Red River Gorge Restoration & Watershed Plan

Clean Water Act §319(h) PROJECT FINAL REPORT

for

Grant # C9994861-09

Application Title: Red River Gorge Restoration & Watershed Plan

Application # EEC-DOW-NPS (09-09)

Memorandums of Agreement: # PO2 129 1000003233 1 #10-CO-11080221-010

Project Period: 05/01/10 – 12/31/15

Submitted by: Jon Walker, Hydrologist USDA Forest Service Daniel Boone National Forest 1700 Bypass Road Winchester, Kentucky 40391

The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (EEC) and the Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF) under the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or disability. The EEC and DBNF will provide, on request, reasonable accommodations including auxiliary aids and services necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in all services, programs and activities. To request materials in an alternative format, contact the Kentucky Division of Water, 200 Fair Oaks Lane, 4th Floor, Frankfort, KY 40601 or call (502) 564-3410, or contact DBNF at (859) 745-3100.

Funding for this project was provided in part by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Kentucky Division of Water, Nonpoint Source Section, to DBNF as authorized by the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987, §319(h) Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant # C9994861-09. Mention of trade names or commercial products, if any, does not constitute endorsement. This document was printed on recycled paper.

2 | Page

B. Acknowledgements

The Daniel Boone National Forest and private landowners in the Red River Gorge area of Wolfe and Menifee Counties, Kentucky thank the United States Environmental Protection Agency §319(h) program and the Kentucky Division of Water under the Energy and Environment Cabinet’s Department for Environmental Protection for providing funding, administrative support and technical assistance for the Red River Gorge Restoration & Watershed Plan project.

This project would not have been possible without cooperation and assistance by the following organizations and individuals:

• Kentucky Division of Water project team members Margi Jones, Daniel Bishop, Jim Roe, Brooke Shireman, and Deven Carigan for their expertise and diligent support; • Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources for providing matching funds through their in-lieu fee program; • Wolfe and Menifee County officials for providing invaluable support; • Tessa Edelen, and Judy Petersen from Kentucky Waterways alliance for their tireless efforts with watershed planning, meeting facilitation, and monitoring; • Current and former Daniel Boone National Forest employees for countless hours making this project a success. This project could not have been accomplished without Dave Manner, Tim Eling, Denise Carpenter, Aaron Miller, Missy Elderidge-Colgan, Rita Wehner, Charlie Rowe, Glen Scott; Paul Finke, Freda Neal, Gwen Hensley, Kim Morgan, and Claudia Cotton.

3 | Page

C. Table of Contents

Contents B. Acknowledgements ...... 3 C. Table of Contents ...... 4 D. Executive Summary ...... 6 E. Introduction & Background ...... 7 F. Materials & Methods ...... 8 Project Area ...... 8 Methods Used ...... 11 G. Results & Discussion ...... 19 H. Conclusions ...... 29 I. Literature Cited ...... 29

List of Figures Figure 1: Location map ...... 10 Figure 2: Eroding trail prior to grant ...... 11 Figure 3: Eroding campsite prior to grant ...... 12 Figure 4: Eroding campsite near a stream ...... 12 Figure 5: Water running down a trail after a rain storm ...... 13 Figure 6: Typical water bar ...... 13 Figure 7: Typical lead-off ditch ...... 14 Figure 8: Actual lead-off ditches associated with broad-based dips ...... 14 Figure 9: Installing typical campsite closure signs ...... 15 Figure 10: Iceberg rocks that discourage tents ...... 15 Figure 11: Stream trash ...... 16 Figure 12: Monitoring locations ...... 18 Figure 13: Eroding user-developed campsite before restoration ...... 20 Figure 14: Rehabilitated campsite ...... 20 Figure 15: Closed four-wheeler trail ...... 21 Figure 16: Closed trail ...... 21 Figure 17: Newly installed foot bridge designed to minimize trail erosion ...... 21 Figure 18: Eroding trail before restoration ...... 22 Figure 19: Eroding trail after restoration ...... 22 Figure 20: Removing a tire from the Red River ...... 23 Figure 21: Taking tires to the dump ...... 23 Figure 22: Local High Schoolers and Wolfe County workers ...... 24 Figure 23: Wolfe County "Clean Sweep Day" ...... 24 Figure 24: "Leave No Trace" presentation ...... 25 Figure 25: Educational banner ...... 25

4 | Page

Figure 26: Environmental education for Ohio River Foundation students ...... 26 Figure 27: Environmental education at Creation Falls ...... 27 Figure 28: "More Kids in the Woods" program ...... 27 Figure 29: Morehead State University student workers monitoring stream flow & water quality28

List of Tables Table 1: Sub-watershed information ...... 9 Table 2: Estimated stream sediment reductions ...... 20

5 | Page

D. Executive Summary

The Red River flows for over 97 miles through eastern Kentucky, until it reaches the Kentucky River near Winchester. Over the years, the river formed the Red River Gorge. The Gorge is a beloved, heavily visited part of our state. It is known for its natural stone arches, caves, rock shelters, and cliffs overlooking magnificent stream valleys. The Red River is Kentucky's only National Wild & Scenic River.

There were two main goals of this project; protection of the Red River Gorge by reducing erosion and stream sedimentation from recreation; and developing a watershed based plan that focuses on identifying pollution sources in the watershed, quantifying pollution coming from each source, and making recommendations for Best Management Practices (BMPs) to improve water quality in the future.

Specific accomplishments of this project include:

 Rehabilitating 157 eroding user-developed campsites  Reducing erosion on over 32 miles of trail  Eliminating 416 tons of stream sedimentation per year  Cleaning trash from over 75 miles of stream  Developing watershed plans for the Red River Gorge and the upper portions of four sub- watersheds

Many public involvement and educational components were part of this project:

 A watershed group was formed  Red River Gorge visitors were educated about ways to reduce erosion and “Leave No Trace” techniques  Environmental education occurred in the classroom and in the woods  Educational banners and brochures were developed and distributed

The Red River Gorge Restoration & Watershed Plan project achieved the “Measures of Success” established during planning. Each goal and objective was met. The lessons learned during this project will be used in other areas of the Daniel Boone National Forest and across the southeastern United States.

6 | Page

E. Introduction & Background

The Red River Gorge is a national treasure that is sometimes referred to as the “Grand Canyon of the East”. This unique and scenic natural area occurs within the boundaries of the Daniel Boone National Forest in eastern Kentucky. The gorge is known for its free-flowing streams, abundant natural stone arches, unusual rock formations, and spectacular sandstone cliffs. State and federal designations within the area include the Red River Gorge Geological Area, National Wild and Scenic River, State Wild River, Outstanding National Resource Water, Clifty Wilderness, National Natural Landmark, National Archaeological District, and a National Scenic Byway. These designations guide the management and protection of watersheds, wildlife, archaeological resources and spectacular geologic features in the gorge. The Red River is also a priority watershed under Kentucky’s Watershed Management Framework. The river was given this designation to protect it from several threats.

The Red River Gorge is visited by an estimated half million people per year from around the world. This high level of visitor use is putting a heavy burden on the natural resources. The Forest Service maintains a network of 67 miles of trails but users have created an additional 194 miles of unauthorized trail. In addition, users have developed hundreds of campsites, vistas, and rock climbing routes. These user developed trails, campsites, and highly impacted areas are not maintained by the Forest Service and as a result are causing erosion and stream sedimentation.

The Red River Gorge is downstream of privately owned land, small towns and farms (see Figure 1). Streams in these headwater areas are mostly in good condition but are threatened by illegal dumps; loss of streamside vegetation; runoff from towns, agriculture, and rock quarries. Pathogens in several creeks threaten public health and drain into the Red River Gorge. Swift Camp Creek and one of its unnamed tributaries, upstream of the gorge, are list as impaired in the Kentucky 2010 Integrated Report to Congress (KDOW, 2010) for sedimentation, loss of riparian, sewage disposal, and other unknown causes.

Historically, efforts to improve and protect water quality have been implemented on a piece-meal basis and did not examine entire watersheds. This project was designed to comprehensively look at both the upper and lower portions of these watersheds and reduce impacts to water quality from non-point source water pollution. Specifically the project goals that were listed in the initial grant application are:

• Project Goal #1: Develop a combined watershed based plan that addresses water quality problems. This will be done in two phases (upper & lower areas). • Project Goal #2: Reduce the sediment being introduced into the Red River from known recreation threats in the Red River Gorge.

To reach these goals, several objectives were initially set. They are as follows:

• Project Objective #1: The first phase will include the development of a watershed protection plan for the Red River Gorge that is deemed acceptable by the KDOW. This will be done early in the process so implementation can begin quickly.

7 | Page

• Project Objective #2: After the watershed protection plan is approved in the lower watershed the plan will be implemented. Based on an existing protection watershed plan in this area, recreational stream sedimentation threats would be greatly reduced or eliminated. • Project Objective #3: The second phase will include the development of a watershed plan for the upper watersheds. A biologic assessment will be completed in the upper watersheds. The watershed plan will also identify water quality problems, sources and possible solutions for the impaired Swift Camp Creek watershed. • Project Objective #4: Combine the lower and upper watershed plans and develop a combined watershed based plan for all four sub-watersheds (6th or 12 digit HUCs).

This project developed comprehensive watershed based plans (WBP) both for the Red River Gorge (lower) and the upper portions of the watershed. These WBPs, developed by local stakeholders, characterized existing conditions, identified and prioritized water quality problems, defined objectives, developed protection strategies, and started to implement solutions. After discussing with the Division of Water the two plans were never completely combined but are rather like two separate chapters of a book.

As a result of implementing BMPs, numerous recreation impacts in the lower portion of the watershed (eroding campsites and trails) were rehabilitated. Tons of stream sedimentation and solid waste issues were eliminated. Unfortunately, the work is not completed. Septic and trash problems still occur in the headwaters and stream sedimentation from recreation still persists lower in the four sub-watersheds. These issues will be addressed with subsequent projects and grants.

F. Materials & Methods Project Area The Red River flows for over 97 miles through eastern Kentucky, until it reaches the Kentucky River near Winchester. Over the years, the river formed the Red River Gorge. The Gorge is a beloved part of our state, known for its natural stone arches, caves, rock shelters, and cliffs overlooking magnificent stream valleys. The Red River is Kentucky's only National Wild & Scenic River. Its headwaters are in the hills of the Cumberland Plateau in eastern Wolfe County.

This grant focuses on four tributaries to the Red River: Swift Camp Creek in Wolfe County, Clifty Creek in Menifee and Wolfe Counties, Gladie Creek in Menifee County, and Indian Creek in Menifee and Powell Counties (see Table 1 and Figure 1). These tributary streams are headwaters streams to the Red River, and they each begin on private land surrounding the Gorge. The project study area includes the communities of Campton, Valeria, Pomeroyton, and Mariba. Frenchburg is just outside of the project area, to the north.

8 | Page

Table 1: Sub-watershed information

Watershed Name HUC County County #2 Drainage Area Swift Camp Creek 051002040204 Wolfe 13,693 acres Clifty Creek – Red River 051002040205 Menifee Wolfe 8,917 acres (downstream portion – see map) Gladie Creek – Red River 051002040206 Menifee 20,884 acres Indian Creek – Red River 051002040209 Menifee Powell 23,769 acres (headwaters – see map) Total 67,263 acres – 105 sq. mi.

9 | Page

Figure 1: Location map

10 | Page

Methods Used

This project had four main objectives: 1) develop a watershed based plan for the lower Red River Gorge (RRG); 2) implement the lower RRG plan; 3) develop a watershed based plan for the upper portions of the four sub-watersheds; and 4) combine the two plans. Different methods were used to accomplish each objective.

Objectives 1: Prior to this grant a draft plan similar to a watershed protection plan had already been developed for the Red River Gorge (USFS, 2008). The plan known as the “Limits of Acceptable Change” (LAC) analysis was developed by the U.S. Forest Service with a group of stakeholders and identified numerous recreation caused impacts that were affecting water quality in the Red River. This watershed based plan was updated and formatted according to EPA “a through i” criteria. It was submitted to KDOW for acceptance and is included in Appendix A.

Objective 2: Many of the trails in the Red River Gorge were over used and under maintained (Figure 2). To control erosion and reestablish vegetation in the Red River, numerous trails were rehabilitated using Best Management Practices (BMPs). The rehabilitation included the development of water bars and lead-off ditches, brushing, seeding and trail relocations. In some locations trail bridges were installed to reduce stream sedimentation.

Figure 2: Eroding trail prior to grant

11 | Page

Hundreds of user-developed campsites were also closed. At many of these sites the bare ground had grown quite large and was eroding into near-by streams (Figures 3 & 4).

Figure 3: Eroding campsite prior to grant

Figure 4: Eroding campsite near a stream

The following summarizes the techniques used to restore eroding areas in the Red River watershed. A more detailed description is found in Appendix C.

Water Bars: Water bars are narrow structures that may be shallow or deep depending on the need. They are designed to divert water off of trail surfaces to prevent gullying. Without them muddy water can run from the ridge tops directly into streams (Figure 5). Figure 6 shows the typical dimensions for narrow-based water bars.

12 | Page

Figure 5: Water running down a trail after a rain storm

Figure 6: Typical water bar

Lead-off Ditches: Lead-off ditches, or turnouts, are important structures for reducing erosion from the outfalls of water bars (Figures 7 and 8). Care was taken to ensure adequate drainage at the outflow of a dip. They were never installed to discharge directly into a stream. The discharge

13 | Page

area was protected with stone, grass, heavy wood litter, brush, or logs, to reduce the velocity of the water. Natural litter may be adequate in many cases if the terrain is not too steep.

Figure 7: Typical lead-off ditch

Figure 8: Actual lead-off ditches associated with broad-based dips

Brushing: “Brushing” is the cutting of trees and brush and placing it over the trail or campsite that were closed. It was important that the material was big and frequent enough to deter future travel on the closed trails.

Campsite Closure Signing: User-developed campsites were signed and roped off with bio- degradable materials such a twine, paper signs, and flagging. Occasionally permanent signs were installed in heavy use areas (Figure 9).

14 | Page

Figure 9: Installing typical campsite closure signs

Iceberg Rocks, Fake Stumps, Tree Planting: This technique is used in eroding user-developed campsites to deter future camping. Placing rocks and stumps in the area make it difficult to establish a tent pad and give the area time to recover (Figure 10). Trees were also planted at these sites.

Figure 10: Iceberg rocks that discourage tents

15 | Page

Garbage Clean-up & Environmental Education: Unfortunately there is a considerably amount of legacy trash in the Red River and its tributaries (Figure 11). To combat this problem numerous Forest Service, County, and public clean-up days were scheduled.

Figure 11: Stream trash

A multiple pronged environmental education program was designed. It involved targeting visitors to the Red River Gorge, educating students, field trips, and community days.

Objective 3: For developing the upper watershed based plan the first step was to pick a format for the report. In 2008 the Kentucky Division of Water in cooperation with Kentucky Waterways Alliance published the “Watershed Planning Guidebook for Kentucky Communities”. Since most of the land in this part of the watershed is privately managed, this guidebook was a perfect fit.

To run the watershed planning process, mostly on private lands, it made sense to have and organization outside of the Federal Government lead the way. Since Kentucky Waterways Alliance help develop the guidebook they were a perfect group to subcontract with to lead the effort. In 2010 a watershed group was formed to help with the plan. The group included but was not limited to the following members:

 Local citizens  Conservation Board  Agricultural extension agent  User groups, including: fishers, climbers, hikers, horseback riders, OHV drivers, solitude seekers, water sports people, etc.  Fish and Wildlife Service  U.S. Forest Service  Friend of Red River  Land owners  Farmers  Water and waste water utilities

16 | Page

 Local elected officials  Schools  Faith Community  Eastern KY PRIDE  Business Owners  Tourism entities

When the group convened the first task was to gather any existing information about the watersheds that related to water quality. Information on many facets of the Red River Watershed including water resources, natural features, regulatory factors, and human influences was collected. Each of the creeks has distinctive attributes and water quality issues. Data gaps were filled by monitoring water quality and aquatic biology in 2011 and 2012. Rita Wright Consulting was the primary technical consultant on this project, collecting and analyzing water quality data. Third Rock Consulting, LLC, and the U.S. Forest Service acted as consultants for biological sampling. These data may provide more insight into the sources and thus, potential solutions to water quality issues. The monitoring sites are shown in Figure 12.

After all the information was collected personnel from Kentucky Waterways Alliance, the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky Division of Water, and the members of the watershed group analyzed the data in an effort to:  Understand what the data could tell us about the watersheds  Calculate pollutant loads  Target sub-watershed areas for implementation  Determine which future Best Management Practices will improve the aquatic ecosystem

The entire watershed based plan for the upper portions of these sub-watersheds can be found in Appendix B.

17 | Page

Figure 12: Monitoring locations

18 | Page

Objective 4: The lower Red River Gorge plan and the watershed based plan for the upper portions of the four sub-watersheds were developed at different times, by different groups of stakeholders, followed two similar but different formats, and had two separate types of issues. When the grant application was initially written the goal was to fully integrate these plans. After discussing with the Division of Water the two plans were never completely combined but are rather like two separate chapters of a book.

G. Results & Discussion

As previously mentioned in the “Methods Used” section on page 16, this project fully completed three main objectives and took a slightly different approach on the fourth. The results are discussed by objective and include the following “Measures of Success” from the original project agreement:

A. Work with local citizens and governments to develop a two phase combined Watershed Based Plan. This plan will help address water quality issues in this portion of the Red River and provide protection where needed. B. Stop a majority of the recreation caused erosion and stream sedimentation in the Red River Gorge. This will be accomplished by implementing the BMPs that were identified during the Forest Service “Limits of Acceptable Change” process. C. Trash and garbage along the banks of the Red River will be cleaned up. Dump sites that are directly affecting water quality and esthetics will be cleaned up with the help of local volunteer groups. D. Additional water quality data will have been collected in the headwater areas of the project. A data analysis report including source identification and load calculations for the Swift Camp Creek watershed will have been accepted by KDOW. E. A public education program will have been developed. The public will better understand water quality issues in the watershed and how they can help address these challenges.

Objective 1: As previously mentioned, prior to this grant a draft plan similar to a watershed protection plan had already been developed for the Red River Gorge (USFS, 2008). The plan known as the “Limits of Acceptable Change” (LAC) analysis was developed by the U.S. Forest Service with a group of stakeholders. This watershed based plan was updated and submitted to KDOW for acceptance.

This plan was the basis for the work that was conducted in Objective 2. User-developed features (UDFs) were mapped and classified during the LAC process. Each UDF was field-assessed for several attributes, including condition class, erosion potential, proximity to water and cliffline, presence/amount of trash, location, and size. The updated watershed based plan calculated erosion and stream sedimentation loads and then set priorities for BMP implementation.

19 | Page

Objective 2: Erosion Control: Several techniques were used to determine if the project successfully controlled erosion and reestablished vegetation in the Red River watershed. First, the number of eroding user-developed campsites that were closed and the miles of trail with erosion BMPs were determined. These numbers were then used to calculate the reduction in erosion using the “Water Erosion Prediction Project” (WEPP) model (Eliott, 2000). Determinations were also based on erosion research by Dissmeyer and Stump (1978) and sediment delivery research by Roehl (1962). The results are expressed in tons per year. Since the accuracy of the WEPP model, as stated by Elliott, is plus or minus 50 percent of the true value, the results should not be viewed as absolute. The results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Estimated stream sediment reductions

Watershed Stream Number User- Miles of Trail Miles of Stream Sedimentation developed w/ Erosion Clean-up Reduction Campsites BMPs (tons/year) Closed Gladie Creek 139 77 8.6 1.7 Indian Creek 158 58 10.7 11.8 Clifty Creek 46 7 2.8 50.8 Swift Camp Cr. 73 15 10.7 10.8 Total 416 157 32.8 75.1

With the help from numerous Student Conservation Association (SCA) students over 150 eroding campsites were closed with this grant and many of them were planted with trees. SCA students and summer trails crews also installed BMPs on eroding trails. As a result there are less gullied trails, the amount of sediment reaching the Red River and its tributaries has been reduced, and localized fish habitat is better.

Another technique used to measure the success of erosion control efforts was photo monitoring. Figures 13 through 19 show previously eroding areas that are recovering.

Figure 13: Eroding user-developed campsite Figure 14: Rehabilitated campsite before restoration 20 | Page

Figure 15: Closed four-wheeler trail Figure 16: Closed trail

Figure 17: Newly installed foot bridge designed to minimize trail erosion

21 | Page

Figure 19: Eroding trail after restoration

Figure 18: Eroding trail before restoration

Stream clean-up: Stream clean-up projects were conducted throughout the grant period (Figures 20 - 23). County and Forest Service employees coordinated the clean-ups but most of the labor was provided by volunteers (local citizens, high school students, Student Conservation Association volunteers, kayak groups, etc.). Garbage was removed from over 75 miles of stream (Table 2).

22 | Page

Figure 20: Removing a tire from the Red River

Figure 21: Taking tires to the dump

23 | Page

Figure 22: Local High Schoolers and Wolfe County workers

Figure 23: Wolfe County "Clean Sweep Day"

Environmental Education: Visitors to the Red River Gorge were targeted in an effort to educate them on ways to reduce erosion and solid waste. In the summer “Backcountry Rangers” were hired to meet one-on-one with hikers and campers that were using the forest. These same

24 | Page

Rangers also put on “Leave No Trace” education programs at campgrounds and at trailheads (Figure 24). Another effective method was to talk with visitors at the Gladie Visitor Center. Interpreters were taught about low impact recreation and they discussed this with many of the 30,000 visitors per year. The grant also funded a banner that is being used at the Visitor Center (Figure 25).

Figure 24: "Leave No Trace" presentation

Figure 25: Educational banner

25 | Page

A sub-agreement was established with East Kentucky Pride to educate students in the 4th through 6th grades on environmental issues. Much of this occurred in the classroom but field trips also occurred throughout the year (Figures 26 – 28).

Sometimes voluntary efforts to reduce erosion through campsite closures and trail restoration don’t work. That’s why as part of our environmental education program we enlisted help from law enforcement. Forest Service protection officers checked for violations and wrote tickets when necessary. On the average, over 100 tickets per year are written in the Red River Gorge.

Figure 26: Environmental education for Ohio River Foundation students

26 | Page

Figure 27: Environmental education at Creation Falls

Figure 28: "More Kids in the Woods" program

27 | Page

Objective 3: To better understand the Red River watershed, existing data was compiled, over a year of water quality and biologic monitoring data was collected (Figure 29), and pollutant loads were calculated. With the help of concerned citizens, local officials, volunteer groups, and agency personnel a watershed based plan was written (Appendix B). Objectives were developed to reduce pollution and areas were targeted for future work. To improve conditions in the Red River future projects should focus on the following:

 Objective #1: Reduce E. coli pollutant loads from failing residential septic systems in Swift Camp Creek.  Objective #2: Reduce total suspended solids pollutant loads from trails and recreation site improvements and create or improve riparian buffers in Swift Camp, Gladie, Indian, and Clifty Creeks.  Objective #3: Reduce Total Phosphorus pollutant loads in Swift Camp, Indian, and Gladie Creeks.  Objective #4: Protect and improve water quality and habitat in Swift Camp, Gladie, Indian, and Clifty Creeks.

Figure 29: Morehead State University student workers monitoring stream flow & water quality

Objective 4: As previously discussed, Objective 4 is a compilation of Objectives 1 and 3.

28 | Page

H. Conclusions

Today, this portion of the Red River watershed is a different place. Erosion from user-developed campsites and trails has been reduced, streams have less trash due to our clean-up efforts, and students and adults have been educated. Just as importantly, there are watershed plans that will guide future protection and restoration efforts in this heavily used watershed.

Several lessons were learned from this project. First, public outreach is essential. It was important to coordinate with adjacent landowners, user groups and local officials. In a popular area such as the Red River watershed, it would have been difficult to reduce erosion and write a usable watershed plan without a collaborative effort.

The 5-year project duration was important to successfully implementing this grant, since some management practices required several attempts. Also working with the public is complicated and collaboratively writing a usable watershed plan would be challenging in less than 5 years. This is particularly true if there is a monitoring component to the plan. Stringing back to back grants together is an option but there is often lag time in between. This makes it difficult to hold the interest of much needed volunteers and public officials.

The photo monitoring was a useful technique in the Red River watershed. When visiting the area today and in the future, the photos will serve as a reminder of the previous land conditions. Depending on the area, this technique may better quantify changes than water quality or biological monitoring. In parts of this grant area there are upstream impacts that may cloud some of the water quality changes. Photographs are also easy for the lay person to understand.

This project could not have been completed without funding through the EPA §319(h) grant program and the assistance of the Kentucky Division of Water. Overall, the Daniel Boone National Forest and its partners consider the Red River Gorge Restoration and Watershed Plan project a great success, producing many positive outcomes for years to come.

I. Literature Cited

Dissmeyer, G.E. and R.F. Stump. 1978. Predicted erosion rates for forest management activities in the Southeast. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Southeastern Area. Atlanta, GA. 39 p. Elliott, W.J., D.E. Hall, and D.L. Scheele. 2000. WEPP interface for disturbed forest and range runoff, erosion and sediment delivery. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. Patric, J.H., J.O. Evans, J.I. Helvey. 1984. Summary of sediment yield data from forested land in the United States. J. For., 82 (2) (1984), pp. 101–104 Roehl, J. W. 1962. Sediment source areas, delivery ratios, and influencing morphological factors. IASH Comm of Land Eros, Pub 59:202-213.

29 | Page