation. Mining of coal by stripping is increasing and pollution could become a problem. Pollution is anticipated to become a problem along the southern shoreline where private development is being accomplished adjacent to the public lands, only a short distance from the lakefront.

Page 11 - add item K.

K. Development and maintenance of recreational facilities by the Forest Service, as proposed in the Laurel River Lake Recreation Master Plan, will have some affect upon the environment. These effects are minor and not considered to be serious.

Page 12 - second paragraph under 4. --

The discussion of the conversion of 19.2 miles on Laurel River and 6 miles on Craigs Creek from free-flowing and relatively cold water and natural streams to warm slack - water lake suggests that there would be no cold water fisheries available. With a lake as deep as Laurel and with a definite strong thermocline anticipated, would there not also be cold water fisheries available at certain areas within the lake? Such a condition would warrant discussion.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Statement for Laurel Lake.

Best regards,

JOHN E. ALCOCK Forest Supervisor UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 333 Waller Avenue, Lexington, KY 40504

May 2, 1974

Colonel William F. Brandea District Engineer Nashville District Corps of Engineers Department of the Army P. 0. Box 1070 Nashville, TN 37202

Dear Colonel Brandes:

This is in response to your letter of March 28, 1974, requesting comments on the draft environmental statement on the Laurel River Lake project.

It appears that there are adequate provisions for the soil and water conservation aspects of this project. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this statement.

Sincerely,

Glen E^/Murray State Conservationist United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Southeast Region / 148 Cain St., N.E. / Atlanta, Ca. 30303

June 3, 1974

District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 1070 Nashville, Tennessee 37202

Dear Sir:

As requested in your March 28, 1974, letter to the Assistant Secretary, Program Policy, we have reviewed the draft environmental impact state­ ment for the proposed Laurel River Lake, Cumberland River Basin, Whitley and Laurel Counties, Kentucky, project for its effects on outdoor recreation, geology, hydrology, fish and wildlife resources, mineral resources, and national parks, landmarks and historic areas.

We offer the following comments for your consideration:

Fish and Wildlife

No reference is made to endangered wildlife. If no endangered fish and wildlife species occur in the project area, a statement to that effect should be included.

Minerals

Mineral resource production in Laurel and Whitley Counties consists of coal, stone, clay, and petroleum. The project is in the region of the eastern Kentucky coal fields of Pennsylvania Age. Although we believe the project will not inundate any mines or coal resources, the environ­ mental statement should specifically indicate that this aspect was considered by the Corps. The statement should also list how much of the mineral rights in the area was acquired in fee and how much was subordinated to the project. Geology

Naturally unstable slopes occur in this region due to oversteepening as sandstones are undercut by weathering of interbedded weak shales. Rock slides and landslides have been triggered by this process. The final environmental statement should, but does not, discuss the stability of both natural and cut slopes and the consequences of slides into the reservoir.

We have no further comments or suggestions for improvement of the draft statement at this time.

Sincerely yours,

(Miss) June Whelan Special Assistant to the Secretary Southeast Region F e d e r a l P o w e r c o m m i s s i o n REGIONAL OFFICE 730 Peachtree Building Atlanta, Georgia 30308 May 8, 1974

District Engineer Corps of Engineers Department of the Army P. 0. Box 1070 Nashville, Tenn. 37202

Dear Sir:

This is in response to your letter of March 28, 1974, file 0RNED-P, inviting our coranents on the Draft Environmental State­ ment on the Corps' Laurel River Lake project located on the Laurel River near Corbin, Kentucky.

Our comments relate to the role of expertise of the Federal Power Commission under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Guidelines for the President's Council on Environ­ mental Quality, dated April 23, 1971, and are directed to the po­ tential impact of the proposals on matters of concern to the Com­ mission.

The Laurel River project was originally planned for production of hydroelectric power, flood control, and recreation, with a 47,000- kilowatt installation. In 1960 the Federal Power Commission com­ mented on the Laurel River Survey Report, dated June 15, 1959, and concluded that the project would fit into the comprehensive develop­ ment of the Cumberland basin. At the design memorandum stage the Federal Power Commission again evaluated the Laurel River project and in its letter of March 1, 1966, to the Secretary of the Army it recommended the installation of a 61,000-kilowatt generating unit. The project is currently being constructed for hydroelectric power and recreation with an installation of 61,000 kilowatts which will yield an average annual generation of 67,000 megawatt-hours. The project power is scheduled for load supply by July 1976.

Our studies indicate that the electricity generated at the project can be utilized in the marketing area as soon as it be­ comes available. The project will provide economical and reliable hydroelectric peaking power and enhance the dependability of the Cumberland River system power output. It will produce electrical energy without consuming fuels and adding pollutants to the atmos­ phere and waste heat discharges to nearby streams. However, it will convert a free flowing section of the Laurel River to a lake environment.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Power supply from alternative nuclear and fossil fuel steam plants, with present technology, cannot furnish the peak load por­ tion of the total demand as efficiently as the supply from the Laurel River hydroelectric project. The newer steam-electric plants are better suited to supply the base load portion of the demand. Also, hydroelectric projects do not have the thermal and air-pollution problems associated with steam-electric plants.

Alternative gas turbine units may offer a more efficient means of providing economical reserve capacity and peaking power for short durations as compared to steam-electric plant operations. However, fuel and maintenance costs are high and the units are comparatively uneconomical if operated for long periods. Also, these units have a high noise level and emit air pollutants.

The possibility of an alternative conventional pumped-storage hydroelectric development may exist. However, owing to the fact that the Laurel River project is about 67 percent complete, we do not consider another hydroelectric project a realistic alternative source of providing the electrical energy.

Not providing power is another alternative; however, forecasts indicate that there is a need for additional peaking capacity in the marketing area and that any electricity to be generated at the Laurel River project can be used as soon as it becomes available. Therefore, since an alternative source of energy is not currently available, and if the economy in the area is to be maintained, it would seem reasonable to provide power at the Laurel River Lake project.

Very truly yours,

C. L. Fishburne Regional Engineer TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY I CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE 3 7 a o i

June ;? 7, 1974

Colonel William F. Brandes U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 1070 Nashville, Tennessee 37202

Dear Colonel Brandes:

This is in response to your letter of March 28, 197*+, enclosing the draft environmental statement for the Laurel River Lake project.

This project will not have a direct impact on any TVA projects or programs and we have no comments. We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft environmental statement.

/Sincerely k o n r a ,

vA. Krenkel, Ph.D., P.E. /Director of Environmental Planni lg UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IV 1421 PEACHTREE ST., N. E. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 May 13, 1974

Colonel William F. Brandes District Engineer Nashville District, Corps of Engineers Department of the Army P. 0. Box 1070 Nashville, Tennessee 37202

Dear Colonel Brandes:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Laurel River Lake (dam construction), Laurel River in Cumberland River Basin, Kentucky, and find that additional information is needed in order to fully evaluate the project, especially in regard to water quality.

The formation of Laurel River Lake has converted 25.2 miles of free-flowing, coid-water natural streams to a warmer slack-water lake extending to Corbin water supply dam. We believe the Statement could be improved by describing further the effect of this impoundment on water quality, with particular emphasis on:

(1) Whether the impoundment will stratify;

(2) The effects of stratification within the reservoir;

(3) The effects of stratification on the release water.

This description should consider the probability of low dissolved oxygen levels of the releases and current or future provisions (with costs) for maintaining water quality criteria in the releases.

It is stated (page 2) that 30 cfs will be released to sustain the tailwater fisheries except for some periods when "flows sufficient to recharge down­ stream shoal areas that are vital to the fishery will be intermittently released." Available information shows that the 7-day, 10-year minimum flow is about 7 cfs near the dam site; therefore, we suggest that mainte­ nance of the historical 7-day, 10-year minimum flow or an instantaneous minimum below the dam site be required.

In another area of concern, several points in the discussion of the Corbin wastewater facilities (page 7) need clarification. It should be noted that Corbin and other wastewater dischargers into Laurel Lake may have to install nutrient removal as a result of this project and not necessarily due to changes in water quality standards or policies. Cost associated with higher levels of treatment would be attributable to the project and should be reflected as negative benefits (external diseconomy) in the benefit-cost ratio analysis. An inventory of these other discharges should also be included.

We further recommend that the Statement indicate whether provision has been made for multi-level drawoff or whether the supply to the turbines is at a fixed level. Information should also be given as to whether reaeration is provided either at the turbine discharge, by the configuration of the tailrace, or by other means.

In addition, a comparison should be made between the water quality in the free-flowing stream (as given on pages 5 and 6) and the expected or monitored water quality parameters in the reservoir and below the dam. If actual parameters are not available, a statement should at least be made as to whether dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, alkalinity, fecal coli, turbidity, iron, manganese, etcv will be increased or lessened.

Furthermore, monitoring of the reservoir and in the stream below the reser­ voir should be included as a part of the operating procedure so that fluc­ tuations in water quality can be observed, recorded, and used by interested agencies. An indication as to whether monitoring is planned and the extent of such monitoring should be included in the Statement.

Finally, assurance should be given that precautions will be taken against water pollution by visitors and boat users. Also, if vegetation from land clearing and construction waste materials are disposed of by open burning, assurance should be given that it will be in accordance with applicable State air pollution control regulations.

Please furnish us with five copies of the Final Environmental Impact State­ ment when it is available. If we can be of further assistance in any way, please let us know.

Sincerely,

'Jack E. Ravan Regional Administrator DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE REGION IV 50 7TH STREET N.E. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323

OFFICE OF THE May 7, 1974 REGIONAL DIRECTOR

Colonel William F. Rrandes District Engineer Nashville District, Corps of Engineers Department of the Army Post Office Box 1070 Nashville, Tennessee 37202

Dear Colonel Brandes:

Subject: Laurel River Lake Cumberland River Basin Kentucky

We have reviewed the subject draft Environmental Impact

Statement. Based upon the data contained in the draft,

it is our opinion that this project, which is well along

in the construction phases, will have only a minor impact

upon the human environment with respect to the concerns

of this Department.

Sincerely yours,

J^mes E. Yatfrbrpugh Regional Ehvitonmental Officer EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF ECONOMIC WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506 OPPORTUNITY

August 22, 1973

(

MEMORANDUM TO HEADS OF ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Meeting Requirements of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

The Office of Economic Opportunity is in the process of being reorganised. During this period of reorganization, the agency will not undertake any actions with regard to either Environ­ mental Impact Statements or comments as to same, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It would be in keeping with the meaning and spirit of the NEPA if future activities were subjected to the Office of Management and Bud e4 Circular A-')5 clearinghouse procedures and submitted to interested and affected local community groups and organi­ zations for their revd^ew^and/'CTXmments.

Arthur J. Rfeiu,Jr. f ) Director Intergovernmental Relations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAILING ADDRESS COMMANDER (m ep) UNITED STATES COAST GUARD SECOND COAST GUARD DISTRICT FEDERAL BLDG 1520 M A R K E T S T . S T . L O U IS . M O 63103

1 4 MAY 1974

Nashville District U. S. Army Corps of Engineers P.0. Box 1070 Nashville, TN. 37202

Attn: Col. Wm F. Brandes District Engineer

Gentlemen:

In reference to your letter of 28 March 1974 we have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement on the Laurel River Lake project. The potential for impact on a Coast Guard mission area is related to the expected growth in recreational use of the lake. The Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard can work together to place continued emphasis on education and recreational boating safety.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft environmental impact statement.

Sincerely,

^ v w TlS dbetter U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION REGION FOUR KENTUCKY DIVISION P. 0. BOX 536 FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY

April 3, 1974

Colonel William F. Brandes Department of the Army Nashville District, Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 1070 Nashville, Tennessee 37202

Subject: Draft Environmental Statement Laurel River Lake Cumberland River Basin Laurel River, Kentucky

We have reviewed the environmental impact statement transmitted with your letter dated March 28, 1974, Due to the advanced stage of com­ pletion of the highway relocation work on Kentucky Highway 312 and lack of conflict with other highways in the project area, we have no comments on the statement,

A copy of the statement is being sent to the Kentucky Department of Transportation, Bureau of Highways for their review with a request that comments, if any, be directed to you within the requested time frame.

In addition, it is noted that you retain our old street address in Frankfort. The new office address is 330 W. Broadway. The post office box address is correct. --- -

We appreciate the opportunity to review this environmental statement.

Very truly yours,

For:/Robert E. Johnson / Division Engineer T h o m a s O H a r r is W e n d e l l H. Fo r d SccncTANt G o v c m n o r

Commonwealth of Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection

Office of the S ecretary

Frankfort, Kentucky aocoi

Te l e p h o n e (5021 564-3350

May 8, 1974

Mr, William F. Brandes, Colonel District Engineer Department of the Army Nashville District, Corps of Engineers P. O. Box 1070 Nashville, Tennessee 37202

Dear Colonel Brandes:

The Kentucky Environmental Review Agencies have reviewed the draft impact statement entitled "Laurel River Lake". I am happy to report that no inadequacies were detected in the statement's coverage of the impact expected to occur as a result of the project.

Sincerely,

Thomas 0. Harris SECRETARY M.ti, WIIII'I'S HI Ml I(IMH I (Hls\ II I I . kl MICKY 40222 11 I I I'lIt jM ( ' u’ i I2(i |svt

H u ^ k k iit ...... M i. K j 11>11 t M j J i i o ii \ lv l Hi ikklcll I .. \|l I J vV Ji d 1*. I \ Ik lt Sc\ um .iiv ...... Mi •. M.n> I 11,ii i- I k M 'iiit i...... M i. Willi.mi H. Iluiior H.i-ii Hukidi.nl Mi Knlk'i t (i liiiik!<'^ K entucky fhulubon Council May 10, 1974

Mr, WM. F, Brandes Colonel, Corps of Engineers Nashville District P.0. Box 1070 Nashville, Tennessee 37202

Dear Sir: RE: Laurel River Lake Project

Your communication of 28 March 1974 to Mr, Myron Swenson, Mid­ west Representative, National Audubon Society has been referred to the writer for attention.

If it were not for the requirement to update, to distribute a Draft Environmental Statement on a project that is already 67% structurally complete, would closely approximate the nature of an affront to those individuals and agencies from whom you request comments,

Aside and apart from this undesirable situation, we can hardly believe that you really have a 1.1 to 1.0 Senefit/Cost ratio. If your true purpose is to make maximum use of the pool to augment power supply, the value of the pool as a recreational facility will be the worst imaginable. In this period of energy shortage, very substantial pool changes will inevitably result, thus reducing the recreational benefit to near zero. It would be unsafe as well as impractical to allow recreational use under these conditions. « In addition, we question your statement that with the recent improvements to the Corbin sewage treatment facilities, "the quality of the water is expected to be excellent and highly favorable for recreational use". ,Je believe that it is more than likely that this plant has been notified through a Special Memorandum from the Division of Water that it will not meet standards.

In exainining'alternatives1 , it is almost ludficou^ to include a "no project" when the project is almost practically finished.

In examining "Alternative Purposes", under "No Recreation", we urge that you give this very serious consideration. ;//ith the continuous rise and fall of the pool, we can hardly accept the state­ ment that your investigation showed "outdoor recreation to be feasible, beneficial and needed as a primary purpose". Given the con­ ditions described, the only reason we can see why it would be needed would be to inflate the Benefits so that a better than 1.0 to 1.0 ratio would be achieved.

vVe are somewhat dismayed at the way in which this project is being presented. It seems peculiar to attempt justification of such a power project as this on the basis of recreational benefits. In view of the present energy situation, it is almost a certainty that this plant will be used far more than to augment peak demand. It would seem that a more careful scrutiny of your new 1973 Guidelines on kVater and Related Land Resources would provide you with a more realistic approach to your future actions and your Benefit/Cost proposal.

Looking forward to seeing improvements in your Final Statement, we are,

Yours sincerely, /i

Ralph Madison, Pres.

cc: Forest Service, U.S. Dept, of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept, of Agriculture U.S. Dept, of the Interior Federal Power Commission Tha Appalachian Regional Commission Tennessee Valley Authority Environmental Protection Agency Office of Economic Opportunity Dept, of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Commonwealth of Kentucky National Audubon Society APPENDIX B

WATER QUALITY

LAUREL RIVER LAKE AND WATERSHED

August 197^ WATER QUALITY SURVEY OF LAUREL RIVER LAKE AM) WATERSHED AUGUST 1974

Introduction. In an effort to define pre and post impoundment water quality conditions relative to the Laurel River Lake Project a survey was conducted during mid-August 197^. The objectives of the survey were to (l) Evaluate the present and future quality of waters entering the lake relative to land use effects -which also serves to reflect pre-impoundment conditions (2 ) define the effects of reservoir stratification on the water quality after initial filling and (3 ) attempt to project the effects of the lake penstock and/or spillway releases on the water quality of downstream areas.

A total of ten (10) water quality stations were chosen for sailing, five of which were in the lake proper, while the remaining five were selected to reflect inflow quality. All stations were sampled for their physical-chemical properties. In addition, biological (surber) samples were taken from stream stations having sufficient flows to support a benthic community. Sampling was conducted during a period of relatively low flow. A map showing the locations of all stations is included as Exhibit 1.

Stream Water Quality. The stream or inflow stations were selected to indicate the effects of "natural" conditions as well as the effects resulting from mining activities or the municipal and industrial waste discharges located principally at or near Corbin and London, Kentucky. Following is a discussion of each inflow station based on the results of chemical and biological analyses as shown in Exhibits 2 and 3*

Bark Camp Creek probably reflects the nearest approximation one can get of "natural" or pre impoundment stream conditions. Chemical analyses of sarqples collected here indicates the waters of the region to be relatively soft with hardness and alkalinity values of 3 2 mg/l and 26 mg/l, respectively. There is no evidence of any influence from acid-mine drainage as shown by the values for acidity, sulfates, specific conductance, pH and metals. Available nutrients as nitrates and phosphates, are relatively low. These concentrations, combined with the low alkalinity, would indicate a stream probably having relatively low basic productivity. The biological samples taken from this station reflect this. The benthic samples, although low in total numbers, do indicate a biologically healthy stream having a good species diversity. This is shown by the species list in Exhibit 3* Bark Camp Creek is a typical stream of this area and reflects conditions as found in most unpolluted streams of the upper Cumberland region. The remaining four stream stations were selected for their proximity to influences from industrial, muncipal and/or mining wastes. Two stations on Lynn Camp Creek were selected to determine in part what influence the activities in Corbin have on the quality of water entering the Laurel River Lake.

Lynn Camp Creek, mile 11.8, upstream of Corbin, had little or no apparent flow during the time of sampling. Out of necessity, samples were collect­ ed from pooled water. Compared with Bark Camp Creek, chemical analyses indicates some influence from mine drainage. This becomes evident when comparing the slightly higher values for specific conductance, sulfates, hardness, iron, maganese, aluminum and solids.

The still somewhat low values for these parameters plus the zero acidity and neutral pH indicate, however, that the problem was not severe. Nutrients were slightly higher than those at Bark Camp Creek. There was also some evidence of past siltation effects on the stream. No biolog­ ical samples were taken because of the lack of suitable habitat.

Lynn Camp Creek, mile 2.0, was located downstream of Corbin and had a flow of 11 cfs at the time of sampling. The influence of organic discharge from the Corbin sewage treatment plant was quite evident at this station. There were noticeable increases in the values of solids, specific conductances, the nitrogen series and phosphorus. The dissolved oxygen was 130 percent saturated indicating high photosynthetic activity. The previously noted influence from mining upstream showed a slight dilution at this station. Biological samples reflected the organic loading with the appearance of only tolerant and facultative benthic species and a lowered species diversity. This is shown by a comparison of species in Exhibit 3*

The only stream station on Laurel River had to be established at mile 36.9 in order to get upstream of the influences of two small water supply impoundments in this reach of stream. Flow at this station was estimated at less than two cfs. By comparison, measured flow at mile 21.6 just upstream of Lynn Camp Creek and Laurel River Lake was 1.3 cfs. This station was located in a region of limited agricultural activity. Chemical analyses indicate most values to be generally higher than those at Bark Canip Creek. There is no evidence of mine drainage. The main differences are in the nutrient concentration which is probably indicative of the influence of the agricultural usage of the land near this station. The low dissolved oxygen (51 percent saturated) would seem to indicate a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), however, this might well be a combination of factors including BOD. The stream in this region was rather sluggish and well shaded by a bordering canopy of trees and vegetation which would diminish the positive effects of reaeration and photosynthesis. The biological samples from this station show a mixture of gill and air- breathing aquatic invertebrates with a species diversity lower than Bark ' Camp Creek. The Little Laurel River was sampled at mile 1.5. Flows at this point were less than 5 cfs. This station was located in the recovery zone from heavy organic loadings (relative to flow) originating at London. The river upstream of this station courses through an area of limited agricultural activity which includes both row crops and dairy farming. The stream was little more than raw sewage in appearance at mile 12.5 just downstream of London. The chemical analyses reflect the organic loading upstream of this station in that nutrient concentrations are somewhat elevated. The biological samples indicate, however, that the stream has all but completely recovered by the time it reaches this point. The appearance of several intolerant and facultative benthic species bears out this observation. There is no indication of acid-mine drainage.

Lake Water Quality. The relative volume and quality of inflowing waters have a major bearing, of course, on the water quality of the receiving impoundment. In man-made lakes of this region this is expecially important after the first few years or until the reservoir has been "flushed" several times to lessen the effects of the initial organic load or BOD present at inundation of the land surface. The decomposition of vegetation may take only a few years. The soils, however, especially during summer stratification, may leach nutrients and exert a BOD for many years after impoundment. The relative effects they exert on the lake quality will depend on their type and fertility. This is not expected to be a future problem in Laurel River Lake. A comparison with the water quality of older, larger reservoirs, on the upper Cumberland, such as, Dale Hollow or Lake Cumberland, has borne this out.

The results of limnological sampling of the five stations established on Laurel Lake are shown by Exhibit 2. The samples represent the water quality of the lake after initial impoundment and under severe summer stratification. One station was chosen on the Craigs Creek arm at mile 3.0. The remaining four are located on the Laurel River arm extending from mile 2.8, near the damsite, to mile 21.0 downstream of the confluence of Lynn Camp Creek near Corbin. The results of analyses exemplify the conditions as outlined above. The degradation or organic material present before inundation is manifested at each station mainly by the form and total change (increase) in nutrient concentration with depth. The thermally stratified condition of the lake coupled with the presence of degradable organic material accounts for the lowering of dissolved oxygen concentrations in the hypolimnion. Iron and manganese are reduced and put into solution in rather high concentration as a side effect of these chemical conditions. Sulfate and acidity values indicate no influence of acid-mine drainage. The slight lowering of pH values with depth is probably reflective of the formation of acidity due to the increase of carbon dioxide production in this region (hypolimnion). The available nitrogen concentration in the -waters of the epilimnion at the time of sampling was too low to support a sustained bloom of phytoplankton. The relatively high secchi (clarity) readings and low total phosphorus concentrations support this. The higher concentrations of organic nitrogen and dissolved volatile solids point to the presence of dissolved organic compounds probably resulting from the break-down of vegetation. The water was noted to be a color similar to that found of dilute papermill effluent.

Projected Inflow Quality. There are presently two major sources of organic wastes situated in the Laurel River watershed. These are sewage outfalls located at Corbin and London, Kentucky. The following information concerning these sources are taken from the "Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan for the Cumberland Valley Area Development District", June 1973. At present the Corbin sewerage system serves a population of 7,^00. Tliis secondary plant has a design capacity of 2.25 mgd and a discharge of 1.10 mgd which enters Lynn Camp Creek at Corbin. London is served by two systems; one having secondary treatment serving a population of U ,350 with a design capacity of 1.0 mgd and a discharge of 0.71 mgd; and one having no treatment serving a population of 1,100 with a discharge of 0.21 mgd. Both enter the Little Laurel River downstream of London. Totaling the above, the present sewered population of the entire watershed is some 12,850 with a flow of 2.02 mgd. The projected 1993 population is 28,100 which will have a secondary treated sewage discharge of 3*89 mgd.

The major concern over these sewage discharges is that they represent a source of nutrients that will eventually enter the Laurel River Lake and could have a negative effect on water quality and recreation. It is presently thought, however, that these effects will be minimal. A literature search reveals that the yearly average per capata contribution of total phosphorus and nitrogen from secondary treatment is 3-5 pounds and 8.5 pounds, respectively. Considering zero removal in stream segments downstream of the sewage treatment plants, the average concentration of total phosphorus and nitrogen from sewage entering Laurel River Lake would be 0.l6 ppm and 0.07 ppm, respectively. This is based on the average annual flow of 3^+0 cfs in the Laurel River. A 1993 similar projection indicates the concentration of total nitrogen would be O .36 ppm and total phosphorus 0.15 ppm. These figures do not consider possible dilution from upstream of the Craigs Creek arm of Laurel Lake which has an average annual flow of 90 cfs. Considering the topography and present land use of the watershed as a whole, it is not expected that background nitrogen and phosphorus will increase the average concentration an appreciable degree. The concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in the lake in forms available for uptake in plants at any one time would be somewhat less than the total values as indicated above. A comparison with the nutrients and overall quality of other lakes of the upper Cumberland indicates that nitrogen will be limiting in Laurel River Lake insofar as productivity to the point of Impairment of the project's recreation benefits are concerned. Sample analyses from lake stations during this survey, especially those near the dam, indicate also that available carbon, based on the observed alkalinities, may also be a limiting factor in lake production. These conclusions are out of necessity based upon limited sampling that was weighed against data and experience gained at other Corps Projects. A future monitoring program designed to follow changes in water quality is planned for Laurel River Lake.

Reservoir Temperature Considerations. As shown by the temperature profiles (Exhibit 2) collected in August 7*+» Laurel Lake is subject to severe thermal stratification. The water temperature pattern of Laurel Lake is expected to closely approximate the patterns of two previously mentioned nearby storage impoundments, Lake Cumberland and Dale Hollow Lake. By visually comparing temperature profiles observed at these two projects with those of Laurel, while keeping in mind the pertinent morphometric differences, certain conclusions can be made.

Laurel Lake will be essentially isothermal from December through February. Although periods of relatively warm, calm and sunny weather in this period can cause the surface temperature to become several degrees warmer than the bottom temperatures, the lake will be returned to an isothermal condition by the next period of cold windy weather. During most years the lake will be at its coldest in late January and early February. At this time temperatures throughout the lake are likely to range from U°C to 7°C. From the middle of February onward the lake will exhibit a slow warming trend. This is primarily due to somewhat warmer air temperatures and to the increased solar radiation resulting from longer days. By March most of the profiles will indicate temperatures a few degrees warmer than the bottom temperatures. The density structure is relatively unstable, however, and can be upset by cold and windy weather. A density structure of sufficient stability to resist complete vertical mixing will be established in April. The warming trend of the surface layers will continue through May and by early June the lake will be divided into the three zones characteristic of thermal stratification (epilimnion, metalimnion and hypolimnion). The epilimnion will reach its maximum temperature estimated at about 3 0 ° C in late July and early August. As the days become shorter and air temperatures cooler, the epilimnion will begin to cool and become deeper. This trend will continue over the next few months until the differences in temperature between the upper and lower layers of the lake become small enough to allow the meteorological conditions to cause complete mixing and return the lake to an isothermal condition. Complete destratification is expected to occur during late November or early December.

Although the above general statements about the temperature characteristics of Laurel Lake can be made with a certain degree of confidence, it is difficult to make highly specific predictions without either field observations made under normal operating conditions or a predictive mathematical model. The design of the dam and the fact that the Laurel Project is nearing completion does not justify, the time required to establish a math model. The actual temperature pattern of Laurel Lake will be established through weekly temperature profiles collected by project personnel. If the need arises at a later date, these data can be used to calibrate and verify a mathematical model of the project.

Tailwater Temperature Considerations. Until the project's hydro-power generation facilities go on line, all discharges will be made over the spillway crest. This water will be the warmest available for discharge. Once the power plant goes on line, most releases, particularly during the stratification period (April-November), will be made through the penstock. The penstock, which is l8 feet in diameter, has its centerline at elevation 956.5 (62 ft. depth @ el. 1018 .6) and is rated at 3 ^ 0 cfs for normal operation.

Although the withdrawl zone of the penstock has not been established, it is a reasonable assumption that a substantial amount of the water withdrawn from the lake will come from around the centerline elevation. As shown on Exhibit 2, this water was found to have a temperature of 10. ^°C on 20 August 7^. During normal operating conditions, when most of the discharge is from the penstock, much of this cold water will be discharged and replaced by warmer water. Although the lower depths, particularly around the penstock, will be warmer than shown on Exhibit 2, this water will still be much cooler than the surface water. The release of this water is expected to provide water temperatures suitable for a put-and- take trout fishery in the immediate project tailwaters and in the Laurel River embayment of Lake Cumberland.

To maintain this fishery the project will be operated to prevent these areas from becoming too warm for trout. During periods of low flow and warm air temperatures the pools below the dam can be recharged with cool water by intermittant operation of the turbine. At this time, it is proposed to operate the turbine a minimum of one hour every other day. This pattern is presently being used by the Nashville District to maintain the trout fisheries below Dale Hollow and Center Hill Dams. The project will also be operated to prevent the release of warm water via the spill­ way during the stratification period. If spillway releases become unavoidable during this period the turbine -will be operated throughout the spill to provide as much dilution of the -warm water as possible.

Temperature Effect on Lake Cumberland. Peaking power operations at Laurel are likely to subject the portion of Lake Cumberland immediately below the Laurel River to Burges of low temperature water. Such cold surges are expected to have an adverse effect on the indigenous warm- water biota of the area. Due to uncertainties concerning the hydro­ dynamics of the system, further comments about this area of Lake Cumberland would be highly speculative and of questionable value. Further downstream such surges will have been sufficiently diluted and darkened to prevent adverse effects on biota.

Dissolved Oxygen Considerations. Based upon a preimpoundment study of another reservoir in the Nashville District, it can be stated that the vegetation remaining at inundation will be stabilized after the first few years of impoundment. The bottom soils, however, will continue to exert a dissolved oxygen demand for a much longer time period. Data collected during this survey from station LAUWQ2 (Exhibit 2 ), indicates that demands from all sources will not be sufficient to create problems in the anticipated withdrawal zone of the penstock. Even if the dissolved oxygen within the withdrawal zone falls below the State Stream Standards for trout waters (6mg/l, Exhibit b) it is anticipated that aeration from turbulence in the tailrace will raise the dissolved oxygen concentration to a level sufficient to maintain the trout fishery.

Kentucky Water Quality Standards. Included as Exhibit 4 are the "Water Quality Standards for the Commonwealth of Kentucky", effected August 22, 1971* The section of greatest relevancy to the Laurel River Project is 3(3)(e) Put-and-take trout streams. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, definite predictions as to the dissolved oxygen and temperature expected in the tailwater cannot be made at this time. Once the initial organic residual in the reservoir has been satisfied, future dissolved oxygen concentrations will depend almost wholly upon the internal dynamics of the lake as they react to external influence. These influences include, of course, all of the factors discussed in previous paragraphs of this report which were based primarily on the present land use of the basin. The development at this time of a formal prediction concerning the future water quality of the project relevant to water quality standards would be relatively useless without some long-range prediction or land use plan to use as input.

EXHIBIT 2 LABORATORY AND FIELD ANALYSES LAUREL RIVER BASIN

August 1974 .* tt> i-4l * t l i T M C l-t>” » ■lt

. , • » . * ’ • * • * >' l

CwD»,w •** sk,tiiikl»rii,i«.»1 - vt «t5* * ** 4,1 e *•

H «4*>*«!-t*6CT S *«n 6 C :>t t fc CT lii*. 4*l ;»T L.*H(*E / * » *. r . t ' k ' i - ' * - , n - 4T4-« n* -CTt UC*I 66 SCUT*. PF *» 1277 t Set *4*766 0U4P S «ftT j. 60PD HIULDG..4., S P F .U i D itc * * n v ,

» IfcU P*T< * •S.>Lt 5 W L*l*OR‘ Tr •'T A A A L T S tS 4C*T u u *»/i ../ f Jfc** I »o« T j R b SOU'" ■S*****!.*- 0 */» t o l d * I V , t V ,* if2 7 ,0 SwT-*. « L M i ! * l H t TCT*L 4 L « a UMT t « r » C ’ - ! *'■*' D Or

C O ^ D o C l A<*0f I t P S i/L* »T£ S 4. c»»fr"« rib»ipt TOT*l ! » CM* r .6 0 i 9 1 5 4 . 1*C» TOT At r , r t r PISS. T*i-r»*Dt ic.*> TO»»L CD^tS t g t » i ? m T 0 » » L L E * i *OT» i •OSLO*- *. •> B.A *•"*£.*1* • »■ 0 .06 TQT*L pfci*^lC »■ 0 .3* * 0 ? » * ••? * * 0.1 TOT»l *.lTs&4rfc 0 ,4 TOT»t •♦0»P"C«l'S B .01> D15t, A**0S6"DAoS C ‘*tr*>.,0 **Tt * C"L&PrP“ *i. ■ T O » » L e O U 0* 69 DlSSOiVeO SULJCS 46 SOSPSfcOED SOUPS 14 V0L*T!tc SOUPS 26 SOS. *DL. SOUPS k pjs. «rc. souos 20 TOC SOD 15P*T * i i C l COD OIL A*D BifcASfe T O T A L C O L ! f 00* TEC*L COLOUR* 30* r C 23. S li.O 130 T,3 TBT*1 BR u A-C1BI Yr - .^ •I'O r 5S 12* T ii t f t M l * 5P?C CB«>Bv£4»bCf SOS *O t*A*£S »*1 DIB*IP£ yo y« l i w 1 .M 0 t i n , iwiw *OY*V ■*^*B*“,B*€ 0,34 fc f i n , T«i-e**»o«i o» *t£f A-tC,*«£»«lD» T-ef *t - * u » » !»***• I.S c o p*** TBY*t ?1*C M TM. tS*D T6Y*t •t*Ci‘RY 1.? AAWWWI* - *» t . n Y0f4t-B****IC * wer»*ej - k TOT At *J**0ot4, TOT*t- »*DSA*0»0S l.» B 0 BISS,-P*>OSP«MOS C**tOIK»***Yt * - «*LO*OP«»t * T0T*t sot Its 2*0 BISSOtOiD M U M 231 sus*>f*»>»ep so t id s 22 - m * Y l t € SOtlirS 9« -50Sr Vft. SOtIDS 4 BIS. VOt. SOtIDS 9* "TOC------BOB |*9A* - 28C) e«B - - - - —

TBf*t COLIB«»f» - COLOR P*iT* 11**1 1MT* Ci 6 T,2 260 TOTAL Al«»liMTy it r, ►.APi-Mt is :£» T«er!:.7T» SMC rOMBoCTAMOt Jtr solutes ss.r ■CAUf-Dr DJDMBE Til At J»Oa 2*Stfl TJSf, ISO* TOTAL MAMfcAltiSE 0,330 riSS, «AA6AAiES£ taj -C-bOt H*" M4i*»Cta.aa»iw* TOTAL AlUA-lAOi* 1. TOTAL total n*>c TOTAL LEAD TOTAL «E*Cl*«T *i«LBAHL » 0,6 A**CMjA • A 0.10 TOTAL oe&AAitC A 8*3 M02*ArtJ . A- 8.3 -TOTAL AITSC4E* 0,6 TOTAL PmOSPTCSLS l,«»J •Bits, ahosphoous C*LO*CPMTL A cplcbcpatl, a ... TOTAL SOLUS 26 A DISSOLVED-SOLIBS - 142 SLSPEADEO SOL IBS - 2A -VOLATILE SCUDS 6« SL5.- VOL* -SOLUS 14 DU. vOL. SOLIDS 30 -TOC - SOD ISDAT.* aoci COO------. . _ OIL-AAB-4*EASfc TOTAL COLIfOBH fECAL COLIfOSP ----- k * , b 9 . 7 lie 7*3 1 » 0 t i

T O T » L ALAAUUT* * D A C 1 D 1 T * C * i * » D N 6 5 S 7* T U » M B 1 T * S M C C 0 * S > U C 7 a » < C £ ISO M H .T4 TS S Jf i. ■CAMS* W0>JD* TOTAL T«f»* 0 ,3 0 0 P IS S . 1«G * T O TA L *A-*L**ifcSE o . i s r iitt.

*tfr*A -C **0«lC '« TOTAL- 4 LV « l*u* L t . S TBTAL* COM** 7 * 7 * 1 ! J 7 C T a 7 * t - l E * D TOf*L ■£*CW«*- o . s

**W C*J* - * 0 .C * total e « s * * i c * 8 . S i *»o**»os • * ( . 4 TfiT*t-7|T*0*£*i 3 . 0

TO T A L - 7 «* 0 S P * Q * * * t 8,718 ?l*&, *«csf"a«us «*L0*O **TL *

C ^ L 3* 0 * * ^ * T8TAL SOLIDS 1 3 « 81SSSL7S0 SCUDS 13* M S«!vn(« SCUDS 1C VOLATILE SOUKS 36 sus. m , sotics 18 DJSr 701. SCUOS • 36 TOC BOS 1* 0 * 7 - 3 « C |

COO ------o i L * * o o a t a s s TOTAL- COUFO** *. •. T C I- Jufcfc ; ' v I a' i * r.*S»»-\ i..t 0: S’ *IDT * COUPS ’j f t-NiilwFtPS

MvH. M S U L . ^ ll LA*t ^*««-L *:*«■- PUt 36.* SlATIUfc La^ a

. . . - r ,[ - . t t '. - *■“ - lit-PI**- ? US’1 etT.tfP ttNKi* 31 V *I**'^ p r »>•■ s ' ^- r_*i * *- * bicr>!- - tf-r *•■*■*- ?L l:z; m Dh - t* ;^ut. ut x pc u ™ - ¥ JtUW 4*1* s a t is lit- LAbO Rt!:'*' «ivAt * Sfcs

SCa T T Ra * • \ i- *w i * / i. I>c * T tn f L ,v , SAT 00*4, 7 yf'o S'lLUA SA«t*lr L IW i* roiA/R b i l . 5 *. t> *>1 t . b *6 PwTa 1 * IT Y f TOTAL AL^Al i* 1 T Y A C •ACI-DIT r l WARCVfSS AS t u r b i d i t y SI*FC rO«DuCT*«*CE S J L fA ’ E i I t . CASKO* tlLM Dfc t o t a l : , etc BISS, 1*0* t o t a l »a *C,awRSE C , A 2 0 015b, wAfcLAb&ii T i l * C*KO* 1 uM Mf*A»CWRO*IW“ TOTAL ALU*JbU» l h . s TOTAL CO**!* TOTAL JJ*C TOTAL. 0 £ * i TOTAL irfcOCU** K-i^L riA lAL H C. 6 AfWOlU.i- * * 0.1? JTOTAL CRSaMC b c .s VO?»N-I * * 0 .? TOTAL * IT R0»t * B. b TOTAL “ h OSRhCRuS C.G65 BJSa , P*3SM3«US C*LO*U*MYL * C*LORO*hyl b TOTAL SOLIDS ;? D1SSOLVEO SOLIDS 68 SUSRE'JpEO SOLIDS 12 .VOLATILE SOLIDS 24 SUS. «OL. Su l JCS 6 31S.~VCL. SOLIDS 18 TOC SCO I55* v - 20C1 COO - OIL 1*0 unEASE TOTAL COLIFOMR fECAL COIIF0R* 0U4i.Il'' ii*ll • I: ! £ T U ; u ~ * CP*1 ♦'St " J i fcfctilXK^S

filMf-t »«|' h I vtfc t i i M * 1 Lt.lKti. _*i» *• : ’• t *• . •■ti.t ? I fi s i *T I OB 0*-U»i l

n tT t-i'p it- 7« su«f-*r.t t - it v , - “**. :>t» ' — t a s i Hfc7«*tE»i * ci Tjur- ih .s «*••. m > * <*’■' m.' i - 20 ssc:--!f* tjst M'd* l £pt fe*"*- 3rt rov-t*-- AiK ituKt - i f ; 6A6r*'ti*;c pvts.*

** 4 P* V » „ ^ t t f ^ t f t4# ^ i t ► t 5 T£)AtP ] I, i> t *1PL i S CDLLfcO-li** ' B.t" 10 0 . ISO 1 7 ,

Sbi.TS M u»eOP<‘1 tJ*'v 4L*i-lik» * I tt 4. A

• P* CD*, it SMT 104V • Dtr 1 * L • i >l 1 it IS«. • .«.ys Utf ' t M- l . . Sol TitPt SSLO* * roLf'* • 0.7 ►wT— 10 » *L 1 “■ 7 T 7 r • t r It s 27.7 7.5 VS 7.1 60 « T'.’ dt 4 0 ► 41 i**!7* J« • 3« ID 1C 10 27.1 7.3 61 6. 6 • 0.7 »C1fP f l 20 2S.2 12 • n *«4*H,lf *s i t • n i t 36 30 17,2 0.1 B. 0 Ti'Sr 1 : ! T V • *r 1».4 1.6 1 6 B.V 0.6 2.7 f ~ ict> i f-t V • so 12 • e 2.4 ?2 5.6 0.7 2.* SuOUTCc; 1 7,5 • 13.5 33.5 • 6 0 I P .6 ‘.I 37 6.0 r.* 2.1 C4t^-^% t> It * J ' fr • 70 6.0 4.4 38 6.0 0.5 2.2 • TOTij. 1*04 n. i sr. • It, i 0 0 r,*itO 1,6ft 60 6.2 ‘ .3 37 5.6 P. 7 2.* • M S5. I-*©* c .it r • O.D/tt (i. o»c 1.110 60 7.6 4.0 3« 5.9 0.8 2 • 6 2.2TC » 100 7 . B 3.4 76 5.6 0.6 2.5 TS'T*l 0. lis > • P.110 D .isr • n ]ti m a *vC* * ** F r L 0 . 0 ? • fc.130 {.lac 1.421 11 L 7.6 3.8 32 5.6 o.» 2.2 rsi-c~cr!“ io* • 120 7.6 4.3 37 5.9 0.6 2.4 *t£**-C M604 T-U» • ISC 7.1 4.6 40 5.9 0.9 2.7 • 27 5.9 0.6 2.6 TCT*L 140 7.3 3.2 W » 1 CC>*Pf" • 150 7.3 1.2 It 5,6 100 0.2 1.6 % 5.8 1.0 2.6 T8T*t ? i *h: ltd 7.3 0.1 1 0.7 2.4 TOT»l Lfc*t • 170 7.4 0.1 1 5.6 TOT»l “■fcRC.i"* • Kj£t?*«L * e.5 • • 0.* r.J P.4 • • 4 *r“ £6 f 4 - 4 LC, 05 * L 0,0 5 Lw . JS C .06 • T6T»L P«&4MC * 0,5 • 0.* tt. J s,2; VCiZ^K'C^ -* * i.B.1 • 0.3 0.4 6.* * • T«T*L 0.5 • G.7 9.7 0,6 • TOT*t P«fl6P«MUS l o . oi • Lt.01 ic .itl e.t25 B iSS, P**OSP*0«US l o . oi • LC.01 L i . t l L0.O1 • • CtttBPDP^^ * CxtoPCPHTt.- * * • - TCT4V S-OUiCS 62 • 66 69 66 BlSSBtvtfl SOLIDS »r • 56 61 64 • 5ttSPf*5€Q SOUD S 5 • 7 7 22 • VOUTJtfc SGLIDS 14 • 2u 20 16 • SOS, »»L. SOLIDS 4 « 5 6 e • • M S . V9t. SOLIDS 10 • I> 14 IS • - TOC - - - SOB t5D*V - 20CJ • • COO - M l- * s o G*e*se - • • TOT*t COLifD** fEC«L-mifOBR • * a Tt v fewti p * ; •*. *

*•!.**•. * i v»« «.»&:«. .►-'*•*4. tw Ktt*. * :.t '■* b'+' 3

n » . t t,,i, 7a SuhlkLe u t v . - .116.5/ * <• > . r-i * ’ — : V t M f’ Wk’ -et* '*“*»• 711 io?l' ri.O» !"• i;fcYi * it i»t U > !-1 *. I * r 1 M"'''* * ( t - L > f A l t 11 ’ •* t *■*'.;•• t - 1 P2 Lit'"7* eAP.l»>ETA ... « t . . -

$-•>«•* l-VOf/i v t »* t sY"0«.r Ik *-J" its, M , ►*'(' * *• ’-.Y Dtr*“ ,*t Hl«Ck - *

L *&'.***• ► * t K 9.^ > SF-j. It *1 4**7*

• 7 t **k O.2. sat tz«b tu*» SA«*-Lt itf"1* t lAO *./ i N /k */5> DtP flOtM aLaalIMTy 1' C 9 C 27. 0 7 , v 69 7.3 73 • 27.2 t>,b 7? t A L" 1«-PY 2< ft* 5 ft . D ini YCY* »* • 27.1 bt b 7 k ten TY * L It 7.2 VI • 26,ft 5.3 66 t-, ? ^ V * A 5 !•*,* 6 s JA 4e 15 r ^o- lip* • rt *1 .9 l .« a b V 77 9 25 16.6 0.2 2 k * *iC C„L.V i nY 6 ful* A Tft» :»■ ft. 9 30 16,7 0.2 2 b v 7 V r|»f r, 0 j; » i .t 9 «C 13.8 2.1 20 b 9 t>* 9 63 total i » c* c,25r ft . ft l 0 50 11.« 2.9 2ft 9 v.s 23 b b ti BIS*. l«Ok ft.OTO 4.700 6 0 2.6 9 *»,fc b 7 tctm. *«AAeAAF-s.£ 0 . 1 2 0 7.25*. 70 6,6 1.2 11 PIS*. *A«-»i»ti-c c .: t o «.fe00 9 60 6.1 1.0 9 b t tJ 9 5 ? b 66 t* j* r ~ Bo* ii " 90 7.6 0 .ft d£ * A^L***.!7" I W* 9 i r t 7.0 0.2 2 5.7 7 D 9 7.7 0.1 1 ^.7 67 TBTal A U '*I,“>‘* n o 9 7.7 0.0 t b S 6k TPTal 120 9 7.7 0.0 0 b.9 64 r«TA1 B 1 B*V 7A 1 k-WC 130 9 b,9 TOTAL l€*D- 1*0 7.6 0.0 0 «1 TPTaL -fcSCt’kv 9 1«5 7.* 0.0 0 6.C 103 «jflDA-L fc t .« 1 • 1 A**"t.MA * k 0,0 k 0,7ft 9 TOTAL 0«ikkIC k 0,34 S.« 9 - * LO.J 0.1 9 TOTAL *1T9B»»£«1 #.A l.A 9 TOTAL *HOSP**iMiUS LB.81 *9.110 9 9 m ss. p« c.&a« w>ls LO .tl 0.050 C*tv*rCp*•ui AftABulr. 7l *A 9 9 TOTAL SOLID* 70 11? 9 9 BlSSOl Vt B SOL 1ES 61 9s 9WS*t*WeD SuiJCS 9 1* 9 «CL*TlLfe SOLJOS 16 ♦ u 9 SOS. »0 t. SOLIDS A 10 9 PIS. Xflt. SOLIDS 6 So 9 TOC 9 9 eoo i> ?*» - joci coo - 9 OIL A*0 5S£*SE 9 TOTAL COL|fO«* 9 FfcCAL COLISOB** 9 j . t * . * * - - » ■ * r i „ ■» .-> :■« t » . « - * . r t . :

. ..*♦.. r.l-:* i*.--«* k*‘ i . *:.* -*••- .••••>* •

.. , . ., . ► • t • •* - •;1 : .}• ^ T.fo :'ki

» Ln.n f kut.« * ; l ' r *■» r ► t 1 .i^-t » » ^ -■• ♦ *-«;s ; s 1 A, ► fr 7 ► * :*r t - •* i it. . .u t ‘'t S u l 1 S f-' w A »•►*■*»*•* <•«.*. v a »*• t * (k> » »r * - I*** • 5**•; • • ;*►*■ T ►» • l • 3»l • iv * i' ^ / ;. ■'. t ? 1.1 ► ’ tr‘ i 4 f'.: • R • • t , t b b • i. f t p- T »■ c.m iU ll' • a • [, if .* tf #f r . ' * i ?£T«1 »L' »l 1 *■ 1 1 V * ri • t 1 • i • lb 4- , I‘ 6.* ?. r “i St • :i> i<* .•* l .•» fv • t •tft* 5 t • i- • SL 4 7C*t!r-TT» • c G ii.t b. 1 t . 3 • t * 4 ► L I1m cv i. «m iV ? 4 * ?c * e ♦ I c.; i f .2 "l *i>L f t,1 f s * i*.* * • 40 !*«• t.? 2 t . 2 7* ■?»**£»' DlOUi't * c f*« t T* TOTtL i* « I'.JSf. • - 0 11*1 1 • c 60 V,7 0«2 2 6.2 71 r.BSD • 3.*tu • 7 7 PIS*. I*?* • 7 0 6*7 l i 6.2 • »?T»L “*•>•*•»£ fct • e.rst • 3,kCi • J m h. f«ICV * lc. l; • i . 3 r u • fc t 6 * 3 1.2 * f ti p 9 frt t . C L«2 1 t • 2 !■ t

ox • 9 9 T 6 T » t * 9 T-6f»L C btek* * 9 TfeT*L 21“C * TOT»L <.€*0 * • T 0 T * t • •> 5 B .4 • C .e * * * “ CL i * - *■ • L B .C S • C . 4 J • TLT»L «• • C ,» • r . 3 ? * - *> • L 0 .1 • e . : * T 0 T » t • • . 4 • C . * * T 0 T * l ®h D S * "'* « J S • L B .C l • G .o e ? • **I5i, •..OSfwOl.US * L B . 61 • * . 0 6 * • C"LO* 0»«» L * • 9 e**tl'*C>*«*L o 9 t o t » i s o u r s • 8 * • 1 0 4 * PISSOLVeD SotIDS • #0 • bo • S o S ^ f 'I E O SOL ICS • i • 1 « * VO tM ltt SOLJOS • 20 • 2 4 * SOS. *0L. SOLIDS • 3 • 14 • BIS. *91. SOLIDS • 17 • 1« • • TOC * • »09 fs"** - 2BCI • • c o o • • OIL * * 0 5Bfc*Sfe • TOTiL CGLlfUJ* • • * . I IIS.T-1'T • Z O K ^ i ^ tfr6!*^tfrS • HwlklTV :j»7» * LU i. ) » . ( . ► * b 71 I’ SI ► 7 ; UPf * .■ J*i* »"i,«». t— L t .>‘1 frtvl* n H k L.»'IKtl Lt-*r * , „ . . * l h ,. *, tit* dM.-cik Jf l n »Tt*P1 »'■'*' 7. VtAfftCt tLtV. » .lit,* ' S S t* t' i ?■ 7 f*-0* . t f l »A i> .f 1 -C - l - . . 1.1* "H. * ld. It*. ni»! - u 1 " I(.«:- ^ M Cn i £ frfrts.-

* u l l ; » ’ *■ bufr 7 r 2* y s» * r. Pft. *r>LU» sn*T 1 ♦ DM 1 t HP • k' • S»T Dbfrt * biPt> ( ** b *, /S * / fc »/i

rt>Lt° l frfr.fr t . ’ l» b 0 »»T<> i L* »i ’ * n ' ‘ b frfr.7 2 .3 Jfr t>c » C T » 0 *L,l» i-i*'i1T I t frb, 6 7.9 u t . C l l ! ’ » 15 2 b . 3 6 .7 *« 7 9 s* i if 2 3 .0 0.* Tf.fr 1 » IT* 75 1 9.2 0,3 r.p i t* 30 1 7.2 0.3 l* b Ct,[f , T r . 9 . i 0 . 3b lb .fr 1.3 r « » r p« L- k > i : t l«'>k c . ? ti e 4 . 4Cb r . C7f 3.200 r i « s . i *’'■•«' ? . fr r, »■ M * e ‘ k t> e M U C l * . . TAAS**1 St r.ir- 2 . fc 0 k *♦} • . **r * i vj. » !» * • £ “ •''''*'! i/“ T0T*L • L"••*" 1 ^ »pT»L Ct'e t frfr TOT»l Z1*C t o t a l i *» d TLT»L * t ‘tCU«T *j* L r t * L * El.fr 1.® • -•fill* - K B.fcfr 1 .3 *CT»L * fc .** C.» V O ?« .v J * k wr .: 0 .1 TOTAL MlTfcCucN 0 . fr l . » TOTAL P*OSPi»OS-US C .C J s 0.79E> BIS*. ^.PSPfO.US L0.C 1 0.69b •r«.(.r»DP*77t * C.vC*ri»p',U * TOTAL SOLIDS 92 12a 7I9SBL»En SOLIDS U 106 SUlPfpPtD SuLIDS fr 22 4o vOt*TJLfc SOLIDS it BUS. »8L. S L llD S b 1 A J4 BIS. VOL, SOLIDS 21 TOC 900 JbOAV * ?0C1 COO BlL AS? &RSASS TOTAL c o l i ^o p . f e c a l c o L !A o » . Oib-*,.!T» 1*3* * >'.4i>»>b , t ~lfc ..,**.. . 4, { :**;' r^tfcf, » !fct s.t b U ^ j i ’N i *•*>•»5. t r l,».!.i ,>.1 « U ' ^ i * f i * • m m t - * . k«»i •itfl--i*-l LI3* tftT.t1* r«w ‘ »* *t I r*Tr-,i .... :<. a^n-u tm . * .'•»*'•;*• b f * ojs-t r»«o*- .t*’ ****- *h »]M. - iI'Al- "« 6 ftc>» >*'•*■ » J * f l . U- ;t„:r fwt*.- | * 1 * 1r«rfcHTjt«t * . 1 ‘ * ‘ b“ T

wt .*2 ‘ f9l|>6«.T > f W * *9 0 ftt’ . (iti.ii r » T * « fcl,. : f t,*k9ll<4l9'>6r t N i l P S t b s r* T ’ M . • !.»’ Pm r o « b Tl>6« f K t St L r* i . r . c***»\ r I't * : * 9 :t»< ro i !■* It 2 7 ,6 6 .6 66 6 . » *4 E.fc 9 9 H 2 t , 6 * .7 63 6 .6 62 i t SO 64 T O T » l 41 • *1. i *■ 1 T * 2D 2 £ . 1 0 .3 4 6 .2 9 * C li l ’ » SO 1 6 .7 b . l 1 6 .1 66 2 f I t v * B tw t 5e 2 e . i 66 SC 1 6 . V 0 .1 T T W * r V P * *L 1 3 .6 2 . « 23 0 .4 62 1 .6 ; . *■ Pt-6 ?D 1 1 .6 2 .7 26 0 .6 57 1 .9 1 3 . 5 3 1.5 9 .3 i . f *■ * 'r S M i n . 2 2 . * ?1 5 .6 56 D irtic fe c . 1 7t 6 .6 ll. 6 7 5 .S 5* r-,» c . ? o r 2 .D 0 9 1 .6 U w * feD B .3 0 .1 1 5 .6 57 9 .2 « | t k , J6B*. 6 . DTD 1.6119 3 .2 &> jj t . 0 L .1 1 5 .6 74 1 .3 TOT*!. “ 4 4 B*»i46i 2 . DSC 2 . b C* 74 ICC 7 .4 9 .1 1 5 .6 3 .9 nj5f, «*»i*»fsf- 9 C .D ? 1 .6 D 9 65 l i t 7 .4 6 .1 1 5 .4 * T6 J • C*-e •»* 1 * " 1 2 t 7.* 9 .1 6 .0 56 a s c 7.6 b . l * 6 .0 m * t T O f* t rc*»t,t « TOT*L ?l*-c » e r « i t f * P T O T » t t . 4 0 .9 **M»CfM* • *■ L i . C V i , l « 0 .3a T 6 T » l * t , ‘ -**0?T*>Ol * *■ L t . l 9 0 .1 TOT»L *I1T*CfcH 0 .6 6 .9 TOT*t *»C5f " ‘l|u5 90,01 2 .0 0 9 1 .6 6 9 El«4>, u s . e i

64 t o t » l s e i i c » 6* " I S S O L V t f &4H.1CS *1 79 SUS^ETPeP SfitJPS 7 1* V O L » T l t t f Pi.! DS 20 29 SUS. »5b. S«tlDS 5 1* 6 fl15vT50-. SiH-iDS 10 - T O C ------W O !5 0 * T * 2 BC J COO — - *»P-CSfcASfc— TOT*t“ C®^Jf ®s*' fEC*i- ceti*o»* - — ■ EXHIBIT 3.--INVERTEBRATE SURVEY OF SELECTED STREAMS FLOWING INTO LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY, WITH EMPHASIS ON WATER QUALITY Introduction

This study was begun in August 1974 and was completed in September 1974. The objectives of the study were to describe the benthos of three streams flowing into Laurel Iliver Lake, and one outside Laurel River Lake water­ shed but in the same area. Although this is a cursory study, it will be useful in determining the quality of water during low flows.

The streams sampled were Laurel River, Lynn Camp Creek, Little Laurel River, and Bark Camp Creek. The watershed of Laurel River contains some abandoned mines and agriculture activites which could contribute to pollution of Laurel River Lake. Secondary treated sewage is discharged into Lynn Camp Creek and Little Laurel River by the cities of Corbin and London, respectively. Bark Camp Creek was chosen because its watershed is totally forested, and though not in Laurel River watershed, is a typical unpolluted stream of the area. EPA and ORD felt that a more detailed des­ cription of the water quality of Laurel River Lake should be contained in the Project EIS.

Benthic organisms associated with stream beds are not equipped to move great distances through their own efforts and generally remain at fixed points, thus can provide valuable information relating to water quality.

The Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection has spent much time and money in trying to establish a fishery in Laurel Lake. The Department stocked Laurel with 30,000 trout, 10,000 threadfin shad, and 2 X 10 Walleye fry in 1974. Without proper land use controls this fishery, along with water contact sports, could be threatened by mine, sewage, and agricultural pollution.

Description of Study Area

Laurel River Lake is located in southeastern Kentucky near the town of Corbin. In order to determine the amount of pollution reaching the lake, a number of studies have been planned, of which this is one. Bark Camp Creek was chosen as a control because its watershed is totally forested, and though not in Laurel River drainage, is typical of unpolluted streams in the area. Lynn Camp Creek and Little Laurel River were chosen primarily to show the effects of domestic sewage discharges on major streams of the Laurel River drainage area. The headwaters of Laurel River were sampled to determine effects of agriculture and mine drainage on the stream.

Peso L l P ! ion of individual stations:

The stations were selected from U.S.G.S. survey maps, scale 1:24000. Bark Camp Greek, mile 2.0, was sampled about 50 yards upstream of Forest Road 38 Crossing. The stream was about 20 feet wide and average depth was about 1 foot. Flow was less than 5 cfs. Dissolved oxygen was 9 ppm and water temperature was 19.0°C.

Laurel River, mile 36.9 was sampled about 50 yards upstream of Kentucky Highway 229 Crossing. This stream was about 20 feet wide and average depth was about 1 foot. Flow was less than 5 cfs with D.O. and tempera­ ture being 4.5 ppm and 21.3 C, respectively.

Little Laurel River was sampled at mile 1.5 in the recovery zone of the stream. This stream Is severely polluted by domestic sewage from the city of London. The color of the Little Laurel near the headwaters at U.S. Highway 29 Crossing was sewage gray with an abundance of bluegreen algae. The D.O. and water temperature at the sampling station was 9.7 ppm and 24.5 C, respectively. The average width and depth were about 30 and 1.5 feet, respectively. The flow was less than 5 cfs.

Lynn Camp Creek was sampled at mile 2.0, about 3/4 of a mile downstraam of the Corbin sewage treatment facilities. The average width and depth were about 30 and 15 feat respectively. The f^ow was about 11 cfs with D.O. and water temperature being 11 ppm and 23 c, respectively.

Materials and Methods

A surber sampler, 0.1M , was used to collect organisms, and three samples were taken at each station except Bark Camp Creek, where four were taken. The organisms were placed in a quart jar containing a 10% formalin solution. The organisms were taken to the laboratory, placed in a pan, separated from the organic debris, and preserved in 70% methyl alcohol. Invertebrates were identified, counted, and their volume calculated using a graduated cylinder. References used for identification were Pennak C*953) and Ward & Whipple (1959). A dissecting binocular microscope was used in identifying structures when necessary.

Results and Discussion

This macroinvertebrate study was intended to survey the natural bottom fauna, and if possible, evaluate the effects of domestic sewage, mine drainage, and agricultural runoff on the benthic community. An ideal study of this type should encompass a year with sampling being done once a month, but due to the scarcity of time, however, this was not possible. Fifty-two taxonomic groups composed of six classes, twenty-four families, and twenty-two genera were identified from the samples. Table 1 is a checklist of fauna identified in the study, and table 2 contains the number of organisms per square meter collected.

Because the life history of many of the organisms collected extends through one year or longer, their presence or absence is indicative of the water quality in the stream they inhabit. A stream with "clean water" is generally characterized by having a large number of species with few numbers of individuals (high diversity), while a polluted stream is charac­ terized by having fewer numbers of species and larger numbers of indivi­ duals (low diversity).

Table 3 was taken from Weber (1973) and shows the species collected, where they were collected, and their relative tolerance to decomposable organic waste. Invertebrates were placed into three categories— tolerant, facul­ tative, and intolerant. Tolerant organisms are those organisms associated with gross organic contamination and are sometimes capable of thriving under anaerobic conditions. Facultative organisms have a wide range of tolerance and can be found in areas with moderate levels of organic con­ tamination. Intolerant organisms are not able to withstand even moderate levels of organic pollution or low levels of dissolved oxygen.

Because of the number of species collected that were intolerant to organic pollution, Bark Camp Creek proved to be a representative stream with "clean water", and useful in comparing with the streams flowing into Laurel River Lake.

Laurel River headwaters contained two genera, Stenonema and Hydropsyche. which are intolerant of organic contaminants; however, species diversity was lower than Bark Camp Creek. The low species diversity may be due to periodic contamination from various land uses, such as, runoff from cul­ tivated or pasture lands, timber operations, and mining operations.

Likewise, Little Laurel River contained two genera, Chimarra and Hydro- psyche, that are intolerant of organic pollution. Out of three surber samples taken only one Chimarra was collected. It is possible this orga­ nism could have drifted into the river from one of the tributaries. Nevertheless, the fact that Hydropsyche were taken in such great numbers, leads to the assumption that this portion of Little Laurel contains water of good quality. Hydropsyche were collected in riffle areas attached to filamentous green algae which afforded them an ample food supply and a good substrate to attach themselves - an ideal environment for this species. During low flows the headwaters of Little Laurel River are degraded by domestic sewage. The stream seems to have recovered, however, before flowing into Laurel River upstream of Corbin's water supply dam. Since higher concentrations of organic waste exist in the headwaters, the possibility of nutrient rich "slugs" reaching Laurel River Lake during high flows cannot be ruled out. Lynn Camp Creek contained facultative and tolerant organisms; this alone Is not significant. However, the large number of Individuals and low species diversity Is In this case an indication of organic contamination. Large numbers of Physa, ollgochaetes, and tendipedid larvae were present In Lynn Camp Creek, and species diversity was low, only seven Identified. Helobdella were collected at this station and according to Weber (1973) are very tolerant of organic waste. Physa. ollgochaetes, and tendipedld larvae are likewise able to tolerate polluted conditions, and when in large numbers are good indicators of a polluted environment. Species intolerant to organic pollution were not collected at this site. The sample was taken approximately 0.75 mile below Corbin's sewage treatment facilities, which are responsible for the polluted conditions. Because of the high nutrient loads associated with organic waste pollution, obnoxious algae blooms are a possibility in the Lynn Camp Creek embayment of Laurel River Lake. This will depend, of course, on limnological conditions in Laurel River Lake.

The total blotted wet volume per square meter of macroinvertebrates from Bark Camp Creek, Laurel River, Little Laurel River, and Lynn Camp Creek were 47 ml, 12 ml, 19 ml, and 140 ml, respectively. Because of the cursory nature of this study, volume data are not reliable.

SUMMARY

1. Twenty-four macroinvertebrate families containing twenty-two identified genera were collected from Bark Camp Creek, Laurel River, Little Laurel River, and Lynn Camp Creek. Bark Camp Creek contains a larger number of . species with fewer numbers of organisms than the other streams sampled.

2. Laurel River headwaters and Little Laurel River contained two organisms that are intolerant of organic waste contamination; Lynn Camp Creek contained no organisms that were Intolerant of organic pollution but contained large numbers of organisms facultative and tolerant.

3. Laurel River could be affected by land use practices, such as, agricul­ ture, logging and mine drainage, but because the two organisms collected, Stenonema and Hydropsyche. are intolerant species indicates the water at this station to be of good quality.

4. Little Laurel River contained two genera, Chlmarra and Hydropsyche. both intolerant of organic pollution, however, only one Chlmarra was collected out of 3 surber samples indicating that it could have drifted into the area from tributaries. Nevertheless, Hydropsyche were collected in substantial numbers; therefore, it appears that the stream has recovered from the organic waste discharged at London, Kentucky. 5. Lynn Camp Creek species diversity was low with large numbers of individuals. No species intolerant of organic waste pollution were collected. Corbin's waste water treatment plant is located 0.75 mile up­ stream of the sample station. Because of the high nutrient loads associa­ ted with domestic waste pollution, obnoxious algal blooms during low flow periods are a possibility in the Lynn Camp Creek embayment of Laurel River Lake. This will depend on other conditions, such as, the relative tempera­ tures of the stream and lake profile.

6. Because of the cursory nature of this study, volume data are not reliable. Table 1: CheckH«t of Macroinvertebrates Collected From Bark Camp Creek, Laurel River, Little Laurel, and Lynn Camp Creek; Laurel River Lake, Kentucky August 1974

Kingdom Animalla Phylum Mollusca Class Gastropoda Family Physldae Physa (L.R., L.C.C.) Family Planorbldae He11soma (L.C.C.) Family Pleurocerldae (L.L.R.) Class Pelecypoda Family Bphaerlldae Sphaerlum (L.R.) Family Unionidae (L.R.) Phylum Annelida Class Ollgochaeta (L.R., L.L.R., L.C.C.) Class Hirudinea Helohdella (L.C.C.) Phylum Arthropoda Class Crustacea Order Decapods Cambarus (B.C., L.L.R., L.C.C.) Class Insects Order Odonata Family Comphldae Lanthus (B.C.) Family Aeschnldae Eptaeschna (B. C.) Family Llbellulldae (L.C.C.) Order Ephemeroptera Family Siphlonurldae Slphlonurus (B.C.) Isonychla (B.C.) Family Baetidae Neocloeon (B.C.) Family Leptophleblidae Paraleptophlebla (B.C.) Famlly Heptagenlidae Heptagenla (B.C.) Stenonema (B.C., LR) Epeorus (B.C.) Order Plecoptera Family Perlldae Acroneurla (B.C.) Family Chloroperlldae Alloperla Order Megaloptera Family Corydalidae Chaultodes (B.C., L.R. L.L.R.) Order Trichoptera Family Hydropsychldae Hydropsyche (BC, LR, LLR) Family Phllopotamldae Chlmarra (LLR) Family Rhyacophllldae Gloasosoma (BC) Order Hemlptera (LR) Order Coleoptera Family Psephenldae Psephenua (BC) Family Dryopldae Heltchua (BC) Family Curcullonldae (LCC) Order Dlptera Family Tendlpedldae (BC, LR, LLR, LCC) Family Rhagionldae (BC) Family Slmullldae (LLR) Table 2; Numbers of Organisms Per Square Meter for Stations 1 through 4 t Laurel * River Lake, Kentucky, August 1974.

Bark Camp Creek Laurel River Little Laurel Lynn Camp River Creek

DIPT ERA lendlpedldae 8 213 126 330 Undetermined Genera 13 Rhagionldae 7 SimulUae 60 TRICHOPTKRA Hydropsyche 15 57 2000 Glossosoma 2 Chlmarra 3 PLECOPTERA Acroneuria 2 Alloperla 5 EPHEMEROPTERA Isonychla 10 Neocloeon 5 Paraleptophlebia 10 Siphlonurus 2 Heptagenla 22 Stenonema 32 20 Epeorus 35 ODONATA Lanthus 2 Eplaeschna 5 Llbellulidae 3 HEMIPTERA Undetermined Genera 20 COLEOPTERA Psephenus 3 Helichus 2 Undetermined Genera 10 Curcullonidae 3 CRUSTACEA Cambarus 8 3 6 PELECYPODA Sphaerium 17 Unionidae 6 GASTROPODA Physa 3 20 770 Hellsoma 10 Pleurocerldae 20 MEG ALOFT ERA Chaullodes 2 3 37 OLIGOCHAETA Undetermined Genera 27 7 600 HIRUDINEA Helobdella 40

Total Organisms m 375 --- T&Z---- 1762 Total ‘ipecias 19 10 10 7 Table 3: Classification of the Tolerance of Organisms (LLR) Collected From Bark Camp Creek (BC), Laurel River (LR), Little Laurel River, and Lynn Camp Creek (LCC) to Decomposable Organic Wastes; Tolerant (T), Facultative (F), and Intolerant (I)

Macroinvertebrate T F I BC LR LLR LCC

Mollusca Gastropoda Physldae Physa X x Y Planorbidae Helisoma X X Pleuroceridae X ** Pelecypoda Sphaeriidae X X Sphaerlum X X Unlonldae Hot listed X Annelida Ollgochaeta X X X X x Hlrudlnea Glossiphonlidae Helobdella X x Arthropods Crustacea Decapods Astacldae Cambarus X X X X Insects Odonata Gomphidae Lanthus Not listed X Aeschnidae Eplaeschna Not listed X Libellulldae X x Ephemeroptera Siphlonuridae Isonychia X X Siphlonurus Not listed X Baetldae Neocloeon Not listed X Leptophleblidae Paraleptophlebia Not listed X Heptagenlldae Heptagenia Not listed X Stenonema X X X Epeorus Not listed X Plecoptera Perlidae Acrcneurla X X Chloroperlldae X Alloperla Not listed X MacroInvertebrate T F I BC LR LLR LCC

Megaloptera Corydalldae Chau1lodes X X X X Trlchoptera Hydropsychldae Hychopsyche X X X X Phllopotamldae Chlmarra X X Rhyacophllldae Glossosoma Not listed X Hemlptera X X Coleoptera Psephenidae Psephenus X X Dryopldae Hellchus Not listed X Curcullonldae Not listed X Dlptera Tendipedldae (Chlronomtdae) X X X X X Rhaglonldae Not listed X Slmullldae X X Literature Cited

Fennak, k. W. 1953. Freshwater Invertebrates of United States. Ronald Press Ci)., New York. 767 p.

Uard, ll. B. and G. C. Whipple. 1959. Freshwater biology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 1248 p.

Webber, C. I. 1973. Ed, Biological field and laboratory methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati. 173 p. EXHIBIT h - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR WATERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY Re. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR WATERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OP KENTUCKY

Relates to KRS 224. 010 to 224. 210 and 224.990

Supersedes WP-4

Pursuant to the authority vested in tie Water Pollution Control

Commission by KRS 224.040, the following regulation is adopted:

Section 1. Prohibitions. No person or group of persons as defined in KRS 224.010 shall cause to be violated any one of the minimum standards in Section 2 or any one of the standards established in Section 3 of this regulation.

Section 2. The following are minimum conditions applicable to all waters of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Ail waters of the

Commonwealth shall be:

(1) Substantially free from substances attributable to municipal, industrial or other discharges or agricultural practices that will settle to form putrescent sludge deposits:

(2) Free from floating debris, oil, scum and other floating materials attributable to municipal, industrial or other discharges or agricultural practices in amounts sufficient to be unsightly o r deleterious;

(3) Free from materials attributable to municipal, industrial or other discharges or agricultural practices producing color, odor or

other conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance: and

(4) Free from substances attributable to municipal, Industrial

or other discharges or agricultural practices In concentrations or combi*

nations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal, plant or aquatic life.

(5) In the standards established by Subsections (l) through (4),

every person as defined in KRS 224.010 shall remove from their dis­

charges those substances described in Subsections (1) through (4) to the

lowest piactieable level attainable under current technology. Section 3. Stream use classification. In addition to the mini­ mum conditions set forth in Section 2, the following specific stream use classification shall govern where applicable:

11) Public warer supply and food processing industries. The following criteria are applicable to surface water at the point at which water is withdrawn for use for a public water supply or by a food process­ ing industry.

(a) Bacteria. Goliform group not to exceed 5,000 per 100 ml as a monthly arithmetical average value (either MPN or MT count); nor exceed this number in more than 20 percent of the samples examined during any month; nor exceed 20,000 per 100 ml in more than S percent of such samples.

(b) Threshold-odor number; After normal treatment to be less

than 3.

(c) Dissolved solids; Not to exceed 500 mg/1 as a monthly

average value, nor exceed 750 mg/1 at any time. (Values of specific

conductance of 800 and l, 200 micromhos/cm (at 25° C .) may be consid­

ered equivalent to dissolved solids concentrations of 500 and 750 mg/1.)

(d) Radioactive substances; Gross beta activity not to exceed

1,000 puocuries per liter, (pCi/1), nor shall activity from dissolved

Stlontium 90 exceed 10 pCi/1, nor shall activity from dissolved alpha

emitters exceed 3 pCi/1.

(e) Chemical constituents. Not to exceed the following speci­

fied concentrations at any time:

Constituents Concentration (mg/1) A rsenic 0.05 Barium 1.0 Cadmium 0.01 Chromium fHexavalent) 0.05 Cyanide a 025 Fluoride 1. 0 . Lead 0.05 Selenium 0.01 Silver a os (2) industrial water supply, i he following criteria are appli- cable to water at the point at which water is withdrawn for use. either with or without treatment, for industrial cooling and processing (other than food processing) and shall be applicable only within a mixing zone.

(a) gH: Not less than S. 0 nor greater than 9.0 at any time.

(b) Temperature: Not to exceed 95°F. at any time.

(c) Dissolved solids: Not to exceed 750 mg/1 as a monthly average value, nor exceed 1,000 mg/1 at any lime. (Values of specific conductance of 1,200 and 1,600 rmcromhos/cm (at 25°C .) may be considered equivalent to dissolved-solids concentrations of 750 and

1.000 mg/1.)

(3) Aquatic life. The following criteria are for evaluation of conditions for the maintenance of well balanced, indigenous fist, popula­ tion. The aquatic use standards shall not apply to areas immediately

adjacent to outfalls. Areas immediately adjacent to outfalls shall be as

small as possible, be provided for mixing only, and shall not prevent

the free passage of fish and drift organisms.

(a) Dissolved oxygen. Concentrations shall average at least

5.0 mg/1 per calendar day and shall not be less than 4.0 mg/1 at any

time or any place outside the mixing zone.

(b) gH: No values below 6.0 nor above 9.0.

(c) Temperature:

(i} Not to exceed 89° F.

(11) There shall be no abnormal temperature changes that

may affect aquatic life unless caused by natural conditions.

(ill) The normal daily and seasonal temperature fluctua­

tions that existed before the addition of heat due to other than natural

causes shall be maintained.

(iv) The maximum temperature rise at any time or place

above natural temperatures shall not exceed 5°F. in streams. In addition. the water temperature for all streams shall not exceed the m a xim u m

Limits indicated in the following table:

Stream maximum temperature for each month in °F.

Jan. 50 Feb. 50 March 60 April 70 May 80 June 87 July 89 Aug. 89 Sept. 87 Oct. 78 Nov. 70 Dec. 57

(v) The allowable temperature increase in public water o impoundments will be limited to 3 F. in the epllimnlon 11 thermal strati­ fication exists. Public water Impoundments Include all Impounded waters of the Commonwealth which are open to the public and used by the public.

(d) Toxic substances: Not to exceed one-tenth of the 96-hour median tolerance limit of fish; where there are substances that are toxic because of their cumulative characteristics other limiting concentrations may be used in specific cases as presently approved by the Federal

Environmental Protection Agency, or as later adopted by the Water

Pollution Control Commission.

(e) E\it-and-take trout streams: The following criteria are

applicable to those waters designated by the Commission as put-and-taka

trout streams:

(l) Dissolved oxygen: Concentrations shall not be less than

6.0 mg/1 at any time or any place. Spawning areas (during the spawning

season) shall be protected by a minimum DO concentration of 7.0 mg/1.

(ii) Temperature: Stream temperatures shall not be increas­ ed artificially above the natural temperature at any time In cold water

troui streams. (4) Recreation: Unles* caused by natural conditions, the follow­ ing; criterion shall apply in w aters to be used for recreational purposes,

(including but not limited to sucn water-contact activities as swimming and water skiing).

Bacteria: The total collform level shall not exceed an average

1.000 per 100 ml. Total coliform shall not exceed this number In 20% at the samples in a month, nor exceed 2400/100 ml on any day. If the

level of total collform is exceeded, then a fecal colifotm standard shall

be used. There shall be a reduction of fecal coliform to such degree that

(i) during the months of May through October fecal coliform density in the

discharge does not exceed 200 per 100 ml as a monthly geometric mean

(based on not less than ten samples per month), nor exceed 400 per 100 ml

in more than ten percent of the samples examined during a month, and (ii)

during the months of November through April the density does not exceed

1.000 per 100 ml as a monthly geometric mean (based on not less than ten

samples per month), nor exceed 2,000 per 100 ml in more than ten per­

cent of the samples examined during a month.

(5) Agricultural: No criteria in addition to the minimum condi­

tions enumerated in Section 2 are proposed for the evaluation of stream

quality at the point at which water Is withdrawn for agricultural and stock

watering use.

Section 4. Multiple uses. One or more uses established In

Section 3 may apply to the same waters. The use criteria shall apply

to those waters suitable for the use or uses provided In Section 3. In

the event there is a conflict between or among the applicable uses, the

more stringent use criteria shall apply.

Section 5. Regulation WP-4 is superseded. Adopted: July 23, 1971 Filed: July 23, 1971 Effective Aug.22, 1971 a p p e n d i x c

FLORA AND FAUNA LAUREL RIVER LAKE PROJECT KENTUCKY INVENTORY OF BIRDS - HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE, ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

Habitat and/or : Range in : Abundance : Project : Species : Seasonal Status : Restion or State : in Reeion : Tnroact i

Bittern, American Marshes Statewide Common Low Botaurus lentiginosus Migrant regionally Positive

Bittern, Least Grassy areas, water tl If II txobrychus exills Migrant in region

Blackbird, Red-Winged Marshes and fields II Abundant Low Agelaius phoeniceus Year-round tl Negative

Bluebird, Eastern Farmyards ft Common High Slalla sialis Year-round Negative

Bunting, Indigo Hedgerows and Wood It II Moderate Passerlna cyanea margins Negative Summer

Cardinal Hedgerows, Wood tl II Moderate Richmondena cardinalis margins Negative Year-round

Catbird Brush tl II High Dumetella carolinensis Summer Negative

Chat, Yellow-breasted Deciduous thickets If II II Icteria virens Summer

Chickadee, Carolina Trickets tl II It Parus carolinensis Year-round

Cowbird, Brown-headed Farmland It II Low Molothrus ater Year-round Negative

Creeper, Brown Woodland It If High Certhia familiarls Winter Negative

Crossbill, Dickcissel Grainflelds and State-wide Abundant Low Spies americana Weeds Summer

Crow, Common Farmland M It II Corvus brachyrhynchos Year-round INVENTORY OF BIRDS - HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

• • Habitat and/or : Range in : Abundance : Project : Species : Seasonal Status : Region or State: In Region : Impact :

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed Woods, brush State-wide Common Moderate Coccyzus americanus Summer Negative

Dove, Mourning Farmlands fl Abundant Low Zenaldura macroura Negative

Duck, Black Ponds II II Moderate Anue rubrlpes Winter Positive

Duck, Bufflehead Wooded lakes and II Common II Bucephala albeola rivers Winter

Duck, Common Goldeneye Lakes, Rivers, II II II Bucephala clangula Forests Winter

Duck, Gadwall Lakes, Ponds, Midstate Uncommon II Anus strepera Bays Winter

Duck, Mallard Ponds and marshes State-wide Common II Anas piatyrhynchos Winter

Duck, Pintail Lakes, Ponds, Bays II II II Anus acuta

Duck, Ringed-necked Woodland Ponds II It II Aythya collarls Winter

Duck, Wood Woodland, Lakes, II II II Alx sponsa streams Sunnier

Eagle, Bald Along shorelines, State-wide Rare and High Ilallaeetus leucocephalus fish Endangered Positive Winter

Eagle, Golden Inland, mountains II Rare II Aqulla chrysaetos woods Winter

Falcon, Peregrine Mountains and woods II Rare II Falco peregrlnus Winter Endangered INVENTORY OF BIRDS - HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

• • Habitat and/or : Range in : Abundance : Project : Species : Seasonal Status : Region or State: In Region : Impact :

Falcon, Sparrow Hawk Open ground State-wide Common None Falco sparverius Year-round

Finch, Purple Open woodlands and It II Low Carpodacue purpureus suburbs Negative Winter

Flycatcher, Acadian Deciduous Forests II II High Empldonax vlrescens Summer Negative

Flycatcher, Eastern Mixed Woods II II u Wood Pewee Contopus vlrens Summer

II Flycatcher, Eastern Bridges and bulldln{S 3 " Moderate Phoebe Sayornls phoebe Year-round Negative

Flycatcher, Great Perches In open II II II Crested Mylarchus crinltus Summer

Galllnule, Conmon Lake marshes • 1 II Low Galllnula chloropus Summer Positive

Gnatcatcher, Blue-gray Treetops II II High Polloptlla caerulea Sumner Negative

Goatsucker, Common Treetops and bulldli ngs " II Moderate Nlghthawk Chordelles minor Summer Negative

Goatsucker, Whip-poor-will Woods near fields II It II Caprlmulgus voclferus Summer

Goatsucker, Chuck-Will's Pine Woods II It II Widow Caprlmulgus carollnensis Sumner

Goldfinch, American Fields, brush, Central State Common Moderate Splnus trlstls roadsides Year-round Negative INVENTORY OF BIRDS - HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

• • Habitat and/or : Range In : Abundance : Project : Species : Seasonal Status : Region or State: In Region : Impact :

Goose, Canada Open fields near State-wide Comnon Moderate Branta canadensis water Winter Negative

Crackle, Cotnnon Farmland II Abundant Low Qulscalus qulscula Year-round Negative

Grebe, Pied-Billed Shallow Fresh Water " Common Low Podllymbus podiceps Varied Positive Summer

Crosbeak, Evening Conifers If Abundant High Hesperlphona vespertlna Winter Negative

Grouse, Ruffed Open conifer Local Common It Bonasa umbellus forests Locally Year-round

Hawk, Broad-winged Insects, mouse, State-wide Common II Buteo platypterus reptiles Summer

Hawk, Cooper's Open woodlands II Uncommon It Acclplter cooperll Year-round

Hawk, Marsh Grasslands and marshes " Common Low Circus cyaneus Winter Positive

Hawk, Red-shouldered Woodland, fields II II High Buteo llneatus Year-round Positive

Hawk, Red-tailed Woods with openings " Abundant High Buteo Jamalcensls Year-round Negative

Hawk, Sharp-Shinned II II Common II Acclplter strlatus

Heron, Black-crowned Freshwater swamps Summer south Common Low Night Sumner and Migrant regional Positive Nyctlcorax nyctlcorax Migrant

Heron, Common Egret Streams, ponds, State-wide It Moderate Casmerodlus albus marshes, mudflats except mountains Positive summer Potential at Laurel Lake INVENTORY OF BIRDS - HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

• • Habitat and/or : Range in : Abundance : Project ; Species : Seasonal Status : Region or State: in Region : Impact :

Heron, Great Blue All Water State-wide Common High Ardea herodias Migrant to region Negative

Heron, Green All Water II Abundant II Butorides vlrescens Summer

Hummingbird, Ruby- Flowers and gardens If Common High throated Archilochus colubris Summer Negative

Jay, Blue Oak and pine State-wide Common High Cyanocitta cristata Year-round Negative

Junco, Slate-colored Brush II Abundant It Junco hyemalis Winter

Kingbird, Eastern Flycatcher II Common II Tyrannus tyrannus Summer

Kingfisher, Belted Along streams II II It Megaceryle aloyon Year-round

Kinglet, Golden-crowned Conifers II It II Regulus satrapa Winter

Kinglet, Ruby-crowned Insects II II n , Regulus calendula Winter

Lark, Horned Fields near shore II II Low Eremophila alpestris Year-round Positive

Loon, Common Lakes & Rivers II Uncommon II Cavla inner Migrant

Meadowlark, Eastern Fields, fences II Common High Sturnella magna Year-round Negative

Mockingbird Brush It II II Mimus polyglottos Year-round

Nutlatch, Red-breasted Conifers II It II Sltta canadensis Winter INVENTORY OF BIRDS - HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

• • Habitat and/or : Range in : Abundance : Project : Species : Seasonal Status : Region or State: in Region : Impact :

Nut latch, White-breasted Deciduous woods State-wide Common High Sltta carolinensts Year-round Negative

Oriole, Baltimore Elms and shade State-wide II Moderate Icterus galbula trees Negative Summer

Oriole, Orchard Orchards, Woods II 11 Low Icterus spurlus Summer Negative

Ovenblrd Deciduous forest II II High Seiurus aurocapillus Summer Negative

Owl, Barn Farmland rodents II Uncommon Moderate Tyto alba Year-round Negative

Owl, Barred River bottoms II Common II Strix varia Year-round

Owl, Great Horned Woods, rodents II II High Bubo vlrglnianus Year-round Negative

Owl, Long Eared Woods near openings II II If Aslo otus Winter

Owl, Saw-whet Evergreen, thickets II If II Aegollus acadlcus Winter

Owl, Screech Orchards, woodlots II If II Otus aslo Year-round

Owl, Short-eared Open country near II * If Moderate Aslo flammeus marshes Winter Negative

Pigeon, Rock Dove City parks If 11 None Columba livia Year-round

Plover, Kllldeer Year-round State-wide Abundant Low Charadriu8 vociferus except mountains Negative

Quail, Bobwhite Brush, abandoned State-wide II High Colinus virginianus fields, open pine Negative Year-round INVENTORY OF BIRDS - HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

• • Habitat and/or : Range in : Abundance : Project : Species : Seasonal Status : Region or State: in Region : Impact :

Rail, King Marshes State-wide Common Low Rallua. elegans Summer Positive

Rati, Sora Marshes II It tl Porzana Carolina Migrant

Rail, Virginia Marshes It II It Rallua llmlcola Summer

Rati, Yellow Marshes, meadows, II Rare None Coturnlcops noraboracensl s and gralnflelds Migrant

Redstart, American Deciduous forest un der- " Common Moderate hetonhaga rm lcilla story near water Negative Summer

Robin Year-round Lawns, moist wood 8 " High Turdus migratorius fields Negative State-wide

Starling Roost in trees State-wide Abundant Moderate Sturnus vulgaris Year-round Negative

Swallow, Bank River banks North-central Common It Rtparla rlparla Summer State

Swallow, Barn Farms State-wide It Low Htrundo rustlca Summer Negative

• 1 Swallow, Cliff Cliff8 , dims, brid Iges " Moderate Petrochelldon pyrrhonota Sumner Positive

Swallow, Purple Martin Nest boxes, city It It Low Progne subIs shade trees Negative Summer

It Swallow, Rough-winged Banks, drainpipes, and " Moderate Stelgldopteryx ruflcolllsi Bridges Negative Summer

Swift, Chimney Chimneys II It It Chaetura pelagtca Summer INVENTORY OF BIRDS - HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

• • Habitat and/or : Range In : Abundance : Project : Species : Seasonal Status : Region or State: in Region : Impact :

Sandpiper, Spotted Fresh water State-wide Common Low Actltls macularla Summer Positive

Shrike, Loggerhead Insects, rodents State-wide Uncommon High Lanlus ludoviclanus Year-round Negative

Siskin, Pine Conifers East and central Irregulaly II Splnus plnus Winters State Common

Snipe, Common River banks State-wide Common Low Capella gallinago Winter except eastern Positive Mountains

Sparrow, Bachmans Dense ground cover State-wide Uncommon High Aimophlla aestivalis Summer Negative

Sparrow, Chipping Grass, under scattei• ed " Common II Splzella passerina trees Summer

It If Sparrow, Field Tall grass, sapplinf 5 8 " Splzella pusll'la Year-round

Sparrow, Fox Thickets II II II Passerella lllaca Winter

Sparrow, Grasshopper Hayfields, Weeds II II Low Ammodramus savannarum Summer Negative

Sparrow, Song Bushes, hedgerows II Abundant Moderate Melosplza m elodla Year-round Negative

Sparrow, Swamp Open swamps, bays II Common Low Melosplza georglana Winter Negative

Sparrow, Vesper Meadows, hay, pastu re " II tl Pooecetes gramlneus Winter

Sparrow, White Crowned Thickets, hedgerows II • 1 High Zonotrlchla leucophrys Winter Negative INVENTORY OF BIRDS - HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

• e Habitat and/or : Range In : Abundance : Project : Species : Seasonal Status : Region or State: In Region : Impact :

Sparrow, White-throated Brush State-wide Abundant High Zonotrlchla alblcollls Winter Negative

Tanager, scarlet Pine-oak Laurel region Common High Piranga ollvacea Summer Negative

Tanager, Summer II State-wide II tl Piranga rubra

Thrasher, Brown Brush II II It Toxostoma rufum Year-round

Thrush, Hermit Winter Woodlands II tl Hvlocichla guttata State-wide

Thrush, Wood Summer Deciduous forests It II Hyloclchla mustelina State-wide

Titmouse, Tufted Deciduous woods State-wide It It Parus btcolor Year-round

Towhee, Rufous-sided Brush, heavy underg:ro wth " II It Pipilo erythrophthalmus Year-round

Turkey Open Woodland Local Common tl Meleagrls gallopavo Year-round Locally

Vireo, Red-eyed Deciduous forests State-wide Abundant II Vireo olivaceus Summer

Vireo, Warbling Shade Trees II Common It Vireo gil us Summer

Vireo, White-eyed Woods, thickets II II II Vireo grlseus Summer

Vireo, Yellow-throated Forests near water II Uncommon Moderate Vireo fla ifrons Sunxner Positive

Vulture, Black Small animals Common to Low Coragyps atratus Year-round Uncommon Negative

Vulture, Turkey Fields and roadside is Mid-state Common Low Cathartes aura Year-round Negative INVENTORY OF BIRDS - HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

• • Habitat and/or : Range in : Abundance : Project : Species : Seasonal Status : Region or State: in Region : Impact :

Waxwing, Cedar Berry trees & shrubs State-wide Common High Bombycilla cedrorum Year-round Negative

Weaver Finch, House Farms, cities, State-wide Abundant Low Sparrow suburbs Negative Passer domesticus Year-round

Uoodcock, American Swamps, thickets II Common None Philohela minor Summer

Woodpecker, Downy Orchards and woods II II High Dendrocopos pubescens Year-round Negative

Woodpecker, Hairy Deciduous or mixed It It II Dendrocopos villosus woods Year-round

Woodpecker, Pileated Deciduous forests II Uncommon II Dryocopus pileatus Year-round It

Woodpecker, Red-bellied Woodlands II Common II Centurus carolinus Year-round

Woodpecker, Red Headed Open Woods It Uncommon II Melanerpes erythrocephaluis Year-round

Woodpecker, Yellow-bellie d Woods, orchards II Common II Sapsucker Winter Sphyrapicus varlus Woodpecker, Yellow-Shaftei d Open Country near II II II Flicker large trees Colaptes auratus Year-round

Wren, Bewicks Farmyards, fence rot vs " Uncommon It Thryomanes bewickii Summer

Wren, Carolina Underbrush II Common II Thryothorus ludovicianus Year-round

Wren, House Brush Northern half of II It Troglodytes aedon Summer State

Wren, Winter Brush State-wide Uncommon II Troglodytes troglodytes INVENTORY OF BIRDS - HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

• • Habitat and/or : Range In : Abundance : Project : Species : Seasonal Status : Region or State: In Region : Impact :

Yellowthroat Grassy, shrubby State-wide Abundant Moderate Geothlypis trichas areas Negative Summer

Warbler, Black and White Deciduous trees State-wide Common High Mniotilta varla Summer Negative

Warbler, Cerulean Deciduous woods, Western two- II II Dendrolca cerulea Summer Thlrds of State

Warbler, Parula Woods, river swamp3 State-wide It II Parula americana Summer

Warbler, Pine Pines II II Moderate Dendrolca plnus Summer Negative

Warbler, Prairie Sapplings II II High Dendrolca discolor Summer II II Negative

Warbler, Prothonotary Wooded swamps & str earns " 11 It Protonotaria qltrea Summer

Warbler, Swainson's Wooded swamps and It Uncommon II Llmnothlypls Swalnsonll canebreaks Summer

Warbler, Yellow Thickets, orchards II Common II Dendrolca petechia Summer

Warbler, Kentucky Ground nest, decldu ous " II 11 Oporornis formosus woods Summer

Warbler, Hooded Moist deciduous wooi ds " It II Wilsonla cltrina Summer

Warbler, Worm-eating Deciduous tree slopi es North-Centra] L Moderate Helmltheros vermlvorus Summer State Negative

Warbler, Yellow Throated Pines, sycamores State-wide II High Dendrolca dominlca Summer Negative LIST OF FISHES INDIGENOUS TO THE LAUREL RIVER BASIN

The Impounding of Laurel River has adversely affected piscine species requiring a lotic environment. The following species are common in eastern Kentucky streams and probably inhabited Laurel River before Impoundment. An asterisk indicates fish that are now likely absent in Laurel River Lake, but may be found in the tributaries.

Common Name Scientific Name

*American brook lamprey Lampetra lamottel Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Theadfin shad (propogated) Dorosoma pentenense Rainbow trout (propogated) Salmo gairdneri Silver redhorse Moxostoma anlsurum Black redhorse Moxostoma duguesnei Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops ♦Northern hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans White sucker Catostomus commersoni Common carp Cyprinus carpio ♦Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus *Big-eye chub Hybopsis amblops ♦Silver jaw minnow Ericymba buccata *Common shiner Notropis cornutus Logperch Percina caprodes Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoldes *Roseyface shiner Notropis rubellus ♦Rosefin shiner Notropis ardens *Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus Fathead minnow Pimpephales promelas *Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Black bullhead Ictalurus melas Yellow bullhead Ictalurus natalis Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris *Stonecat Noturus flavus ♦Northern studfish Fundulus catenatus Brook sllverside Labldesthes sicculus White bass Morone chrysops Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoldes Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotls Warmouth Lepomis gulosus Rockbass Ambloplites rupestris Common Name Scientific Name'

White crapple Pomoxls annularis Black crapple Pomoxis nlgromaculatua Walleye (propogated) Stlzostedlon vltreum vltreum *Blackslde darter Perclna maculata *Ralnbow darter Etheostoma calruleum *Greenslde darter Etheostoma blennloldes Freshwater drum Aplodlnotus grunnlena *Banded sculpln Cottus carollnae

The preceding fishes were taken from A Field Manual of Kentucky Fishes, by William M. Clay. INVENTORY OF COMMON MAMMALS -- HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

• Habitat and/or : Range In : Abundance : Project : Species : Seasonal Status : Region or State: In Region Impact :

Bat, Bit Brown Caves, deserted Statewide Common Moderate Epteslcus fuscus buildings, cliffs and Negative trees

Bat, Big-eared II It It II Ci.ryuorlilnus rafinesquii

U.it, Eastern Pipistrel II II II II iMpistrellus subflavus

Bat, Little Brown II II II • 1 Ityotis lucifuRus

Bat, Red II II II II Laisurus borealis

Bat, Silver-haired Deep woods and under II It High Lasionycteris noctivagams loose bark Negative licti Vc:!' Small waterways II Uncommon Moderate cai.adensis Inner bark and water Negative plants

• • Bobcat Rodents and birds Common High Lynx rufus Hollow trees Negative chipmonk, Eastern Nuts, seeds, fruit II tt II Tautias striatU3 and Insects l)eer, Eastern White-taiL ed Browse, farm II II II O.icicoileus virglnianus crops, and grass

Fox, Gray Rodents, carrion, pou ltry " Abundant II Urocyon cinereoarRenteus fruit, berries, oth er mammals

II II F..x, Red Common It Vulpes fulva INVENTORY OF COMMON MAMMALS -- HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

• • Habitat and/or : Range in : Abundance : Project : Species : Seasonal Status : Region or State: i n Region Impact :

It Ink Fish, muskrat, other Statewide Common Moderate MusCela vison mammals, and birds Positive It tlole, Eastern Insects and earth­ II High Scalopus aquatlcus worms Negative Underground

(louse, Eastern Harvest Meadows and thickets II It II Kelthrodontomye humulls Seed

Mouse, Golden Trees and shrubs II II II I'eromyscus r.uttalli Seeds and fruit

II Mouse, house FLelds and houses Abundant II rtus musculus Seed

Mouse, White-footed Open woodlands, scrub by " Common Moderate Peromyscue leucnpus hillsides Seeds, plan ts Negative and insects

Muskrat Streambanks and shall ow " ft Moderate Ondatra ztbefhlcus water Positive Cattail roots, clams & fish

Lenimtng, Southern Bog Bogs, swamps, and Laurel Lake Uncommon II Synaptomys cooperl meadows region

Opossum Birds, small mammals, Statewide Common High Oideipliis marsuplalls eggs, and fruit Negative

Otter, River Streams, Fish, insect s II II Lut.ra • nriadensIs birds, frogs, &. snake s

Rabbit, Eastern Cottunta 11 Burrows and brush II Abundant II Sy1vtlagus florldanus Almost any above grou nd vegetation

II Raccoon Rodents, insects, fro gs " Moderate pmoyon lotor fruit, corn Negative Hollow tree INVENTORY OF COMMON MAMMALS -- HABITAT AND/OR SEASONAL STATUS, RANGE ABUNDANCE, AND PROJECT IMPACT, LAUREL RIVER LAKE, KENTUCKY

• • Habitat and/or : Range in : Abundance : Project : Species : Seasonal Status : [legion or State: In Region Impact :

Hat, Black Seed, other vegetation Statewide Common Moderate Rat t us rattii8 Houses and fields Negative

Rat, Cotton Grassy and weedy areas II Abundant High SiRiiiod.u. hispidus Farm crops Negative

Ral, Norway It II II II Rattus norveglcus

Rat, Southern Woodrat Caves and cliffs Laurel River Common If Neotoma floridana Fruits, berries, and seeds

Shrew, Short-tailed Stump, log, or burrow Statewide Abundant tl tilarlna brevlcauda Insects

Skunk, Spotted Brush and under farm Southeastern Common fl Spiloyale putorlus buildings Kentucky Insects, rodents, and fruits

Skunk, Striped Forest borders, fence Statewide II II Mephitis mephitis rows & meadows Rodents and Insects

Squirrel, Eastern Gray Trees 19 Abundant II Solurus carolinensis Nuts

Squirrel, Flying Trees, Animal matter II Common II Claucomys volans nuts, fruits, & seeds

Squirrel, Fox Trees ft II It Sclurus nlger Nuts, fruits, 6. seeds

Vxle, Pine Leaf mold II It fl t'itymys plnetorum Grass, grain, and othe r vegetation

Weasel, Long-tailed Burrows of other anlma Is " II II Mustela frenata Rodents and poultry

Woodchuck Burrows II II II Marmot a inonax Grass, seed, farm crop s other vegetation LIST OF REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

LAUREL RIVER LAKE

KENTUCKY

Cniiinon Name Scientific Name Frog, Bullfrog Frog, Chorus Frog, Cricket Acris crepitans Frog, Green Rana clamitans Frog, Leopard Rana pipiens Frog, Narrow-mouthed Frog, Pickerel Rana palustris Frog, Common Tree Hyla versicolor Frog, Spring Peeper Hyla crucifer Lizard, Glass-snake Ophisaurus ventralis Lizard, Brown Sklnlc Lizard, Five-lined Skink Eumeces spp Lizard, Swifts Salamander, Cave Eurycea lucifuga Salamander, Dusky ucouujkiiciLiiuy bpp Salamander, Four-toed Salamander, Long-tailed Salamander, Marbled Salamander, lludpuppy Necturus maculosus Salamander, Eastern Newt wotopncnajmus v*riaescens Salamander, Purple Gyrinoohilus porphyritirun Salamander, Red Pseudotriton ruber Salamander, Red-backed Plethodon cinereus Salamander, Slimy Plethodon glutinosus Salamander, Two-lined Eurycea bislineata Snake, Coachwhip Masticophis taeniatus taeniatus Snake, Cone Nosed Virginia striatula Snake, Copperhead ARkistrodon contortrix Snake, Corn Snake, Flat-headed Tantilla coronata Snake, Garder, Ribbon Thamnophis sauritus Snake, Garder Snake, Keeled Green Snake, Hog-nosed Heterodon s p p Snake, King La m p rop eicis SPP Snake, Eastern Black Racer k/OiuDer constrictor constrictor Snake, Rat Elaphe spp Snake, Timber Rattier Crotalus horridus Snake, Red-bellied Snake, Ring-necked Diadophis spp Snake, Scarlet Cemophora doliata Snake, Water Natrix spp Snake, Worm Carphophis amoena LIST OF THE COMMON TREES OF THE IWVUREL RIVER LAKE AREA KENTUCKY

Common Name Scientific Name Ash, iilne Fraxinus guadrangulata Ash, Wreen Fraxinus pennsylvanica Ash, White Fraxinus americana Basswood, American Ttlia americana Beech, American Fagus grandifolia Birch, River Betula niflra Birch, Yellow Betula alleghaniensis Black haw Viburnum prunifolium iioxelder Acer negundo Buckeye, Ohio Aesculus glabra Buckthorn, Carolina Rhamnua caroliniana Cherry, Black Prunus serotina Cherry, Common Choke Prunus virginlana Chestnut, American Castanea dentata Crah Apple, Southern Malus Angustifolia Oral. Apple, Sweet Malus coronaria Dogwood, Alternate-leaf Cornus alternifolia Dogwood, Flowering Cornus florida Elder, American Sambucus canadensis Elm, American Ulnus americana Elm, Hock Ulmus thomasii Elm, Slippery Ulmus rubra Elm, Winged Ulmus alata Fri ngetree Chionanthus virginlcus Cinseng, Devils-wa1klngstick Aralia spinosa Hawthorn, Frosted Crataegus pruinosa Hawthorn, Scarlet: Crataegus pedicellata Hemlock, Eastern Tsuga canadensis Common Name Scientific Name

Hick ii v , HltternuL Cue.::,fl. cordlformls 11 i ok* 'ey , Mockernut. C i n i tomentosa lifrk-iiy, I’lj'imt Carva plabra Hickory, SIia”i>ar!. Carya ovata Hickory, Shellbark Carya lacinlosa Hilly, American Ilex opaca Honeylocust Gledltsla triacanthos Hophnrnbeam, Eastern Ostrya vlrplnlana Hornbeam, American Carnlnus carollnlana Juniper, Eastern kedoedar Juniperus vlrplniana i.ooust, iliac1'. Robinia. pseudoacacia i. >ciist, Clammy Robinia, vlscosa i ia;.