corbin city reservoir watershed plan: final reportcorbin city reservoir is located within the laurel...

Prepared byTony Miller

2514 Regency RoadLexington, KY 40503

859.977.2000www.thirdrockconsultants.com

Prepared forKentucky Division of Water,

Watershed Management BranchJuly 2007

Project Period: July 7, 2004 – May 22, 2007

Grant No: C9994861-04 Application No: NPS04-13

Contract / MOA No:PON20600000955

Corbin City ReservoirWatershed Plan

Final Report

http://www.thirdrockconsultants.com/

Corbin City Reservoir Watershed Plan – Final Report

Grant No: C9994861-04 Application No: NPS04-13

Contract / MOA No: PON20600000955


for

Kentucky Division of Water, Watershed Management Branch 14 Reilly Road

Frankfort, KY 40601-1190

July 2007

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Tony Miller, Biologist Jennifer Shelby, Biological Engineer

www.thirdrockconsultants.com

Environmental Analysis & Restoration

O:\2003\3004-KDOW-319\Corbin Final WP Sept 07.doc i 9/4/2007

The Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet (EPPC) and Third Rock Consultants, LLC (Third Rock) do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or disability. The EPPC and Third Rock 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, 14 Reilly Road, Frankfort, KY 40601 or call (502) 564-3410, or contact Third Rock. Kentucky state agencies only, please include this statement: Hearing and speech-impaired persons can use the Kentucky Relay Service, a toll-free telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD). For voice to TDD, call 800-648-6057. For TDD to voice, call 800-648-6056.

Funding for this project was provided in part by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) through the Kentucky Division of Water, Nonpoint Source Section, to Third Rock as authorized by the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987, §319(h) Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant # C9994861-04. Mention of trade names or commercial products, if any, does not constitute endorsement. This document was printed on recycled paper.”


Acknowledgements Third Rock Consultants, LLC wishes to thank the following individuals, agencies, and organizations for their assistance with the development of this Watershed Plan:

• Richard Thomas and Sara Gilbert at the Kentucky Center for Rural Development • Deb Bledsoe from Appalachia-Science in the Public Interest • Steve Edge from the City of London • Ron Herd from the Corbin City Utilities Commission • Ann Hail and Col. Rick McClure from Corbin High School • Sharon Ball from Corbin Independent Schools • Clay McKnight, Sherri Chappell, and Tim Schwendeman from the Cumberland Area Development

District • Dr. Bret Kuss from Cumberland College, Dept of Biology • Joyce Kiogora from Cumberland Valley Area Development District • Joanne Coram and Rodney Henderickson from Cumberland Valley RC&D • Kentucky Department of Highways, District 11 • Dr. Sherry Harrell from Eastern Kentucky University, Dept. of Biological Sciences • Sue Kiplowitz, Friends of Sinking Creek • John Williams, KDFWR-Southeast Fisheries District Office • Tim Samples, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth • Brooke Shireman, Rob Miller, Michele Kozoil, John Eisiminger, Corrine Wells, and Lee Colten from

Kentucky Division of Water • Kevin Parsons, Knox County School District • Jack Stickney, KY Rural Water Association • Jim McDaniel, Laurel County PRIDE Co-Coordinator • Bill Browning, Laurel County Conservation District • Glenn Williams and Kim Whitson, Laurel County Cooperative Extension Office • Sandy Wallace, Laurel County Fiscal Court • Lawrence Kuhl, Laurel County Judge Executive • Jim Kennedy, Laurel County Schools, Facilities Director • Bill Meadors, Levi Jackson Wilderness Road State Park • Dane Gilpin and Bruce Yandell, London-Laurel County Planning & Zoning Commission • Randy Bingham, London Utilities Commission • Dennis Karr, London-Laurel County Industrial Development Authority • Eddie Miller, Corbin Mayor • Ken Smith, London Mayor • Lynn White and Mike Bowling, North Laurel Middle School • Ray Barry and Sherry Otto, Sierra Club – Cumberland Chapter • Jim Hays and Joan Garrison, The Nature Conservancy • Lindell Ormsbee, University of Kentucky College of Engineering • Loris Sherman, Upper Cumberland River Watershed Watch • Brent Harrel, US Fish and Wildlife Service • Richard Tippit, USACE-Nashville District • Jeff Moore and Samuel Miller, USDA-NRCS London Field Office • Jay Williams, Wood Creek Water District


Executive Summary Third Rock Consultants, LLC (Third Rock) was awarded an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 319(h) grant in 2004 to develop a Watershed Plan to identify and rank the sources of impairment in the Corbin City Reservoir watershed. Additionally, specific recommendations for remediation were considered. The Corbin City Reservoir, the drinking water supply for the City of Corbin (Kentucky), was listed as a first priority impaired water body in the Kentucky Division of Water’s 2002 draft list of impaired waters (KDOW 2002a). Their publication cited non-support and partial support for the use designations of drinking water supply and aquatic life, respectively. The pollutants of concern for drinking water were taste and odor and algal growth/chlorophyll a. Pollutants of concern for aquatic life were excessive nutrients, organic enrichment, and low dissolved oxygen. Suspected pollution sources included municipal point source discharges, agriculture, and internal nutrient cycling. The Watershed Plan for the Corbin City Reservoir watershed details the coordinated biological, chemical, and physical surveys of the watershed and identifies the major sources of impairments found. Additionally, the Watershed Plan prioritizes impairments based on practicality and presents recommendations for remediation, targeting the most critical areas in order to most efficiently and economically reduce pollution within the watershed. The information presented in the Watershed Plan substantiates the concern that upstream landuse practices are directly contributing to impairments in the Corbin City Reservoir. Though potential internal nutrient cycling and sedimentation issues exist within the reservoir, sources of pollution in the watershed must be addressed before any direct remediation efforts are explored to alleviate taste and odor problems, aquatic life issues, and the accelerated sedimentation within the reservoir. The most immediate sources of impairment to the Corbin City Reservoir found were nutrient addition and sedimentation. The primary sources of nutrients are London’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharge and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Nutrient additions from cattle waste runoff also occur. Regarding sedimentation, the entire watershed shows evidence of accelerated sediment input to the reservoir. Remediation recommendations for nutrients and sediment control in the Corbin City Reservoir are multi-tiered. For nutrients, recommendations concentrate on both point and nonpoint source (NPS) pollution reduction. These include methods for reducing stormwater discharge to streams and facilitating improvements to the current SSO problem in London and reducing inputs associated with cattle grazing in the rural portions of the watershed. For sediment issues, recommendations focus on limiting the erosive effects of high flow storm events. In addition, further study is imperative to determining the location and degree of sediment source contribution.


Table of Contents

Page

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.................................................................................................1

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS................................................................................................................2 A. Project Area Description ......................................................................................................2 B. Methods ...............................................................................................................................5

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................9

IV. CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................18 A. Measures of Success.........................................................................................................18

1. Public Outreach and Education.............................................................................19 2. Advocate Ordinances............................................................................................20 3. Riparian Vegetation ..............................................................................................20 4. Removing Livestock from Streams .......................................................................21 5. Stream Restoration ...............................................................................................21 6. Streamside Wetlands............................................................................................21 7. Stormwater BMPs and LID....................................................................................22 8. London Wastewater Treatment Plant....................................................................23 9. London Sanitary Sewer Overflows........................................................................23 10. Sedimentation .......................................................................................................24

B. Lessons Learned ...............................................................................................................25

V. LITERATURE CITED............................................................................................................................26

FIGURES FIGURE 1 – Project Area Location ................................................................................................................3 FIGURE 2 and FIGURE 3 – TN and TSS Export Attributed to Each Subwatershed of the Corbin City

Reservoir During High Flow Event ........................................................................................................15 FIGURE 4 and FIGURE 5 – FE and TP Export Attributed to Each Subwatershed of the Corbin City

Reservoir During High Flow Event ........................................................................................................16

APPENDICES APPENDIX A – Financial and Administrative Closeout APPENDIX B – Water Monitoring QAPP APPENDIX C – Educational Material APPENDIX D – Macroinvertebrate Survey Results APPENDIX E – Fish Survey Results APPENDIX F – Water Chemistry Results APPENDIX G – Physical and Physiochemical Habitat Survey Results APPENDIX H – Corbin City Reservior Watershed Plan

of 27 Corbin City Reservoir Watershed Plan – Final Report


Prepared by: Third Rock Consultants, LLC July 2007

For: Kentucky Division of Water

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Third Rock Consultants, LLC (Third Rock) was awarded an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 319(h) grant in 2004 to develop a Watershed Plan to identify and rank the sources of impairment in the Corbin City Reservoir watershed. Additionally, specific recommendations for remediation were considered. The Corbin City Reservoir is listed as a first priority impaired water body in Kentucky’s 2002 303(d) report. The report cites the impaired uses as drinking water supply (non-support) and aquatic life (partial support). The pollutants of concern are nutrients, organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen, taste and odor, and algal growth. Corbin City Reservoir is located within the Laurel River hydrologic unit that drains over 200 square miles and contains over 450 miles of streams. The Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) has assessed approximately 50 miles of streams in this watershed for designated uses; of those miles, approximately 35 miles are currently impaired by pollution and are listed as first Priority 303(d) streams. Sixty-three (63) percent of these impaired stream miles (22 miles) are impaired by nonpoint source (NPS) pollutants, which primarily consist of pathogens, sediment and nutrients. The source of these pollutants is widespread throughout the watershed, the primary suspects being construction, agriculture, and failing septic tanks. In addition to the NPS pollution, the London Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and potential flooding affect the remaining impaired stream miles. The combined impact of these pollutants has made streams and ultimately the Corbin City Reservoir unsafe for recreation, poor habitat for aquatic life, and problematic as a drinking water source. The entire Laurel River watershed upstream of the Corbin City Dam is part of the source water protection areas for Corbin City Utilities and Laurel Water District #2. A source water protection plan is in preparation by the Cumberland Area Development District. In order to properly target solutions or best management practices, more intensive monitoring needs to be conducted at the HUC 14 level. The purpose of this project is to identify significant sources of nonpoint source pollution, develop practical solutions, and prioritize projects for future funding for both impaired stream reaches and the Corbin City Reservoir in a Watershed Plan. The ultimate goal of this project is to facilitate the process of making Corbin City Reservoir and the tributaries within Laurel River watershed safe for drinking, overall recreation, and aquatic life.





II. MATERIALS AND METHODS A. Project Area Description The Corbin City Reservoir – the drinking water supply for the city of Corbin – impounds the Laurel River and is located just upstream of Laurel Lake. The 130-acre reservoir is within the Laurel River hydrologic unit. The reservoir watershed is 127 square miles and contains over 450 miles of streams. The Corbin City Reservoir watershed is within Laurel County, Kentucky. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Laurel County is one of the most rapidly growing counties in the state. The county population growth from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 was 6.9%, while the state’s population growth was only 3.2%. In 2005, the population of Laurel County was estimated at 56,338 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The largest urban areas are London (2005 population estimated 7,787) and Corbin (2005 population estimated 8,230), but Corbin is downstream of the Reservoir watershed. As this area continues to grow and population density increases, pressures on the streams and reservoir will intensify. Additionally, with continued population growth and city annexation of property, London is on the verge of becoming a “Phase II community”, or a community outside of an urbanized area with a population of at least 10,000 and a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. The US EPA’s Stormwater Phase II rule applies to such communities and regulates their operation of small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Discussions within the KDOW indicate that London is likely to be designated a Phase II community soon. The reservoir is located just downstream from the convergence of three 4th order streams; the Laurel and Little Laurel Rivers and Robinson Creek (Figure 1, page 3). The Laurel River, Little Laurel River, and Robinson Creek subwatersheds are 57.5 square miles, 42.4 square miles, and 27.2 square miles in area, respectively. These subwatersheds represent 45.2%, 33.4%, and 21.4% of the total reservoir drainage area. Water quality data was analyzed and reported for these subwatersheds to more precisely reflect existing and potential stresses to the reservoir. Presenting information for the subwatersheds allows for a more accurate approach to managing the entire area and making recommendations. The Laurel River and Robinson Creek subwatersheds are dominated by rolling pastureland with scattered rural residences. Though evidence of past strip mining was found throughout the entire watershed, the Laurel River and Robinson Creek subwatersheds contain the most abundant areas of past strip mining. The data used to analyze landuse (KDFWR and USGS 2002) indicated that mining has impacted approximately 18% of the subwatershed area. Alternatively, the Little Laurel River subwatershed has a variety of both point and NPS pollution contributors. The Little Laurel River receives polluted runoff from the city of London, populated residential areas, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), two stockyards within the city limits of London that pile waste along the stream, and dense cattle grazing. Additionally, the Little Laurel River receives point source pollution from several industries, a landfill, and the London WWTP. Most of the watershed area is underlain by sedimentary rocks of Pennsylvanian age consisting of the Breathitt and Lee formations (Stager 1963). These sedimentary rocks consist of sandstone, siltstone, shale and coals of varying thickness. The sandstone and coal layers frequently produce a sufficient amount of water for domestic supply. In areas of Laurel County not served by public water, about 90% of the households use wells and 10%t rely on other sources (Cobb et al. 2005). No areas within the watershed





FIGURE 1 – PROJECT AREA LOCATION





are identified as karst prone on the Geologic Map of Kentucky (Cobb et al. 2005). The dominant soil series across the entire watershed in order of prevalence are Shelocta (27%), Whitley (23%), Lily (16%), Latham (12%), Stendal (11%), and Bonnie (3%; Ross et al. 1981). Areas of similar ecosystems and environmental resources are designated by ecoregions. In Kentucky, ecological and biological diversity is connected to geologic, physiographic, landuse, and soil characteristics. The Corbin City Reservoir watershed falls into the Level III ecoregion known as the Southwestern Appalachians, and more specifically, the Level IV ecoregion identified as the Cumberland Plateau (Woods et al. 2002). This watershed is characterized by hills, ridges, rolling uplands, and intervening valleys. This watershed is within the Cumberland River basin. Moderate to low gradients characterizes streams. Well-drained, acidic Ultisols are common upland soils. At the time of European settlement, deciduous forests dominated the landscape, but current forest age and composition are variable due to a history of logging, mining, and grazing. In general, acidic drainage and sedimentation associated with coal mining has decreased the biological productivity of many streams. The Cumberland Plateau is characterized by a mean annual precipitation of 47 to 51 inches and mean annual growing season, or number of frost-free days ranges from 170 to 185 days (Woods et al. 2002). Similarly, the mean annual rainfall is reported in the Laurel County Soil survey is 47 inches and the average growing season is reported to average approximately 181 days (Ross et al. 1981). The primary landuse in the watershed are typical for the region and include agriculture (55%), natural forest (37%), and housing and development (8%). Agriculture, especially agriculture/pasture land, dominates each subwatershed. Agricultural areas are primarily used for grazing beef and dairy cows. Regarding livestock production, cattle are the most significant animal in Laurel County. Overall, Kentucky has been experiencing an apparent decline in cattle production since 1975 when cattle production was approximately 3.7 million head. In 2005, Kentucky was the 11th largest total cattle producer in the US with 2.4 million head; 8th in beef cattle production and 23rd in milk cows. Laurel County had 21,700 head last year (11,300 beef cows). Though not a significant commodity for Laurel County, Kentucky ranks 20th for hogs and pigs production with 370 head, 17th for total chicken production with 6,590 head, and 7th for broilers with 297,800 head. Most of the development within the watershed is in the Little Laurel subwatershed (generally associated with London). The Corbin City Reservoir serves as the source of drinking water for the City of Corbin and parts of Laurel County. Within the Corbin Reservoir watershed is another reservoir that serves as a source of drinking water for the town of London, the Dorthea Reservoir. This is a small reservoir that is likely to be discontinued as a source for drinking water due to sedimentation and other problems. It is a small reservoir, approximately 250 feet wide by 900 feet long and six to eight feet deep in the center. Downstream of the Corbin Reservoir is Laurel River Lake, which serves as a drinking water supply (Indian Camp Creek of Laurel River Lake). London is also served by the Woods Creek Water District, which draws water from Woods Creek Lake, located outside of the Corbin Reservoir watershed. Most of the watershed is rural and is not connected to a municipal sewer system. The London WWTP is located south of London and discharges to Whitley Branch, a tributary to the Little Laurel River.





B. Methods A fundamental part of the planning approach was the formation of a partnership between a number of local organizations, agencies, governments, and citizen groups. A local Watershed Partners Council was established in November 2004 to provide guidance for the development of the Watershed Plan. The team was comprised of representatives from Third Rock, KDOW, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), local governments, area schools and colleges, environmental groups, and interested citizens. Members of the council attend meetings to stay updated on the monitoring, planning, and improvement activities within the watershed. Stakeholder involvement was important for providing local insight into the complex issues surrounding watershed-scale planning. Partners provided insight for determining local concerns, locating aquatic sampling sites, report development, review of data/reports, and exploring opportunities for community outreach. Using input from the project team, a pedestrian survey was performed in January 2005 to characterize the landuse and sources of impairment in the watershed and determine areas for additional sampling. Four teams of 6 to 8 student volunteers were led by Tony Miller (Third Rock Biologist), Rob Miller (KDOW Upper Cumberland Basin coordinator), Brett Kuss (Cumberland College Professor, Department of Biology), Marci Schneider (environmental student, University of Kentucky), Steve Jewel (Teacher, Corbin High School), and Rick McClure (Teacher, Corbin High School). Third Rock biologist Tony Miller administered training to all team leaders watershed assessment and how to complete the (1) Physical Characterization/Water Quality Field Data Sheet, (2) Watershed Survey Visual Assessment Sheets, and (3) the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheets or Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) data sheets. All team leaders were deemed competent prior to the pedestrian surveys.

Using Hydrolab probe to measure stream pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature during a pedestrian survey,

Site 15B

The volunteer survey team assessed landuse across the entire watershed with particular attention given to NPS issues (e.g. straight pipes, construction sites, failing sanitary sewers, and large dense cattle grazing). Additionally, the survey team documented the physical and physiochemical integrity at 50 stream stations across the watershed. The number of stations was evenly distributed between the Laurel River and the Little Laurel River subwatersheds (26 and 24 stations, respectively). The potential for biological support at these stations was determined by completing RBP worksheets in addition to measuring water pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity. These worksheets describe the ability of a stream to support aquatic life based on physical parameters, such as epifaunal substrate, embeddedness, bank stability, and riparian width. Streams are scored (from 0-20, where higher score indicates higher quality) for each parameter, then scores are summed. Total scores are related to established regional ranges (ranges applicable to the Southwestern Appalachian ecoregion) as they correlate with supporting aquatic life. Stream stations are then assigned a category of Fully Supporting





(165 and above), Supporting But Threatened (164-156), Partially Supporting (155-145), or Not Supporting (144 and below) based on total RBP scores. These rankings are used for overall indicators of stream “physical health”. Additional watershed characterization forms were completed at each site to document surrounding landuse and potential pollution sources (e.g. straight pipes, cattle access). Using the information gathered from the pedestrian surveys, a subset of sites was chosen for chemical and biological sampling to further categorize the extent of impairment (see “Results and Discussion” section). Since the focus of this project is to elucidate the extent and source of impairment within the watershed, sites with the lowest RBP scores and most altered pH and conductivity were selected for the additional sampling. These stream reaches represent the areas most in need of remediation. Biological and chemical data was not collected at all sites due to logistical and monetary constraints. Representative fish data was not collected from all subset sites due to the absence of fish at some stream reaches during the time of survey. Fish and macroinvertebrates (aquatic insects) were sampled according to KDOW protocol (KDOW 2002). Fish and macroinvertebrates have varying tolerances to water pollution, thus they can be evaluated as indicators for overall water quality. Fish were identified in the field and macroinvertebrate samples were collected and brought back to the laboratory for sorting and identification. Biotic health indices were calculated at 20 stations for macroinvertebrates and 12 stations for fish (not all macroinvertebrate sites contained fish) from spring sampling events. The fish community was evaluated using eight metrics that demonstrate the fish community response to disturbance. Metrics have a positive (+) or negative (-) relationship to higher water quality. These metrics include native species richness (+); darter, madtom, and sculpin richness (+); intolerant species richness (+); proportion of tolerant individuals (-); proportion of insectivore individuals (+); proportion of facultative headwater (FHW) individuals (-); and simple lithophile species richness (+). Based on these metrics and expected regional assemblages (estimated from reference reaches in the Mountain physiographic region), each station was assigned an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) score ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) and designated with a water quality rating of Very Poor (<19), Poor (19-38), Fair (39-58), Good (59-70), or Excellent (>71). The macroinvertebrates collected were also assessed by metrics that have a positive (+) or negative (-) relationship to higher water quality. These metrics include richness (+), Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) richness (mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly richness; +), modified Hilsenhoff biotic index (MHBI; -), modified percent EPT abundance (+), percent Ephemeroptera (+), percent Chironomidae plus Oligochaeta (-), and percent primary clingers (+). The abundance and diversity of sampled species were used to calculate these metrics. Results from community metrics at each station were combined to compute a Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index (MBI) score ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Expected regional species assemblages, estimated from reference reaches in the Mountain physiographic region, were used as a basis for metric development. MBI scores were used to designate a water quality rating of Very Poor (<23), Poor (24-47), Fair (48-71), Good (72-82), or Excellent (>83) for wadeable streams or Very Poor (<24), Poor (25-49), Fair (50-73), Good (74-80), or Excellent (>81) for headwater streams.





Water samples were taken at each site during the biological sampling to determine pertinent parameter concentrations. Samples were collected, properly preserved, and transported within established hold times to Envirodata Group laboratory for processing. Samples were analyzed for nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), orthophosphate (OP-P), total phosphorus (TP), iron (Fe), and manganese (Mn) using standard methods (American Public Health Association [APHA] 1998). TN was calculated as TKN plus NO3-N. Also, during the fall (November 2005) and spring (January and March 2006), water samples were taken at these sites for fecal coliform (FC) analysis to determine areas with the greatest concentration of bacteria. The information provided by the project team, the pedestrian survey, and the biological and chemical surveys was scrutinized to locate specific sources of point and NPS nutrient and total suspended solids (TSS) addition. To specifically quantify and rank the nutrient addition attributed to these sources, additional monthly water sampling was performed in January, February, and March 2006. Additionally, one high flow storm event was sampled using rising stage samplers in March 2006. Thirteen stations were chosen in the immediate vicinity of suspected nutrient sources using a combination of existing and new sites (Figure 1, page 3). The stations within the Little Laurel subwatershed were 2A, River Bend, 12A, 20A, 25A, 19A, KY25@92, WWTP, 16A, and 13A. The Laurel River subwatershed was sampled at the Laurel River station. The Robinson Creek subwatershed was sampled at station 2B. Stations selected are located immediately downstream of agriculture/cattle field runoff, development activities, known SSOs, the London WWTP, and the London landfill. Like the samples collected during biological sampling, these samples were collected, properly preserved, and transported within established hold times to Envirodata Group laboratory for processing. Samples were analyzed for NO3-N, NH3-N, TKN, OP-P, TP, Fe, and TSS using standard methods (APHA 1998). TN was calculated as TKN plus NO3-N. Also, during this sampling effort, samples were taken in January and March 2006 at stations 2A (Little Laurel), Laurel River, and 2B (Robinson Creek) for fecal coliform analysis. For nutrient loading determination, stream discharge and nutrient concentration were measured together on three occasions at six of the stations (2A, Laurel River, 2B, 12A, 13A, and WWTP). To compute stream discharge for three representative flow levels at these stations:

• Stream cross-sections were surveyed at the locations where stage was monitored. • The six streams were waded during sample collection to determine velocity. • Water level was continuously monitored for eight weeks (January 17 – March 14, 2006) at the six

locations using a pressure transducer water level recorder (Infinities USA). Velocity and water depth were measured at intervals across the stream sufficient to characterize discharge. At each station, velocity was measured with a General Oceanic current meter mounted on a rod within a selected cross-section. According to the USGS method, velocity was measured at six-tenths of total stream depth when the depth was less than 2.5 feet. When the stream was deeper than 2.5 feet, velocity was measured at two-tenths and eight-tenths of the total depth and the average of the two readings were used as the average velocity at that point for discharge calculations. Discharge was calculated for each interval of the stream where velocity and depth were measured and total stream discharge was calculated at the summation of the discharge from each interval.





Pressure Transducer Water Level Recorder Surveying Stream Cross Section

Passive High-Flow Stage Sampling Measuring Stream Velocity

When the stream was too deep to wade with the current meter, stream velocity was roughly estimated using a floating object. The object was allowed to travel a given distance and the travel time was recorded. The surface velocity values obtained by this method were corrected to represent mid-depth velocity (mid-depth velocity = 0.80*surface velocity); (Daughtery et al. 1985). Nutrient contribution at each station was estimated using a combination of grab and passive high-flow stage sampling (Subcommittee on Sedimentation 1961). The passive sample collection, or rising stage sampling, captured the “first flush” of storm flow using three staggered bottles mounted on an in-stream post. One bottle was located just above normal flow, one approximately six inches above normal flow, and the third bottle was approximately 12 inches above normal flow. At each station where passive storm sampling was performed, the three samples collected were recovered from the field as soon as possible after filling, composited into a stainless steel bucket, and then poured into labeled sample bottles. Grab samples were collected with the same stainless steel bucket and then poured into labeled sample bottles. All samples were transported to EnviroData Group laboratory for analysis according to proper preservative and transportation requirements.





When analyzing concentration data, if any analyte concentration was reported as “below detectable limit”, a value of one-half the detection limit was substituted. Instantaneous contaminant loadings were calculated for six sites using measured or estimated flow values (m3/sec) and measured contaminant concentrations (mg/L). One low, two normal (or baseflow), and one high flow event were measured with corresponding water quality data. Load values were estimated for the six stations where stage loggers were installed. Load values were calculated on a mass per unit time basis (kg/hr). Load per unit watershed area was also computed.

ionConcentratFlowLoad ×=

AreaWatershedionConcentratFlowAreaLoad ÷×=/ For the three subwatersheds (Little Laurel, Laurel, and Robinson Creek), the load values for each contaminant were summed, so that the proportion of load from each subwatershed could be determined. For example, during low flows, 61% of the TN load is from the Little Laurel River subwatershed, nearly 20% is from the Laurel River subwatershed, and the remaining 19% is from the Robinson Creek subwatershed. The Spreadsheet Tool for the Estimation of Pollutant Load (STEPL, Version 3.0; US EPA 2005) was used to predict N, P, BOD5, and sediment delivery loads for each subwatershed given inputs on land uses and management practices. The model predicts annual nutrient loading based on runoff volume and pollutant concentrations in the runoff as influenced by landuse and management practices. Additionally, for a combination of potential BMPs, load reductions were predicted by the model using BMP efficiencies within the model. Inputs to the model are summarized in Appendix E of the Watershed Plan. In the STEPL model, groups of BMPs were evaluated. Annual pollutant load reductions for each subwatershed were predicted by applying BMPs to the urban areas (10, 25, 25, 75, and 100%), the rural areas (10, 25, 25, 75, and 100%), and to both the urban and rural areas (10, 25, 50, 75, and 100%). III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION From the start of the project, education was an important consideration. Our widest reaching component involved the creation and hosting of a project specific website. The site was developed to simultaneously educate both youth and adults on the generalities of water quality and also inform the public on the specifics developments of the Corbin Reservoir Watershed Plan. Secondly, for the project team, we invited members of the community that who were directly involved with the issues effected the water quality in the watershed. Through presentations by Third Rock, professors from area colleges, and KDOW, we educated the adults that were having the most immediate impact on the point and NPS pollution problems in the watershed. Third Rock staff also had interactions with area junior high, high school, and college students during the course of the project. Biologist Tony Miller gave a presentation to the Laurel High School students and participated (with Jennifer Shelby) on a seasonal wetland construction with the North Laurel Middle School students. Students from Laurel High School also participated with Third Rock during the site evaluation in addition to the macroinvertebrate and fish survey efforts. A local university environmental studies student also participated in the site evaluation portion of the project. Third Rock also produced educational newsletters and articles for area newspapers.





Field evaluations across the watershed documented the degradation. Physical habitat scores (RBP) resulting from the site evaluations were consistently very low across the entire watershed. Forty-one sites of the fifty sites survey scored Not Supporting. The other nine sites scored Partially Supporting. This level of physical impairment was abundant throughout the watershed. Severely unstable banks and subsequent sedimentation were found at all survey areas. Significant differences of physical impairment were not apparent between the three subwatersheds, though the Little Laurel River subwatershed contained six of the nine Partially Supporting sites. As a result of the overall degraded nature of the streams, physical habitat assessment was not adequate for ranking significant areas of impairment in the watershed. On a watershed scale, stream sites consistently lacked adequate buffers, exhibited heavy sedimentation, lacked epifaunal substrate, and exhibited signs of severe bank instability. These results are consistent with the extent of development, both urban and agricultural, across the entire watershed. The overall degraded nature of the streams is characteristic of the extensive development and agriculture found upstream of the Corbin City Reservoir. Increased runoff from cleared land, channelization, and impervious surfaces has caused scouring and habitat degradation. The impact of extensive cattle production, described in section 2.7 of the Watershed Plan, on stream physical integrity is apparent. Cattle access to streams is directly responsible for impacting physical features such as bank stability and general habitat destruction. Evidence of past mining was also apparent in the Robinson Creek subwatershed, where a higher percentage of land area has been mined compared to the other subwatersheds (KDFWR and USGS 2002). Iron precipitate, high conductivity, and low pH were apparent at several locations associated with deep mine locations in the subwatershed.

Cattle with Access to Rough Creek at 14B Cattle with Access to Little Robinson Creek at Site 5B

Iron Precipitate in Robinson Creek Subwatershed Close-Up of Iron Precipitate at Station 9B





More sources of sediment associated with erosion from development and construction sites were observed in the Little Laurel River subwatershed. Several sites with no erosion control were observed during the landuse characterization survey. Recently disturbed and exposed soil was commonplace. Also, the dumping of fill into floodplains was frequently observed during the watershed assessment. The high potential for erosion from these sites is compounded by the increased runoff from impervious surfaces and channelized streams in the subwatershed. In addition to overland erosion, it is likely that high levels of stream sediment can be attributed to stream bank erosion. Many of the streams are impacted and channel dimension is unstable. High levels of sediment in the streams (monitored by measuring TSS) also correlates with high measured Fe concentrations.

Erosion from Construction Site Adjacent to WWTP Outfall

High Turbidity in the Little Laurel River - Result of Erosion

Construction Near Site 23A Bare Soil Next to 19A

Many of the streams across the entire watershed have been channelized, making them deeper and straighter. This is done primarily to facilitate conveyance of water downstream. Channelization was commonly used in the past to increase available land for development or farming. When a stream has been straightened and its natural channel pattern disrupted, the velocity of the stream increases causing an increase in erosion and lowering of the streambed elevation. When a stream is channelized, the stream





upstream of the channelized reach will adjust to the lower bed elevation in the channelized section. Thus, channelizing a section of stream can create a headcut that moves upstream with severe erosion until a new, stable bed slope is achieved. Excess sedimentation from the erosion upstream causes downstream deposition. When this occurs, the stream requires “maintenance” (dredging) in order to facilitate conveyance of water downstream. Many streams within the watershed are actively dredged by London or Laurel County to maintain a desired level of conveyance. Most of the “stormwater network” within London consists of channelized streams. Another result of channelization is channel deepening. The stream becomes cut off from its floodplain, except during large storm events. Water flowing in a channelized stream is deeper during a storm than in a natural channel, because water cannot spill out onto the floodplain where it dissipates energy. Deeper water inherently has greater shear stress and therefore is more erosive to the stream banks. The increased flow capacity gained through channelization reduces the travel time of storm flows in a stream, making it “flashier”. Downstream effects include higher flood peaks and associated higher loadings of sediment, nutrients, and contaminants.

Floodplain Fill Adjacent to the Little Laurel River Channelized Section of Sampson Branch (Little Laurel Subwatershed) with Indications of Bank

Erosion

Unstable Substrate and Bar Formation Heavy Sedimentation and Bar Formation





Channelization impacts riparian vegetation by directly destroying vegetation or indirectly by compacting the soil through the use of heavy equipment, which prevents root development within the riparian zone. Moving the stream channel to a new location creates an immediate impact because no natural riparian vegetation exists. As the channel tries to reach equilibrium (as described above), the channel deepens, lowering the water table. Lowering the water table in the riparian zone and reducing the frequency of overbank flow further stresses riparian vegetation. Biological survey results were mixed but most reflected the poor physical habitat. As with RBP scores, no apparent distinction was found between the three subwatersheds for MBI or IBI metric scores. For macroinvertebrate metrics, most stations scored Very Poor and Poor with the exception of some stations located in the uppermost portions of the watershed. Three of these sites exhibited healthier communities with scores in the Fair category. Communities at most stations were dominated by tolerant taxa in the Chironomidae and Oligochaeta groups. The stations in the Fair category had greater abundance of less tolerant Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa. Generally, fish community metrics were higher: four stations scored Fair or Good. The remaining six fish sampling stations scored Poor. As with the macroinvertebrates, most of the “healthier” fish stations were in the upper reaches of the watershed above urban development or large cattle populations and were characterized by fish with lower impairment tolerances or those needing sediment-free habitat for spawning (i.e. simple lithophiles). Conductivity, pH, and FC frequently exceeded acceptable limits for Warmwater Aquatic Habitat throughout the entire watershed. Metals (Fe, Mn) were also found in elevated concentrations in both the Laurel and Little Laurel subwatersheds. Elevated nutrients (constituents of phosphorous [P] and nitrogen [N]) were observed below London’s WWTP, below suspected SSO locations and also in the upper reaches of the Laurel River watershed. The elevated nutrients below London’s WWTP were measured and consistent with the treatment plant’s monitoring data.

Effluent from London WWTP London WWTP

The data from the January through March 2006 hydrology and water quality sampling study provided greater insight into the specific sources of impairment to the watershed and the Corbin City Reservoir. Regarding the specific problems within the reservoir, this information is most useful for guiding remediation efforts. Nutrient concentration data was obtained for four sampling events (two normal flow, one low flow,





and one high flow event). It should be noted that a true low flow event was never seen during the period of sampling, as water levels never fell appreciably lower than the normal flow. Also, due to the unpredictability of storm sampling (high flow), only one high flow event was sampled. Discharge did not exhibit a strong correlation with drainage size. Though the areas varied from 27.2 square miles to 57.5 square miles, discharge was very similar among the subwatersheds during low-flow events. During normal flow sampling, discharge was similar between the two less developed watersheds (Robinson Creek and Laurel River), but the developed area of Little Laurel River exhibited significantly higher flow values. This trend was even more pronounced during the high-flow event. However, these representative flow values are based upon a rather limited amount of measured data. Stream nutrient data collected were used to calculate loads for the three subwatersheds, but it is of interest to view a selection of the concentration data. Concentration data were correlated with flow, particularly for TSS, Fe, TP and OP-P. Total phosphorus loads at station 2A on the Little Laurel River (upstream of the confluence with the Laurel River) went from approximately 0.04 mg/L at normal flow to 0.63 mg/L at high flow. Total nitrogen and TSS concentrations exhibited a similar response to storm flow at this station. A TSS concentration of 1.5 mg/L was measured at normal flow and TSS increased to more than 400 mg/L during the high flow event. Likewise, the response was noted at other stations. At the Laurel River station, Fe concentration increased from 0.4 mg/L at normal flow to 2.3 mg/L during the high flow event. Consistently, TN, NO3, OP-P, and P concentrations were elevated at station WWTP on Whitley Branch (located below the discharge point for the London WWTP) compared to the other stations. Measured TN concentration was higher at WWTP than at the other six sites for all events sampled. Consistently high levels of P were measured at the WWTP station also. In addition, stream conductivity and temperature were also consistently higher at the WWTP station than at other stations. For many stations, the first flush sample (collected using the rising stage samplers, March 14, 2006) contained a higher concentration of pollutants than the grab sample collected as the water level receded, as expected. This trend is exemplified by comparing the TSS storm surge concentrations to the subsequent TSS grab sample concentrations for stations located on tributaries to the Little Laurel River. Measured TN concentrations from the storm samples were higher than for the later collected grab sample. Other nutrient concentrations were found to be higher during this first flush. Nutrients loads (concentration X flow) increased with increased flow level. At the three subwatershed stations, the load of N and P constituents, TSS, and Fe increased with high flow levels. Load data are presented per unit watershed area for events measured. The Little Laurel River subwatershed was found to contribute more pollutant load (generally) per unit area than the other two subwatersheds. By and large, the Laurel River contributes fewer pollutants per area than either the Little Laurel or Robinson Creek subwatersheds. TSS and Fe loads were elevated during the high flow event at all three subwatershed stations (2A, Laurel River, and 2B). This result was expected due to the degraded nature of the streams. Heavy erosion occurring during storm events, either from overland runoff or streambank erosion, contributes an





abundance of sediment (indicated by TSS measurement) to the streams. It is likely that the Fe and P levels are associated with the sediment load, as phosphate ions adhere to soil particles by reacting with elements in the soil such as iron. Like with N and P exports, the Little Laurel River subwatershed contributes more TSS and Fe load per unit area to the Corbin City Reservoir than the other two subwatersheds (particularly at higher flow levels). At lower flow levels, the Robinson Creek subwatershed contributed the highest TSS and Fe loads/area, compared to the other two subwatersheds. Fecal coliform loadings followed the same load/flow relationship. Though only two flow regimes (low and normal) were sampled at the three subwatershed stations (Little Laurel River, Laurel River, and Robinson Creek), the positive correlation with increased flow was apparent. On a mass loading basis, most of the pollutants contributed to the Corbin City Reservoir come form the Little Laurel River subwatershed, particularly during high flow. During the high flow sample on March 14, 2006, the Little Laurel River subwatershed accounted for 71% of the TN, 78% of the TSS, 85% of the Fe, and 90% of the TP from the entire Corbin City Reservoir watershed (Figures 2 - 5).

FIGURE 2 AND FIGURE 3 – TN AND TSS EXPORT ATTRIBUTED TO EACH SUBWATERSHED OF THE CORBIN CITY RESERVOIR DURING HIGH FLOW EVENT

7.3%

77.9%

14.7%

Robinson Creek

Laurel River

Little LaurelRiver

Percentage TSS at High Flows

12.0%

70.6%

17.4%

Robinson Creek

Laurel River

Little LaurelRiver

Percentage TN at High Flows





FIGURE 4 AND FIGURE 5 – FE AND TP EXPORT ATTRIBUTED TO EACH SUBWATERSHED OF THE CORBIN CITY RESERVOIR DURING HIGH FLOW EVENT

10.4%

85.2%

4.4%

Robinson Creek

Laurel River

Little LaurelRiver

Percentage Fe at High Flows

2.1%

89.5%

8.4%

Robinson Creek

Laurel River

Little LaurelRiver

Percentage TP at High Flows

The average of the two medium flow levels samples yielded similar trends. The Little Laurel River accounted for 57% of TN, nearly 50% of the TSS, 46% of Fe, and 76% of TP export from the Corbin City Reservoir watershed. For TN and TP, the Laurel River subwatershed was the next largest contributor, contributing 23% and 14% of the total load during the medium flows, respectively. For TSS and Fe, the Robinson Creek subwatershed was the next largest contributor, contributing 28% and 30% of the total load during the medium flows, respectively. During the low flow event, the highest proportions of TN, TSS, and TP were again from the Little Laurel River subwatershed (53%, 35%, and 84%, respectively). The contributions of Fe were nearly equally split between the three subwatersheds, however the Robinson Creek subwatershed (37%) contributed the most, followed by Laurel River (34%), and then Little Laurel River (30%) subwatersheds. STEPL modeling was used to predict the percent reductions in annual N, P, BOD5 and sediment load for each subwatershed. It is difficult to precisely predict the performance of management measures on the watershed scale, but these estimates are still helpful for watershed planning. This modeling was accomplished by simplifying the subwatersheds. In the STEPL model, groups of BMPs were evaluated. Annual pollutant load reductions for each subwatershed were predicted by applying BMPs to the urban areas (10, 25, 25, 75, and 100%), the rural areas (10, 25, 25, 75, and 100%), and to both the urban and rural areas (10, 25, 50, 75, and 100%). The maximum predicted reduction in annual N, P, BOD5, and sediment load is for the scenario where BMPs are applied to both the urban and rural (agricultural and forest) portions of all subwatersheds. The model, which is based on landuse inputs, predicts that most of the reduction is due to BMPs implemented in the agricultural and forested portions of the watershed, which





is the predominate landuse in all subwatersheds. For instance, a 55% N annual reduction is predicted for the Little Laurel subwatershed when BMPs are applied across 100% of the subwatershed, but the model predicts that a 52% N annual reduction can be achieved by applying BMPs to 100% of the agricultural and forested areas and none of the urban areas within this subwatershed. The STEPL modeling data indicates that annual reduction in nutrient loads can be achieved with BMP implementation, but does not specifically predict the concentration of nutrients or sediment that can be expected in a stream for a given event. Predictions of in-stream water quality response to BMP implementation would require a higher level of modeling. Currently, few surface water quality standards for warm water aquatic habitat exist for nutrients and suspended solids (sediment), though high nutrient and sediment concentrations can adversely impact aquatic systems. Kentucky is in the process of developing standards that would specify the concentration of nutrients (i.e. nitrogen and phosphorus) allowed in the water while supporting warm water aquatic habitat. Currently, the allowable in-stream concentration of NO3-N for meeting human health standards for a Domestic Water Supply Source is 10 mg/L. This standard was not exceeded by any water samples collected during the development of this plan. The US EPA recommends that total phosphates should not exceed 0.05 mg/L (as P) in a stream at a point where it enters a lake or reservoir (Mueller and Helsel 1996). Total phosphorus concentrations greater than 0.01 to 0.02 mg/L are considered levels at which eutrophication will occur in P-limited surface waters (Daniel et al. 1998). During the high flow water quality measurement obtained during the development of this plan, TP concentrations near the outlet of all three subwatersheds were high enough to support eutrophication. The data collected during the development of this plan indicate that TP load to surface waters needs to be reduced to improve water quality. Currently, no Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) calculations have been performed for streams in this watershed, but monitoring to support TMDL development is underway (November 2006). As new surface water quality standards are specified and TMDLs are developed within this watershed, load reductions necessary to achieve water quality standards will be calculated. Subsequently, the TMDL will indicate point and nonpoint sources of nutrients that must be changed (reduced) for a given stream to achieve water quality standards. TMDL findings and needed load reductions will be incorporated into the watershed plan. The TMDLs developed in this watershed will further guide and prioritize the implementation of BMPs and landuse changes needed to improve water quality within the three subwatersheds. In regards to sample data quality, all precautions were taken to ensure precision, accuracy, and an adequate measurement range as specified in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). At least one qualified Masters-level Biologist led all sampling efforts. To ensure the quality of physio-chemical sampling results, multiprobes were calibrated monthly per standard operating procedures, the act of which was documented in a calibration log. Comparability of habitat and biological data was ensured through strict adherence to sampling protocols developed by the KDOW for instream habitat, fish, and macroinvertebrates. A standard list of taxonomic references was used during macroinvertebrate sample identification. Envirodata Group ensured comparability of water chemistry results through strict adherence to KDOW and US EPA sampling and laboratory methods. Third Rock’s data quality manager subsequently analyzed results for validity.





These results and findings are presented in the Watershed Plan (the product of the grant) and are available to the public. Not only did the plan extensively characterize the watershed and plan remediation, the development of the plan raised awareness about water quality in the community. All data resulting from the project are included in Appendices A through G at the end of this report. IV. CONCLUSIONS The information presented in the Watershed Plan substantiates the concern that upstream landuse practices are directly contributing to the impairments seen in the Corbin City Reservoir. Though potential internal nutrient cycling and sedimentation issues exist within the reservoir, sources of pollution in the watershed must be addressed before any direct remediation efforts are explored to alleviate taste and odor problems, aquatic life issues, and the accelerated sedimentation within the reservoir. The most immediate sources of impairment to the Corbin City Reservoir were found to be nutrient addition and sedimentation. Sources of nutrients are London’s WWTP and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs associated with excessive stormwater runoff), failing septic systems, cattle waste runoff, fertilized fields and lawns. Regarding sedimentation, the entire watershed shows evidence of sediment input to the reservoir. Stormwater runoff management is needed to reduce peak storm flows, pollutant loadings, and physical stream degradation. A stream will respond to increased development in the watershed by eroding to form a new dimension, pattern, and profile in order to carry the resultant higher flow. As streams change, their movement (lateral or down cutting) increases stream sediment load and can cause property loss. Stormwater BMPs should be implemented to reduce the peak flow rate of runoff to receiving streams in order to lessen flooding, stream erosion, and the transport of nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants. Methods for abatement include increased runoff retention and infiltration. Retention can be employed to capture and retain stormwater runoff before it contributes to SSOs and/or enters receiving streams. Stormwater retention reduces the peak downstream discharge, provides opportunity for sediment and solids to settle out of suspension, and reduces nutrients and other pollutants transported downstream. Increased runoff infiltration can be promoted through strategically placed bioretention areas in urban areas. Infiltration prevents water from entering streams and as a result, reduces stream water impacts most significantly. Now that a thorough plan has been developed, remediation can begin using the Watershed Plan as a guide. A remediation strategy for nutrient and sediment control in the Corbin City Reservoir should be multi-faceted and include further study, public education, ordinance advocacy, preservation, BMP implementation, and restoration. These strategies are part of the plan. A. Measures of Success

• Locate ten (10) or more nonpoint sources (NPS) of impairment in the upper Laurel River watershed.

This was unfortunately achieved many times over. Locating ten nonpoint source impairments would have been an underachievement based on the condition of the Corbin Reservoir watershed. At least ten areas of





construction without erosion control were found in the city of London. The most blatant NPS pollution source found was in association with a stockyard within the city limits of London. It appeared that the standard waste disposal practice involved pushing the excrement into the stream.

• Locate five (5) nonpoint sources of excess nutrients contributing to impairment in the Corbin City Reservoir.

Results from the storm event samples indicated that excessive nutrients were entering the watershed at every station (>>5). The most significant contributions were attributed to the London WWTP and SSOs. Nutrients inputs were also measured at significant levels directly below the stockyard.

• Determine links between watershed and reservoir impairments.

The elevated concentrations of suspended solids and nutrients found in the upper Laurel River watershed during this project can be directly related to the accelerated sedimentation and eutrophication in the reservoir.

• Develop five (5) or more practical plans for reducing the found impairments to levels within the range of healthy warm-water aquatic habitats.

Due to the overwhelming state of degradation, we propose ten remediation strategies for the Corbin Reservoir watershed in the Watershed Plan. They are as follows:

1. Public Outreach and Education Outreach efforts must be continued and relationships with watershed partners maintained as this watershed moves from the assessment phase to the remediation and protection phase. The project team is an important means of public involvement, allowing the exchange of ideas and providing local insight for the implementation of water quality improvement projects. The information exchanged during team meetings will allow members to advocate watershed protection and raise awareness about the value of such efforts within the community. Expanding the watershed partners group, particularly to include more local citizens and landowners (not just public officials and agency personnel), will be an important way to get participation in selecting, locating, implementing, and maintaining NPS pollution management measures. To increase public awareness regarding the implementation of projects for improving reservoir and watershed water quality, the current project website should be maintained. The website created during production of the watershed plan that describes the monitoring and assessment of the watershed can be updated and publicized by the project partners group to raise community awareness. Likewise, an informative project newsletter can be produced and disseminated to project team members, for their use or distribution. Educational signs describing BMP and watershed goals should be installed at BMP project sites where the setting is appropriate (i.e. public settings). The information supplied will increase water quality awareness throughout Laurel County. The BMP construction and function should be related to the water quality goals of the community and featured prominently in the local or regional newspaper.





Arrangements can be made to get Kentucky’s Commonwealth Water Education Project (CWEP) public service announcements into local newspaper, radio, and/or television outlets. The CWEP materials were developed to target Kentucky’s citizens and educate them about the sources of and solutions to NPS pollution. This component of "social marketing" will encourage citizens to improve the quality of local streams and rivers by changing small behaviors that collectively have large impacts on water quality. The Kentucky Growth Readiness project, offered through the CWEP, aims to help communities maintain water quality as they grow. Specifically, this project offers training and presentation materials that focus on building awareness of the connection between landuse and water quality, how to build a foundation for water quality friendly development rules, and how to comply with new regulatory requirements. When opportunities arise, members of the watershed partners group should attend workshops on current watershed and water quality issues. Workshops topics such as preventing and managing stormwater runoff, low impact development (LID) and landuse planning, BMPs for improving water quality, or preventing and managing NPS pollution would be appropriate and beneficial to enhancing their understanding of water quality issues. Educational outreach may also be achieved through working with teachers and staff at a local middle or high school. For example, if it is possible to build a rain garden or stormwater wetland on school property, some elements of construction could involve teachers, students, and parents. The project construction could be combined with educational sessions to teach students/teachers/parents about the importance of our water resources, ways water is impaired, ways problems can be remediated, and the role wetlands and bioretention play in protecting our water resources.

2. Advocate Ordinances The watershed partners should continue to provide support and information for creating and enforcing local and county-level ordinances related to stormwater management and smart growth. The partners group should cooperate to advocate city and county ordinances for preserving pervious surfaces, requiring stormwater management, and implementing erosion and sediment controls. Proper ordinances can lessen the impacts of additional growth and development and protect the quality of water resources. Educating local council and committee members on topics such as low impact development (LID), stormwater reduction and treatment, the watershed approach to water quality, Phase II Stormwater Regulations, etc. can be beneficial for enacting longterm change in the watershed.

3. Riparian Vegetation Planting or enhancing the riparian zone of streams within the watershed should be done to provide the stream with necessary shading, bank stability, a supply of woody debris and leaf material, habitat, and the enhanced potential for water quality improvement. Adequate riparian buffers can function as stabilizing filters that increase infiltration as well as photorespiration and evapotranspiration. A riparian buffer acts as a filter for removing sediment/particulate and sediment-bound nutrients (particularly P) from surface runoff moving across them (Daniels and Gilliam 1996). Buffers infiltrate some runoff and lower the velocity of water moving across them, which enables soil





particles (particularly sand and silt) to settle out of suspension and become trapped in the buffer. This deposition of sediments and organic material can result in improvement of water quality downstream. Also, riparian buffers physically stabilize the area along a stream channel and the streambank itself, helping to prevent bank erosion that can produce a large sediment load to the stream and degrade downstream water quality. In this watershed, many agricultural streams could benefit from riparian planting.

4. Removing Livestock from Streams Fencing livestock (cattle) from streams within pastures reduces a source of nutrients and bacteria to water bodies. It also eliminates the physical degradation livestock have to streambanks and riparian vegetation. Livestock can be provided alternative water sources, such as an upland pond or watering trough. If providing an alternative water source is not feasible, cattle access to streams could at least be restricted to specific access points for drinking rather than giving them access to an entire waterway. Landowners willing to incorporate such practices into an overall management plan can become more efficient producers and improve the quality and value of their land.

5. Stream Restoration Some level of stream restoration or enhancement would improve the biological integrity and water quality of streams throughout the watershed. Restoration that provides stable morphology, in-stream cover, appropriate riparian zone, a riffle-pool sequence, quality stream substrate, and overhead tree canopy will result in an enhanced habitat where fish and macroinvertebrates thrive and water quality is enhanced (The River Institute 2006). For example, a riffle-pool sequence provides a variety of habitat niches for aquatic insects and fish and also has a role in the transport of sediment and addition of dissolved oxygen to the stream. The entire watershed could benefit from restoration applied to the small streams of the watershed. Data suggests that small streams have the most potential to process and retain N (Peterson et al. 2001) and that benthic macroinvertebrate populations in headwater streams are critical to a functioning downstream aquatic community (Dobson 2003).

6. Streamside Wetlands Like a natural wetland, a constructed wetland has the capacity to store floodwater and release it slowly and to improve the quality of water passing through. As the benefits of wetlands have become more recognized and quantified, they are increasingly used for water treatment, and have often been used for sediment, P, and N removal (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). In conjunction with natural stream channel restoration, a streamside wetland can be designed and constructed to provide storage that can ameliorate downstream flooding and enhance pollutant removal. By enhancing the floodplain and including depressions, vegetation, and woody debris, a streamside wetland has the capability to store runoff and filter out sediment and other particulate. Some water may be infiltrated by the depressions and recharge groundwater, therefore not contributing a nutrient load to the surface water. Locating stream-side wetlands in lower order streams near sources of polluted runoff, such as near the border of an agricultural field, disturbed land, channelized stream or impervious area can help to maximize the wetland functions and improve water quality (Gilliam et al. 1997; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Natural wetlands found higher in the watershed have a larger capacity to reduce peak storm flows downstream in the watershed and reduce sediment and nutrient concentrations in downstream reaches (Gilliam et al. 1997; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). The same placement theory holds true for constructed





wetlands. For effective wetland performance, the wetland area should be 1-3% of the area of the contributing watershed (Bass 2000). The streamside wetland can be planted with native species, which may include appropriate hardwoods. Plants serve many functions in a constructed wetland. Thick vegetation can prevent “short-circuiting” within the wetland, ensuring more uniform water treatment. An abundance of vegetation is effective at slowing runoff coming into a wetland, which gives sediment/particulates the opportunity to settle out and become immobilized in the wetland. Settling of suspended solids reduces particle-bound nutrients (such as Fe and P) in wetland outflows. Eventually, dead-fall vegetation can trap sediment underneath, forming a layer where the non-degradable P is bound (Payne and Knight 1997). Immobilization of sediment and organic matter may be permanent, or this particulate may be re-suspended and washed through the wetland in a large storm event. Plants cyclically recover nutrients from a wetland. Brix (1994) noted that emergent macrophytes uptake around 50-150 kg of P per hectare per year and 1000-2500 kg of N per hectare per year. But, if the vegetation is not harvested, the nutrients are released back into the wetland when the vegetation dies/decomposes and are used for new growth, or extra nutrients may be released from the wetland. Ideas for creating a nutrient-reducing wetland would include planning for long-term success at nutrient removal and financial sustainability. Streamside constructed wetlands (as well as stormwater wetlands, described below) offer passive, low-maintenance treatment of nonpoint source pollution, as well as the aesthetic benefit of unique habitat for vegetation, birds, animals, and aquatic life. A constructed wetland can be used to effectively treat runoff. Wetlands are becoming increasingly popular for runoff storage and treatment, and have been used for sediment, P, N, and metals removal (Bastviken et al. 2003; Blahnik and Day 2000; Braskerud 2002; Carter; Casey and Klaine 2001). Like a natural wetland, a constructed wetland has the capacity to store floodwater, releasing it slowly, and to improve the quality of water passing through. One example of ideal stream-side constructed wetland placement is on Whitley Branch just below the London WWTP near its confluence with the Little Laurel River. This is an undeveloped area where a wetland could be incorporated into the floodplain.

7. Stormwater BMPs and LID Many options exist for incorporating stormwater mitigation into existing and future development within the watershed. Bioretention areas, stormwater wetlands, grass swales, sand filters, permeable (porous) pavement, and green roofs are all BMPs that can reduce and/or treat stormwater runoff. Low Impact Development (LID) is the term used to describe development that utilizes comprehensive land planning and engineering design aimed at maintaining and enhancing the pre-development hydrologic regime of urban and developing watersheds. LID can incorporate a variety of stormwater BMPs, as well as concepts such as shared driveways and parking lots and reduced use of curb and gutter. Opportunities exist for incorporating BMPs into new development (i.e. new hospital or school facility), as well as retrofitting some areas with BMPs. For example, traditional parking lots can be reconfigured with tree-planted infiltration swales within the lots to capture runoff. Or where land is available, rooftop and parking lot runoff can be routed to a bioretention area or stormwater wetland instead of directly to the nearest stream.





Bioretention and stormwater wetlands are described more thoroughly below. The Regional Best Management Practices Draft Manual (KY Sanitation District No. 1) can provide additional information about stormwater and its pollutants, how BMPs function to minimize and treat stormwater, and matrices on selecting suitable BMPs for a given situation. In more highly developed areas, bioretention areas or rain gardens can be used to effectively treat stormwater runoff in a rather inconspicuous way (Hunt 2003). A rain garden has the capacity to treat and store runoff, but has the appearance of an attractive landscape feature without using large areas of land. Runoff from small rainfall events is infiltrated by the rain garden and treated as it flows through the permeable profile. Applicable sites are typically 5 acres or less (drainage area). In lieu of traditional stormwater management techniques (collecting runoff and routing it directly to nearby creek without any pollutant treatment), a rain garden can be designed to capture the “first flush”, or the first one-inch of rainfall produced by a storm event. This is the runoff that carries the greatest amount of NPS pollutants (nutrients, sediment, other chemicals), thus a bioretention area is an effective tool for improving water quality. A stormwater wetland can be designed and constructed to treat stormwater runoff from a developed area, where more land is available for stormwater mitigation. Stormwater runoff can be routed into a wetland that includes shallow and deep zones, a long sinuous flow path, and native hydrophytic vegetation to achieve water storage, infiltration, and water quality improvement. Like a bioretention area, a stormwater wetland can be designed to capture the “first flush” of rainfall produced by a storm event. A stormwater wetland also provides a biologically diverse ecosystem with aesthetic and educational purposes as well as the potential to hold and treat stormwater (as described above for stream-side wetlands).

8. London Wastewater Treatment Plant During the preparation of this document, new regulations for London’s WWTP were imposed by the KPDES. Effective May 2006, the average monthly export concentration of TP from the London WWTP is limited to 1 mg/L during the growing season, which averages 181 days in Laurel County (Ross et al. 1981). KPDES has given London six months to meet this limit; already, the treatment plant is in compliance. The plant has reduced TP concentrations from approximately 3 mg/L to approximately 0.3 mg/L using an in-line alum coagulant. Though effective, the alum treatment is expensive. To offset the cost of the additional chemical treatment, the London WWTP is working to reduce P in their source water. London has identified two industrial sources of P upstream of the treatment facility and is working directly with the facilities to reduce their nutrient export to Whitley Branch. This is a significant step toward improving the water quality of Whitley Branch, the Little Laurel River, and the Corbin City Reservoir.

9. London Sanitary Sewer Overflows Though P reductions associated with the London WWTP’s new permit limits are substantial, SSOs around the city of London (such as Sampson Branch and Whitley Branch) continue to be a source of nutrients and bacteria. SSOs are a source of P to the Corbin Reservoir, therefore direct actions should be taken to correct the deteriorating sanitary sewers and reduce the stormwater runoff that is generating the overflows.





Families downstream of the SSOs are experiencing flooding of their property with increasing frequency. The health risks associated with bacteria, intestinal parasites, viruses, and molds carried in raw sewage are substantial and have forced citizens to contact county officials seeking solutions. The solution to SSOs in the London area is two-fold: repair and abate. In an attempt to prevent public health issues, the city of London is currently repairing and maintaining damaged and neglected sewer lines in obvious overflow areas. To address the issue of SSOs on a broader scale, a thorough assessment of the sanitary sewer collection system must be completed. Using a combination of smoke testing and dye tracing, the most significant areas of inflow and infiltration problems could be determined and comprehensive repair plans could be developed. As an abatement measure, stormwater runoff contributing to the SSOs in this developed area must be reduced.

10. Sedimentation The root of accelerated stream and reservoir sedimentation, increased runoff, can be directly attributed to increased impervious surfaces in the watershed, stream channelization, and an absence of riparian buffer strips that filter and slow overland flow. The impact of development was apparent in the flow data gathered from four sampling events. A variety of relatively low-cost methods exist for reducing the amount of runoff from parking lots, rooftops, roads, and other large impervious surfaces. The best initial step would be to identify the largest concentrated areas of impervious surface (using GIS) and subsequently implement management strategies and projects to capture and retain stormwater runoff. Projects could include retention basins, constructed stormwater wetlands, bioretention areas (rain gardens), green roofs, sand filters, or other structures designed to hold runoff and increase infiltration of rainwater. To reduce sediment transport to the Corbin Reservoir watershed, specific tasks should be carried out to determine the primary source and location of sediment input. Search criteria should be developed to determine if the source of sedimentation is from the stream itself (i.e. bank erosion) or from overland erosion. An inventory of stream banks (representing Laurel and Little Laurel Rivers, Robinson Creek, and tributaries) should be rated for erosion potential. Using criteria such as Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and near-bank shear stress along with measured bank erosion and stream sediment concentration, assessment of stream can be completed and the sources of sediment carried to the Corbin Reservoir can be clarified. Subsequently, contributing stream reaches can be ranked for restoration/stabilization. Additionally, the data can be used to produce a relationship between BEHI, near-bank shear stress, and observed annual erosion that can be used as a tool for predicting streambank erosion for similar streams in the future. No such relationships exist for streams in Kentucky and a predictive model developed in this watershed could be compared to those found in other states (Jennings and Harman 2001; Rosgen 2001; Van Eps et al. 2004). By more thoroughly evaluating and prioritizing streams across the watershed, areas that would benefit most from BMPs could be identified and the application of remediation techniques such as bank stabilization, riparian zone establishment, or cattle fencing would have the greatest effect of overall water quality. A subset of areas in significant need of agricultural BMPs and/or streambank stabilization were determined during stream assessments and are shown on Figure 1, page 3. Though streambank instability is a source of sediment in the waterways, erosion due to construction and fill is also a likely source of sediment in the streams draining the city of London. Requirements for controlling





sediment for road construction projects exist through the Federal Highway Administration (1995). These methods provide guidance for BMPs that would have direct application to development projects in and around the Corbin City Reservoir watershed (Federal Highway Administration 1995). Additionally, the city of London is beginning to make progress in this area – a set of sediment and erosion control ordinances was passed in November 2006. Reducing the effects of stormwater and erosion in developing areas of the watershed could be achieved by cooperating with partners and government representatives to advocate ordinances aimed at sediment and erosion control and stormwater management for development projects. The partnership should facilitate interaction between government, citizens, and developers and include education on the importance of BMPs that will protect water resources while supporting community growth. B. Lessons Learned During the course of the project, our most significant realization was that the majority of people don’t care about water quality unless they can see how it immediately affects them. It seems that the best way to garner community-wide support for water quality improvements is to translate everything in terms of money. For example, how water quality can affect real estate values and water treatment costs. Proposing flooding reduction through wetland and bioretention area construction was another good way to gain public support. Another primary lesson learned was in regards to the project team. Having an existing group focused on water quality would make watershed remediation projects much simpler to implement. The extent of the existing community support should be used as a gage of potential project success in a watershed.





V. LITERATURE CITED American Public Health Association [APHA] 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and

Wastewater. American Public Health Assoc., American Water Works Assoc., and Water Pollution Control Federation. 20th Edition. Washington, DC.

Cobb, J.C., D.I. Carey and J.F. Stickney 2005. Groundwater Resources of Laurel County, Kentucky.

County Report 63, Series XII. Accessed Sep 20, 2006 at http://www.uky.edu/KGS/water/library/gwatlas/Laurel/Laurel.htm

Daniel, T.C., A.N. Sharpley and J.L. Lemunyon 1998. Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication:

A Symposium Overview. Journal of Environmental Quality. 27:251-257. Daughtery, R.L., J.B. Franzini and E.J. Finnemore 1985. Fluid Mechanics with Engineering Applications.

McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, New York. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) and United States Geological Survey

(USGS) 2002. Kentucky Gap Analyis Project (GAP) Landuse Data Provided by Mid-America Remote Sensing Center at Murray State University, funded by KDFWR and USGS.

Kentucky Division of Water 2002. Methods for Assessing Biological Integrity of Surface Waters In

Kentucky. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Water Quality Branch

Mueller, D.K. and D.R. Helsel 1996. Nutrients in the Nation's Waters-Too Much of a Good Thing? U.S.

Geological Survey Circular 1136. National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Accessed Apr 28, 2006 at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/circ-1136/circ-1136main.html

Ross, J.C., A.S. Johnson and P.E. Avers 1981. Soil Survey of Laurel and Rockcastle Counties, Kentucky.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Stager, H.K. 1963. Geology of the Lily Quadrangle, Kentucky. Kentucky Geological Survey Subcommittee

on Sedimentation 1961. A Study of Methods Used in Measurement and Analysis of Sediment Loads in Streams. United States Government Printing Office.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2005. www.nass.usda.gov U.S. EPA 2005. User's Guide. Spreadsheet Tool for the Estimationof Pollutant Load (STEPL). Version

3.1. Developed by Tetra Tech, Inc. U.S. Census Bureau 2000. United States Census 2000. State and County Quick Facts. Accessed Apr 28,

2006 at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

http://www.uky.edu/KGS/water/library/gwatlas/Laurel/Laurel.htm

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/circ-1136/circ-1136main.html

http://www.nass.usda.gov/

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/





Woods, A.J., J.M. Omernik, W.H. Martin, G.J. Pond, W.M. Andrews, S.M. Call, J.A. Comstock and D.D. Taylor 2002. Ecoregions of Kentucky (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSEOUT

Appendix A: Financial and Administrative Closeout

1. Workplan Outputs The following table outlines the work product associated with this grant and gives dates of completion.

Milestone Completion Date

Award of contract; preliminary meeting with KDOW regarding requirements of Contract; submitted draft of meeting materials.

Sept. 2004

Develop and submit QAPP for Cabinet approval; addressed biological sampling QAPP comments from KDOW

Nov. 2004

First Project Team meeting: submitted draft of first project meeting materials to KDOW for approval; held first project team meeting in Barbourville, KY on November 1, 2004.

Nov. 2004

Developed monitoring plan to NPS Program staff for approval Dec. 2004

Submitted monitoring plan to NPS Program staff for approval Dec. 2004

Distributed proposed monitoring segments and sampling plan to project team members Jan. 2005

Began field assessment Jan. 2005

Began pedestrian survey; assembled teams for pedestrian survey; performed visual survey of watershed with students from Corbin Independent School District

Jan. 2005

Summarized results of pedestrian survey, distributed to project team Jan. 2005

Scheduled second project team meeting for 2/22/05; meeting was cancelled due to many conflicts in schedules; second project team meeting held in April 2005; project team turn-out for meeting was

disappointingly low

Apr. 2005

Macroinvertebrate collection completed May 2005

Laboratory analysis of samples (EnviroData Group) begun for May macro and fish sampling effort June 2005

First water samples collected in May for fecal coliform analysis May 2005

Fish sampling completed May 2005

Water samples collected in May May 2005

Second collection of water samples for fecal coliform analysis completed; fieldwork completed Nov. 2005

Develop Corbin Reservoir watershed awareness module within existing PRIDE water quality curriculum with Laurel County and Corbin Independent school systems; Continued development of

education module; conferences with Bluegrass PRIDE, E Kentucky PRIDE, Corbin and Laurel school district personnel; scheduled meeting w/ KDOW (3/10/05); Multiple conversations with teachers in the

Corbin and Laurel School districts regarding educational match; in-house meetings regarding educational match; meeting w/ KDOW regarding match; in May 2005, extensive coordination with

teachers and Rob Miller regarding educational match component. Met with teachers in August 2005 regarding educational materials and planned website containing educational materials; drafted website

and forwarded to KDOW for approval. No response was ever received from KDOW regarding the educational materials. Teachers were apprised of the education website for incorporation into their

curricula. Website launched in Feb. 2006.

Feb. 2006

Milestone Completion Date

Work with teachers to develop adult community educational materials began in June 2005. Met with teachers in August 2005 to develop ideas for adult education (website, news articles). Website created

and sent to KDOW for approval in October; never received response from KDOW regarding educational materials. Website launched in Feb. 2006 and advertised on Third Rock website and in newsletter. Adult education was accomplished with 500-member Cumberland Compact in February

2006.

Feb. 2006

Summarize monitoring data (macroinvertebrate samples and water quality analyses) Nov. 2005

Conduct watershed protection workshop for area planning officials; Adult education was accomplished by distribution of Corbin project materials to the 500-member Cumberland River Compact.

Feb. 2006

Rank pollutant sources completed Mar. 2006

Third project team meeting held on March 29, 2006 in London, KY. Mar. 2006

Distributed monitoring summary May 2006

The draft WIP was submitted to KDOW for review and approval on May 29, 2006. May 2006

The draft WIP was submitted to team members on June 19, 2006. June 2006

The 4th project team meeting was held on June 19, 2006 in London, KY. June 2006

Submit three copies of the Final Report and submit three copies of all products produced by this project

June 2007

Disseminate final WIP to project team

Pending KDOW acceptance of WIP

2. Budget Summary The attached table shows budgeted as well as final expenditures:

Grant Budget

Budget Categories Section 319 Non-Federal Match Grant Total

Actual Total Final

Expenditures Personnel $ 68,821.35 $ 54,398.00 $ 123,219.35 $ 124,479.61

Supplies $ - $ 2,700.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 1,252.37

Equipment $ - $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 800.00

Travel $ 840.00 $ 3,150.00 $ 3,990.00 $ 3,130.99

Contractural $ 1,920.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 4,320.00 $ 12,784.75

Operating $ 37,407.65 $ 8,010.80 $ 45,418.45 $ 54,660.21

Other $ - $ - $ - $ -

Totals $ 108,989.00 $ 72,658.80 $181,647.80 $ 197,107.93

Third Rock was reimbursed $108,989. All dollars were spent; there were no excess project funds to reallocate. This project did generate overmatch provided by Third Rock. This overmatch was not posted to the Grant. Final project expenses exceeded the proposed budget. However, expenses were reasonably close to proposed figures except for Contractual. It was initially thought that a project team member would be performing some of the water quality analyses. However, ultimately all laboratory analyses were subcontracted to an independent laboratory. In addition, a subconsultant was contracted to perform pollutant load analyses prior to her hire as a full-time employee at Third Rock. Thus, contractual dollars contributed in part to a project budget exceedance. Operating expenses were higher than anticipated because Third Rock provided more match dollars than was originally planned. These match dollars came from creation of the website for the educational component as well as mapping needs, database searches, and project oversight. Despite the budget exceedance, Third Rock values the experience gained from this project. As our first 319(h) grant, much was learned that will be carried forward to subsequent grant awards.

3. Equipment Summary Equipment purchased with grant funds included informational signs at the transducer stations and the associated hardware for mounting the signs and transducers.

4. Special Grant Conditions No special conditions were set on this project by US EPA.

APPENDIX B – WATER MONITORING QAPP

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Corbin City Reservoir WatershedWatershed Plan

Prepared forKentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet

November 20, 2006

Prepared by

Third Rock Consultants, LLC2514 Regency Road

Lexington, KY 40503859.977.2000


http://www.thirdrockconsultants.com/

Quality Assurance Project Plan

Watershed Plan for the Corbin City Reservoir Watershed

for

Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet Department for Environmental Protection

Division of Water 14 Reilly Road

Frankfort, KY 40601

November 20, 2006


Environmental Analysis & Restoration

Distribution and Review List Watershed Plan for the Corbin City Reservoir Watershed Revision: 1, Dated: November 20, 2006 1) Third Rock Consultants, LLC President and QA Manager November 20, 2006 Molly Foree Date Project Administrator November 20, 2006 Gerry Fister Date Data Manager November 20, 2006 Marcia Wooton Date 2) CT Laboratories Laboratory Director David Berwanger Date

Table of Contents

1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................ 6

1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 6 1.2 PROJECT ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................... 7

1.2.1 Kentucky Division of Water, Primary Data User ..........................................................................................................7 1.2.2 Third Rock Personnel and QA Responsibilities.................................................................................................................7 1.2.3 Subcontractor Responsibilities...................................................................................................................................................8

1.3 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND BACKGROUND................................................................................ 10 1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 11

1.4.1 Summary................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 1.4.2 Creation of a Project Team .........................................................................................................................................................12 1.4.3 Prioritization of Stream Segments .........................................................................................................................................12 1.4.4 Development of a Sampling Plan..............................................................................................................................................12 1.4.5 Visual Survey and Biological/Chemical Sampling ........................................................................................................12 1.4.6 Rank Pollutant Sources................................................................................................................................................................. 13 1.4.7 Plan Solutions for Nonpoint Sources Identified That Will Achieve the Expected Load Reductions.13 1.4.8 Monitor for Water Quality Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 13

1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES...............................................................................................15 1.5.1 General Quality Objectives .........................................................................................................................................................15 1.5.2 Quality Objectives and Criteria ...............................................................................................................................................15 1.5.3 Specialized Training/Certification........................................................................................................................................ 16 1.5.4 Documents and Records............................................................................................................................................................... 16 1.5.5 QAPP Management and Distribution................................................................................................................................. 16 1.5.6 Data Reporting Package Archiving and Retrieval........................................................................................................17

2 DATA GENERATION AND ACQUISITION............................................................................17

2.1 SAMPLING.........................................................................................................................................17 2.1.1 Design ......................................................................................................................................................................................................17 2.1.2 Methods ..................................................................................................................................................................................................17 2.1.3 Water Level ..........................................................................................................................................................................................19 2.1.4 Site Locations......................................................................................................................................................................................19

2.2 PROBLEMS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION ........................................................................................21 2.2.1 Sample Handling and Custody ..................................................................................................................................................21

2.3 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES...........................................................................................................23 2.3.1 Problem Resolution and Corrective Action...................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.2 Sample Disposal Procedures ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

2.4 INSTRUMENT / EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND CALIBRATION ...........................................24 2.5 DATA MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................24

3 ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT .............................................................................................26

3.1 ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE ACTIONS.......................................................................................26 3.1.1 Laboratory Assessments..............................................................................................................................................................26 3.1.2 Field Assessments ............................................................................................................................................................................26

3.2 REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................27

4 DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY ...................................................................................28

4.1 DATA REVIEW, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION...................................................................28 4.2 RECONCILIATION WITH USER REQUIREMENTS........................................................................28

5 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................29

APPENDICES – FIGURES AND TABLES APPENDIX A – Figure 1: Corbin City Reservoir Watershed Organizational Chart APPENDIX B – Figure 2: Corbin City Reservoir Watershed Project Milestones and Schedule APPENDIX C – Table 1: Methods, Analytes, and Reporting Limits for the Corbin City Reservoir Watershed APPENDIX D – Table 2: Summary of Project Sampling and Analytical Requirements APPENDIX E – Table 3: Corbin City Reservoir Watershed Assessment and Management Reports

1 Project Management

1.1 Introduction This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), prepared by Third Rock Consultants, LLC (Third Rock), is to be approved by the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW). This QAPP covers the planning and assessment procedures necessary to meet the minimum data quality objectives (DQOs) for the Corbin City Reservoir Watershed Plan. Third Rock Consultants, LLC is committed to producing quality data that will assist the Division of Water in quantifying the remediation of the Corbin City Reservoir and the streams within its watershed. This QAPP is designed to provide a complete plan for achieving all project data quality objectives. However, effective communication is required to ensure that all parties properly implement the plan. Any project related quality feedback, questions, or concerns should be communicated to the project administrator or quality manager to facilitate appropriate analysis and resolution.

1.2 Project Organization

1.2.1 Kentucky Division of Water, Primary Data User The monitoring and assessment activities conducted by Third Rock for the Corbin City Reservoir Watershed will be under the jurisdiction and oversight of the Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) Watershed Management Branch’s Nonpoint Source Section. The KDOW Project Manager will provide overall direction and guidance to the project. Third Rock’s project administrator will communicate directly with the KDOW Project Manager to ensure that all project objectives are satisfied.

1.2.2 Third Rock Personnel and QA Responsibilities The success of the Watershed Plan requires the effective operation of the project team. The specific tasks required of the project team members are outlined below:

• Project Administrator The Project Administrator is responsible for the overall completion of the project to the requirements of the KDOW. In this capacity, he is responsible for overall project administration, personnel, scheduling, and completion of all data quality objectives. Additionally, he maintains project financials and contracts and submits reports to the KDOW. The Project Administrator serves as the primary contact with the Kentucky Division of Water.

• Field Logistics Coordinator The Field Logistics Coordinator is responsible for coordinating all field sampling efforts, field surveying, determining the site selections, and providing oversight. He is responsible for data gathering, management, and analysis; report generation; and internal technical assistance.

• Quality Assurance Manager The Quality Assurance Manager is responsible for review of the QAPP, field operations procedures, and data documentation procedures to help ensure field and laboratory data generated meet data quality objectives. The Quality Assurance Manager will remain independent of the data collection. He is responsible for the maintenance and distribution of the approved QAPP.

• Data Manager and Sampling Coordinator The Data Manager and Sampling Coordinator is responsible for the review of laboratory analytical results and coordination of sampling events. The sampling coordinator will ensure that the sampling procedures and schedule is implemented by the sampling technicians. The Data Manager and Sampling Coordinator communicates with the laboratories to ensure holding requirements and other data quality objectives are met. The Data Manager, reviews analytical data generated by the laboratory and ensures that it conforms to the requirements of this QAPP.

• Sampling Technicians Sampling Technicians are responsible for implementing the sampling procedures and schedule as coordinated by the Data Manager and Sampling Coordinator.

1.2.3 Subcontractor Responsibilities

1.2.3.1 CT Laboratories of Baraboo, Wisconsin The analytical subcontractors for the laboratory portion of this project will be CT Laboratories of Baraboo, Wisconsin for all laboratory parameters. The laboratory will be responsible for analysis of samples delivered such that data quality objectives are met. The laboratory will implement and document QA/QC activities to support the results of the analyses performed on the samples. All analyses are expected to be conducted in accordance with the specified analytical methods, the laboratories QA manual, and this QAPP. Eric Korthals, laboratory project manager, is responsible for ensuring conformance of the laboratory. The following provides a general summary of the QA responsibilities of key laboratory personnel:

• Laboratory Director David Berwanger will serve as the Laboratory Director for CT Laboratories. The Laboratory Director is responsible for the supervision of all functional aspects of the laboratory and has authority in a legally binding capacity for all laboratory decisions and operational issues. Responsibilities may include, but are not limited to overseeing personnel training, equipment and systems maintenance, laboratory safety, monitoring scheduling and status of work, approval of Standard Operating Procedures, implementing preventive and corrective actions, and cost control. The Laboratory Director is responsible for ensuring laboratory personnel implement internal lab QA/QC procedures and comply with applicable regulations.

• Laboratory Quality Assurance Director Dan Elwood will serve as the Laboratory Quality Assurance Director for CT Laboratories. The Laboratory Quality Assurance Director has authority over and is responsible for the direction of all laboratory QA activities, and is independent of laboratory production functions. The Laboratory Quality Assurance Director’s responsibilities include development, documentation, and evaluation of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures and policy. He conducts internal audits, reviews data reports, compiles and evaluates method performance, trains staff in QA/QC requirements, tracks non-conformances and corrective actions, prepares quality documents and reports, reviews standard operating procedures, and reports findings and quality issues to the Laboratory Director. A primary responsibility of the Quality Assurance Director is to verify that all personnel have a clear understanding of the QA program, know their roles relative to one another, and appreciate the importance of their roles to the overall success of the program.

• Laboratory Information System Managers David Berwanger will serve as the Information Systems (IS) Manager for CT Laboratories. The IS Manager’s responsibility includes development and maintenance of the software and

hardware components of laboratory operations. He ensures all systems are operating and validates any computer programs involved in the data reduction, generation and reporting process. The IS Manager serves as the database administrator for the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS).

• Laboratory Project Manager Eric Korthals will serve as the Laboratory Project Manager for CT Laboratories. Project Managers are the Third Rock’s primary point of contact for laboratory analytical services. The Laboratory Project Manager's duties involve performing as a client-laboratory liaison for project work, working with customers to identify project-specific requirements, and aiding them, throughout the laboratory, to meet their data quality objectives. Project managers review analytical results to ensure that project data and QC requirements have been satisfied, prepare narrative reports where applicable, and monitor project work so deadlines are met. They are responsible for seeing that clients are informed of any quality problems as soon as possible. Project Managers work directly with the laboratory managers and laboratory staff involved in their assigned projects to keep staff informed of QA/QC requirements and to monitor work progress. They also work closely with Third Rock and KDOW to develop work plans and DQOs for current and future work.

1.3 Problem Definition and Background Corbin City Reservoir, the drinking water supply for Corbin, Kentucky, was formed by the impoundment of the Laurel River. The Corbin City Reservoir is listed as a 1st priority impaired water body in Kentucky’s 2004 303(d) report (Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) 2005). The report cites the impaired uses as drinking water supply (non-support) and aquatic life (partial support). The relevant pollutants are nutrients, organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen, taste and odor, and algal growth/chlorophyll a. The approximately 130-acre reservoir is located just downstream of the convergence of three 4th order streams, the Laurel and Little Laurel Rivers and Robinson Creek, which drain a total of 127 mi2. In all, the Corbin City Reservoir watershed contains over 450 miles of streams. The Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) has assessed about 50 miles of the streams in this watershed for designated uses; of those miles, approximately 35 miles are currently impaired by pollution and listed as 1st Priority 303(d) streams (KDOW 2005). Sixty-three percent of these impaired stream miles are impaired by nonpoint source pollutants, primarily pathogens, sediment, nutrients, and organic enrichment.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Laurel County (the county in which the watershed is located) is one of the most rapidly growing counties in the state of Kentucky. The county population growth from Apr. 1, 2000 to Jul. 1, 2004 was 6.2%, while the state’s population growth was only 2.6%. In 2004, the population of Laurel County was nearly 56,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). As this area continues to grow and population density increases, pressures on the streams and reservoir will intensify. It is important to start now to increase awareness of the link between land use and water quality and implement projects to lessen the impacts of additional growth and development to protect the quality of our water resources.

Using a 2003-04 319(h) grant, a Third Rock Consultants began the development of a Watershed Plan for the Corbin City Reservoir watershed. In order to develop the plan, extensive stream monitoring was planned across the watershed. The collection of these data were proposed to determine the level of stream impairment, identify significant sources of nonpoint source pollution, and to develop a prioritized list of practical solutions and projects for remediation of the watershed and reservoir. Sources of impairment for the reservoir include nutrient addition, excessive bacteria, and sedimentation. To characterize the extent and source of impairment, sampling sites locations were determined for chemical, physical, and biological evaluations. Based on these evaluations, it was determined that this area is in need of watershed-scale remediation. The Watershed Plan will assist in this remediation. A holistic approach should be used, targeting the most critical areas in order to most efficiently and economically reduce nonpoint source pollution within the watershed. Likewise, it should be an iterative approach, combining implementation projects and further study as information becomes available.

1.4 Project Description 1.4.1 Summary WATERSHED GOAL: To make Corbin City Reservoir and the tributaries within Laurel River watershed safe for drinking, recreation, and aquatic life. Our goals also coincide with the Kentucky Division of Water: to remove Corbin City Reservoir and its upstream tributaries from the 303d impaired waters list. The project goals during the development of the Watershed Plan are: • Identify the significant sources of impairment in the upper Laurel River watershed • Prioritize sources of impairments based on nutrient concentration, frequency, physical

impairments, mass loadings, etc. • Determine links between watershed and reservoir impairments • Develop practical plans for reducing the found impairments to levels within the range of

healthy warm-water aquatic habitats. The Watershed Plan includes the following activities: • Creation of a Project Team. • Prioritization of stream segments for a thorough assessment. • Development of a sampling plan. • Visual survey and biological/chemical sampling. • Ranking of pollutant sources. • Planning for nonpoint source pollution remediation solutions. • Educational activities within Laurel County (public and local governments) Various combinations of BMPs could be used to achieve water quality goals. Water quality improvement projects suggested by the Watershed Plan include: • Create a bioretention area to improve water quality and reduce peak discharge to receiving

stream • Create a stormwater wetland to improve water quality and reduce peak discharge • Create a stream-side wetland to improve water quality and reduce peak discharge • Prioritize stream segments of Laurel and Little Laurel Rivers, Robinson Creek, and

contributing tributaries in a streambank erosion inventory • Create or enhance riparian buffers to reduce nutrients, sediment, and bacteria transported

to tributaries within the watershed. • Determine the extent of sedimentation in the Corbin City reservoir and determine the

composition of the sediments through probing and core sampling. As remediation activities suggested by the Watershed Plan are implemented, additional monitoring will be performed to determine if water quality improves and to evaluate the efficiency of specific BMPs for treating nonpoint source pollutants.

These items are presented in more detail below.

1.4.2 Creation of a Project Team This team would be assembled from groups, agencies, and area citizens that are interested in restoring the health of the Laurel River watershed. This team would make decisions regarding the stream segments to be assessed, the sampling approach, and the location of improvements, as well as ways to increase area support for the project.

1.4.3 Prioritization of Stream Segments The location of the stream sampling stations will be finalized after completion of a visual habitat survey of fifty stream segments within the watershed. Twenty stream segments will be identified for prioritization as most impaired in the Laurel River Watershed (For the purposes of this proposal, these streams will be segments having a hydrologic unit code, HUC, of 14 or more digits.). The location of existing physical, chemical, and biological information previously collected by the Kentucky Division of Water and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will also influence the location of sampling sites and reaches. Stream reaches will be selected based on their degree of impairment and potential for water quality improvements. From these twenty stations six will be chosen for the determination of pollutant loading.

1.4.4 Development of a Sampling Plan A monitoring plan will be prepared to evaluate the biology, chemistry and habitat of the selected stream sites. This monitoring can occur during watershed evaluation and following implementation projects to track improvements. The monitoring will include a visual survey and photo documentation, a habitat assessment, a biological assessment (macroinvertebrates and fish), chemical sampling and pollutant loading. Third Rock personnel will supervise all field sampling. Field and laboratory surveys will be performed in accordance with the 2002 Kentucky Division of Water document, Methods for Assessing Biological Integrity of Surface Waters in Kentucky (KDOW 2002b). Water chemical sampling will follow another Kentucky Division of Water document, Standard Operating Procedures for Nonpoint Source Surface Water Quality Monitoring Projects (KDOW 1995). These procedures are detailed in the following sections.

1.4.5 Visual Survey and Biological/Chemical Sampling Field assessment of the selected segments for identification of causes and extent of impairment will be performed as documented in the sampling plan. The following techniques are anticipated:

• The fifty stream reaches will be visually surveyed one time to assess land use, sources of pollution, and degraded biological habitat. Land use and pollution sources will be geocoded and mapped using GPS. Available GIS related data will be utilized for mining locations, housing densities, and other applicable information.

• Twenty stream segment stations will be selected from the original fifty based on results of the pedestrian survey (physical and physio-chemical survey).

• Bacteria levels will be monitored at least twice during the project at the twenty sub-

site stations to pinpoint input sources.

• At the twenty sub-sites, macroinvertebrates, fish, water chemistry, and physical habitat of the stream segment sub-sites will be assessed once during the appropriate timeframe to supplement areas where data is not currently available. Combined with data from US Army Corps of Engineers and the Kentucky Division of Water, this data will help pinpoint specific areas of impairment.

• Six stations will be chosen from the twenty sub-sites for a thorough pollutant

loading determination.

• Flow will be measured at the six pollutant-loading stations using a combination of cross-sectional area and data logging pressure transducers as a requirement of the loading estimate.

Note: sampling frequency will not be adequate to quantify pollutant levels. Data are intended as screening level information.

1.4.6 Rank Pollutant Sources By combining current and historical monitoring data, rough pollutant loads will be estimated based on pollutant levels, watershed area, and stream flow. These loads will indicate areas where the pollutant loading is most significant. It should be noted that the methods presented here are for a qualitative watershed assessment and are not designed to achieve loading estimates accurate enough for TMDL development.

1.4.7 Plan Solutions for Nonpoint Sources Identified That Will Achieve the Expected Load Reductions

Practical solutions for pollution will be recommended for the most significant pollutant sources. The feasibility of these solutions will be judged by the project committee based on estimation of cost, likelihood of landowner cooperation, and predicted success. Solutions will include preservation, on-the-ground best management practices (e.g. bioretention, stormwater wetlands, cattle fencing), as well as potential funding options from various agencies.

1.4.8 Monitor for Water Quality Improvements Just as the watershed is monitored to determine pollution levels and sources, monitoring will continue after improvement projects are implemented to determine if water quality improves.

Additionally, the effectiveness for specific BMP’s to treat nonpoint source pollution will be evaluated. For example, a bioretention area will be monitored such that pollutant load reductions, or percent pollutant retention in the rain garden, will be calculated. Inflow (runoff) to the BMP will be estimated using measured rainfall and the SCS curve number approach. Outflow from the BMP will be collected from the underdrains into a weir box equipped with an automated water sampler equipped with a device to measure and record flow. Flow weighted composite samples will be taken for inflow and outflow during storm events. Water samples will be analyzed for TKN, TN NO3-N, NH4-N, TP, OP-P, Zn, Cu, and Fe. To ascertain the effectiveness of riparian plantings and/or fencing cattle out of streams, water quality monitoring will be performed above and below BMP location to measure potential reduction of nutrients, sediment, and bacteria. The success of riparian plantings will be evaluated by calculating percent survival.

1.5 Quality Assurance Objectives

1.5.1 General Quality Objectives The overall project data quality objective (DQO) is to provide information that will lead to improved water quality and the removal of the waters within the Corbin City Reservoir Watershed and the Reservoir itself from the 303(d) list of waters. Reaching this objective requires that data generated must be of sufficient quantity and quality to support the determination of impairment. The following items detail the performance criteria for the measurement process associated with water quality sampling and analysis for this project.

1.5.2 Quality Objectives and Criteria

1.5.2.1 Precision, Accuracy, and Measurement Range The precision and accuracy of water chemistry laboratory parameters (nitrogen [total], ammonia, nitrate + nitrite, phosphorus [total], bacteria) and field parameters (pH, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, and temperature) will meet all accepted EPA and KDOW standards. Precision estimates will be possible through the collection of duplicate samples (10 percent of collections). Accuracy will be determined through the use of spiked samples (10 percent of samples). The measurement range of each parameter will follow accepted ranges of each water quality instrument as specified by the manufacturer. For habitat, fish, and macroinvertebrate monitoring, it is not possible to quantitatively express the data quality indicators of precision, accuracy, and measurement range. Instead, sampling methods for each monitoring type are described (see project task description) and the remaining data quality indicators of representativeness, comparability, and completeness are discussed in narrative form (see below).

1.5.2.2 Representativeness Macroinvertebrate sampling at each site will consist of composite quantitative and qualitative collections. For streams, quantitative sampling will be accomplished in riffle habitats; four separate kicknet samples will be taken from each of two riffles. Qualitative sampling will consist of qualitative searches or sweeps from a broad range of habitats. Composite sampling of instream habitats will help ensure that collections are reflective of actual community composition. Fish sampling at each site will consist of electrofishing and in streams an additional seining effort. Use of both methods will ensure that a representative sample of the fish community is obtained. In streams, habitat assessments will be conducted within a 100-meter sampling reach. This will ensure that a representative portion of stream has been assessed.

1.5.2.3 Comparability Comparability of water chemistry results will be ensured through strict adherence to KDOW and EPA sampling and laboratory methods. Comparability of habitat and biological data will be ensured through strict adherence to sampling protocols developed by the KDOW for instream habitat, fish, and macroinvertebrates. A standard list of taxonomic references will be used during macroinvertebrate sample identification.

1.5.2.4 Completeness It is expected that sampling will be completed at 95 percent of sampling sites.

1.5.2.5 Sensitivity Sensitivity is the capability of a method or instrument to discriminate between measurement responses representing different levels of variable interest. Sensitivity for this project is achieved by adherence to the reporting limits listed in Table 1 (Appendix C). Reporting limits are determined by a calculation based upon the method detection limit for analytical methods and instrumentation.

1.5.3 Specialized Training/Certification All participating Third Rock biologists are trained in aquatic biology. All biologists have earned Masters or PhD degrees in science from accredited universities. Third Rock biologists are involved in continuing education by attending numerous training sessions, reviewing refereed journals, and attending professional conferences. At least one Third Rock biologist will be participating in all aquatic sampling events and will instruct other personnel in sampling methods.

1.5.4 Documents and Records In order to provide quality consulting to the KDOW, traceability and maintenance of documentation and records is essentially. All records relating in any manner whatsoever to the project, or any designated portion thereof; which are in the possession of Third Rock shall be made available, upon request of the KDOW. Additionally, these records shall be available to any applicable regulatory authority and such authorities may review, inspect and copy these records. These records shall be retained for at least 3 years after the project is approved and closed by the EPA. Third Rock will deliver a final report containing results and conclusions of all data gathered throughout the study, including the performance of the BMPs. This document includes descriptions of all relevant background information, summary, BMP details, monitoring methods and results, and recommendations for further efforts.

1.5.5 QAPP Management and Distribution Key to these goals is the distribution of the most recent version of this QAPP to all parties listed on the distribution list once the QAPP has been reviewed and approved. The QA manager is

responsible for ensuring that all applicable parties perform documented review of the QAPP. If, because of deviations in the QAPP, revisions are required, the QA manager shall ensure that all parties review the revised version. The current revision and the date of the revision shall be documented in the upper left hand corner of the QAPP pages. The QAPP shall be redistributed after all parties have reviewed the document.

1.5.6 Data Reporting Package Archiving and Retrieval The original copies of all field notes, field data sheets, lab sheets, chain-of-custody forms, and lab reports will be maintained and stored at Third Rock Consultants for the required document retention period for the grant. At the end of the required period, the documents will be archived in Third Rock’s warehouse. Copies of all electronic data will be archived in specified Third Rock computer files. The laboratory shall also maintain all records associated with the analytical results; including laboratory notebooks, bench sheets, instrument calibration and sequence logs, preparation logs, maintenance logs, etc.; for the retention period of the grant.

2 Data Generation and Acquisition

2.1 Sampling 2.1.1 Design Sampling will initially be based on selecting twenty stream segments identified as most impaired in the Laurel River watershed. For the purposes of this proposal, these stream segments will have a hydrologic unit code [HUC] of 14 or more digits. The selection of these segments will be based on their proximity to urban/developed areas and their location in the watershed. The availability of physical, chemical, and biological information previously collected by the Kentucky Division of Water and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will also influence the location of sampling reaches. These stream reaches are anticipated to be in areas with the greatest potential for water quality improvements. The extent of local impacts, the nature of pollutants, and the drainage of the immediate watershed will determine the exact locations of stream and reservoir sampling stations. Preliminary sampling stations are identified on the enclosed mapping. Following the visual survey and the second project team meeting, a list of sampling sites with lat/long coordinates will be submitted to KDOW.

2.1.2 Methods Fish sampling in streams will be conducted from mid-March through September following methods described in KDOW (2002b). Sampling at each station will be conducted within a stream reach measuring 100 to 125 meters (m) in length. Each sampling reach will encompass at least two riffles, two runs, and two pools. Sampling will be accomplished using a crew of two to three persons; methods will consist of seining and electroshocking. Seines (3.4 X 1.8 m with 0.3 cm mesh) will be utilized in riffles, runs, and shallow pools for approximately 30 to 60 minutes. Seining is very effective in riffles if used in conjunction with electrofishing. Electrofishing will

be accomplished most often using a Smith-Root backpack electrofisher. Sampling will be conducted for a period of 600-1,000 seconds, using a sweeping manner in an upstream direction. All instream habitat (log jams, roots, undercut banks) will be thoroughly worked with the electrofisher. Larger streams (usually 10 m wide with maximum depths of at least 1 m) and the Corbin City Reservoir will be sampled using a long-line electrofishing unit consisting of a small aluminum motorboat equipped with a Honda GX270 [5000W] Generator and Smith-Root Type VI-A electroshocker. Stunned fish will be placed in water-filled 5-gallon buckets in preparation for identification. In order to minimize mortality, captured fish will be periodically identified, enumerated, recorded on field data sheets, and released. Digital photographs will be taken of each species captured. Representative specimens of unidentifiable species will be preserved in 10 to 15 percent buffered formalin and returned to the laboratory for processing. At least one Third Rock biologist experienced in fish identification will be present during all fish sampling. Results of stream fish sampling will be evaluated through calculation of the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) developed by Karr (1981) and modified for Kentucky streams by KDOW (2002b, 1997). The IBI uses eight community metrics or measures that describe species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and condition. Individual metric scores are calculated for each sampling station, compared with reference criteria developed by the KDOW, summed, and averaged to arrive at an overall IBI score. Individual IBI scores for each stream are then compared to thresholds developed by KDOW to assign narrative water-quality rankings of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, and Very Poor. Depending on the watershed size at each sampling station, macroinvertebrate collections will be performed between February and October following methods described in KDOW (2002b). For stream segments (watershed less than five square miles (mi2), sampling will be performed between February 1 and May 31 (estimated to be the majority or all of the sampling stations). For streams with watersheds exceeding five mi2, sampling must be performed between June 1 and September 30 (Pond et al. 2003). Two types of macroinvertebrate samples will be collected at each stream sampling station: riffle and multi-habitat. The riffle sample will consist of a composite of four 0.25m2 kicknet samples taken from two separate riffles. The multihabitat sample is also a composite sample but is taken from non-riffle areas such as undercut banks, roots, aquatic vegetation, slab rocks, leaf packs, and wood. The two composite samples are kept separate during processing but are used collectively during data analysis. Macroinvertebrates will be preserved in 80 percent ethanol and transported to Third Rock’s Biology Laboratory for sample processing. Sample processing will coincide with the current method of subsampling used by KDOW from each sample. This will ensure proper metric calculation after processing. Organisms will be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level (genus or species), enumerated, and recorded on laboratory data sheets. Identification results will be transferred to Third Rock’s macroinvertebrate database. Five to seven community metrics (e.g., taxa richness, EPT richness, modified Hilsenhoff biotic index) will be calculated for each station; results of community metrics will be used to compute a Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index score for each station. The MBI score for each station will be compared to thresholds developed by KDOW to assign narrative water-quality rankings of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, and Very Poor. For reservoir sampling, the invertebrate data will be analyzed as

described for fish. Data will be compared to measured physical and chemical variables to find the factors that significantly influence the benthic invertebrate community. During one of the biological sampling events, a one man-hour habitat inspection will be completed at each stream sampling station or reach using the EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP). Ten habitat parameters will be assessed, including epifaunal substrate (quantity and variety of substrate), embeddedness and pool substrate characterization (measurement of silt accumulation and type & condition of bottom substrate, respectively), velocity/depth regime & pool variability (combination of slow-deep, slow-shallow, fast-deep, and fast-shallow habitats & measurement of the mixture of pool types, respectively), sediment deposition (accumulation in pools), channel flow status (the degree that the channel is filled with water), channel alteration (measurement of large-scales changes in the shape of the channel), frequency of riffles & channel sinuosity (sequence of riffles & meandering of the stream, respectively), bank stability (measure of erosion), bank vegetation (amount of vegetative protection), and riparian vegetative zone width (width of the natural vegetation from the edge of the stream bank through the riparian zone). All of these criteria are rated (1 to 10) and combined to obtain a habitat score (0 to 200). Use attainment can be estimated based through the habitat score using Kentucky Division of Water’s reference criteria. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and pH will be measured during field sampling of the streams with Hydrolab or YSI water quality instruments. Water chemistry grab samples (total nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, total phosphorus, and bacteria) will be analyzed by an accredited testing facility. Except for bacteria sample containers that are pre-sterilized, containers will be rinsed three times with water prior to sampling. Stream samples will be collected from the thalweg (or low water channel) just above the stream bottom. Bottles will be filled to about 90 percent capacity. Efforts will be made not to stir up sediments during collection. When sampling different reaches of the same stream, sampling will occur at the downstream location first to avoid excess particulates in samples. Proper field data sheets will be completed. Samples will be labeled accordingly, placed on ice, and delivered to the chosen laboratory within the required holding time(s). Proper chain-of-custody procedures will be followed to ensure accuracy in sample reporting. Appropriate statistical analysis (e.g., trend or multivariate analysis) will be performed after results are obtained.

2.1.3 Water Level Water level measurements associated with pollutant loading stations will be recorded with pressure transducer water level recorders (such as Infinities USA). These data-logging units will be installed within the thalweg of the stream station such that the water depth can be constantly monitored to assist with flow determination.

2.1.4 Site Locations Project site locations will be recorded using Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates obtained using a Garmin handheld GPS or the equivalent, accurate to ±5-40m. Internal SOPs and manufacturer’s instructions will be followed to record these measurements.

All sites will be photographed (digital camera) throughout the course of study to maintain a visual record of the project.

2.2 Problems and Corrective Action Known or suspected deviations from sampling methods, the protocols of this QAPP, or other applicable protocols are to be reported to the Project Administrator. These incidents are documented by email to the project folder and the Project Administrator. All project related emails are to be sent to a central project electronic folder for recall and storage. If the deviation represents a serious flaw with sampling methodology, sampling results, or modeling methods, corrective action will be taken based on recommendations the project administrator receives from the KDOW.

2.2.1 Sample Handling and Custody

2.2.1.1 Chain of Custody Chain-of-custody (COC) forms will be completed for all samples collected in the field and will follow each sample throughout sample processing. A Chain-of-Custody form is a controlled document used to record sample information and ensure the traceability of sample handling and possession is maintained from the time of collection through analysis and final disposition. A sample is considered in custody if it is:

• In the individual’s physical possession, • In the individual’s sight, • Secured in a tamper-proof way by that individual, or secured in an area restricted to

authorized personnel. The Data Manager and Sampling Coordinator shall create Master COCs and provide to the Sampling Technicians with the applicable COCs for the collections. All information shall be documented, on the COC, in black or blue waterproof permanent ink including field measurements and custody information. The Sampling Technician shall initiate sample custody at the time the sample is collected. Field custody documentation shall include:

• Verification of Sample Identification • Number of Sample Containers Collected • Collection Date • Collection Time • Collector’s Signature

The Sampling Technician shall maintain possession of the sample until custody is transferred to the laboratory or another party. The COC shall accompany the sample from the time of collection until it is relinquished. Field custody is relinquished by signature, with date and time, of the Sampling Technician in the designated area on the COC.

2.2.1.2 Sample Handling and Transport The packager is responsible to ensure that lids to all containers are secured properly and tight enough to prevent leakage. All samples shall be collected and preserved as specified in Table 2 (Appendix D), Summary of Project Sampling and Analytical Requirements. Glass containers are placed in appropriate bubble wrap material to protect against breakage during shipment. Sample containers are placed in coolers right side up. Samples are transported according to method storage requirements. Place samples requiring storage at 4°C ± 2°C inside plastic bags to ensure that sample labels stay dry during transport. The bagged samples are placed in an appropriately sized cooler in order best pack the samples with an adequate amount of ice to ensure the appropriate temperature is maintained until arrival at the subcontract laboratory. Loose ice is placed around the bagged samples. Samples coolers should be of adequate size to allow ice to surround all sample containers. It is the responsibility of the Sampling Technician to ensure that coolers are properly packed and that they have sufficient cooler space on their vehicle for their daily sample load. Coolers shall be secured during transport such that significant disturbance of the samples is avoided. Upon receipt at the laboratory, the sample custodian shall review the COC for completeness and accuracy. Anomalies shall be documented. The laboratory shall measure sample temperature upon receipt; determine if sample aliquots have been placed in appropriate containers and properly preserved, by verification with pH strips, as applicable; findings shall be documented on COC, and inspect the sample for proper identification and container integrity; any discrepancies and/or container damage shall be documented on the COC.

2.2.1.3 Sample Labeling and Identification Samples bottles are shipped from the analytical laboratory with preprinted information to assist in the proper identification of samples. These labels indicate Third Rock’s name and project identification, and the expected parameters to be analyzed from that bottle. Sampling Technicians are responsible for recording the sampling station, which serves as the sample identifier, as well as the date and time of the collection on each sample bottle as well as on the COC. In the event that a preprinted label could not be obtained from the laboratory, the Sampling Technician would be responsible for recording the information listed on these labels on the sample. If possible, apply labels before sampling as moisture on the sampling bottles can make adhesion of the label to the bottle difficult.

2.3 Analytical Procedures Water samples will be analyzed for several parameters following standard methodology as listed in Table 2 (Appendix D). Modifications to the prescribed and/or pre-approved analytical methods will not be made without the knowledge and consent of Third Rock’s Project Administrator.

2.3.1 Problem Resolution and Corrective Action The laboratory is required to maintain a corrective action and cause analysis system in order to address deviations and client complaints. When a deviation from an internal procedure or external method or protocol is found or a compliant has a complaint about the data results or service, the laboratory shall document these incidents and begin a cause analysis to determine the source or sources of the problem. Once the source(s) are identified, the laboratory shall institute corrective action to achieve compliance. Evidence of completion of this corrective action and follow up evaluation of the effectiveness of the action, as necessary shall demonstrate compliance.

2.3.2 Sample Disposal Procedures In general, samples are disposed of 30 days after results have been reported to the client. All sample container labels are removed or obliterated prior to disposal. Hazardous wastes are returned to the client for disposal. The lab maintains status as a limited quantity generator of hazardous waste. As such, other hazardous solid wastes are disposed of in a hazardous waste designated dumpster and sent directly to an in state permitted landfill. Non-hazardous aqueous samples are disposed by pouring the neutralized sample into a conventional drain to the municipal sewage treatment system. Non-hazardous solid wastes (including emptied containers from aqueous samples) are disposed of by placing in a dumpster for municipal landfill disposal.

2.4 Instrument / Equipment Maintenance and Calibration All sampling equipment will be maintained and calibrated according to manufacturer recommendation. All supplies are acquired through Third Rock Consultants’ vendors. The members on this vendor list have applied quality control measures that have resulted in recurring quality. All maintenance on laboratory equipment is conducted in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. These requirements are described in the laboratories’ standard operating procedures and appropriate instrument maintenance manuals. The applicable laboratory is responsible for ensuring that timely maintenance is conducted and that sufficient spare parts are on hand for necessary maintenance and repair procedures. The frequency of maintenance performed depends on the equipment; laboratory maintenance is scheduled and conducted daily, monthly, weekly, quarterly, semiannually, and annually, as required. A few maintenance needs (e.g., accidental breakage, part failure) are not covered by the general maintenance schedule, and such maintenance is performed as needed. Specific instrument calibration requirements can and do vary slightly depending on the particular method and the project and regulatory requirements for the project. Detailed descriptions of specific calibration requirements are provided in the laboratory analytical method SOP for each method.

2.5 Data Management Records are to be stored until 3 years after the close of the project. An efficient and effective data management system is necessary to maintain and store all project related data. The laboratory is expected to maintain all records associated with the analytical results; including laboratory notebooks, bench sheets, instrument calibration and sequence logs, preparation logs, maintenance logs, etc.; for the retention period of the grant according to their internal data management procedures. All field and laboratory data and results will be reviewed, organized, and stored by Third Rock’s Data Manager and Sampling Coordinator. In order to accomplish this task, the sampling technician shall submit completed field datasheets and copies of measurements in field notebooks to the Data Manager upon return to the office. The Data Manager will calculate all flows and review the datasheets for completeness. If the sampling technician submits samples to the laboratory, he/she shall obtain a copy of the relinquished COC and submit it to the Data Manager. If the sampling technician relinquishes the COC to the Data Manager, the Data Manager shall similarly obtain a copy of the relinquished COC to retain for recording purposes. The field data and the COC are stored by the Data Manager until results are received from the analytical laboratory. Hardcopy of the results from the laboratory are reviewed for completeness and for outlier results. Laboratory results and field measurements are then entered into an

electronic spreadsheet to be submitted, by the Project Administrator, to KDOW once all data for a month is received and entered. Once the spreadsheet has been submitted to the KDOW, the Data Manager organizes and stores the hardcopies of all information in the designated project folder in the central files. All project related correspondence is documented by an email system. All project related emails are “CC”ed to the Third Rock assigned project file folder for traceability and storage. All other electronic files are stored on a central project drive accessible to the appropriate Third Rock personnel.

3 Assessment and Oversight

3.1 Assessment and Response Actions Assessment and response actions are necessary to ensure that this QAPP is being implemented as approved. For a general summary of these assessments see Table 3 Corbin City Reservoir Watershed Assessment and Management Reports (Appendix E). The Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) quality assurance officer (QAO) may freely review all field and laboratory techniques as requested. Any identified problems will be corrected based on recommendations by the QAO. The KDOW will also review analytical results on a monthly basis.

3.1.1 Laboratory Assessments To ensure conformance with this QAPP and the applicable regulations, certifications, and methods by which the laboratory operates, the laboratory performs several assessment measures. To ensure that the analyst is capable of performing the requested analytical methods to specifications, each analyst is required to acceptably demonstrate this ability prior to conducting sample analyses. The analyst must conduct four replicate analyses of a known standard and achieve precision and accuracy equal to or better than the acceptance ranges for laboratory duplicates and laboratory control samples, respectively. The laboratory is also required to participate in at least one blind performance evaluation study each year. Performance Evaluation (PE) studies provide an independent assessment of the accuracy of its analyses and maintain laboratory accreditations. All PE analyses performed by the laboratory are performed by the same analyst and using the same procedures that are used for routine sample analyses for the analyte(s) of interest. The PE results must satisfy the PE acceptance criteria specified by the PE provider or project. After an evaluation of the PE results is received, any results outside of acceptance limits are investigated and corrective actions taken to prevent recurrence of the problem. All findings must be documented and available for review. The laboratory is also required to have routinely scheduled internal and external audits. The laboratory QA Director or their appointee on an annual basis performs internal audits. Certification bodies usually on a biannual basis perform external audits. In each case, the findings of the audit, both positive and negative are documented, and the corrective response to the cited deviations is required within thirty days of receipt of the audit report. Corrective actions are submitted to the auditing body for review and approval.

3.1.2 Field Assessments The QA manager is responsible for the overall conformance of Third Rock to the general procedures, protocols, and methods established by this QAPP and internal project related procedures. The QA Manager may apply spot assessments including supervision of field activities or requests for documentation of the reviews specified herein. The QA Manager may also periodically review the project correspondence files to ensure that all deviations are properly documented and resolved.

3.2 Reports to Management Third Rock Consultants will prepare a final report that includes the results and will describe all methods and findings of this project. The final report will include results and conclusions from all studies and will satisfy all requirements for the grant. Prior to the completion of that report, reports on the progress and assessment of the project objectives are produced as summarized in Table 3 (Appendix E). All reports are expected to list the personnel or organization responsible for producing the report and the date prepared for traceability purposes.

4 Data Validation and Usability

4.1 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Initial review of all analytical data is performed by the laboratory against the data quality indicators specified in this QAPP. Corrective actions are taken, if possible while the samples are still within the method specified holding time. Data quality flags are applied to the laboratory results that do not meet these requirements. Third Rock’s Data Manager performs an additional review of the laboratory data as well as the field data. This review, performed within one week of receipt of the results, assesses the completeness and accuracy of the data. Evaluation of the data is made against the DQIs as listed in Table 1 (Appendix C). Any data points that seem suspect or require additional analysis are identified during this review. Decisions to reject or additionally qualify the data will be made at the discretion of Third Rock.

4.2 Reconciliation with User Requirements In the final report, descriptions of all relevant background information, summary, water body details, monitoring results, recommended solutions, and implementation plans will be detailed. Included in this document will be an overall assessment of the data quality and the uncertainty involved in the results.

5 References American Public Health Association (APHA). 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water

and Wastewater. American Public Health Assoc., American Water Works Assoc., and Water Pollution Control Federation. 20th Edition. Washington, DC.

Bass, K.L. 2000. Evaluation of a Small In-Stream Constructed Wetland in North Carolina's Coastal Plain. In Masters Thesis. Biological and Agricultural Engineering. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Bastviken, S.K., P.G. Eriksson, I. Martins, J.M. Neto, L. Leonardson and K. Tonderski 2003. Wetlands and Aquatic Processes: Potential Nitrification and Denitrification on Different Surfaces in a Constructed Treatment Wetland. Journal of Environmental Quality. 32:2414-2420.

Blahnik, T. and J. Day, Jr. 2000. The Effects of Varied Hydraulic and Nutrient Loading Rates On Water Quality and Hydrologic Distributions in a Natural Forested Treatment Wetland. Wetlands. 20:48-61.

Braskerud, B.C. 2002. Factors Affecting Phosphorus Retention in Small Constructed Wetlands Treating Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution. Ecological Engineering. 19:41-61.

Carter, V. Technical Aspects of Wetlands: Wetland Hydrology, Water Quality, and Associated Functions. National Water Summary on Wetland Resources. United States Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2425. Accessed Jan 26, 2004 at http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/hydrology.html

Casey, R.E. and S.J. Klaine 2001. Nutrient Attenuation by a Riparian Wetland During Natural and Artificial Runoff Events. Journal of Environmental Quality. 30:1720-1731.

Daniels, R.B. and J.W. Gilliam 1996. Sediment and Chemical Load Reduction By Grass and Riparian Filters. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 60:246-251.

Dietz, M.E. and J.C. Clausen 2005. A Field Evaluation of Rain Garden Flow and Pollutant Treatment. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 167:123-138.

Dietz, M.E. and J.C. Clausen 2006. Saturation to Improve Pollutant Retention in a Rain Garden. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 40:1335-1340.

Gilliam, J.W., J.L. Baker and K.R. Reddy 1999. Ch. 24. Water Quality Effects on Drainage In Humid Regions. In Agricultural Drainage, Agronomy Monograph No. 38. American Society of

http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/hydrology.html

Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 801-830.

Gilliam, J.W., D.L. Osmond and R.O. Evans 1997. Selected Agricultural Best Management Practices to Control Nitrogen in the Neuse River Basin. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Technical Bulletin 311. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina

Herd, R. 2006. Personal Communication. Director of Corbin City Utilities Commission, Corbin, Kentucky.

Hunt, W.F. 2003. Bioretention Use and Research in North Carolina and Other Mid-Atlantic States. In NWQEP Notes. The NCSU Water Quality Group Newsletter, pp. 11. Accessed on May 3, 2006 at http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/stormwater/PublicationFiles/NWQEPnotes2003.pdf.

Jennings, G.D. and W.A. Harman 2001. Measurement and Stabilization of Streambank Erosion In North Carolina. In ASAE Soil Erosion for the 21st Century International Conference Proceedings Eds. J.C. Ascough II and D.C. Flanagan, Honolulu, HI.

Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities. Fisheries 6:21-27.

Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) 2005. 2004 303(d) List of Waters for Kentucky. Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet. Frankfort, Kentucky. Accessed on Apr. 28, 2006 at http://www.water.ky.gov/sw/tmdl/303d.htm

Kentucky Division of Water. 2002b. Methods for Assessing Biological Integrity of Surface Waters in Kentucky. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Water Quality Branch. Frankfort, Kentucky.

Kentucky Division of Water. 1997. Reference Reach Fish Community Report. Tech. Report 52. Natural

Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Water Quality Branch. Frankfort, Kentucky.

Kentucky Division of Water. 1995. Standard Operating Procedures for Nonpoint Source Surface Water

Quality Monitoring Projects. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Water Quality Branch. Frankfort, Kentucky.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York. 722 p.

Pond, G.J., S.M. Call, J.F. Brumley, and M.C. Compton. 2003. The Kentucky Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index. Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water, Water Quality Branch.

http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/stormwater/PublicationFiles/NWQEPnotes2003.pdf

http://www.water.ky.gov/sw/tmdl/303d.htm

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA.

Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate. In Seventh Federal

Interagency Sedimentation Conference Proceedings, Reno, NV, USA, pp. 9-15.

Sharkey, L.J. and W.F. Hunt 2005. Design Implications on Bioretention Performance as a Stormwater BMP: Water Quality and Quantity. Paper No. 052201. In ASAE Annual International Meeting Proceedings, Tampa, Florida, USA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1979. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab. Las Vegas, Nevada. EPA/600/4-85/048.

U.S. Census Bureau 2000. United States Census 2000. State and County Quick Facts. Accessed Apr. 28, 2006 at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

Van Eps, M.A., S.J. Formica, T.L. Morris, J.M. Beck and A.S. Cotter 2004. Using a Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) to Estimate Annual Sediment Loads from Streambank Erosion in the West Fork White River Watershed. In ASAE Self-Sustaining Solutions for Streams, Wetlands, and Watersheds Conference Proceedings, St. Paul, MN, USA.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – FIGURE 1: CORBIN CITY RESERVOIR WATERSHED ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Figure 1: Implementation of Water Quality Improvement Projects for the Corbin City Reservoir Watershed

ConstructionContractor

Data Manager and Sampling CoordinatorCoordinator

Field Logistics

QA Manager Project Administrator

Kentucky Division of Water

Watershed Management Branch

Sampling TechnicansLaboratories

Third Rock Consultants, LLCLexington, KentuckyProj. No. 3004B Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX B – FIGURE 2: PROJECT MILESTONES AND TIME SCHEDULE

APPENDIX B Project Milestones and Time Schedule

1. Award of contract 2. Develop and submit a QAPP for NPS Program staff approval 3. First Project Team meeting 4. Develop monitoring plan 5. Submit monitoring plan to NPS Program staff for approval 6. Distribute proposed monitoring segments and sampling plan 7. Develop Corbin Reservoir watershed awareness module within

existing PRIDE water quality curriculum with Laurel County and Corbin Independent school systems; submit draft to NPS Program Staff for approval

8. Begin field assessment 9. Begin pedestrian survey 10. Summarize results of pedestrian survey 11. Second project team meeting 12. Macroinvertebrate collection 13. Laboratory analysis of samples (out-sourced) 14. Collection of samples for fecal coliform analysis 15. Fish sampling 16. Classroom/field trip watershed awareness module instruction 17. Collection of water samples 18. Second collection of fecal samples 19. Summarize monitoring data 20. Submit annual report to KDOW 21. Submit advanced written notice to NPS Program Staff for watershed

protection workshop 22. Conduct watershed protection workshop for area planning officials 23. Completion of all field work 24. Rank pollutant sources 25. Distribute monitoring summary 26. Third project team meeting 27. Develop draft WIP 28. Submit draft WIP to KDOW, NPS Program for review and approval 29. Distribute draft report to team members for review 30. Fourth project team meeting for report discussion 31. Prepare final report 32. Submit final report to KDOW 33. Disseminate WIP

Sept 2004 Nov 2004 Oct 2004 Nov 2004 Jan 2005 Jan 2005 Nov 2004

Jan 2005 Jan 2005 Jan 2005 Feb 2005 Mar 2005 Mar 2005 Mar 2005 Mar 2005 May 2005 June 2005 June 2005 June 2005 July 2005 Aug 2005

Sept 2005 Oct 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2005 Nov 2005 Nov 2005 Dec 2005 Mar 2005 Apr 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006 Dec 2006

Sept 2004 Nov 2004 Oct 2004 Jan 2005 Jan 2005 Jan 2005 Feb 2005

Jan 2005 Jan 2005 Jan 2005 Feb 2005 July 2005 Nov 2005 Mar 2005 Oct 2005 June 2005 June 2005 June 2005 Aug 2005 July 2005 Sept 2005

Oct 2005 Oct 2005 Nov 2005 Nov 2005 Nov 2005 Nov 2005 May 2006 Mar 2005 Apr 2006 Dec 2006 Dec 2006 Dec 2006

APPENDIX C –TABLE 1: METHODS, ANALYTES, AND REPORTING LIMITS FOR THE CORBIN CITY RESERVOIRWATERSHED

Table 1: Methods, Analytes, and Data Quality Indicators for the Corbin City Reservoir Watershed

Analyte Name Units Reporting Limit Precision Criteria (%RPD)

Accuracy Criteria MS (% Uncertainty)

Accuracy Criteria LCS (%

Uncertainty)Phosphorus, Total mg/L as P 0.4 20 10 10Phosphorus, Ortho mg/L as P 0.14 20 10 10Nitrate as N mg/L as N 0.1 20 20 10Ammonia as N mg/L as N 0.1 20 10 10

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 0.1 20 10 10

Solids, Total Suspended mg/L 3 20 N/A 10

Zinc, Aqueous ug/L 50 20 25 20

Zinc, Soil mg/kg 10 20 25 20

Copper, Aqueous ug/L 5 20 25 20

Copper, Soil mg/kg 1 20 25 20

Iron, Aqueous ug/L 50 20 25 20

Iron, Soil mg/kg 5 20 25 20

Cation Exchange Capacity mg/kg - 20 10 10

Redox Potential - - - - -

p-Index - - - - -

Hydraulic Conductivity - - - - -

Soil and Waste pH mg/kg N/A 10 N/A 10

Particle Size Distribution % Finer N/A N/A N/A N/A

Flow ft3/sec Field Measurement


APPENDIX D –TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF PROJECT SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS

Table 2: Summary of Project Sampling and Analytical RequirementsAnalyte Name Method Minimum Sample

Volume Containers Preservation Maximum Hold Time

Phosphorus, Total EPA 365.1 or 365.4 50mL Plastic Cool 4oC, H2SO4 to pH <2

28 days

Phosphorus, Ortho EPA 300.0 or 365.2 250mL Plastic Cool 4oC 48 hrsNitrate as N EPA 300.0 50mL Plastic Cool 4oC 48 hrs*

Ammonia as N EPA 350.1 500mL Plastic Cool 4oC, H2SO4 to pH <2

28 days

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen EPA 351.2 50mL Plastic Cool 4oC, H2SO4 to pH <2

28 days

Solids, Total Suspended EPA 160.2 300mL Plastic Cool 4oC 7 daysZinc, Aqueous EPA 200.7 250mL Plastic HNO3 to pH <2 180 daysZinc, Soil EPA 6010B 5 g 4oz glass Cool 4oC 180 daysCopper, Aqueous EPA 200.7 250mL Plastic HNO3 to pH <2 180 daysCopper, Soil EPA 6010B 5 g 4oz glass Cool 4oC 180 daysIron, Aqueous EPA 200.7 250mL Plastic HNO3 to pH <2 180 daysIron, Soil EPA 6010B 5 g 4oz glass Cool 4oC 180 daysCation Exchange Capacity EPA 9080 / 9081 50g 4oz glass Cool 4oC NARedox Potential - - - - -p-Index - - - - -Hydraulic Conductivity - - - - -Soil and Waste pH EPA 9040B / 9045C 250mL Plastic Cool 4oC ImmediatelyParticle Size Distribution ASTM D422, or equivalent 500g Glass Cool 4oC NAFlow - Field Measurement


APPENDIX E – TABLE 3: CORBIN CITY RESERVOIR WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT REPORTS

Table 3: Corbin City Reservoir Watershed Assessment and Management Reports

Performing Assessments

Responding to Assessments

KDOW Audit As requested Ensure conformance to project objectives External KDOW Parties of concern Corrective Action Response

Laboratory Demonstration of Capability

Prior to initial analysis

Ensure analyst is capable of performing the method to specifications.

Internal Laboratory QA Director

Laboratory Analysts Internal Lab documentation

Laboratory Performance Evaluation

Annually, at minimum

Independent assessment of the accuracy of its analyses External Laboratory QA

DirectorLaboratory Analysts Internal Lab documentation

Laboratory Internal Audits Annually, at minimum

Ensure conformance to methods, regulations, and procedures.

Internal Laboratory QA Director

Laboratory Analysts Internal Lab documentation

Laboratory External Audits

usually biannually

Ensure conformance to methods, regulations, and procedures.

External Regulatory Body

Laboratory QA Director Internal Lab documentation

Field Systems Audit Quarterly, at minimum

Assess sampling technicians adherence to proper documentation and protocols.

Internal Field Logistics Coordinator

Sampling Technicians Email Correspondance

Analytical Results Review MonthlyAssess progress and results of analytical findings of each station.

External KDOW Project Administrator Analytical Monthly Summary

Assessment Type PurposeParties Responsible for Performing

Method of ReportingInternal or ExternalFrequency


2514 Regency Road, Suite 104 Lexington, Kentucky 40503

Ph: 859-977-2000Fax: 859-977-2001


APPENDIX C – EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL

2514 Regency Road, Suite 104, Lexington, KY 40503

Published by: Third Rock Consultants January 2007

Project News Volume I of IV

Where We’re Going – Remediation to Begin in 2007

Third Rock’s recentl

y finalized its Watershed Plan forthe Corbin City Reservoir. The Plan documents excessivenutrients and sediment in the reservoir stem primarily fromthe Little Laurel River, which drains the developed area ofLondon. The concentration of nutrients, sediment, andbacteria are significantly higher in the Little Laurel Riverthan the adjacent Laurel River and Robinson Creek.

Though the Little Laurel River drainage contains offarmland similar to the other drainages, the developed

Where We’ve Been

Little Laurel River

area associated with the City of London is believed tocontribute most significantly to the water pollution issues.

Third Rock’s proposed remediation approach

includes an initial phase to focus primarily on reducingeffects of the urban influence on the streams. Waterriunoff from storm events will be buffered with thenstallation of rain gardens in the most effected areas.xcessivE e nutrients and sediment in the streams will be

treated with streamside wetlands. Additionall

The next project team meeting will be held at 6:00 pm January 29th in the Community Room of the London Courthouse. Fieldwork will begin as

early as March.

y, streamsectis

ons will be restored, cattle will be excluded fromtreams, riparian areas will be revegetated and local

ordinances will be proposed to promote low impactdevelopment.

In 2004, the Corbin City Reservoir and many streamreaches within the watershed were listed as 1st priorityimpaired water bodies/streams in Kentucky Division ofWater’s (KDOW) 303(d) list of impaired waters. As aresult, Third Rock Consultants, LLC (Third Rock)received a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(US EPA) 319(h) grant through KDOW to develop aWatershed Plan for the watershed.

For two years Third Rock extensively monitored the

watershed to identify the main sources of waterpollutants. Once pollution/degradation sources wereidentified, Third Rock provided a plan for practicalsolutions for improving water quality. As the year 2007begins, Third Rock begins a new phase in the Corbin CityReservoir Watershed project after US EPA funded anadditional grant to implement the remediation solutionsfor the watershed.

The streamside wetland plan is a novel procedureproposed by Third Rock to significantly reduce elevatedstream nutrients. It is proposed that sections of currentlyincised stream channels be rerouted into wetlands re-established with a silviculture twist - cottonwoods wouldbe planted in the wetlands and harvested on a 7-10 yearcycle.

These fast-growing poplar species have been shownto have significant nutrient uptake when used asagricultural buffers. Planting the trees on mounds (basedon US Forest Service methods) within the stream-fedwetland should promote nutrient removal from the water.Harvesting will then be necessary to prevent nutrientrecycling. After harvesting, these trees can be sold tolocal chipping facilities, the profit of which can facilitatewetland maintenance.

2514 Regency Road, Suite 104, Lexington, KY 40503

Third Rock Receives 2007 EPA Grant to Begin Remediation in the Watershed

Third Rock was notified in September 2006 of theaward of an FFY 2007 319(h) grant from EPA to be usedfor the remediation of non-point source water pollutionissues in the Corbin City Reservoir watershed. The awardfollows Third Rock's completion of a Watershed Plan thatdetailed impairment sources and recommended viablesolutions.

The primary focus of the remediation effort will be on

the sub-watershed of the Little Laurel River specified as theprinciple source of nutrient, sediment, and bacteria loadingto the Corbin Reservoir. On-the-ground-implementation ofvarious best management plans and proposed (BMPs) andother proposed remediation and additional assessment isslated to begin in the spring of '07.

Stay Connected For more information about our work in the

watershed, log on to www.thirdrockconsultants.com andgo to our Corbin City Reservoir Watershed page. Youcan also contact Third Rock’s project manager,Tony Miller, at [email protected] or 859-977-2000.

Continuing to Learn – Bioretention and Rain Gardens

On November 30th and December 1st, 2006, ThirdRock biologist and Project Manager Tony Miller attendeda Bioretention and Rain Garden Training Workshop inNashville, TN. The workshop was sponsored by theCumberland River Compact's Building Outside the Box(BOB) program. Presenters addressed rain garden siteselection and construction in residential areas. Followingthe presentation portion of the workshop, participantstoured a low-impact development designed by the BOBgroup that incorporated rain gardens to reduce site runoff.

Rain Garden Schematic

Tony and otherThird Rock project teammembers have proposedto incorporate bio-retention and rain gardendesign into the initialphase of remediation inthe watershed.

For more information on bioretention and raingardens, contact Jennifer Shelby, a PhD candidate inbiological engineering who works for Third Rock and isslated to lead the design effort for this phase ofremediation. Contact her at 895-977-2000 or e-mail herat [email protected].

APPENDIX D – MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY RESULTS

Station ID Hel

obde

lla s

p

Lum

bric

ulid

ae g

en s

p

Moo

reob

della

sp

Nai

dida

e ge

n sp

Tubi

ficid

ae g

en s

p

Moo

reob

della

/Erp

obde

lla s

p (im

m)

Cra

ngon

yx s

p

Gam

mar

us

Cae

cido

tea

sp

Cam

baru

s sp

Orc

onec

tes

sp

Acer

penn

a sp

Acen

trella

sp

Amel

etus

sp

Baet

is in

terc

alar

is M

cD

Baet

is fl

avis

triga

McD

Baet

is s

p

Cae

nis

dim

inut

a gr

p sp

Cae

nis

sp

Cen

tropt

ilum

sp

Ephe

mer

ella

sp

Hex

agen

ia s

p

Ison

ychi

a sp

10B Prop 20 Jab 1 1 512A Prop 20 Jab 1 3 113A MH 2 3 313A RK 1 2 116B MH 5 4 1 1 19 116B RK 5 30 2 31 117A Prop 20 Jab 2 2 7118A MH 1 23 2118A RK 1 1019A MH 2 4 219A RK 55 320B MH 1 9 8 2 1 1 5 120B RK 15 5 3 221B MH 2 8 1 4 1 621B RK 6 7 3 8 222A MH 2 2 122A RK 224A MH 1 9 2 2 1 124A RK 1 1 3 14 124B Prop 20 Jab 4 18 2 5 16 1 2 126B MH 8 2 1 2 226B RK 2 2 2 1 28 1 1 12B MH 1 2 4 1 1 22B RK 1 2 23A MH 1 12 2 23A RK 2 64B MH 2 8 5 24B RK 18B MH 7 5 1 18B RK 2 2 7 2 1 19B Prop 20 Jab 20 4 1 1Mine Site MH 4 4 5 1Mine Site RK 5 2 43WWTP MH 10 61WWTP RK 3 6 66

Station ID10B Prop 20 Jab12A Prop 20 Jab13A MH13A RK16B MH16B RK17A Prop 20 Jab18A MH18A RK19A MH19A RK20B MH20B RK21B MH21B RK22A MH22A RK24A MH24A RK24B Prop 20 Jab26B MH26B RK2B MH2B RK3A MH3A RK4B MH4B RK8B MH8B RK9B Prop 20 JabMine Site MHMine Site RKWWTP MHWWTP RK

Mac

caffe

rtium

sp

Para

lept

ophl

ebia

sp

Nix

e sp

Plau

ditu

s sp

Proc

loeo

n sp

Pseu

docl

oeon

sp

Sten

acro

n sp

Sten

onem

a fe

mor

atum

(Say

)

Baet

idae

gen

sp

(no

gills

)

Hep

tage

niid

ae g

en s

p (d

am)

Lept

ophl

ebiid

ae g

en s

p (d

am)

Argi

a sp

Boye

ria s

p

Cal

opte

ryx

mac

ulat

a (B

eauv

ois)

Cal

opte

ryx

sp

Enal

lagm

a sp

Coe

nagr

ioni

dae

gen

sp (d

am)

Cor

dule

gast

er s

p

Styl

ogom

phus

sp

Gom

phid

ae g

en s

p (im

m)

Libe

llulid

ae g

en s

p (im

m)

Amph

inem

eura

sp

Dip

lope

rla s

p

1 1 8 1 1 2

5 5 22 1

2 2 1 14 2 4 43 1 8

13 51

3 7 1

16 10 6 9 8 21 1 21 2 8 2

3 1 1 1 112 7 10 3 1 1

1 1

21 1 1 17 4 1 11 28 1 1 1

3 2 6 4 1 10 1 1 4 26 1 2 1 2 2

2 32 45 1 4 5 216 14 5 1 2 386 53 2 1

14 1 3 4 1 3 1

11 1 2 1 3

1 1 11


Isop

erla

sp

Leuc

tra s

p

Perle

sta

sp

Che

umat

opsy

che

sp

Dip

lect

rona

sp

Hyd

rops

yche

bet

tini (

Ros

s)

Hyd

rops

yche

sp

Hyd

ropt

ila s

p

Lype

sp

Poly

cent

ropu

s sp

Pycn

opsy

che

sp

Tria

enod

es s

p

Hyd

rops

ychi

dae

gen

sp (i

mm

)

Lept

ocer

idae

gen

sp

(imm

)

Nig

roni

a sp

Agab

us s

p (L

)

Ancy

rony

x sp

(L)

Ancy

rony

x sp

(A)

Dub

iraph

ia s

p (L

)

Dub

iraph

ia s

p (A

)

Ecto

pria

sp

Enoc

hrus

sp

(A)

Gyr

inus

sp

(L)

1 15 16 1 7 2 1 5 314 4 1 1 11 3 6 104 2 2 1

7 1 1 1 1 18 425 3 1 3 1 1 1

4 41 31 31 2

2 5 1 1 1 38 4 1 4 12 1 7 1 17 1

2 17 1 1 12

12 11 15 9 7 6 191 31 4 42 2 2 1

1 8 5 1 914 3 31 3 2 1

12 7 3 3 1 3 422 9 3

2 3 1 11

1 4 9 4 1 5 12 2 1

2

2 4 6 1 2 1

4


Hel

ichu

s sp

(A)

Hel

opho

rus

sp (A

)

Mac

rony

chus

sp

(L)

Mac

rony

chus

sp

(A)

Neo

poru

s sp

(L)

Opt

iose

rvus

sp

(L)

Pelto

dyte

s sp

(A)

Sper

chop

sis

sp (L

)

Sten

elm

is s

p (L

)

Sten

elm

is s

p (A

)

Trop

iste

rnus

sp

(L)

Trop

iste

rnus

sp

(A)

Dyt

isci

dae

gen

sp (i

mm

)

Abla

besm

yia

mal

loch

i (W

alle

y)

Abla

besm

yia

(Kar

elia

) sp

Abla

besm

yia

sp

Brilli

a sp

Cha

etoc

ladi

us s

p

Chi

rono

mus

sp

Cor

ynon

eura

sp

Cric

otop

us b

icin

ctus

(Mei

gen)

Cric

otop

us/O

rthoc

ladi

us

Cric

otop

us s

p

1 6 7 134 8 8

2 2 3 2 5 5 472 1 24 10 2 48

9 2 36 141 2 28

1 1 2 2 21 1 1 1 60 21 301 2 2 2 20 18

1 15869 1

1 1 3 2 2 501 14 25

2 13 1 347 1 71 26

1 2 1 1 12453 9 1 3 139

1 1 16 856 9 52

1 2 2 121 1 4 4 201 10 49 18 425 1 1 16 2 22 33

15 2 1 1 2 421 2 15 2

1 6 13 8 12 4 2 36 6 6

1 52 15 41 563 1 1 1

1 2 1 3 51 6 6 8

1 5 11 32 201 7 2 2

54 4130


Cry

ptoc

hiro

nom

us s

p

Dia

mes

a sp

Dic

rote

ndip

es s

p

Dip

locl

adiu

s sp

Endo

chiro

nom

us s

p

Euki

effe

riella

Har

nisc

hia

com

plex

sp

Hyd

roba

enus

sp

Kren

osm

ittia

sp

Labr

undi

nia

sp

Lars

ia s

p

Mic

rops

ectra

sp

Mic

rote

ndip

es s

p

Nan

ocla

dius

sp

Orth

ocla

dius

sp

Para

chiro

nom

us s

p

Para

kief

ferie

lla s

p

Para

laut

erbo

rnie

lla s

p

Para

mer

ina

sp

Para

met

riocn

emus

sp

Para

tany

tars

us s

p

Para

tend

ipes

sp

Poly

pedi

lum

sp

1 21 6 94 2 61 14 31 1 62 3

6 1 183 15 31 2 1

9 10 1 26 2 3 1 2 2 7 221 1 1 2 51

8 2 2 12 442 4 6

8 2626 1 8 6 1

30 5 2 6 6 110 24 6 26 4 16

1 1 22 10 34 8

2 3 1 6 418 3 2 2 4

2 1 1 1 10 94 14 2 14 6 4 8

2 2 26 20 8 12 16 22 6 2 28 2 4

2 11 95 3 16 716 9 3 1 5 16

5 9 3 52 1 5 2 5

58 2 12 22 6 21 6 12

2 15 3 98 2 7 826 1 9 6 1 1 46 2 42 9

14 48 6 4 24 4 181 132 44 18 5

1 4 1 571 8 62


Potth

astia

sp

Proc

ladi

us s

p

Psec

trocl

adiu

s sp

Psec

trota

nypu

s sp

Rhe

ocric

otop

us s

p

Rhe

otan

ytar

sus

sp

Stem

pellin

ella

sp

Sten

ochi

rono

mus

sp

Stric

toch

irono

mus

sp

Tany

tars

us s

p

Thie

nem

anni

myi

a gr

p sp

Thie

nem

anie

lla s

p

Trib

elos

sp

Tvet

enia

sp

Zavr

elia

sp

Zavr

elim

yia

sp

Chi

rono

min

ae g

en s

p (d

am)

Orth

ocla

dina

e ge

n sp

(dam

)

Tany

podi

nae

gen

sp (d

am)

Tany

tars

ini g

en s

p (d

am)

Anto

cha

sp

Chr

ysop

s sp

49 246 1 2 4 2 14 2 64 118 2

26 15 17 11 3 1 115 4 5 1 1 1

26 34 4 3 3 4 9 1 145 39 4 8 8 1

5 1 12 2 3 412 12 22 55 1 5 12 10 64 12 4

2 2 14 67 4 10 1 1 1

22 23 8 10 17 2 16 1716 128 5 34 4 2 1 12 80 2 8 10 70 21 18 1 5 2 2 32 2 14 18 24 68 4

17 4 40 2 5 1 116 15 3 2 8 14 7 1 128 11 4 1 162 106 12 30 12 4 14 52 2 8 8 18 62 42 4 30 2 84 2 18 22 7 1 4 16 4 5 2

10 47 1 30 41 1 2

112 4 10 6 14 22 72 2 1

2 5 2 3 2 1122 3 17 9 56 1 2

11 31 11 6 3 96 80 4 2 16 6 2 6 4 1

1 1 4 7 15 88 1 1

72 10


Dix

a sp

Lim

noph

ora

sp

Hem

erod

rom

ia s

p

Hex

atom

a sp

Lim

noph

ora

sp

Bezz

ia/P

alpo

myi

a gr

p sp

Pseu

dolim

noph

ila s

p

Sim

uliu

m s

p

Tipu

la (N

ippo

tipul

a) s

p

Tipu

la (Y

amat

otip

ula)

sp

Lim

oniin

ae g

en s

p (im

m)

Sim

uliid

ae g

en s

p (im

m)

Tipu

lidae

gen

sp

(imm

)

Amni

cola

sp

Cor

bicu

la fl

umin

ea (M

ulle

r)

Elim

ia s

p

Ferr

issi

a sp

Gyr

alus

sp

Hel

isom

a sp

Lept

oxis

sp

Lym

naea

sp

Nem

atod

a ge

n sp

Phys

ella

sp

2 1 2 1 1 1199 4

1536 10 5 3 6

1 60 8 1 1 11 1 128 1 16

858

10 1 111 51 1 1

2 151 2 15

2 1 31 1 1 1

25 31 1 24 6

1 102

1 3 31 1 1 3

3 4 3 10

2 1 131

2 11 22 33 1 1 3 22 2 10 2

12 7 1 5 1 7

6 1 1118 94401 24


Pseu

dosu

ccin

ea s

p

Spha

eriu

m s

p

Bella

stom

a sp

Nem

atod

a ge

n sp

Pyra

lidae

gen

sp

TOTA

L

Taxa

rich

ness

(G)

1 450 37267 18

1 1 307 391 309

321 524 350

232 28344 31305225 23198324 49

1 3631 386 53

1 307274 29

5 3022 293 53

3255 1 343 44

3314793744067038

2 414332

1 2983 263

3103 282

1 1082 413

717

APPENDIX E – FISH SURVEY RESULTS

Fish Functional Category Station

Native FHW FG T BG 12A 16B 20B 21B 24A 25A 25B 26B 2B 4B 8B 9B

Ambloplites rupestris X X C 2

Ameiurus natalis X X O T 3

Catostomus commersoni X X I T SL 41 2 19 12 2 3 1

Etheostoma kennicotti X I SL 11 2 13

Etheostoma virgatum X I I 2

Gambusia affinis X X I T 8

Hypentelium nigricans X I SL 5 3

Lepomis cyanellus X X I T 1 2 5 16 10 3 19 14 8 4

Lepomis macrochirus X X I T 32 20 13 28 13 21 2 1 33 20 1

Lepomis megalotis X X I 10 12 2 17 2 1

Lepomis sp. X X I 2

Luxilus chrysocephalus X X I T SL 1

Lythrurus fasciolaris X X I 37

Micropterus dolomieu X X C 1 1

Micropterus punctulatus X X C 2 1 1

Micropterus salmoides X X C 1 9 2 4 1

Percina maculata X X I SL 4 1

Pimephales notatus X X O T 4 20 2 5 3 8 3 10

Semotilus atromactulatus X O T 2 16 12 3 36 23 41 28 1 56 29 20

Total 9 200 40 43 99 58 65 57 7 132 64 55

Metrics

Native Species Richness 5 14 5 7 5 4 3 7 5 7 6 10

Darter, Madtom, Sculpin Richness 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

Intolerant Species Richness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Proportion of tolerant individuals 78 61 100 91 84 100 100 95 29 86 94 65

Proportion of Insectivore Individuals 0 34 0 5 12 0 0 4 29 13 6 33

Proportion of FHW 78 84 70 93 64 60 37 47 86 58 52 35

Number of Individuals 9 200 40 43 99 58 65 57 7 132 64 55

Simple Lithophile Species Richness 0 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 4Drainage Area (mi2) 23 35 3 3 8 2 1 2 27 2 0 5

Stream order 4 4 2 3 3 3 1 2 4 2 1 3

APPENDIX F – WATER CHEMISTRY RESULTS

2520 Regency Rd.Lexington, KY 40503

Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506

Fax: 859-278-5665E-mail: [email protected]

Accredited Lab Data for Today's Environment

Third Rock ConsultantsAttn: Gerry Fister

2514 Regency RdLexington, KY 40503

cc: PDF

Analytical Results

Chain of Custody: 42790

Project Name:

Project Number:

Report Reference:42790-20051121172056

Date/Time Received: 11/11/2005 13:21

Temperature Upon Receipt: 4 C

Collector: Client

Client Manager: Heather Weidner

Client Sample ID: 19-ALaboratory Sample #: 456852 Sampled: 11/11/2005 08:09

Method: SM9222DFecal Coliform Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by TWL on November 11, 2005 at 13:50.

Result Units QualifiersReporting Limit Client LimitParameter

200 CFU/100ml N/ABacteriological, Fecal Coliform 100 D

Client Sample ID: 26-BLaboratory Sample #: 456853 Sampled: 11/11/2005 09:49











< 100 CFU/100ml N/ABacteriological, Fecal Coliform 100 D






Method: SM9222DFecal Coliform Prep. Method: N/A

Page 1 of 4Results reported on a Wet Weight Basis Issued: 11/21/2005

Chain of Custody: 42790Project Name:Project Number:









< 100 CFU/100ml N/ABacteriological, Fecal Coliform 100 D




















1,000 CFU/100ml N/ABacteriological, Fecal Coliform 100 D














All samples were received intact and properly preserved unless otherwise noted.The results reported relate only to the samples tested.

This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of this laboratory.

Submitted by:

Lab# E87286ACCREDITEDLab#: 100343


Specific tests covered by A2LA and NELAC accreditations meet the requirements of these accreditation standards.

Please refer to http://www.envirodatagroup.com/EDG_NELAC_A2LA_Accredited_Analytes.pdf on our website for a listof our current NELAC/A2LA accreditations.

Please contact Heather Weidner with any questions.



Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Data Qualifiers

DescriptionQualifier

A E. coli present.A' E. coli absent.B Analyte detected in associated MB.C Sample result confirmed.D Results reported from dilution.E Analyte concentration exceeds calibration range.F Unable to analyze due to sample matrix interference.H Sample was received or analyzed past the established holding time.J Estimated concentration.K Sample contained lighter hydrocarbon fractions.L Sample contained heavier hydrocarbon fractions.M MS and/or MSD recovery outside acceptance limits.N Presumptive evidence of analyte present.O Sample hydrocarbon pattern does not match calibration standard pattern.P Percent difference between primary and secondary column concentrations exceeds acceptance limit.Q LCS outside acceptance limits.R Data unusable.S Surrogate outside acceptance limits on initial and reanalysis.S' Surrogates diluted below detection.T Sample received improperly preserved.U Analyte not detected.W Raised quantitation or reporting limit due to limited sample volume.Y Replicate/Duplicate precision outside acceptance limits.Z' Calibration criteria exceeded but for this situation acceptable by method.Z Calibration criteria exceeded.M' Result from Method of Standard Additions (MSA).Q' LCS/LCD analyzed due to insufficient sample for MS/MSD.

The uncertainty of analytical results can be calculated using the following equation: n= t*s/1.414where t=12.706 (Students t value for 95% confidence interval of two replicates) s= standard deviation of sample and duplicate data 1.414 is square root of the number of replicates (two)

Abbreviations

Laboratory Control SampleLaboratory Control Duplicate Matrix Spike Matrix Spike Duplicate

(LCS)(LCD)(MS)(MSD)

Method Blank (MB)



Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506





cc: PDF

Analytical Results


Project Name:

Project Number:




Collector: Client










Client Sample ID: WWTPLaboratory Sample #: 457133 Sampled: 11/14/2005 15:41







< 10.0 CFU/100ml N/ABacteriological, Fecal Coliform 10.0 D




11,000 CFU/100ml N/ABacteriological, Fecal Coliform 1,000 D












Submitted by:








Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Data Qualifiers




Abbreviations


(LCS)(LCD)(MS)(MSD)

Method Blank (MB)



Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506





cc: PDF

Analytical Results


Project Name:

Project Number:




Collector: Client


Client Sample ID: Sample 13ALaboratory Sample #: 458005 Sampled: 11/17/2005 11:31




Client Sample ID: MineLaboratory Sample #: 458006 Sampled: 11/17/2005 14:08




Client Sample ID: CCRLaboratory Sample #: 458007 Sampled: 11/17/2005 13:45



80.0 CFU/100ml N/ABacteriological, Fecal Coliform 10.0 D

Client Sample ID: Sample 3ALaboratory Sample #: 458008 Sampled: 11/17/2005 12:11









Submitted by:








Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Data Qualifiers




Abbreviations


(LCS)(LCD)(MS)(MSD)

Method Blank (MB)



Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Third Rock ConsultantsAttn: Tony Miller2514 Regency Road

Lexington, KY 40503

cc: PDF

Analytical Results


Project Name: 3004

Project Number:




Collector: Client



Sample Replicate # 1

Method: EPA 300Inorganic Anions Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by KXC on January 28, 2006 at 11:31.


1.26 mg/L N/ANitrogen, Nitrate 0.200

Method: EPA 365.2Ortho-Phosphate Phosphorus Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by STC on January 29, 2006 at 10:00.


0.020 mg/L as P N/APhosphorus, Ortho-Phosphate 0.010

Method: EPA 160.2/160.4Total Suspended Solids Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by LSC on January 30, 2006 at 17:45.


11.0 mg/L N/ASolids, Total Suspended 3.00

Client Sample ID: 19ALaboratory Sample #: 470569 Sampled: 01/27/2006 11:10












Chain of Custody: 44251Project Name: 3004Project Number:




Method: SM9222DFecal Coliform Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by LMS on January 27, 2006 at 19:00.


440 CFU/100ml N/ABacteriological, Fecal Coliform 10.0 D










Client Sample ID: Laurel RiverLaboratory Sample #: 470571 Sampled: 01/27/2006 15:25






































< 0.010 mg/L as P N/APhosphorus, Ortho-Phosphate 0.010





















Client Sample ID: River BendLaboratory Sample #: 470575 Sampled: 01/27/2006 14:26





















< 3.00 mg/L N/ASolids, Total Suspended 3.00

Client Sample ID: KY 25@KY192Laboratory Sample #: 470577 Sampled: 01/27/2006 10:51


















Client Sample ID: 2BLaboratory Sample #: 470578 Sampled: 01/27/2006 15:45












































Submitted by:








Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Data Qualifiers




Abbreviations


(LCS)(LCD)(MS)(MSD)

Method Blank (MB)



Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Third Rock ConsultantsAttn: Tony Miller

2514 Regency Rd

Lexington, KY 40503

cc: PDF

Analytical Results


Project Name: 3004

Project Number:




Collector: Client




Method: EPA 350.1Ammonia Nitrogen Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by JEE on February 02, 2006 at 10:18.


< 0.100 mg/L N/ANitrogen, Ammonia 0.100

Method: EPA 365.1Total Phosphorus Prep. Method: EPA365.1Prepped by JPM on January 31, 2006 at 14:00.Analyzed by JPM on January 31, 2006 at 19:25.


0.031 mg/L as P N/APhosphorus, Total 0.0094

Method: EPA 351.2Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Prep. Method: EPA 351.2Prepped by JPM on January 31, 2006 at 15:30.Analyzed by JPM on February 01, 2006 at 10:56.


0.369 mg/L N/ANitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 0.100



Method: EPA200.7Total Metals Prep. Method: EPA 200.7Prepped by DLR on February 03, 2006 at 10:00.Analyzed by JLC on February 07, 2006 at 10:34.


0.538 mg/L N/ATotal Iron 0.050 B

Client Sample ID: 19 ALaboratory Sample #: 470846 Sampled: 01/30/2006 10:26






















0.508 mg/L N/ATotal Iron 0.050






















Client Sample ID: Ky 25 at Ky 192Laboratory Sample #: 470854 Sampled: 01/30/2006 10:05
















Client Sample ID: 2 BLaboratory Sample #: 470855 Sampled: 01/30/2006 14:48



















Submitted by:

ACCREDITEDLab#: 100343



Specific tests covered by the A2LA accreditation meet the requirements of the A2LA accreditation standard.

Please refer to http://www.envirodatagroup.com/EDG_A2LA_Accredited_Analytes.pdf on our website for a listof our current A2LA accreditations.



Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Data Qualifiers




Abbreviations


(LCS)(LCD)(MS)(MSD)

Method Blank (MB)



Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Third Rock ConsultantsAttn: Tony Miller

2514 Regency Rd

Lexington, KY 40503

cc: PDF

Analytical Results


Project Name:

Project Number: 3004A




Collector: Client




Method: EPA 300Inorganic Anions Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by KXC on February 14, 2006 at 10:53.






Method: EPA 365.2Ortho-Phosphate Phosphorus Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by JRV on February 14, 2006 at 11:00.



Method: EPA 365.1Total Phosphorus Prep. Method: EPA365.1Prepped by JPM on February 14, 2006 at 01:22.Analyzed by JPM on February 15, 2006 at 08:42.



Method: EPA 351.2Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Prep. Method: EPA 351.2Prepped by JPM on February 14, 2006 at 14:00.Analyzed by JPM on February 17, 2006 at 11:08.



Method: EPA 160.2/160.4Total Suspended Solids Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by LSC on February 14, 2006 at 17:50.







Chain of Custody: 44507Project Name:Project Number: 3004A











































< 0.0094 mg/L as P N/APhosphorus, Total 0.0094


































Submitted by:








Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Data Qualifiers




Abbreviations


(LCS)(LCD)(MS)(MSD)

Method Blank (MB)



Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506




2514 Regency Rd

Lexington, KY 40503

cc: PDF

Analytical Results


Project Name: 5191 Corbin 319

Project Number:




Collector: Client




Method: EPA 300Inorganic Anions Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by KXC on March 02, 2006 at 12:45.



Method: EPA 350.1Ammonia Nitrogen Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by JEE on March 07, 2006 at 09:43.



Method: EPA 365.2Ortho-Phosphate Phosphorus Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by JRV on March 02, 2006 at 08:45.



Method: EPA 365.1Total Phosphorus Prep. Method: EPA365.1Prepped by JPM on March 02, 2006 at 08:30.Analyzed by JPM on March 02, 2006 at 11:31.



Method: EPA 351.2Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Prep. Method: EPA 351.2Prepped by JPM on March 02, 2006 at 09:00.Analyzed by JPM on March 07, 2006 at 12:53.


< 0.100 mg/L N/ANitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 0.100

Method: EPA 160.2/160.4Total Suspended Solids Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by LSC on March 01, 2006 at 18:50.





Method: EPA200.7Total Metals Prep. Method: EPA 200.7Prepped by DLR on March 06, 2006 at 15:45.Analyzed by JLC on March 07, 2006 at 14:03.


Chain of Custody: 44821Project Name: 5191 Corbin 319Project Number:







Client Sample ID: kY 25 at Ky 192Laboratory Sample #: 476125 Sampled: 03/01/2006 10:23




















Client Sample ID: kY 25 at Ky 192Laboratory Sample #: 476125 Sampled: 03/01/2006 10:23


































< 0.200 mg/L N/ANitrogen, Nitrate 0.200















Method: SM9222DFecal Coliform Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by SES on March 01, 2006 at 17:40.





























Submitted by:








Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Data Qualifiers




Abbreviations


(LCS)(LCD)(MS)(MSD)

Method Blank (MB)



Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506




2514 Regency Rd

Lexington, KY 40503

cc: PDF

Analytical Results


Project Name: 3004-High Flow Grabs

Project Number: 3004A




Collector: Client







Method: EPA200.7Total Metals Prep. Method: EPA 200.7Prepped by DLR on March 16, 2006 at 11:15.Analyzed by MICROBAC on March 22, 2006 at 0:00.


0.760 MG/L N/ATotal Iron













Method: EPA 160.2/160.4Total Suspended Solids Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by JRV on March 15, 2006 at 18:30.




Chain of Custody: 45084Project Name: 3004-High Flow GrabsProject Number: 3004A



































































Method: EPA 365.1Total Phosphorus Prep. Method: EPA365.1




























1.71 mg/L as P N/APhosphorus, Ortho-Phosphate 0.200 D



1.68 mg/L as P N/APhosphorus, Total 0.094 D























120 mg/L N/ASolids, Total Suspended 3.00











0.106 mg/L N/ANitrogen, Ammonia 0.100



















Client Sample ID: River BendLaboratory Sample #: 478302 Composite End Date : 03/14/2006 19:00























Client Sample ID: River BendLaboratory Sample #: 478302 Composite End Date : 03/14/2006 19:00





Client Sample ID: Laurel RiverLaboratory Sample #: 478303 Composite End Date : 03/14/2006 18:10























Client Sample ID: 2 BLaboratory Sample #: 478304 Composite End Date : 03/14/2006 18:30






Client Sample ID: 2 BLaboratory Sample #: 478304 Composite End Date : 03/14/2006 18:30

























Submitted by:








Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Data Qualifiers




Abbreviations


(LCS)(LCD)(MS)(MSD)

Method Blank (MB)



Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506




2514 Regency Rd

Lexington, KY 40503

cc: PDF

Analytical Results


Project Name: 3004-A

Project Number:




Collector: Client


Client Sample ID: 13 ALaboratory Sample #: 478305 Composite End Date : 03/14/2006 15:55
























Chain of Custody: 45085Project Name: 3004-AProject Number:


Client Sample ID: Ky 25 at Ky 192Laboratory Sample #: 478306 Composite End Date : 03/14/2006 14:25






















1,340 mg/L N/ASolids, Total Suspended 3.00























Client Sample ID: WWTPLaboratory Sample #: 478309 Composite End Date : 03/14/2006 13:55







280 MG/L N/ATotal Iron
















Client Sample ID: WWTPLaboratory Sample #: 478309 Composite End Date : 03/14/2006 13:55


Method: EPA 160.2/160.4Total Suspended Solids Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by KKR on March 16, 2006 at 13:35.


14,100 mg/L N/ASolids, Total Suspended 3.00





< 0.200 mg/L N/ANitrogen, Nitrate 0.200

















































< 13.8 MG/L N/ATotal Iron
























Submitted by:








Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Data Qualifiers




Abbreviations


(LCS)(LCD)(MS)(MSD)

Method Blank (MB)



Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Preliminary

Third Rock ConsultantsAttn: Gerry Fister2514 Regency RdLexington, KY 40503

cc: PDF

Analytical Results


Project Name: Corbin Reservoir

Project Number:




Collector: Client


Client Sample ID: Reservoir-UpstreamLaboratory Sample #: 460140 Sampled: 11/30/2005 13:40


Method: ASTMD 854-83Density Prep. Method: CALCAnalyzed by CALC on December 07, 2005 at 10:15.


2.49 g/ml N/ADensity @ 20 C

Method: SW9056Inorganic Anions Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by KxC on December 01, 2005 at 22:27.


27.4 mg/Kg N/ANitrogen, Nitrite 20.0

79.6 mg/Kg N/ANitrogen, Nitrate 20.0

Method: ASTMD 854-83Specific Gravity Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by JRV on December 07, 2005 at 10:15.


2.49 N/ASpecific Gravity @ 20 C N/A

Method: EPA 160.3Percent Solids Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by JRV on December 05, 2005 at 13:30.


23.1 % N/APercent Total Solids 0.100



Method: EPA245.5/SW7471ATotal Mercury Prep. Method: SW7471Prepped by SMH on December 15, 2005 at 14:00.Analyzed by UNKNOWN on at .


____________ mg/Kg dw N/ATotal Mercury

Method: SW6010BTotal Metals Prep. Method: SW 3050BPrepped by ALK on December 02, 2005 at 10:30.Analyzed by SMH on December 05, 2005 at 13:13.


Page 1 of 5Results reported on a Dry Weight Basis where applicable

Preliminary Results Have Not been reviewed for Quality ControlIssued: 1/3/2006

Chain of Custody: 43130Project Name: Corbin ReservoirProject Number:






23.6 mg/Kg N/ATotal Barium 1.00

< 1.00 mg/Kg N/ATotal Cadmium 1.00

3.11 mg/Kg N/ATotal Chromium 1.00

< 5.00 mg/Kg N/ATotal Selenium 5.00

< 1.00 mg/Kg N/ATotal Silver 1.00

Method: EPA 350.1Ammonia Nitrogen Prep. Method: N/AAnalyzed by JEE on December 06, 2005 at 20:54.


< 250 mg/Kg N/ANitrogen, Ammonia 250

Method: EPA 365.1Total Phosphorus Prep. Method: EPA365.1Prepped by CDP on December 12, 2005 at :.Analyzed by CDP on December 12, 2005 at 16:26.


254 mg/Kg dw N/APhosphorus, Total 4.07

Method: EPA 351.2Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Prep. Method: EPA 351.2Prepped by CDP on December 12, 2005 at 01:54.Analyzed by CDP on December 14, 2005 at 11:29.


3.64 mg/Kg dw N/ANitrogen, Total Kjeldahl 0.433





< 21.6 mg/Kg dw N/ATotal Lead 21.6





< 21.6 mg/Kg dw N/ATotal Arsenic 21.6

Client Sample ID: Reservoir-DownstreamLaboratory Sample #: 460149 Sampled: 11/30/2005 14:05













< 20.0 mg/Kg N/ANitrogen, Nitrite 20.0








Client Sample ID: Reservoir-DownstreamLaboratory Sample #: 460149 Sampled: 11/30/2005 14:05Sample Replicate # 2

Method: EPA245.5/SW7471ATotal Mercury Prep. Method: SW7471Prepped by SMH on December 16, 2005 at 14:00.Analyzed by UNKNOWN on at .


____________ mg/Kg dw N/ATotal Mercury













777 mg/Kg dw N/APhosphorus, Total 10.8 M












72.9 mg/Kg dw N/ATotal Lead 57.5








Submitted by:









Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Data Qualifiers




Abbreviations


(LCS)(LCD)(MS)(MSD)

Method Blank (MB)




Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Third Rock ConsultantsAttn: Gerry Fister2514 Regency RdLexington, KY 40503

cc: PDF

Analytical Results


Project Name: Corbin Reservoir

Project Number:


Replaces Report :43130-20060103154544



Collector: Client









27.4 mg/Kg N/ANitrogen, Nitrite 20.0





Method: N/ATotal Mercury (Cold Vapor) Sub Prep. Method: N/ASub-Contracted Result. Please See Attached.












Page 1 of 5Results reported on a Dry Weight Basis where applicable Issued: 1/23/2006













254 mg/Kg dw N/APhosphorus, Total 4.07








< 21.6 mg/Kg dw N/ATotal Lead 21.6




















< 20.0 mg/Kg N/ANitrogen, Nitrite 20.0





Method: N/ATotal Mercury (Cold Vapor) Sub Prep. Method: N/ASub-Contracted Result. Please See Attached.


















777 mg/Kg dw N/APhosphorus, Total 10.8 M













72.9 mg/Kg dw N/ATotal Lead 57.5








Submitted by:








Phone: 859-276-3506Toll Free: 800-489-3506



Data Qualifiers




Abbreviations


(LCS)(LCD)(MS)(MSD)

Method Blank (MB)


SEVERN TRENT LABORATORIESANALYTICAL REPORT

JOB NUMBER: 243336

Prepared For:

EnviroData Group, LLC2520 Regency Road

Lexington, KY 40503-2921

Project: Environmental Projects

Attention: Heather Weidner

Date: 01/11/2006

_______________________________ _______________________Signature Date

Name: Rich Mannz

Title: Project Manager

E-Mail: [email protected]

This Report Contains (_____) Pages

STL Chicago 2417 Bond Street University Park, IL 60466

PHONE: (708) 534-5200 FAX..: (708) 534-5211

STL Chicago is part of Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc.

S A M P L E I N F O R M A T I O N

Laboratory Customer Sample Date Time Date TimeSample ID Sample ID Matrix Sampled Sampled Received Received

Date: 01/11/2006

Job Number.: 243336 Project Number.........: 20005970Customer...: EnviroData Group, LLC Customer Project ID....: 460,140 460,149 Attn.......: Heather Weidner Project Description....: Environmental Projects

243336-1 460,140 Solid 11/30/2005 13:40 01/06/2006 10:00

243336-2 460,149 Solid 11/30/2005 14:05 01/06/2006 10:00


L A B O R A T O R Y T E S T R E S U L T SJob Number: Date:

CUSTOMER: PROJECT: ATTN:

Customer Sample ID: Laboratory Sample ID:Date Sampled......: Date Received.......:Time Sampled......: Time Received.......:Sample Matrix.....:

TEST METHOD PARAMETER/TEST DESCRIPTION SAMPLE RESULT REPORTING LIMIT UNITS DATE TECH

* In Description = Dry Wgt. Page 2

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | |

243336 01/11/2006

EnviroData Group, LLC 460,140 460,149 Heather Weidner

460,140 243336-111/30/2005 01/06/2006 13:40 10:00 Solid

7471A Mercury (CVAA) Solids Mercury, Solid <17 17 ug/Kg 01/09/06 gok


L A B O R A T O R Y T E S T R E S U L T SJob Number: Date:

CUSTOMER: PROJECT: ATTN:

Customer Sample ID: Laboratory Sample ID:Date Sampled......: Date Received.......:Time Sampled......: Time Received.......:Sample Matrix.....:

TEST METHOD PARAMETER/TEST DESCRIPTION SAMPLE RESULT REPORTING LIMIT UNITS DATE TECH

* In Description = Dry Wgt. Page 3

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | | | | || | | | |

243336 01/11/2006

EnviroData Group, LLC 460,140 460,149 Heather Weidner

460,149 243336-211/30/2005 01/06/2006 14:05 10:00 Solid

7471A Mercury (CVAA) Solids Mercury, Solid <17 17 ug/Kg 01/09/06 gok


L A B O R A T O R Y C H R O N I C L EJob Number: 243336 Date: 01/11/2006

CUSTOMER: EnviroData Group, LLC PROJECT: 460,140 460,149 ATTN: Heather Weidner

Page 4

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Lab ID: 243336-1 Client ID: 460,140 Date Recvd: 01/06/2006 Sample Date: 11/30/2005 METHOD DESCRIPTION RUN# BATCH# PREP BT #(S) DATE/TIME ANALYZED DILUTION

7471A Mercury (CVAA) Solids 1 170024 170019 01/09/2006 1421 7470/7471 SW846 Digestion (Hg) 1 170019 01/09/2006 1200

Lab ID: 243336-2 Client ID: 460,149 Date Recvd: 01/06/2006 Sample Date: 11/30/2005 METHOD DESCRIPTION RUN# BATCH# PREP BT #(S) DATE/TIME ANALYZED DILUTION

7471A Mercury (CVAA) Solids 1 170024 170019 01/09/2006 1423 7470/7471 SW846 Digestion (Hg) 1 170019 01/09/2006 1200

| Q U A L I T Y A S S U R A N C E M E T H O D S || || R E F E R E N C E S A N D N O T E S || || Report Date: 01/11/2006 |

|| || || || REPORT COMMENTS || 1) All pages of this report are integral parts of the analytical data. Therefore, this report should || be reproduced only in its entirety. || 2) Soil, sediment and sludge sample results are reported on a "dry weight" basis except when analyzed for || landfill disposal or incineration parameters. All other solid matrix samples are reported on an "as || received" basis unless noted differently. || 3) Reporting limits are adjusted for sample size used, dilutions and moisture content if applicable. || 4) The test results for the noted analytical method(s) meet the requirements of NELAC. Lab Cert. ID# 100201 || 5) According to 40CFR Part 136.3, pH, Chlorine Residual and Dissolved Oxygen analyses are to be performed || immediately after aqueous sample collection. When these parameters are not indicated as field (e.g. || pH Field) they were not analyzed immediately, but as soon as possible on laboratory receipt. || || Glossary of flags, qualifiers and abbreviations (any number of which may appear in the report) || Inorganic Qualifiers (Q-Column) || U Analyte was not detected at or above the stated limit. || < Not detected at or above the reporting limit. || J Result is less than the RL, but greater than or equal to the method detection limit. || B Result is less than the CRDL/RL, but greater than or equal to the IDL/MDL. || S Result was determined by the Method of Standard Additions. || F AFCEE: Result is less than the RL, but greater than or equal to the method detection limit. || Inorganic Flags (Flag Column) || ̂ ICV,CCV,ICB,CCB,ISA,ISB,CRI,CRA,MRL: Instrument related QC exceed the upper or lower || control limits. || * LCS, LCD, MD: Batch QC exceeds the upper or lower control limits. || + MSA correlation coefficient is less than 0.995. || 4 MS, MSD: The analyte present in the original sample is 4 times greater || than the matrix spike concentration; therefore, control limits are not applicable. || E SD: Serial dilution exceeds the control limits. || H MB, EB1, EB2, EB3: Batch QC is greater than reporting limit or had a || negative instrument reading lower than the absolute value of the reporting limit. || N MS, MSD: Spike recovery exceeds the upper or lower control limits. || W AS(GFAA) Post-digestion spike was outside 85-115% control limits. || Organic Qualifiers (Q - Column) || U Analyte was not detected at or above the stated limit. || ND Compound not detected. || J Result is an estimated value below the reporting limit or a tentatively || identified compound (TIC). || Q Result was qualitatively confirmed, but not quantified. || C Pesticide identification was confirmed by GC/MS. || Y The chromatographic response resembles a typical fuel pattern. || Z The chromatographic response does not resemble a typical fuel pattern. || E Result exceeded calibration range, secondary dilution required. || F AFCEE:Result is an estimated value below the reporting limit or a tentatively identified compound (TIC) || Organic Flags (Flags Column) || B MB: Batch QC is greater than reporting limit. || * LCS, LCD, ELC, ELD, CV, MS, MSD, Surrogate: Batch QC exceeds the upper or lower control limits. || ̂ EB1, EB2, EB3, MLE: Batch QC is greater than reporting Limit || A Concentration exceeds the instrument calibration range || a Concentration is below the method Reporting Limit (RL) || B Compound was found in the blank and sample. || D Surrogate or matrix spike recoveries were not || obtained because the extract was diluted for || analysis; also compounds analyzed at a dilution will be flagged with a D. || H Alternate peak selection upon analytical review || I Indicates the presence of an interfence, recovery is not calculated. || M Manually integrated compound. || P The lower of the two values is reported when the % difference between the results of two GC columns is |

Page 6


|| || || greater than 25%. || Abbreviations || AS Post Digestion Spike (GFAA Samples - See Note 1 below) || Batch Designation given to identify a specific extraction, digestion, preparation set, or analysis set || CAP Capillary Column CCB Continuing Calibration Blank || CCV Continuing Calibration Verification || CF Confirmation analysis of original || C1 Confirmation analysis of A1 or D1 || C2 Confirmation analysis of A2 or D2 || C3 Confirmation analysis of A3 or D3 || CRA Low Level Standard Check - GFAA; Mercury || CRI Low Level Standard Check - ICP || CV Calilbration Verification Standard || Dil Fac Dilution Factor - Secondary dilution analysis || D1 Dilution 1 || D2 Dilution 2 || D3 Dilution 3 || DLFac Detection Limit Factor || DSH Distilled Standard - High Level || DSL Distilled Standard - Low Level || DSM Distilled Standard - Medium Level || EB1 Extraction Blank 1 || EB2 Extraction Blank 2 || EB3 DI Blank || ELC Method Extracted LCS || ELD Method Extracted LCD || ICAL Initial calibration || ICB Initial Calibration Blank || ICV Initial Calibration Verification || IDL Instrument Detection Limit || ISA Interference Check Sample A - ICAP || ISB Interference Check Sample B - ICAP || Job No. The first six digits of the sample ID which refers to a specific client, project and sample group || Lab ID An 8 number unique laboratory identification || LCD Laboratory Control Standard Duplicate || LCS Laboratory Control Standard with reagent grade water or a matrix free from the analyte of interest || MB Method Blank or (PB) Preparation Blank || MD Method Duplicate || MDL Method Detection Limit || MLE Medium Level Extraction Blank || MRL Method Reporting Limit Standard || MSA Method of Standard Additions || MS Matrix Spike || MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate || ND Not Detected || PREPF Preparation factor used by the Laboratory's Information Management System (LIMS) || PDS Post Digestion Spike (ICAP) || RA Re-analysis of original || A1 Re-analysis of D1 || A2 Re-analysis of D2 || A3 Re-analysis of D3 || RD Re-extraction of dilution || RE Re-extraction of original || RC Re-extraction Confirmation || RL Reporting Limit || RPD Relative Percent Difference of duplicate (unrounded) analyses || RRF Relative Response Factor || RT Retention Time |

Page 7


|| || || RTW Retention Time Window Sample ID A 9 digit number unique for each sample, the first || six digits are referred as the job number || SCB Seeded Control Blank || SD Serial Dilution (Calculated when sample concentration exceeds 50 times the MDL) || UCB Unseeded Control Blank || SSV Second Source Verification Standard || SLCS Solid Laboratory Control Standard(LCS) || PHC pH Calibration Check LCSP pH Laboratory Control Sample || LCDP pH Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate || MDPH pH Sample Duplicate || MDFP Flashpoint Sample Duplicate || LCFP Flashpoint LCS || G1 Gelex Check Standard Range 0-1 || G2 Gelex Check Standard Range 1-10 || G3 Gelex Check Standard Range 10-100 || G4 Gelex Check Standard Range 100-1000 || Note 1: The Post Spike Designation on Batch QC for GFAA is designated with an "S" added to the current || abbreviation used. EX. LCS S=LCS Post Spike (GFAA); MSS=MS Post Spike (GFAA) || Note 2: The MD calculates an absolute difference (A) when the sample concentration is less than 5 times the || reporting limit. The control limit is represented as +/- the RL. || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || |

Page 8

Date Sub-basinFlow

Regime Station

Temp

(oF)DO

(mg/L)Cond

(μS/cm) pHFe

(mg/L)NO3-N (mg/L)

NH4-N (mg/L)

TKN (mg/L)

TN=TKN+N03-N

OP-P (mg/L)

TP (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

3/14/2006 Laurel High laurel river 54.3 9.71 134 7.17 2.320 0.741 0.050 0.943 1.684 0.091 0.103 58

3/14/2006 Robinson Crk High 2B 55.4 10.41 224 7.29 0.860 0.771 0.050 0.252 1.023 0.065 0.023 102

3/14/2006 Little Laurel High 25A 53.3 10.28 72 6.76 1.710 0.616 0.050 0.590 1.206 0.042 0.056 51



3/14/2006 Little Laurel High river bend 53.4 9.36 186 7.28 5.140 1.300 0.050 1.560 2.860 0.196 0.356 302



3/14/2006 Little Laurel High Ky 25 @ 92 57.6 11.64 269 7.74 0.630 1.060 0.050 0.668 1.728 0.042 0.055 14

3/14/2006 Little Laurel High WWTP 58.4 10.27 444 7.12 0.390 5.640 0.050 1.660 7.300 1.710 1.680 9



1/27/06 Reservoir Medium CCR 42.45 12.405 137.5 7.6 0.538 1.26 0.05 0.369 1.629 0.02 0.031 11

1/27/06 Laurel Medium laurel river 42.4 11.56 125 7.49 0.508 1.2 0.05 0.186 1.386 0.019 0.017 5

1/27/06 Robinson Crk Medium 2B 41.8 11.56 194.5 7.39 0.701 1.09 0.05 0.216 1.306 0.005 0.014 7.3

1/27/06 Little Laurel Medium 25A 40.6 12.03 88.5 7.47 0.563 0.781 0.05 0.177 0.958 0.005 0.018 9


1/27/06 Little Laurel Medium 12A 43.45 11.065 218 7.38 1.09 1.95 0.05 0.625 2.575 0.014 0.074 13.3

1/27/06 Little Laurel Medium river bend 44 11.005 206 7.44 0.577 2.07 0.05 0.534 2.604 0.022 0.048 26

1/27/06 Little Laurel Medium 2A 43.15 11.97 189.5 7.49 0.516 1.93 0.05 0.468 2.398 0.021 0.045 7.67


1/27/06 Little Laurel Medium Ky 25 @ 92 41.15 12.96 274 7.64 0.389 1.37 0.05 0.162 1.532 0.005 0.018 3

1/27/06 Little Laurel Medium WWTP 51.45 10.8 432.5 7.53 0.205 3.85 0.05 0.994 4.844 0.005 0.083 1.5



2/13/06 Reservoir Medium CCR 38.6 13.52 190 7.85 0.425 1.31 0.05 0.288 1.598 0.065 0.016 8

2/13/06 Laurel Medium laurel river 36.1 13.51 147.1 7.63 0.426 0.976 0.05 0.332 1.308 0.005 0.0047 1.5

2/13/06 Robinson Crk Medium 2B 35.8 13.07 231 7.33 0.656 0.957 0.05 0.274 1.231 0.033 0.0047 1.5

2/13/06 Little Laurel Medium 25A 35.5 13.68 112 7.26 0.417 0.704 0.05 0.262 0.966 0.005 0.0047 8



2/13/06 Little Laurel Medium river bend 36.9 12.99 427 7.69 0.405 1.88 0.05 0.493 2.373 0.057 0.052 4

2/13/06 Little Laurel Medium 2A 37 14.11 343 7.94 0.716 1.69 0.05 0.367 2.057 0.032 0.034 1.5

2/13/06 Little Laurel Medium 19A 37.1 12.47 455 7.3 0.646 0.978 0.05 0.393 1.371 0.051 0.044 6

2/13/06 Little Laurel Medium Ky 25 @ 92 38.7 17.61 518 8.07 0.326 1.15 0.05 0.261 1.411 0.023 0.017 1.5

2/13/06 Little Laurel Medium WWTP 48 12.97 627 7.74 0.178 4.94 0.05 1.18 6.120 0.105 0.175 1.5


2/13/06 Little Laurel Medium 13A 36.7 15.02 1081 7 0.392 1.44 0.05 0.513 1.953 0.014 0.012 5

3/1/2006 Reservoir Low CCR 47.9 12.52 259 7.88 0.538 0.912 0.050 0.167 1.079 0.098 0.058 7.3

3/1/2006 Laurel Low laurel river 46.3 12.53 140 7.6 0.400 0.760 0.050 0.050 0.810 0.022 0.0047 1.5

3/1/2006 Robinson Crk Low 2B 47.5 11.83 239 7.33 0.469 0.817 0.050 0.050 0.867 0.050 0.0047 1.5

3/1/2006 Little Laurel Low 25A 48.0 12.51 106 7.68 0.417 0.100 0.050 0.050 0.150 0.022 0.009 1.5



3/1/2006 Little Laurel Low river bend 47.2 12.22 257 7.35 0.278 1.360 0.050 0.050 1.410 0.106 0.041 1.5



3/1/2006 Little Laurel Low Ky 25 @ 92 50.3 20.02 296 8.77 0.435 0.555 0.050 0.302 0.857 0.044 0.021 3.0

3/1/2006 Little Laurel Low WWTP 55.1 14.26 544 7.57 0.147 3.730 0.050 1.190 4.920 0.442 0.525 1.5



APPENDIX G – PHYSICAL AND PHYSIOCHEMICAL HABITAT SURVEY RESULTS

Watershed Station Surveyor RBP score % Resid % Comm % Ag % Forest % Other Pipe/ditch % Canopy pH Cond Temp DO

Little Laurel 13A Kuss 134 40 0 60 0 0 1 35 7.4 440

Little Laurel 14A McClure 108 80 0 20 0 0 1 10 7.4 439 6.3 13.2

Little Laurel 16A T. Miller 140 50 50 0 0 0 1 65 6.67 214 0.36 14.3

Little Laurel 17A McClure 94 20 0 80 0 0 0 60 8.65 144 3.56 12.5

Little Laurel 22A McClure 104 30 70 0 0 0 0 65 7.77 321 5.8 11

Little Laurel 18A T. Miller 118 25 75 0 0 0 1 0 7.2 330

Little Laurel 12A T. Miller 100 5 0 95 0 0 1 35 6.96 190 1 13.6

Little Laurel 19A R. Miller 61 0 20 60 20 0 1 10 6.75 280





Little Laurel Unnamed Kuss 117 75 0 25 0 0 1 0 6.5 320

Little Laurel 15A Kuss 115 30 70 0 0 0 1 0 7 260

Little Laurel 24A McClure 59 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 5.8 132.5 7.8




Little Laurel 10A Kuss 155 0 0 20 30 50 0 60 7 160






Laurel 11B T. Miller 109 25 0 75 0 0 1 35 6.96 138 0.95 13.9

Laurel 12B T. Miller 90 5 10 35 50 0 0 65 6.93 99 0.01 14.8

Laurel 10B T. Miller 82 20 0 80 0 0 0 35 7 172 0.5 14.6

Laurel 19B R. Miller 108 0 0 50 50 0 0 60 6.5 100

Laurel 26B T. Miller 83 10 0 50 40 0 0 10 7.19 52 3.95 14.8

Laurel 27B T. Miller 87 15 0 60 25 0 0 35 7.04 209 1.73 15

Laurel 16B T. Miller 86 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 7.45 102 0.6 16.7

Laurel 15B T. Miller 143 50 0 50 0 0 0 60 7.03 64 1.14 18.1

Laurel 21B T. Miller 65 0 0 100 0 0 0 75 6.23 280 2.86 14.7

Laurel 23B T. Miller 76 10 0 50 40 0 0 0 7.14 49 1.43 20

Laurel 25B T. Miller 73 0 0 70 30 0 0 0 6.77 47 1.99 19.3

Laurel 24B T. Miller 59 20 0 80 0 0 0 0 3.74 34 2.75 14.9

Laurel 22B T. Miller 74 70 5 10 15 0 0 0 6.25 41 2.63 17.2

Laurel 20B T. Miller 78 10 0 65 25 0 0 60 6.19 40 1.88 19.4

Laurel 18B T. Miller 108 50 0 50 0 0 0 35 6.66 28 3.6 14

Laurel 13B R. Miller 105 5 5 60 30 0 0 10 6.25 130

Laurel 14B R. Miller 150 0 0 70 30 0 0 60 6.75 90

Laurel 1B McClure 149 0 0 0 100 0 0 60 7.05 165 1.35 13.8

Laurel 17B R. Miller 144 0 0 60 40 0 0 100 6.75 80

Robinson 9B T. Miller 63 10 0 30 60 0 0 100 7.08 229 0.89 13.7

Robinson 6B T. Miller 81 5 0 35 60 0 0 100 7.16 200 1 14.8



Robinson 2B McClure 129 0 50 0 40 10 1 35 7.3 252 1.97 12.4

Robinson Mine site T. Miller 106 10 0 90 0 0 1 0 6.81 951 10.06 10.6


APPENDIX H – CORBIN CITY RESERVIOR WATERSHED PLAN

2514 Regency Road, Suite 104 Lexington, Kentucky 40503

Ph: 859-977-2000Fax: 859-977-2001
