SUMMARY
REPORT
2003 KENTUCKY RIVER WATERSHED WATCH
DATA COLLECTION EFFORT
L. Ormsbee
M. McAlister
Prepared for:
The Kentucky River Watershed Watch
By:
The Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky
October 2003
KWRRI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................... 1
1.1 Overview.....................................................................................................
1
1.2 Study Area.................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Sample Data and Collection Dates............................................................... 14
1.4 Baseflow Conditions...................................................................................
14
Chapter 2: Data Collection and Analysis............................................................ 25
2.1
Physical/Chemical
Field Data....................................................................... 25
2.2
Herbicide
Indicators.................................................................................... 36
2.3
Herbicide
Samples....................................................................................... 37
2.4
Bacteriological
Indicators............................................................................. 40
2.4.1
Total
Coliforms................................................................................ 40
2.4.2
Fecal
Coliforms............................................................................... 41
2.4.3
Escherichia
coli................................................................................ 41
2.4.4 E.
coli/Fecal Coliform Ratio............................................................. 42
2.4.5 Fecal
streptococci........................................................................... 42
2.4.6 Enterococci..................................................................................... 42
2.5
Bacteriological
Sampling.............................................................................. 42
2.5.1 Synoptic
Fecal Coliform.................................................................. 43
2.5.2 Follow-Up
Fecal Coliform............................................................... 43
2.6
Physical/Chemical
Sampling......................................................................... 56
2.7
Nutrients..................................................................................................... 63
2.8
Nutrient
Sampling........................................................................................ 65
2.9
Metals
Data................................................................................................. 71
Chapter 3: Executive Summary......................................................................... 79
Chapter 4: Focused Sampling for Fecal Coliform............................................... 81
4.1 Clarks Run.................................................................................................. 81
4.2 Glenn’s Creek............................................................................................. 84
4.3 Herrington Lake.......................................................................................... 87
4.4 Hickman Creek and West Hickman Creek................................................... 90
4.5 McConnell Springs...................................................................................... 94
4.6 South Elkhorn Creek and Town Branch....................................................... 96
References............................................................................................................ 100
Appendix A: Quality
Assurance and Quality Control
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 2003 Kentucky River Watershed Watch
Sampling Sites....................
8
Table 1.2 Basinwide Sampling Data and Collection
Dates...............................
14
Table 1.3 Types and Number of Samples at
Sampling Sites............................
15
Table 2.1 Physical/Chemical Field Data..........................................................
26
Table 2.2 Herbicide Sampling Results.............................................................
40
Table 2.3 Synoptic Fecal Coliform Sampling
Results.......................................
45
(by station identification number)
Table 2.4 Synoptic Fecal Coliform Sampling
Results.......................................
49
(by concentration level)
Table 2.5 Follow-Up Fecal Coliform Sampling
Results...................................
54
Table 2.6 Chemical Sampling Results..............................................................
59
Table 2.7 Nutrient Sampling Results...............................................................
66
Table 2.8 Metals Sampling Results.................................................................
73
Table 2.9 Stations with Highest Metals
Concentrations....................................
78
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Kentucky River Basin........................................................................ 2
Figure 1.2 Kentucky River Basin 8-digit HUCs................................................... 3
Figure 1.3 Kentucky River Lower Basin............................................................. 4
Figure 1.4 Kentucky River Middle Basin............................................................ 5
Figure 1.5 Kentucky River Upper Basin............................................................. 6
Figure 1.6 Kentucky River Watershed Watch
Monitoring Sites........................... 7
Figure 1.7 Kentucky River USGS Gaging Stations............................................ 21
Figure 1.8 North Fork Kentucky River............................................................. 22
Figure 1.9 Middle Fork Kentucky River........................................................... 22
Figure 1.10 South Fork Kentucky River............................................................. 23
Figure 1.11 Lock and Dam #10......................................................................... 23
Figure 1.12 Lock and Dam #2........................................................................... 24
Figure 2.1 Herbicide Sampling Locations.......................................................... 38
Figure 2.2 Kentucky River Basin Synoptic Fecal
Coliform Counts..................... 44
Figure 2.3 Follow-Up Fecal Sampling Locations............................................... 53
Figure 2.4 Physical/Chemical Sampling Locations............................................. 58
Figure 2.5 Kentucky River Basin Phosphorus Sites
> 1.0 mg/L......................... 69
Figure 2.6 Kentucky River Basin Nitrate
Concentrations > 10 mg/L.................. 70
Figure 2.7 Kentucky River Basin Metal Sampling
Locations.............................. 72
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
This report documents the results of the 2003 Kentucky River Watershed Watch sampling effort, which was supported by grants from the Kentucky River Authority, Bluegrass PRIDE and Eastern Kentucky PRIDE. The Kentucky River Watershed Watch is a volunteer organization affiliated with the Kentucky Waterways Alliance with the following goals:
1.
To
provide current data on general water quality conditions to local stream based
organizations working to protect their watershed.
2.
To
provide widespread screening for potential water quality problems to resource
management agencies.
3.
To
provide auxiliary information to assist resource management agencies in meeting
specific operational and management objectives.
4.
To
identify specific impacts to water quality through targeted observations and
measurements.
The sampling effort was conducted so as to be
consistent with the scientific study plan developed by the Kentucky River
Watershed Watch scientific advisory board which describes the monitoring
objectives, methods, parameters, quality assurance, and data management. A copy of the plan may be found at the
project web site: http://water.nr.state.ky.us/watch/2000/plan_of_work.htm.
Detailed sampling results for 2003 are posted on the project web site at
http://nrepcapps.ky.gov/watch/management/ key.htm. All files associated with the Kentucky River
basin begin with the letter “k.”
1.2 Study Area
The Kentucky
River Watershed Watch sampling effort was conducted at 218 different sites
across the Kentucky River Basin. The
Kentucky River Basin extends over much of the central and eastern portions of
the state and is home to approximately 710,000 Kentuckians. The watershed includes all or part of 42
counties and drains over 7,000 square miles with a tributary network of more
than 15,000 miles. A map of the
watershed with the associated counties is shown in Figure 1.1. For the purpose of watershed management, the
River Basin has been subdivided into smaller sub-basins and watersheds using
the USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) classification system. A map showing the 8-digit subbasins is shown
in Figure 1.2. A more detailed
description of the 11-digit HUC watersheds is provided in Figures 1.3-1.5. An index of the 218 sampling sites is
provided in Figure 1.6 and Table 1.1.
Figure
1.6 2003 Kentucky River Watershed Watch
Sampling Sites
KRWW
Sampling Sites
11-Digit HUC boundaries![]()







1.3 Sample Data and
Collection Dates
Water quality data were collected across the basin at four different times extending through the summer, and fall of 2003. A listing of the sample dates and types of data collected during each sample period is provided in Table 1.2. A summary of the types and number of samples collected at each data collection site is provided in Table 1.3.
|
Type of Data Collected |
Sample Dates |
Sites |
Samples |
|
1. Herbicide |
5/16/03-5/22/03 |
33 |
33 |
|
2. Synoptic Pathogens |
7/11/03-7/14/03 |
151 |
151 |
|
3. Follow Up Pathogens |
8/1/03 – 8/9/03 |
68 |
68 |
|
4a. Chemical/Nutrients |
9/12/03-9/28/03 |
112 |
112 |
|
4b. Metals |
9/13/03-9/21/03 |
39 |
39 |
1.4 Baseflow Conditions
In order to provide a basis for interpreting the sample results it is important to understand the associated stream conditions during the sampling effort. For example, data collected during low flow or dry conditions may be more indicative of the impact of points discharges while data collected following a storm may be more reflective of the impacts of non-point pollutant discharges. An indication of the stream conditions during the sampling period may be obtained by examination of USGS streamflow records. For the purposes of this study, five separate USGS gauging stations were selected for use in providing an indication of the streamflow conditions during the sampling period. The names, station numbers, and locations of each of these stations are shown in Figure 1.7. Streamflow plots for each station showing the times of the different sampling efforts are shown in Figures 1.8-1.12. (The streamflow values for these tables can be found on the USGS website at http://ky.water.usgs.gov.)






![]()


![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()

![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()

CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION
AND ANALYSIS
2.1
Physical/Chemical Field Data
General physical/chemical
field data (flow, water temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen) were collected
at each sample site during the four separate basinwide sample periods. A summary of the physical/chemical data
collected during this period is provided in Table 2.1.
Approximately 8 percent of the stations (11 of 136) had reported dissolved oxygen values less than 5.0. A dissolved oxygen value less than 5.0 can be problematic for many aquatic organisms, causing increased susceptibility to environmental stresses, reduced growth rates, mortality and an alteration in the distribution of aquatic life. Very low dissolved oxygen levels may indicate excessive organic or nitrogen loads.
None of the stations had a
pH value less than 6 or greater than 9.
The average pH value of all samples, 6.5, falls within the neutral range
of between 6 and 9. A pH value less than
6 signifies acidic conditions in which toxic heavy metals are more soluble, and
therefore more available for uptake by aquatic life. At pH values
greater than 9, toxic ammonia concentrations increase.
Based on visual observations, the flow rate in the
streams was assessed using the following numerical equivalents:
0
– Dry
1
– Ponded
2
– Low
3
– Normal
4
– Bank Full
5
– Flood










2.2
Herbicide Indicators
Two separate herbicides were
used to evaluate the possibility of potential pollution from rural and/or urban
land uses in the Kentucky River Basin.
The herbicides included Metolachlor and Triazine.
Metolachlor is usually
applied to crops before plants emerge from the soil, and is used to control
certain broadleaf and annual grassy weeds in field corn, soybeans, peanuts,
grain sorghum, potatoes, cotton, safflower, stone fruits, nut trees, highway
right-of-ways and woody ornamentals. It
inhibits protein synthesis; thus high protein crops (e.g. soy) can be adversely
affected by excessive Metolachlor application.
Additives may be included in product formulations to help protect
sensitive crops (i.e. sorghum) from injury.
Metolachlor is highly persistent in water over a wide range of
acidity. At 20◦ Celsius, its half-life is greater than 200 days in
highly acidic water and is 97 days in highly basic water. Metolachlor is moderately persistent in the
soil environment, with observed half-lives of 15 to 70 days. Breakdown rates are mainly dependent on
microbial activity, and are therefore temperature-dependent. Metolachlor is currently unregulated by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and therefore is not assigned a maximum
contaminant level.
Triazine (or Atrazine) is a
selective triazine herbicide used to control broadleaf and grassy weeds in corn
and other crops, and in conifer reforestation plantings. It is also used as a nonselective herbicide
on non-cropped industrial lands and on fallow lands. Over 64 million acres of cropland were treated with atrazine in
the U.S. in 1990. Atrazine is
moderately soluble in water. The main
route of breakdown is chemical hydrolysis, followed by biodegradation. Atrazine is highly persistent in soil. Chemical hydrolysis followed by microbial
breakdown accounts for most of its degradation in soil. Although hydrolysis is rapid in acidic or
basic soil environments, it is slower at neutral pHs. The EPA’s drinking water standard maximum contaminant level for
Atrazine is 0.003 mg/L (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html). EPA's
Office of Water has published a draft ambient water quality criteria document
for atrazine containing acute and chronic criteria recommendations for the
protection of aquatic life in both freshwater and saltwater. The procedures described in the
"Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses" indicate that, except
possibly where a locally important species is very sensitive, freshwater
aquatic life and their uses should not be affected unacceptably if the one-hour
average concentration does not exceed 350 ug/L more than once every three years
on the average (acute criterion) and if the four-day average concentration of
atrazine does not exceed 12 ug/L more than once every three years on the
average (chronic criterion).
The basic manufacturer of
both herbicides, Metolachlor and Atrazine, is Ciba-Geigy Agricultural
Division. They can be contacted at the
following address, phone number or fax number: Ciba-Geigy Agricultural
Division; P.O. Box 18300; Greensboro, NC
27419-8300; Telephone: (919)632-6000; Fax: (919)299-8318.
2.3
Herbicide Samples
Herbicide data were
collected at 33 sites during the period 5/16/03 – 5/22/03. Each sample was analyzed for both
Metolachlor and Triazine. The location
of each site is shown in Figure 2.1. A
summary of the results for the herbicide data collection effort is provided in
Table 2.2. Seventeen of the 33 sites
had detectable levels of one or both of these herbicides, with Triazine
registering more often. Site K263
(North Elkhorn Creek at Avon tributary) showed the highest value for Triazine,
and site K260 (Dreaming Creek behind Madison Central High) showed the highest
value for Metolachlor. None of the
samples registering a detectable level of Atrazine exhibited a concentration
greater than the EPA’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.003 mg/L or the
EPA’s proposed criteria for aquatic life.
Detectable levels for Atrazine ranged from a concentration of 0.08 ug/L
to 1.49 ug/L.
K260 K263
Herbicides detected No herbicides detected Figure
2.1 2003 Kentucky River Herbicide
Sampling
![]()


Error! Not a valid link.
2.4 Bacteriological Indicators
A number of pathogenic
(disease causing) viruses, bacteria, and protozoans can enter a water body via
fecal contamination. Human illness can
result from drinking water or swimming in water that contains pathogens, or
from eating shellfish harvested from such waters.
Unfortunately, direct
testing for pathogens is impractical.
Pathogens are rarely present in large numbers, and many are difficult to
cultivate in the lab. Instead,
microbiologists look for “inidator” species – so called because their presence
indicates that fecal contamination may have occurred. The indicators most commonly used today include: total coliforms,
fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli, fecal streptococci, and enterococci. Each of these bacteria are normally
prevalent in the intestines and feces of warm-blooded animals, including
humans. The indicator bacteria themselves
are not usually pathogenic. All but E.
coli are composed of a number of species of bacteria that share commons
characteristics such as shape, habitat, or behavior; E. coli is a single
species in the fecal coliform group.
There are basically two methods
for analyzing water samples for bacteria:
The Membrane Filter Method involves filtering several
different-sized portions of the sample using filters with a standard diameter
and pore size, placing each filter on a selective nutrient medium in a Petri
plate, incubating the plates at a specific temperature for a specified time
period, and then counting the colonies that have grown on the filter. This method varies for different bacteria
types (variations might include, for example, the nutrient medium type, the
number and types of incubations, the method of incubations, etc.)
The Multipe-Tube
Fermentation Method involves adding specified quantities of the sample to tubes containing
a nutrient broth, incubating the tubes at a specified temperature for a
specified time period, and then looking for the development of gas and/or
turbidity that the bacteria produce.
The presence or absence of gas in each tube is used to calculate an
index known as the Most Probable Number (MPN).
2.4.1 Total
Coliforms
Total coliforms are a group
of bacteria that are widespread in nature.
All members of the fecal coliform group can occur in human feces, but
some can also be present in animal manure, soil, and submerged wood and in
other places outside the human body. Thus,
the usefulness of total coliforms as an indicator of fecal contamination
depends on the extent to which the bacteria species found are fecal and human
in origin. For recreational waters,
total coliforms are no longer recommended as an indicator. For drinking water, total coliforms are
still the standard test because their presence indicates contamination of a
water supply by an outside source.
Total coliforms are indicated in the lab by their ability to metabolize
(ferment) the sugar lactose in an incubator at a temperature of 35C.
2.4.2. Fecal
Coliforms
Fecal coliforms, a subset of
total coliform bacteria, are more fecal specific in origin. However, even this group contains a genus,
Lebsiella, with species that are not necessarily fecal in origin. Klebsiella are commonly associated with
textile and pulp and paper mill wastes.
Therefore, if these sources discharge to your stream, you might want to
consider monitoring more fecal and human-specific bacteria. For recreational waters, this group was the
primary bacteria indicator until relatively recently, when EPA began
recommending E. coli and enterococci as better indicators of health risk from
water contact. However, fecal coliforms
are still being used in many states, including Kentucky, as the indicator
bacteria. Similar to total coliforms,
fecal coliforms are indicated in the lab by their ability to metabolize
(ferment) the sugar lactose in an incubator at a temperature of 44.5 C. The state criteria for fecal coliform are
based on the designated use of the particular stream and may be summarized as
follows:
Primary Contact Recreation
(swimming from May 1 thru Oct 31): fecal coliform shall not exceed 200 colonies
per 100 ml as a monthly geometric mean based on not less than 5 samples per
month; nor exceed 400 colonies per 100 ml in 20 percent or more of all samples
taken during the month. [Note: As a
result of the sampling frequency requirement with the first criteria, the state
of Kentucky uses the 400 colonies per 100-ml criteria for classifying streams
in the 305(b) report].
Secondary Contact Recreation (fishing and boating): fecal coliform content shall
not exceed 1000 colonies per 100 ml as a monthly geometric mean based on not
less than 5 samples per month; nor exceed 2000 colonies per 100 ml in 20
percent or more of all samples taken during the month.
Domestic Water Supply: fecal coliform content shall not exceed 2000
colonies per 100 ml as a monthly geometric mean based on not less than 5
samples per month.
2.4.3 Escherichia coli (E. coli)
The bacterium, E.
coli, is commonly found in the intestines of healthy humans and animals and
produces the K and B-complex vitamins that are then absorbed for nutritional
benefit. The presence of E. coli in water indicates fecal
contamination and the potential for
waterborne disease. EPA recommends E. Coli as
the best indicator of health risk from water contact in recreational
waters. Kentucky is currently in the
process of transitioning from a fecal coliform standard to an E. coli standard.
Although E. coli
bacteria are not typically pathogenic, it has been found that E. coli concentrations are a predictor
of swimming-associated gastrointestinal illness.* EPA bacterial water quality standards are thus based on a
threshold concentration of E. coli in water above which the health risk
from waterborne illness is unacceptably high. The EPA’s recommended water quality standard
for recreational waters is based on 1) a geometric mean of 126
organisms/100 ml based on five samples collected during dry weather conditions
or 2) 235 organisms/100 ml for any single water sample (EPA 1986).
* Dufour, Alfred P. 1984. Health effects criteria for fresh
recreational waters. EPA-600/1-84-004. Office of Research and Development,
USEPA, Washington, DC.
2.4.4 E.
coli/Fecal Coliform Ratio
Because of the fact that E.
Coli represent a sub-population of the fecal coliform bacteria, one should
normally expect the ratio of the E. Coli to Fecal Coliform to be less than
one. At a minimum, the E. coli test provides
a second method for assessing the impairment of the water and the relative
reliability of the fecal coliform count.
However, depending on how the samples are analyzed it is possible to
obtain ratios greater than one. In the
current study, E. Coli were determined using a most probable number MPN
technique while the fecal coliforms were determined using a membrane filtration
method. In general, if the fecal
coliforms are under biological stress, then is possible that some of them may
actually die during the membrane filter test and not show up on the membrane
filter. Because of the nature of the
test, fewer organisms are susceptible to death using the MPN technique. As a consequence, monitoring sites which
yield a EC/FC ratio greater than one, may be indicative of sites where the
pathogens are under stress, such as a situation associated with some level of
treatment (e.g. wastewater treatment plant, package plant, septic system).
2.4.5 Fecal
Streptococci
Fecal streptococci generally
occur in the digestive systems of humans and other warm-blooded animals. In the past, fecal streptococci were
monitored together with fecal coliforms and a ratio of fecal coliforms to
streptococci was calculated. This ratio
was then used to determine whether the contamination was of human or nonhuman
origin. However, because of the number
of restrictions required for an accurate application of the ratio, this test is
usually no longer recommended. Kentucky
DOW currently does not employ fecal streptococci as a pathogen indicator for
Kentucky watersways.
2.4.6
Enterococci
Enterococci are a subgroup
within the fecal streptococcus group.
Enterococci are distinguished by their ability to survive in salt water,
and in this respect, they more closely mimic many pathogens than do the other
indicators. Enterococci are typically
more human-specific than the larger fecal streptococcus group. EPA currently recommends the use of
Enterococci for testing marine recreational waters because of their superior
correlation with swimming related illness.
Kentucky DOW currently does not employ enterococci as a pathogen
indicator for Kentucky waterways.
2.5 Bacteriological Sampling
Two different sets of fecal coliform sampling were conducted in the Kentucky River basin during the summer of 2003. These included synoptic sampling and follow-up sampling. The results of each sampling effort are discussed in following sections. During the first test all samples were analyzed for fecal coliforms using the membrane filter test. During the follow-up testing, all samples were analyzed again for fecal coliform using the membrane filter test as well as E. coli using an MPN method.
2.5.1 Synoptic Fecal Coliform Sampling
As in past years, a synoptic
round of fecal coliform samples was collected at targeted sample locations
during the month of July. The sample
locations and associated results are shown in Figure 2.2. The individual results for each site are
shown in Table 2.3. A ranking of the
stations by the magnitude of the results is shown in Table 2.4
2.5.2 Follow-Up Fecal Coliform Sampling
Based on the observation of
high readings at 103 of the synoptic sites (i.e., >400 CFU/100 ml), an
additional round of fecal coliform sampling was conducted between 8/1/2003 and
8/9/2003. In addition to fecal coliform
analyses, the samples were also evaluated for E. Coli. The sample locations and
associated values are shown in Figure 2.3.
The results of this sampling effort are provided in Table 2.5. A summary of the resulting ratios is
provided in Table 2.6. Results
indicated continuing fecal-related problems at 48 of the 61 re-sampled sites
(concentrations greater than 400 fecal colonies/100 ml).















2.6 Physical/Chemical Sampling
General chemical data
(alkalinity, chlorides, conductivity, total suspended solids, and total
hardness) were collected at all sample locations during the month of
September. The locations of the
sampling sites are shown in Figure 2.4.
The individual results for each sample are shown in Table 2.7.
Estradiol: This steroidal estrogen
hormone is used in women’s hormone replacement drugs, as well as drugs given to
livestock. Main sources of high concentrations of estradiol in water are sewage
treatment wastewater (including septic systems) or livestock waste. As a result, the presence of estradiol would
indicate the presence of human sewage or runoff of livestock waste. Estradiol can lead to reproductive
impairment, endocrine disruption, and death in fish populations. Its effects on human populations are still
being studied.
Alkalinity: Alkalinity refers to the degree to which the water
sample is basic, or has a pH greater than 7, and affects the capability of
water to neutralize acid. In most
natural water bodies in Kentucky the buffering system is
carbonate-bicarbonate. Alkalinity is
important for fish and aquatic life because it protects or buffers against
rapid pH changes. Higher alkalinity
levels in surface waters will buffer acid rain and other acid wastes and
prevent pH changes that are harmful to aquatic life. Kentucky’s water quality criteria state that for protection of
aquatic life, the buffering capacity should be at least 20 mg/L. If alkalinity is naturally low, (less than
20 mg/L) there can be no greater than a 25% reduction in alkalinity.
Chlorides: Chlorides are
salts resulting from the combination of the gas chlorine with a metal. Fish and aquatic communities cannot survive
in waters with high levels of chlorides.
Public Drinking Water Standards require chloride levels not to exceed
250 mg/L. Criteria for protection of aquatic life require levels of less than
600 mg/L for chronic (long-term) exposure and 1200 mg/L for short-term
exposure.
Conductivity: Conductivity
is a measurement of the ability of an aqueous solution to carry an electrical
current. Conductivity measurements are
used to determine mineralization, or total dissolved solids. Indirect effects of excess dissolved solids
are primarily the elimination of desirable food plants and habitat-forming
plant species. For Kentucky, water
quality criteria have been established only for the mainstem of the Ohio River.
The limit is 800 micromhos/cm or 500 mg/L total dissolved solids.
Total
Suspended Solids: One of the biggest
sources of water pollution in Kentucky is suspended solids. Suspended solids include inorganic particles
(silts, clays, etc.) and organic particles (algae, zooplankton, bacteria, and
detritus) that are carried along by water as it runs off the land. The
inorganic portion is usually considerably higher than the organic. Both
contribute to turbidity, or cloudiness of the water. High values of TSS cause multiple environmental impacts,
including clogging fish gills, reducing light penetration, and siltation of
stream bottoms and associated habitats.
Indirectly, the suspended solids affect other parameters such as
temperature and dissolved oxygen.
Suspended solids also interfere with effective drinking water treatment.
High sediment loads interfere with coagulation, filtration, and disinfection,
and more chlorine is required to effectively disinfect turbid water.
There are no quantitative criteria for TSS; however,
Kentucky Water Quality Standards for aquatic life state that suspended solids
"shall not be changed to the extent that the indigenous aquatic community
is adversely affected" and "the addition of settleable solids that
may adversely alter the stream bottom is prohibited."
Total
Hardness: Hardness is due to the presence of multivalent metal
ions which come from minerals dissolved in the water. Generally, harder water results in a lower toxicity of other
metals to aquatic life. In fresh water
the primary ions are calcium and magnesium; however iron and manganese may also
contribute. There are no Kentucky water quality criteria for hardness.
Figure 2.4
2003 Kentucky River Basin Physical/Chemical Sampling Locations KRWW
Physical/Chemical Sampling Sites
11-Digit HUC Boundaries See Table 2.7 for Chemical Sampling Values
![]()


