1998 Kentucky Report to Congress on Water Quality

1998 KENTUCKY REPORT TO CONGRESS ON WATER QUALITY

KENTUCKY NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CABINET

DIVISION OF WATER

JANUARY 1999 The Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or disability and provides, 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.

This report was printed with state funds on recycled paper.

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS...... i

Introduction...... 1

Data Collection ...... 1

Ambient Monitoring Programs...... 1

Reference Reach Program...... 6

Intensive Surveys...... 7

Other Data Sources...... 7

Assessment Methodology ...... 11

Aquatic Life and Primary Contact Recreation Use Support...... 12

Fish Consumption Use Support...... 15

Drinking Water Use Support ...... 15

Use Support Summary ...... 17

Streams and Rivers ...... 17

Lakes...... 21

Wetlands ...... 22

Ground Water ...... 24

Water Pollution Control Programs...... 24

i Introduction

This report was prepared by the Kentucky Division of Water (DOW) following submittal of electronic data to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April 1998 to fulfill requirements of Section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) as subsequently amended and commonly known as the Clean Water Act. Section 305(b) requires that states submit to EPA on a biennial basis a report assessing current water quality conditions. This report presents an assessment of Kentucky's water quality for the period October 1995 through September 1997. Information contained in the Background section (including the atlas) of the 1996 Kentucky Water Quality Report to Congress has not changed and can be accessed in that report.

Data Collection

The water quality assessment of rivers and streams in this report is based on the support of designated uses in state waters depicted on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:100,000 scale topographic maps, excluding the Mississippi River. According to EPA’s Reach File 3, the maps contain about 49,100 miles of streams. Approximately 9,232 miles were assessed by the DOW. The 664 miles of the Ohio River bordering Kentucky were assessed by the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO).

Ambient Monitoring Programs

Water Quality. Forty-four primary ambient water quality monitoring stations, characterizing approximately 1,432 stream miles, were operated by the DOW during the reporting period. (Table 1; Figure 1). For ground water, over 100 ambient monitoring sites are maintained by DOW. In addition, 13 lakes were sampled for eutrophication trends. Water quality data from nine stations operated by federal and other state agencies were used to supplement DOW water quality data (Table 2; Figure 1). Various other water quality data sources are described in a later section.

1 Table 1. Kentucky Division of Water Fixed-Station Monitoring Network BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING MAP RIVER ROAD PERFORMED NO. STATION NAME MILE LOCATION 1996 - 1997 1 Tug Fork at Kermit 35.1 KY 40 X 2 Levisa Fork near Louisa 29.6 KY 644 3 Levisa Fork near Pikeville 114.6 KY 1426 X 4 Little Sandy River near Argillite 13.2 KY 1 5 Tygart’s Creek near Load 28.1 KY 7 6 Kinniconick Creek near Tannery 10.4 KY 1149 7 Licking River at Claysville 78.2 US 62 X 8 N. Fork Licking River at Milford 6.9 KY 19 X 9 S. Fork Licking River at Morgan 11.7 KY 1054 X 10 Licking River at West Liberty 226.4 US 60 X 11 Little KY River near Bedford 9.4 US 42 12 Kentucky River at Frankfort 66.4 St. Clair St. Bridge 13 Kentucky River at High Bridge 135.1 50 Kentucky River at Lockport 31.0 14 Eagle Creek at Glencoe 21.5 US 127 15 S. Elkhorn Creek near Midway 25.3 Moores Mill Rd. Bridge 16 Dix River near Danville 34.6 KY 52 17 Boone Creek at Hunt Club 3.8 Grimes Mill Rd. 18 Red River at Clay City 21.6 KY 11/15 19 Kentucky R. near Trapp 191.2 Red River Ferry Rd. 20 N. Fk Kentucky R. at Jackson 304.5c Old KY 30 21 M. Fk. Kentucky R. at Tallega 8.3 KY 708 22 S. Fk Kentucky R. at Booneville 12.1 KY 28 23 Salt River at Shepherdsville 22.9 KY 61 24 Salt River at Glensboro 82.5 KY 53 25 Rolling Fk near Lebanon Junctiond 12.3 KY 434 25A Rolling Fk at New Haven 38.8 US 31E X 26 Beech Fork near Maud 48.1 KY 55 X 27 Pond Creek near Louisville 15.5 Manslick Rd. Bridge 28 Green River near Livermore Livermore Boat Ramp 29 Pond River near Sacramento 12.4 KY 85 30 Rough River near Dundee 62.5 Barrets Ford Bridge 31 Mud River near Gus 17.4 KY 949 32 Barren River at Bowling Greend 37.5 College St. Bridge 32A Barren River at L & D 1c 14.5 Greencastle Rd. 33 Green River at Munfordville 225.9 US 31W

2 34 Nolin River at White Mills 80.9 White Mills Ridge 35 Bacon Creek near Priceville 7.2 C. Avery Rd. Bridge 36 Tradewater River near Sullivan 15.1 US 60/641 36A Tradewater River near Olney 72.7 KY 1220 37 Little River near Cadiz 24.4 KY 272 X 51 Clarks Rivere 56.7 X 52 West Fork Clarks Rivere 21.0 X 54 Red River - Dote 58.8 X 55 Obion Creek - Mayfielde 48.2 X 38 Cumberland R. at Turkey Neckd 393.7 KY 214 39 Big S. Fk. Cumberland R. at Blue Heron 44.7 Old Rail Bridge X 56 Cumberland River @ Molus 679.1 X 40 Rock Creek near Bell Farm 17.1 White Oak Bridge X 41 Little South Fk. Cumberland R. near Ritner Ford 5.4 Freedom Church X 42 Rockcastle River at Billows 24.4 Old KY 80 X 43 Horse Lick Creek near Lamero 7.5 Daugherty Rd. Ford 53 Poor Fork @ Rosspointe 695.4 X 44 Cumberland R. at Cumberland Falls 562.3 KY 90 X 45 Cumberland R. at Pinevilled 654.4 Pine St. Bridge 46 Martins Fk near Cumberland Gap National Pk 27.4 Off Hwy 987 X 47 Clarks River at Almo 53.5 Almo-Shiloh Rd. Bridge 48 Mayfield Creek near Magee Springs 10.8 KY 121 X 49 Bayou de Chien near Clinton 15.1 US 51 X a Water quality samples collected monthly d Water quality site only b Stations not sampled in 1996-1997 e Biological site only c 49.7 miles upstream of confluence with S. Fk KY R.

3 Figure 1. Fixed Station Monitoring Network # Stream Station Locations O4 1998 305b # 14 9 8 11# # # 5 # # # # # 7 6 50 4 O5 12 # # 27 # # # W1 # 24 15 2 # 17 10 O3 # # 1 # # 18 # 23 # # 18A # 13 # 26 # 19 25 # # # 20 30 34 25A 16 ## # 3 # 28 # # # # V3 # 22 21 # # 43 # 36 # 35 # V2 # # 29 36A 33 # 42 V1 # # # O1 31 32A 48 # # 53 # O2 56 # 37 32 # 45 # # 41 # 44 # # 55 54 38 # # 52 # # # 40 # # 47# # 39 46 49 51

4 Biological. Kentucky’s biological monitoring program consisted of a network of 49 stations located in 12 river basins (Table 1; Figure 1). The majority of the sites are at or near the physicochemical sampling sites. In 1993, the network was expanded to include stations on eight of the nine Kentucky Wild Rivers. Approximately one-fourth of the sites are sampled each year on a river basin approach. For instance, all stations in the Big Sandy, Licking, and Salt river basins were sampled in 1996, and all stations in the lower Cumberland, Tennessee and Mississippi river basins were sampled in 1997. Data collected from these 17 stations were used to assess warmwater aquatic habitat (WAH) use support in stream miles. The data were also used to determine potential sources of any use impairment, changes to existing water or habitat quality, background values against which future conditions can be compared, and problems with toxic and conventional pollutants, bacteriological contamination, and nuisance biological growth.

Table 2. Water Quality Stations Maintained by Federal and Other State Agencies Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission River Mile No. Map Cumberland River at Pinckneyville 16.0 01 Tennessee River at Paducah 5.0 02 Green River near Sebree 41.3 03 Licking River at Covington 4.5 04 Big Sandy River near Louisa 20.5 05

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Russell Fork near Elkhorn City 116.0 V1 Levisa Fork at state line 151.5 V2 Knox Creek at state line 7.6 V3

West Virginia Department of Natural Resources

Tug Fork at Fort Gay, WV 0.1 W1

Algal samples were collected from each biological monitoring station using both artificial substrates (for biomass estimates) and natural substrates (for algal identification and community structure evaluation). The condition of the algal community was determined by a Diatom Bioassessment Index (DBI), which includes the following metrics: total number of

5 diatom species, diversity, pollution tolerance index, and relative abundance of sensitive species. Relative abundance of non-diatom algae and biomass (chlorophyll a and ash free dry-weight) were used to arrive at the DBI. Fish were collected for community structure evaluation at biological monitoring sites where sampling could be conducted. The condition of the fish community was determined by species richness, relative abundance, species composition, and the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). The IBI was used to assess biotic integrity directly by evaluation of 12 attributes, or metrics, of fish communities in streams. These community metrics include measurement of species richness and composition, trophic structure, and fish abundance and condition. The IBI was used to assign one of the following categories to a fish community: excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor, or no fish. Macroinvertebrates are collected from both artificial substrates and all available natural habitats. A Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index (MBI) is calculated from several other indices, including, at a minimum: 1) taxa richness, 2) total number of individuals, 3) Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, and 4) Percent Community Similarity Index. Additional metrics are used depending on factors such as ecoregion and type of impact.

Reference Reach Program

The DOW began a program in 1991 to gather physical, chemical, and biological data from the state’s least impacted streams. The program looks at candidate waters as representative of geographic regions of the state known as ecoregions. This program defines the physical, chemical, and biological potentials for the streams of a particular ecoregion and allows a comparison with other streams in the same ecoregion. It also helps determine the potential legitimate uses of other streams in the same region. The data from this program will provide the basis for the development of narrative and numerical biocriteria for the various ecoregions of the Commonwealth. Data on chemical water quality, sediment quality, fish tissue residue, habitat condition, and biotic conditions are collected. Fifty-five stream sites from seven proposed ecoregions were initially sampled in the spring and fall of 1992-1993 under the Reference Reach Program. For this reporting period, 11 6 new sites were also sampled, resulting in a total of 689 miles that have been assessed for WAH use since 1992. Forty of these sites have been placed into the Reference Reach Program (Table 3: Figure 2). Spring and fall collections will continue in order to increase the biological data base from undisturbed streams that can be used to compare with impacted streams. At the same time, program personnel will continue to develop and refine the necessary metrics used to evaluate the relationships between biotic communities and habitat conditions in streams across Kentucky.

Intensive Surveys

Twenty-nine intensive surveys were conducted on 178.1 miles of streams to evaluate point source and nonpoint agricultural pollution, baseline water quality, and the status of water quality in streams assessed previously.

Other Data Sources

Discharge Monitoring Data Reports. Discharge monitoring report data, collected by KPDES permit holders, were accessed through DOW’s permit compliance system database. Depending on the relative sizes of the wastewater discharge and the receiving stream and the severity of permit violations, it was often possible to assess instream uses as threatened or impaired.

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Data. Fisheries investigation reports prepared by the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) were used to assess WAH use for several streams. The KDFWR conducts field surveys that identify streams capable of supporting a sustainable year-round trout fishery. These data allow the DOW to classify streams as Coldwater Aquatic Habitat (CAH). Streams classified as CAH were considered to fully support the CAH use and were considered as monitored waters in the assessment. Another source of data for the evaluated category was a list of streams recommended by the KDFWR as candidates for Outstanding Resource Waters. They were recommended because of

7 Table 3. KENTUCKY DIVISION OF WATER REFERENCE REACH SITES Map Station Name River County Road Location No. Mile CENTRAL APPALACHIAN ECOREGION Kentucky River Basin 1 Clemons Fork 0.5 Breathitt Robinson Forest Rd. 2 Clemons Fork 0.6 Breathitt Robinson Forest Rd. 3 Coles Fork 0.6 Breathitt Robinson Forest Rd. 4 Right Fork Buffalo Creek 1.1 Owsley Off Whoopflarea Rd. Upper Cumberland River Basin 5 Bad Branch 0.2 Letcher KY 932 Bridge 6 Bark Camp Creek 2.5 Whitley USFS Rd. 193 7 Cane Creek 7.0 Laurel Off Middle Fork Rd. 8 Eagle Creek 3.0 McCreary KY 896 Bridge 9 Marsh Creek 12.6 McCreary KY 478 Bridge 10 South Fork Dog Slaughter Cr. 3.6 Whitley USFS Rd. 195 WESTERN ALLEGHENY ECOREGION Licking River Basin 11 Bucket Branch 0.1 Morgan Leisure-Paragon Rd. Br. 12 Devils Fork 0.2 Morgan KY 711 Bridge 13 North Fork 13..0 Morgan Off Leisure-Paragon Rd. Little Sandy River Basin 14 Arabs Fork 0.1 Elliott KY 1620 Bridge 15 Big Cane Creek 7.9 Elliott Off Binion Ford Rd. 16 Laurel Creek 7.6 Elliott Carter School Rd. Br. Kentucky River Basin 17 Station Camp Creek 19.0 Estill Off KY 1209 18 South Fork Station Camp Creek 5.3 Jackson KY 89 Bridge 19 Sturgeon Creek 4.0 Lee Off Sturgeon Creek Rd. Upper Cumberland River Basin 20 Horse Lick Creek 1.9 Jackson Horse Lick Creek Rd. INTERIOR PLATEAU ECOREGION Green River Basin 21 Beaverdam Creek 7.6 Edmonson KY 101-259 Bridge 22 Gasper River54 32.4 Logan Bucksville Rd. Bridge 23 Goose Creek 5.6 Casey Off Brock Rd. 24 Russell Creek 60.5 Adair KY Hwy. 80 25 Russell Creek 25.6 Adair Off KY 768 26 Trammel Fork 18.5 Allen Red Hill Rd. Bridge 27 Trammel Fork 26.6 Allen Concord Church Rd. Br.

8 Lower Cumberland River Basin 28 Whippoorwill Creek 4.3 Logan KY 2395 Bridge Kentucky River Basin 29 Clear Creek 4.1 Woodford Hifner Mill Rd. Bridge 30 Muddy Creek 13.4 Madison KY 52 Bridge Ohio River Basin 31 Yellowbank Creek 4.4 Breckinridge Cart-Manning Rd. Salt River Basin 32 Salt Lick Creek 5.3 Marion Off Salt Lick Rd. 33 Wilson Creek 12.2 Bullitt Mt. Carmel Church Rd. Tradewater Basin 34 Sandlick Creek 6.7 Christian Mt. Carmel-Camp Cr. Rd. 35 Upper Tradwater River 128.9 Christian T. Sparkman Rd. Bridge Upper Cumberland River Basin 36 Buck Creek 28.9 Pulaski Off Bud Rainey Rd. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY LOESS PLAINS ECOREGION Tennessee River Basin 37 Blood River 15.1 Calloway Grubbs Lane Rd. Bridge 38 Panther Creek 1.0 Calloway KY 280 Bridge 39 Panther Creek 1.2 Graves KY 2580 Bridge 40 Soldiers Creek 2.6 Marshall KY 58 Bridge their outstanding value as sport fishing streams. These streams were assessed as fully supporting warmwater aquatic habitat use if there were no data which conflicted with the assessment.

Louisville MSD/U.S. Geological Survey. The Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, in cooperation with the USGS, has a monitoring program for streams in Jefferson County. Twenty-six stations are monitored for a variety of parameters including fecal coliform bacteria. Macroinvertebrate and fish collections are also made. The chemical and bacteriological data from 1992 - 1997 were used for this report, and they were considered to be monitored data in the assessments.

9 Figure 2.

10 Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. Data from streams surveyed by the KSNPC for a special project to obtain background aquatic biota and water quality data in the oil shale region of the state was published in a 1984 report entitled Aquatic Biota and Water Quality and Quantity Survey of the Kentucky Oil Shale Region. Although more than ten years old, these data are still considered valid and were used in this report.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Field work conducted for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and verified by the KSNPC and KDFWR, identified streams in Kentucky that harbored the blackside dace, a federally threatened species of fish. This work was considered as monitored data. These streams are automatically classified as Outstanding Resource Waters and were judged to fully support the WAH use.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Blaine Creek watershed has been monitored by the COE- Huntington District for several years in conjunction with the Yatesville Lake project. The COE macroinvertebrate and chemical data were utilized for this report.

U.S. Forest Service. U.S. Forest Service data were used for several streams in the Daniel Boone National Forest.

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. The local government conducts biological and water quality monitoring of several streams in Fayette County. These data were used in assessing WAH and swimming uses for this reporting period.

Assessment Methodology

Overall use support was assessed by following EPA guidelines that define fully supporting as fully supporting all uses for which data are available. If a segment supported one use but did not support another, it was listed as not supporting. For instance, if a segment supported a warmwater aquatic habitat use but not a primary contact recreation use, it was listed as not

11 supporting. A segment is listed as partially supporting if any assessed use fell into that category even if another use was fully supported. Many waterbodies were assessed for only one use because data were not available to assess other uses.

Aquatic Life and Primary Contact Recreation Use Support

The water quality and biological data described in the preceding pages were used to determine stream use support status. The data were categorized as “monitored” or “evaluated.” Monitored data were derived from site-specific ambient surveys and were generally no more than five years old. In some instances where watershed conditions remained mostly unchanged, monitored data collected prior to 1993 were still considered valid, and streams described by those data were categorized as monitored. Evaluated data were from other sources such as questionnaires to regional field personnel or from ambient surveys that were conducted more than five years ago. The criteria for assessing these data to determine use support are explained below. In areas where both chemical and biological data were available, the biological data were generally the determinant factor for establishing WAH use support status. This was especially true when copper, lead, or zinc criteria were contradicted by biological criteria. The DOW made this decision in recognition of the natural ability of surface waters to sequester metals, rendering them less available to aquatic life by reducing the toxic “dissolved” fraction.

Water Quality Data. Chemical data collected by the DOW, ORSANCO, Virginia, West Virginia, and the USGS at fixed stations were evaluated according to EPA guidelines for the preparation of this report. Water quality data were entered into EPA’s national storage and retrieval (STORET) database and compared to criteria. The segment fully supported the WAH use when criteria for dissolved oxygen, un-ionized ammonia, temperature, and pH were not met in 10 percent or less of the samples collected from October 1995 through September 1997. Partial support was indicated if any one criterion for these parameters was not met 11-25 percent of the time. The segment was not supporting if any one of these criteria was not met more than 25 percent of the time. 12 Data for mercury, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc were analyzed for violations of acute criteria listed in state water quality standards using three years of data (from October 1994 through September 1997). The segment fully supported its use if all criteria were met at stations with quarterly or less frequent sampling or if only one violation occurred at stations with monthly sampling. Partial support was indicated if any one criterion was not met more than once but in less than 10 percent of the samples. The segment was not supporting if criteria were exceeded in greater than 10 percent of the samples. The assessment criteria are closely linked to the way state water quality criteria were developed. Aquatic life are considered to be protected if, on the average, the acute criteria are not exceeded more than once every three years Fecal coliform and pH data were used to indicate the degree of support for Primary Contact Recreation (swimming) use. The swimming use was fully supported if the criterion was not met in 10 percent or less of the measurements, partially supported if the criterion was not met in 11-25 percent of the measurements, and not supported if the criterion was not met more than 25 percent of the time. Streams with pH below 6.0 units were judged to not support swimming use.

Biological Data. Biological data for 1996-1997 were collected from 17 fixed monitoring network stations in six river basins, 40 reference reach sites, and 29 intensive surveys. Algae, macroinvertebrates, and fish were collected, and several community structure function metrics were analyzed for each group of organisms as described earlier in this chapter. These metrics were used to determine biotic integrity and designated use support for each stream segment monitored (Table 4). Expectations for metric values are dependent upon stream size, ecoregion, and habitat quality and were applied accordingly. Bioassessments integrated data from each group of organisms, habitat data, selected physical and chemical parameters, and professional judgment of aquatic biologists. The diatom bioassessment index classifies algal communities as excellent or good (supporting), fair (partially supporting), or poor (not supporting). For the macroinvertebrate evaluations, stream reaches were considered to fully support the WAH use if information reflected no alterations in community structure or functional compositions for the available

13 Table 4. Biological Criteria for Assessment of Warmwater Aquatic Habitat (WAH) Use Support Fully Supporting Paritally Supporting Not Supporting

Algae Diatom Bioassessment DBI classification of DBI classification Index (DBI) fair, increased biomass of poor, biomass Classification of (if nutrient enriched) of very low excellent or good, filamentous green (toxicity), or high biomass similar to algae. (organic reference/control or enrichment). STORET mean.

Macroinvertebrate Macroinvertebrate MBI classification of MBI classification Bioassessment Index fair, EPT lower than of poor, EPT low, (MBI) excellent or good, expected in relation to TNI of tolerant high EPT, sensitive available habitat, taxa very high. species present. reduction in RA of Most functional sensitive taxa. Some groups missing alterations of functional from community. groups evident.

Fish Index of Biotic Integrity IBI fair. IBI poor, very (IBI) excellent or good, poor, or no fish. presence of rare, endangered or species of special concern. EPT=Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, RA=Relative Abundance, TNI=Total Number of Individuals habitats and if habitat conditions were relatively undisturbed. A reach was considered partially supporting uses when information revealed that community structure was slightly altered, that functional feeding components were noticeably influenced, or if available habitats reflected some alterations and/or reductions. Reaches were considered not supporting uses if information reflected sustained alterations or deletions in community structure, taxa richness and functional feeding types, or if available habitats were severely reduced or eliminated. For fish, reaches with an IBI of excellent or good were considered to fully support uses. Reaches were assessed as partially supporting uses if they had an IBI of fair, while reaches were considered not supporting uses when the IBI category was poor, very poor, or no fish.

14 Fish Consumption Use Support

Fish consumption is a category that, in conjunction with aquatic life use, assesses attainment of the fishable goal of the Clean Water Act. Assessment of the fishable goal was separated into these two categories in 1992 because a fish consumption advisory does not preclude attainment of the aquatic life use and vice versa. Separating fish consumption and aquatic life uses gives a clearer picture of actual water quality conditions. The following criteria were used to assess support for the fish consumption use: · Fully Supporting: No fish advisories or bans in effect. · Partially Supporting: “Restricted consumption” fish advisory or ban in effect for general population or a subpopulation that could be at potentially greater risk (e.g., pregnant women, children). Restricted consumption is defined as limits on the number of meals consumed per unit time for one or more fish species. · Not Supporting: “No consumption” fish advisory or ban in effect for general population, or a subpopulation that could be at potentially greater risk, for one or more fish species; commercial fishing ban in effect.

Drinking Water Use Support

In 1986, amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set drinking water standards for 83 contaminants listed in the Act and an additional 25 contaminants every three years thereafter. EPA established a phased approach for introducing standards and requirements for testing for the first group of 83 contaminants. Phase I - established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for a group of 8 volatile organic compounds. Phase II - established MCLs for 17 pesticides, 8 inorganics, 10 volatile organics, a new MCL for PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), and deleted the MCL for silver. Phase III - set criteria for radionuclides. Phase IV - set criteria for disinfection by-products and for disinfection for groundwater.

15 Phase V - set drinking water standards for 5 inorganics, 3 volatile organics, 9 pesticides, and 6 other organic contaminants.

Phase II of EPA’s schedule required monitoring and reporting for a large number of contaminants to be completed by 1995. Phase V established MCLs and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) for a number of Phase II contaminants. (MCLs are enforceable standards considered feasible and safe. MCLGs are nonenforceable health goals that water systems should try to achieve.) Phase V also took advantage of the monitoring information provided through Phase II. These two phases required testing for the largest number of contaminants of the five phases. Original cost estimates for each water system to do Phase II/Phase V analyses ranged from $10,000 to $12,000 a year. Because of costs and the small number of laboratories certified to do the required tests (in 1993, there were no labs fully certified for these tests in Kentucky), the Department for Environmental Protection committed its analytical laboratory, the Division of Environmental Services to carry out testing for systems that served 10,000 or fewer customers. Larger public and industrial/commercial systems were responsible for their own sampling and analysis. The department conducted sample analyses and provided sampling containers, preservatives, supplies, and transportation costs involved in getting the samples to the lab. During 1993, DOW personnel spent 3,844 hours in various aspects of the sampling program. The project consumed almost all of the laboratory’s capacity for analyzing organics. Organic analyses of other samples collected by the department were contracted to commercial laboratories. Sampling for each system was done on a quarterly basis, and results from four consecutive quarters were used to determine compliance. Following the initial four quarters of sampling, a three-year monitoring period was established. Waivers may be granted for individual systems for various contaminants based upon initial sampling results and vulnerability of the system to those contaminants. For purposes of assessing drinking water use, results of the Phase II/Phase V and subsequent compliance monitoring of finished water were compared to MCLs. Although not a quantitative

16 measurement of ambient water quality, it highlights waters in which certain pollutants are high enough to exceed drinking water criteria even after conventional treatment by the drinking water plant. Lacking instream data, which historically has been scarce in Kentucky for drinking water constituents, EPA’s 1998 305(b) report guidance recommends using the finished water data for assessing drinking water use support.

Use Support Summary

Streams and Rivers

Aquatic life, swimming, drinking water, and fish consumption uses were assessed. Excluding the Ohio River, full support of uses occurred in 6,153 miles (67 percent), uses were not supported in 2,004 miles (21 percent), and partial use impairment was found in 1,072 miles (12 percent) of the assessed waters (Table 5.) This summary does not include ORSANCO’s assessment of the mainstem of the Ohio River. ORSANCO reported that none of the 664 miles of the Ohio River bordering Kentucky fully supported swimming or fish consumption uses. For aquatic life use, 553 miles fully supported and 61 miles partially supported. Swimming use was affected mostly by combined sewer overflows. Fish consumption use was affected by limited fish consumption advisories for PCBs and chlordane in fish tissue. The Mississippi River, which forms 71 miles of Kentucky’s western border, was assessed by Missouri. Swimming use was impaired to a much greater extent than was aquatic life use (Table 6). The major causes of use nonsupport were fecal coliform bacteria contamination (pathogen indicators), which affected swimming use, and siltation and nutrients, which impaired aquatic life use (Table 7). Nonpoint sources impacted about three times as many miles as point sources. The major sources of the fecal coliform contamination were sanitary (both municipal and package wastewater treatment plants), agricultural nonpoint sources, septic tanks, and straight pipes. Sanitary wastewater facilities were also the source of the organic enrichment, while mining and agricultural nonpoint sources were the major sources of siltation (Table 8). For the drinking water use, 68 of the 389 public water suppliers dependent on surface waters had 171 violations of maximum contaminant levels (MCL) for the period October 1, 1995 to

17 September 30, 1997. Violations were for total coliform, turbidity, and trihalomethanes. These problems were a result of treatment processes and do not relate to instream use impairment. Eighteen groundwater systems had 27 MCL violations for inorganics (cadmium, barium thallium, beryllium), nitrates, and total coliform. Inadequate sewer collection systems are a major concern in many towns. Surface waters are impacted by overflows from these systems primarily during and immediately following rainfall events. Swimming advisories were in effect in three areas of the state, and citizens have been advised not to swim in streams in and downstream of urban areas following rainfall events. Fecal coliform contamination caused swimming advisories to be re-issued for the Licking River and two tributary streams near Covington, 86 miles of the upper reaches of the North Fork Kentucky River, and the Cumberland River and several streams in the Upper Cumberland River basin in Bell and Harlan counties. Fish consumption advisories remain in effect for the Mud River and Town Branch in Logan, Butler, and Muhlenberg counties, the West Fork of Drakes Creek in Simpson and Warren counties, Green River Lake, and Little Bayou Creek in McCracken County because of PCB contamination, and for five ponds on the West Kentucky Wildlife Management Area (McCracken County) because of mercury from unknown sources. The entire length (664 miles) of the Ohio River bordering Kentucky remains posted with fish consumption advisories because of PCB and chlordane contamination. The Ohio River advisories are specifically for the consumption of channel catfish, carp, white bass, paddlefish, and paddlefish eggs. Twenty-seven fish kills totaling about 32,304 fish were reported by the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources during 1996-1997, affecting 67 miles. Fish kills were most commonly attributed to nutrients and oxygen-demanding materials. For a report of all the streams assessed, see the Division of Water’s website at http://water.nr.state.ky.us/305b/data.pdf. For a map of assessed streams, see http: //water.nr.state.ky.us/305b/maps.htm.

18 Table 5. Summary of Assessed Use Supporta Miles Assessed Basis

Degree of Support Evaluated Monitored Total Fully Supporting 1773.6 4154.8 5928.4 Fully Supporting but Threatened 91.7 133.1 224.8 Partially Supporting 423.7 648.7 1072.4 Miles Not Supporting 580.6 1423.1 2003.7 TOTAL 2869.6 6362.5 9232.1 a Excludes mainstems of Ohio and Mississippi rivers; refer to ORSANCO and Missouri 305(b) reports

Table 6. Summary of Individual Use Support Rivers and Streams Use Full Threatened Partial Non Total Support Support Support 1. AQUATIC LIFE Miles 5960.2 263.70 998.20 1052.40 8,275.50 Percent 72.0 3.2 12.1 12.7 100.0 2. SWIMMABLE Miles 538.10 77.40 503.60 1391.20 2,510.30 Percent 21.4 3.1 20.1 55.4 100.0 3. FISH CONSUMPTION Miles 1532.10 4.40 122.70 1,659.20 Percent 92.3 0.3 7.4 100.0 4. DRINKING WATER SUPPLY Miles 1425.30 18.00 1,443.30 Percent 98.8 1.2 100.0

19 Table 7. Causes of Use Impairment Rivers and Streams Cause Miles Affected Percent Pathogens 1617.0 31.0 Siltation 1136.3 21.8 Nutrients 576.5 11.1 Organic Enrichment/Low DO 474.6 9.1 Habitat Alterations (non-flow) 337.8 6.5 pH 286.2 5.5 Suspended Solids 189.5 3.6 Metals 163.3 3.1 PCBs 132.1 2.5 Salinity/TDS/Chlorides 78.0 1.5 Oil and Grease 42.5 0.8 Cause Unknown 29.2 0.6 Flow Alterations 26.1 0.5 Pesticides 22.9 0.4 Priority Organics 18.0 0.3 Ammonia (unionized) 17.4 0.3 Noxious Aq.Plants native 13.4 0.3 Radiation 13.0 0.2 Unknown Toxicity 11.2 0.2 Chlorine 8.7 0.2 Nonpriority Organics 8.4 0.2 Mercury 6.5 0.1 Thermal Modifications 6.5 0.1 Turbidity 1.4 0.0 TOTAL 5216.5 100.

20 Table 8. Sources of Use Impairment - Rivers and Streams Point Nonpoint Total Source Miles Percent Miles Percent Miles Percent Agriculture 984.3 28.1 984.30 19.7 Resource Extraction 916.8 26.2 916.80 18.3 Municipal Point Sources 810.7 65.3 810.70 16.2 Improper Waste Disposal 590.0 16.8 590.0 11.8 (includes straight pipes) Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers 450.6 12.9 450.60 9.0 Industrial Point Sources 276.8 22.3 276.80 5.5 Source Unknown 260.10 5.2 Hydromodification 128.2 3.7 128.20 2.6 Habitat Modification 115.3 3.3 115.30 2.3 Collection System Failure 113.20 9.1 113.20 2.3 Grazing-Related Sources 82.3 2.3 82.30 1.6 Construction 67.6 1.9 67.60 1.4 Crop-Related Sources 63.8 1.8 63.80 1.3 Silviculture 56.1 1.6 56.10 1.1 Animal Feeding Operations 41.6 1.2 41.60 0.8 Combined Sewer Overflow 40.4 3.3 40.40 0.8 Spills 6.0 0.2 6.00 0.1 Natural Sources 1.7 0.0 1.70 0.0

Lakes

The water quality assessment of lakes included more than 90 percent of the publicly owned lake acreage of Kentucky. Eighty-eight of 121 lakes (73 percent) fully supported their uses, 27 (23 percent) partially supported uses, and 6 (5 percent) did not support one or more uses. On an acreage basis, more than 92 percent (199,961 acres) of the 218,362 assessed acres fully supported uses, eight percent (17,849 acres) partially supported uses, and less than one percent (552 acres) did not support one or more uses (Table 9). Nutrients were the most frequent cause of uses in lakes not being fully supported (Table 10). Agricultural runoff, land disposal, and septic tanks were the principal sources of the nutrients (Table 11). PCBs affected one lake of considerable size, resulting in a high percentage of lake

21 acres impacted by priority organics (Table 10). Naturally shallow lake basins, which allow the proliferation of nuisance aquatic weeds that impair secondary contact recreation, accounted for the second greatest cause of use nonsupport. Other natural conditions such as manganese releases from anoxic hypolimnetic water and nutrients in runoff from relatively undisturbed watersheds affected domestic water supply and secondary contact uses, respectively. Suspended solids from surface mining activities impaired the secondary contact recreation use in fewer eastern Kentucky reservoirs than in the previous two-year reporting period. An analysis of lake trophic status indicated that of the 105 lakes assessed, 58 (55.2 percent) were eutrophic (including three that were hypereutrophic), 35 (33.3 percent) were mesotrophic, and 12 (11.4 percent) were oligotrophic. One-half of the lake acres assessed (108,151 acres) were eutrophic. Of the rest, 22 percent were mesotrophic and 29 percent were oligotrophic.

Wetlands

Wetlands are considered waters of the Commonwealth and are protected from loss and degradation primarily through the process of Water Quality Certification. The WQC process requires that new wetland impacts be mitigated at a minimum ratio of two acres restored for each one acre lost. With the exception of wetland losses due to surface coal mining in Western Kentucky, most wetland losses are small and due to development impacts in growing urban areas. In the time period 1996-1997, the historical trend toward unmitigated wetland loss was reversed. In addition to wetland mitigation required for permitted wetland losses, a wetland mitigation “bank” was established in Nelson County. This facility is a private for-profit venture that has restored 91 acres of prior converted wetland back to wetland status in hopes of selling wetland “credits” to those in need of wetland mitigation in the future. Two more “banks” are under review at the present time. One advantage of this approach is that wetland acres are restored before losses occur. This allows the time necessary to restore the wetland functions that are lost. Wetland banking is gaining favor nationwide and is on the rise in Kentucky.

22 Table 9. Summary of Lake Use Support Degree of Support Number Acres Fully Supporting 88 199,961 Partially Supporting 27 17,849 Miles Not Supporting 6 552

Table 10. Causes of Use Impairment Lakes Name Acres Affected Percent Priority Organics 8210 43 Nutrients 7513 40 Suspended Solids 1940 10 Metals 452 2 Shallow Lake Basin 551 3 Other inorganics 135 1 pH 219 1

Table 11. Sources of Impairment Name Acres Affected Percent Industrial Point Sources 8210 31 Source Unknown 6743 26 Agriculture 5582 21 Resource Extraction 2294 9 Land Disposal 1475 6 Natural Sources 1418 5 Other (Septic Tanks) 153 1 Municipal Point Sources 139 1 Contaminated Sediments 86 >1

23 Ground Water The DOW continues to operate an ambient ground water monitoring network of more than 100 sites. Data analyses of nitrate and pesticides from wells in western Kentucky have been published, and work is in progress to publish more data analyses in cooperation with the Kentucky Geological Survey. The Ground Water Branch has identified the major sources of ground water contamination as animal feedlots, fertilizer and pesticide applications, underground storage tanks, landfills, surface impoundments, septic systems, mining activities, spills, and urban runoff.

Water Pollution Control Programs

In order to better characterize the water of the state and better coordinate resources toward addressing problems, Kentucky is adopting a Watershed Management Framework. The purpose of this management framework is to use programs, people, information, and funds as efficiently as possible to protect, maintain, and restore water and land resources. This approach provides a framework, in time and place, within which participating individuals and institutions can link and support one another's efforts in watershed management. According to the adopted Framework, the state is divided into five basin management units (see Schedule below) for the purposes of focusing management activities spatially. Activities within each unit will follow a five-year schedule, staggered by one year, so that efforts can be better focused temporally within a basin. Phases in the cycle include collecting information about water resources in the basin, identifying priority watersheds, listing the watersheds in the basin in order of priority and deciding which problems can be solved with existing funds, determining how best to solve the problems in the watershed, developing an Action Plan, and carrying out the strategies in the plan. Public participation is also encouraged throughout the process, allowing citizens and organizations to stay informed and have an active role in management of the resource.

24 Scoping and PHASE 1 Data Gathering

PHASE 2 Assessment

Prioritization and Repeat PHASE 3 Every 5 Targeting Years

PHASE 4 Plan Development

PHASE 5 Implementation

Each basin will be phased into the Watershed Framework schedule as listed below: · July 1997 – Kentucky River Basin · July 1998 – Salt and Licking River Basins · July 1999 – Cumberland, Tennessee, and Mississippi River Basins · July 2000 – Green and Tradewater River Basins · July 2001 – Big Sandy, Little Sandy, and Tygarts River Basins Benefits of this approach include: · Better coordination of resource management activities around common basin management units and schedules: · Partnering can stretch limited dollars for implementation activities · Better information about water resources without higher monitoring costs: · More data as monitoring efforts are coordinated – a four-fold increase in assessment data is expected in the Kentucky River Basin in 1998 · Better data as agencies standardize methods and procedures. · Greater opportunities for citizen involvement The ground water program in Kentucky continues to make advances to strengthen protection strategies and to implement regulations. The Driller Certification Program and Wellhead Protection Program continue to ensure that water obtained from wells drilled in the state is safe

25 for all citizens. The Wellhead Protection Program was part of Kentucky’s Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) submitted to EPA in 1997. The Kentucky SWAP was the first in the nation to be submitted to EPA for approval. Programs and regulations of agencies other than the Division of Water (e.g. State Superfund and RCRA programs) are also being fully implemented (Table 12). Water Watch, a citizens’ education program, has 270 water testing teams in place, each equipped with field kits that measure dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, nitrates, chloride, and iron. Also, 160 biological monitoring teams have been placed in the field. The Water Watch Program also supports shoreline cleanup projects, community education, and leadership training. A total of $100,000, in the form of seed grants of up to $5,000, was again provided through the Community Rivers and Streams Programs to help watershed organizations improve river and riparian management. The DOW supports these organizations with technical support and information. Also, the DOW has created an international "Sister Rivers" project to link river groups from different countries with Kentucky-based watershed organizations. Kentucky's water pollution control programs continued to improve existing water quality and develop new approaches for controlling pollution. Permitting of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and stormwater outfalls was initiated in the summer and fall of 1991 and proceeded throughout this 305(b) reporting period. By the end of 1997, 86 municipal and 59 industrial wastewater treatment facilities had KPDES permit requirements for whole effluent toxicity testing. The DOW conducted acute and chronic toxicity tests on 45 point source discharges in 1996 and 1997. A total of 1,589 tests were conducted by permitted facilities. One hundred and nineteen facilities (82 percent) were in compliance with their toxicity limits, and 26 facilities (18 percent) were conducting toxicity identification/reduction evaluations to reduce the toxicity of their effluents. Pretreatment programs have been approved in 76 cities to better treat industrial wastes flowing into publicly owned treatment works. Sixty-eight of the programs are active. New programs were approved and implemented in five municipalities. A state revolving loan fund program has continued to help meet the needs of wastewater treatment plant construction. Twenty-six municipal wastewater treatment projects were

26 Table 12. Ground Water Protection Programs Programs or Activities Implementation Status Responsible State Agency Active SARA Title III Program Continuing efforts Department for Environmental Protection Commissioner’s Office Ambient ground water monitoring Continuing efforts Division of Water system Aquifer vulnerability assessent Completed Division of Water Aquifer mapping Ongoing Kentucky Geological Survey Aquifer characterization Ongoing Kentucky Geological Survey Comprehensive data management Fully Established Division of Water system CSGWPP Evaluating Division of Water Ground water discharge permits Continuing efforts Division of Water Ground water Best Management Fully established Division of Conservation Practices Ground water legislation Fully implemented Division of Water Ground water classification Ground water quality standards Interagency coordination for ground Fully established Interagency Technical Advisory Committee water protection initiatives Nonpoint source controls Fully established KPDES Pesticide State Management Plan Fully established Division of Pesticides Pollution Prevention Program Continuing implementation Division of Water Resource Conservation and Recovery Continuing efforts Division of Waste Management Act (RCRA) Primacy State RCRA Program incorporating more stringent requirements than RCRA Primacy State septic system regulations Fully established Health Services Cabinet Underground Storage Tank Installation Fully established Division of Waste Management Requirements Underground Storage Tank Fully established PSTEAF Remediation Underground Storage Tank Permit Continuing efforts Division of Waste Management Programs Underground Injection Control Fully established EPA Region IV Program Vulnerability assessment for drinking Completed Division of Water water wellhead protection Well Abandonment Regulations Continuing efforts Division of Water Wellhead Protection Program (EPA- Fully established Division of Water approved) Well installation regulations Continuing efforts Division of Water

27 completed in 1995-97. These projects have either replaced outdated or inadequate treatment facilities, addressed inflow/infiltration problems, or have provided a centralized collection and treatment system for the first time. Since 1989, Kentucky has received more than $202 million in capitalization grants and has added $40 million in state funds under this program. The Kentucky Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Control Program is currently providing oversight and funding (Clean Water Act Section 319[h] grants) for 70 active projects. These projects seek to reduce and control runoff pollution through watershed demonstrations, education, training, best management practice demonstration, technical assistance and enforcement. Kentucky’s NPS program has received a total of more than $11 million through Section 319(h) grants from EPA since 1990. NPS biologists continue to monitor water quality in two watersheds with NPS pollution remediation demonstration projects. The Upper Salt River/Taylorsville Lake and Fleming Creek projects both involve agricultural pollution remediation throughout the entire watershed. These are long-term studies to determine nonpoint source impacts and demonstrate water quality improvements from best management practices. Other important watershed remediation projects being implemented by NPS Program cooperator include Mammoth Cave (agriculture), Triplett Creek (on-site wastewater), Horse Lick Creek (off road vehicles), and Panther Creek (agriculture). Grant funds are also provided to support other monitoring initiatives including an expansion of DOW’s surface and groundwater monitoring and stream-flow partitioning analysis of the surface water data. Education efforts in the NPS program are producing several noteworthy achievements. Two video programs on pollution problems from nonpoint sources in Kentucky were produced under contract with Western Kentucky University. One of the videos focuses on abandoned mine lands and water quality. Funding was awarded to the American Cave and Conservation Association to assist in developing NPS-related exhibits at its American Museum of Caves and Karstlands located in Horse Cave. The DOW has contracted with the Kentucky Waterways Alliance to award small grants to local citizen waterway groups for nonpoint source education projects. The DOW also continues to provide financial support for the Kentucky Master Logger Program.

28 ke n La k Pe u lloc B k

Ten Mile Creek

Eagle Creek ek ds Creek re Arnol C le B g o a lt E z M La o k se e b y Br B ush ra Cree nc k h Eagle Creek Tw o M L ile i C c re k ek

r In di e an Creek e k

ch ran ill B 2000 Kentucky Water Quality Report m eam Ratt le Clark St snake s Creek ek Creek Cre Mill

k Cree k k le e Cree e Eag Eagl E re Ca B l s i l t u F c M o k r rk k r R e o M u F v i i n E t l l a s R e C g r y l e e W e k C k c re u e t k

n e E K agl G e C ra K ree s en k sy tuc R ky R u ive n r eek Cr win T g T hre M Bi e il Fo Mu l C rks ss re Cr elm ek ek ee an re k Cr C E ee s lk Creek k n e tev S

ek R un Cre ichl mily R on and C E n C o en re r r e i D k n

k t h e Elmer D e N avis Lake L r a o C k k r e r e t h u e

r h S

p C e l v u k e c S i r Aquatic Life l n

a C l r

C e

F k i v e M i le S ev C ern re C e re k K ek

t u k c ree k C y le ag R E

ek i own Cre v T ixmile Creek e k S r ee Cr dge dri aw C S e Fully d agle Creek a E r

C r e e k

Ly tles Fo k rk o r F s ta an B

Flat Creek e

v i Threatened

reek Sixmile C Partial

un s R pte N om o eC r L

t h reek Ke C F nt uck ho rn o y Rive th Elk r r or k N

r t McCo nnell Run h n

B u R e k n e y e r s r D o E C n lk rn h C o o rn h r C lk e r e E e e Not supporting k h k rt N o o rt h B N Bens e on n C Cree s k o a n n

eek C e on Cr r Bens ee R k u n

eek Cr So on uth ens Elkh B orn uth Cree So k C a n e R u n Not assessed ek e Cre oos G Gl un enns C r R reek da Ce

Av on F o rk County.shp

T ow n B ran ch

W N ol or f th Streams R E un lkh or n C re ek k ree s C er So ri u G th

El kh o reek rn an C C ickm re k t H ek e Eas re C an m

k E ic

H s t s t

e H B k a ee W i r c u C g r k ea h l m of C m a a T n U n

F C o r r k e

e k k ee k Cr ree ne d C oo war B Ho wer Lo

C le a r C re e k k e re c n ia d n I rk o ver F Ri st cky a nt u E Ke F our Mile Cr k eek e e

d Hickm r a a n Creek w

e O p

t p te ek r C U re

r k C ee L n k e u a

l i W e b d r e In g o k C

e r l k r u k f e e p e r e d

e e t e C R r r t C e d C n d r R C e r O e i v n C e o f e er a er i F k iv r o C ed R d R e a w l o k H Ju dy Creek e l r a k G k l rd M a o w e i h F ic d e k d r S t C r le s e C e F a k e k o e E r n k i e S r R w m e C d i a f r R t s e i s t v C t e e a O r m J k p r o r C e C F r iv e t R h e s y i k k m e c tu n W n e e K y k h c T e e S n o h r a a c p n r C n

d B a C r r L d B r ork e e g F t ic o d Do k o o e a M k F H o ill Cr w eek L l r H ake l o r i k t Cree iver rk e e ate ed R w p R T ork R o ck S o uth F o p bridge S L U Fork

Camp ton Cit y L ake

L ak e R ek Silv e re er C b C reek a mp Sw Ca ift C ift am w p to S Cre k T ek W ree U il C g ak B r D e O i e g e r it

n o h W S w L i a n n k k k

e i e i

n e r n

g C ke g La k n to g C w e rin C Her o e r r H C r

e k C e r o e g e o y

k n k F s i B s k t F n a r i o c a S r k H e k k t l e C it e

r L r e C e ek l k e i M d Cr k k ke e v u oo e e Cr Cr e re d s C k d er D l l i e y S il v M r e e C t r e D a r C re t e eek i w Cr H e o p ly Lick a k o p l int y n U o Pa s L F C H or a k m p Ke F nt uck ro ze C y Rive H n Cre r r e ek e ll e C k r e e un k ks R B lar k C o e

e eek r n r e C C

k uc r F

e B o

k C r o l p k e F a ork Hu W nti ng eek er C y Cr Dix Riv re ane ek ig C k h ranc W B e s B a e ow r d r t Mea C C u n r N Wal e

e Q k k o c r i t u h L

c F e k t M id o k i d l s e Fo r P k K r e h entu a k cky R k a e iv n er n r

r W Red K Lick Creek d o b C

k e F ilberts Cree o G C Ha n d w w es g r Fo t n rk n u l e a i c L e g s

k a k n k k e y k c a ane Creek i e C k R e H r ee u C r i k C v Q n e win e a e r T r K g r pe n o o C p blic U Spring F ork k C L reek n o e g Sou th Fo r rk Qu icksand C u reek t D u S c Low k er B F uf f o alo r C k reek

ek Mi re m p Creek ddl k gh C ncheo n Ca e F rakes Creek Cree au Pu or D mp van k Q n Ca Ca uic atio k ks k St r an r o d h Fo C ut F re So e k k c k ake k u Me ree ord City L r adow e C tanf o D Cr om S F eek b les ar Trou W

C e d reek a Buck C r C C rk o r Fo l k e e ns s e e o k m F Copper Creek e le o r r C e r C k iv R n Bu ckh o y o r k n C e c reek u g t L r C n o o u e w n t C g K re F S e k k o r r e o k l t F t i h L t o L u s D o t i S L C x e r R ek a e Cre t e iv on h k e rge e r tu r S w o nch o n Bra d Bole

C k r r e o e F k s ll a B Freem an Fork

k Left F ork Island Cree Left Fo rk B B uf falo Creek u Gra ffa pev lo ine C Cre re ek e k k ree e C ek om re es C ubl e ro om T s e le k b a ou L r T L n itt r le o Sex h ton k Cr c eek u R B ig h t

F o k r e k re k C B e u e n r to f x f C e h a l L S c o d o n o tts a C o C r r w r B e r ee e e k n k h a t D a e ig L B ek se Cre Goo

B k i ee k g r e C e C in r r a C e rt e reek e rd k se C C khou r la Roc Fo il ll W Carr e Fork L ake Laurel Creek ek H ig Bullskin Cre B rk o F r ar C

eek L r ef C C t ll u tshin Fo u Creek rk B M i lls to ne h

n k a e r e r Po B tt C e s r ' W s F e o y o r o c k ork n t a g F n e on n M L a B r C er G r e t C e k o Big Creek e mb k a s Creek L La Big reek ke d o ose C n Little G k o ree p e C h us s kho i oc k F R ree se C G ird River hou o Red B ck o Ro se Polls Creek C re e k r e H iv orse Creek ek R Cre ky ugar ork c S ine F tu L en k K e k re G or C ilb F ert h le s ek rt b Big re o u Cr d C N o eek oo D erw ig ath B Le Elisha Creek

rk s Fo llin Co G re as y C re ek

Line Fork

B ul l C k re or ek F H ns k amm ons ee ree Fork K y C eas Gr Fork B L in e e

KY Division of Water/11-1-00 Eagle Creek Ea g le C re ek

Eagle Creek

Clark s Creek 2000 Water Quality Report

rKe ive nt y R uck ck y R ntu iver Ke Fish Consumption

e r Fully

k Threatened

e K Partial

ek Ke Cre nt uck ho rn y Rive th Elk r Nor

k e re C E rn lk o ho h rn lk Cr E ee h k rt o N Not supporting

k Cree kh orn th El Sou Not assessed County.shp Streams

B a u g h m a n F o r k

C le a r C re e k

ek re C e iver n y R o o t uck B Ken

O tte r Cr ee L k u lb e g r k u k e d e e re r C C C r e e e e an i k d C a l G

Red River

er iv R ky uc nt Ke

Si lver C reek

Mud dy C reek k e re Lake C gt on w errin o H C

Dix River

Midd le F o rk Kentu cky River

C le m o n s reek F e C o om r b les k Trou

C o le s F r o e rk iv R y ck tu n e K rk o F th u o S

e k a L

n r o h k c u B

ek se Cre Goo River Red Bird

Cu tsh in Creek

KY Division of Water/11-1-00 Eagle Creek Ea g le C re ek Eagle Creek 2000 Water Quality Report

rKe ive nt y R uck ck y R ntu iver Ke

M il l C re ek

k ee Cr on enn Dr Swimming

e r Fully

k Threatened

e K Partial

Ken t ucky River

k e re C E rn lk o ho h rn lk Cr E ee h k rt o n N u Not supporting R s e an L

Sou th E lkho rn C reek L C ee a n B U e ra R n T u c o n h f C a n Not assessed e R u n County.shp

T ow n B ran ch

W o No lf rt R h E un lkh Streams or n C re ek

So u th

El kh o ek rn Cre C an r ickm ee k t H k e Eas re C an m

k E ic

H s t s t

e H

W i

k k ree e C on Bo

C le a r C re e k

U T

to E ver a Ri s ky t t uc F o en rk K C le ar C re ek Hickma n Creek

k e R re ed C Riv e er an C H ard wi ck Cre ek

er iv R ky uc nt Ke

P aint L ick C reek reek Tate C

Si lver C reek

Mud dy C reek ake gt on L Herrin

ek Cre lers Mil

Dix River

Midd l e Fo rk Ken k tu ck r y River o F

g n i g n a No H rt h F ork S Ke ta n t tuc io ky n Ri C ver a m p C re e k

reek me C b leso Trou

r e iv R Bu ckh y o rn Cre ck ek tu n e K rk o F th u o S

B u ffa lo C re ek

ek re C e om e s k le a b L u ro n T r o h k c u B

No rt h Fork ek Kent u se Cre cky Rive Goo r River Red Bird

k e e r C s e c a M

k ree se C khou Roc

k ree r C ive od y R rwo uck the ent ea rk K L Fo dle Mid

Line Fork

Fork L in e

KY Division of Water/11-1-00 Lake Pen lock Bu l 2000 Water Quality Report

k e e r C

n r e v e S Drinking Water Supply Fully Threatened Partial Not supporting Not assessed County.shp Streams

iver y R t uck Ken

Mill Cr eek Lake

Camp ton Cit y L ake

ake gt on L Herrin

e d City Lak Stanf or

e k a L

n r o h k c u B

B er t Co mb s L ake

KY Division of Water/11-1-00