mammoth cave demonstration project: pre-bmp report

MAMMOTH CAVE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

PRE-BMP REPORT

Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection Cabinet

Kentucky Division of WaterWater Quality Branch

Nonpoint Source SectionDecember 1996

Mammoth Cave Demonstration Project:Pre-BMP Report

Kentucky Department of Environmental ProtectionKentucky Division of Water

Water Quality BranchNonpoint Source Section

Frankfort, Kentucky

December, 1996

This report has been approved for release.

Jack A. Wilson, DirectorKentucky Division of Water

Date

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

William F. SampsonAquatic Biologist

Project Leader

Steve Kellerman/Eric SprolesField Technicians

KDOW, Bowling Green Regional Office

Joe MeimanHydrologist

National Park ServiceMammoth Cave

Jimmy MarcumNRCS District Conservationist

Franklin County

Kent Taylor/Nancy ShreveWater Quality Specialists

Warren County Conservation District

The Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, ordisability and provides, on request, reasonable accommodations including auxiliary aids and services necessary to afford an individual with a disabilityan equal opportunity to participate in all services, programs, and activities. These materials, and other materials offered to the public by the NaturalResources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, can be provided in alternative formats to any individual with a disability. To request materials in analternative format, please contact Maleva Chamberlain, Division of Water, 14 Reilly Road, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 or telephone (502) 564-3410.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................1

II. Project Area Description............................................................................................3Project Area Location.....................................................................................3Geologic Information.....................................................................................5Hydrologic Information................................................................................5General Project Area Land-Use Information .............................................5

III. Overview of Project Monitoring Program..............................................................6Land-Use Tracking ........................................................................................6Water Quality Monitoring............................................................................6Quality Assurance/Quality Control ...........................................................6Rainfall Data ...................................................................................................7Photodocumentation .....................................................................................7

IV. Farm Specific Monitoring..........................................................................................7 Demonstration Farm 1...................................................................................7 Demonstration Farm 2.................................................................................10 Demonstration Farm 3.................................................................................12 Demonstration Farm 4.................................................................................14 Demonstration Farm 5...........................................................................................16

V. References ............................................................................................................25

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Area Diagram....................................................................................4Figure 2: Diagram of Demonstration Farm 1 .............................................................8Figure 3: Diagram of Demonstration Farm 2 ...........................................................11Figure 4: Diagram of Demonstration Farm 3 ...........................................................13Figure 5: Diagram of Demonstration Farm 4 ...........................................................15Figure 6: Diagram of Demonstration Farm 5 ...........................................................17Figure 7: Pre-BMP Nitrogen Compound Levels......................................................20Figure 8: Pre-BMP Fecal Coliform Levels.................................................................21Figure 9: Comparison of Storm Event Versus Non-Storm Event

Pre-BMP Nutrient Levels for Demonstration Farm 5...........................22Figure 10: HBI Results for Demonstration Farm 5 ....................................................23Figure 11: Community Structure for Demonstration Farm 5

1993 Macroinvertebrate Data ...................................................................24

ii

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Precipitation Data.........................................................................................28

Appendix 2: Flow Data (Demonstration Farms 4 and 5)..............................................30

Appendix 3: Pre-BMP Water Sample Data (Demonstration Farm 1 - Station 1 and Milk Parlor Wastewater).................................................31

Appendix 4: Pre-BMP Water Sample Data (Demonstration Farm 2 - Station 2)....................................................................................................32

Appendix 5: Pre-BMP Water Sample Data (Demonstration Farm 2) .........................33

Appendix 6: Pesticide Data for Demonstration Farm 2 ................................................34




Appendix 10: Pre-BMP Demonstration Farm 5 Fish Data.............................................41

Appendix 11: Pre-BMP Demonstration Farm 5 Macroinvertebrate Data ...................42

iii

1

MAMMOTH CAVE PROJECT

PRE-BMP REPORT

INTRODUCTION

Portions of the Green River system in south-central Kentucky have been identifiedas high-quality waters by federal, state, and local agencies, and public organizations. TheGreen River mainstem within the boundaries of Mammoth Cave National Park has beendesignated a Kentucky Wild River. It has also been listed as a significant free-flowing riverin the National Rivers Inventory (NPS 1982). In addition, Kentucky water qualityregulations categorize this section as high quality water. The associated Mammoth Cavegroundwater basin is categorized as an Outstanding Natural Resource Water and isclassified as a Coldwater Aquatic Habitat (KDOW 1994b).

A host of potential pollution sources are known to exist in the Mammoth Cave area,and the pollutant impacts have been complicated by a karst aquifer system with numerousgroundwater basins and sub-basins. The groundwater within Mammoth Cave NationalPark has been contaminated with high levels of bacteria and nutrients from domestic andindustrial point source discharges, agricultural activities, and failing or improperlyinstalled on-site wastewater treatment systems, all located outside the park. Many livestockfeedlots and dairy operations are present within the groundwater basins draining into thepark; therefore, the potential exists for nutrient and bacterial contamination fromagricultural practices.

The updated 1989 Kentucky Nonpoint Source Assessment Report (KDOW 1989)identified agriculture as a source of sediment and pesticide pollution in the TurnholeSpring groundwater basin, a major underground drainage basin of the Mammoth Cavesystem. Other activities, such as oil and gas exploration and drilling in areas adjacent to thepark, have caused brine and hydrocarbon problems in Mammoth Cave groundwaterbasins. Additionally, solid waste dumped into sinkholes presents a potential for release ofhazardous substances into the basins. Other nonpoint sources that could have impacted theMammoth Cave groundwater basins include urban runoff, highway maintenance andrunoff, and railroad maintenance activities. Contaminants such as road salts, heavy metals,oils, volatile organic compounds, and pesticides are often a result of these infrastructuralentities.

The five-county (Barren, Hart, Edmonson, Metcalfe, and Warren counties)Mammoth Cave Project area includes more than 200,000 acres and 1,300 farms. Each ofthese counties constitutes a conservation district. In 1989, the five conservation districts in

2

the Mammoth Cave area, with the assistance of the area Agricultural Stabilization andConservation Service (ASCS) office (now Farm Services Agency), applied for $400,000 offederal ASCS Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) cost-share monies. The requested($400,000) ACP funds were awarded in early 1990.

The ACP funds were used to implement agricultural/water quality bestmanagement practices (BMPs) on a 75/25 percent cost-share basis. ACP cost-share has acap per farm of $17,500 in federal dollars for a five-year period. In order to develop a truedemonstration project, specific farms were selected for BMP implementation. Both animalwaste and agronomic BMPs have been evaluated. Federal Section 319(h) Nonpoint SourceImplementation Grant funds were used to supplement the ACP funds to implement BMPson a selected number of demonstration farms.

To make the ACP proposal more competitive with others across the country, publicsupport for the water quality project was solicited in the project area. The increased publicawareness of water quality problems in south-central Kentucky, resulting in-part from theprocess of formulating the ACP proposal, led to the formation of the Mammoth Cave KarstArea Water Quality Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee was formed topromote coordination among land users and government agencies in monitoring andimproving water quality in the karst area of south-central Kentucky. The objectives of theOversight Committee are:

1. To improve the water quality of the karst areas of south-central Kentucky;

2. To understand the relationships of agricultural practices to the water qualityof the karst areas; and

3. To develop plans and attract the necessary technical assistance and fundingto assist land users in solving water quality problems where they areidentified.

The Oversight Committee established a multi-agency technical committee to assist itin developing a nonpoint source pollution remediation demonstration project for theMammoth Cave area. Agencies represented on the technical committee include local andstate Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (now Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS]),and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) (now Farm ServicesAgency [FSA]), local Conservation Districts, U.S. National Park Service, Kentucky Divisionof Water (KDOW), Kentucky Division of Conservation (KDOC), Kentucky Geological Survey (KGS), Kentucky Department of Agriculture, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),

3

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), University of Kentucky (UK) College of Agriculture,Western Kentucky University (WKU), and WKU Center for Cave and Karst Studies.

One of the recommendations of the technical committee was to develop a surfacewater quality monitoring program. The purpose of this program was to document waterquality improvements as a result of agricultural BMP implementation. This information isbeing used to promote BMPs to area farmers through farm tours, field days, and othereducational activities.

Under the FFY90 319(h) grant, two demonstration farms were selected for BMPimplementation and monitoring. Under subsequent grants, the Mammoth CaveDemonstration Project was expanded to include a total of five demonstration farms. Specific responsibilities of the NPS on-site planning field teams of the KDOW includedeveloping study plans for monitoring activities on demonstration farms, coordinatingmonitoring activities with other agencies, implementing water quality monitoring ondemonstration farms, and interpreting and documenting changes in water quality resultingfrom the implementation of BMPs.

The two initial demonstration farms, funded under the FFY90 319(h) grant, were inEdmonson County (Demonstration Farm 1) and Barren County (Demonstration Farm 2). Both agronomic BMPs and animal waste management BMPs are being evaluated atDemonstration Farm 1. Agronomic BMPs are the central focus at Demonstration Farm 2. The other three demonstration farms are located in Barren County (Demonstration Farm 3),Hart County (Demonstraton Farm 4), and Warren/Barren counties (Demonstration Farm5). Animal waste management systems are being evaluated at these locations.

PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

Project Area Location:

The Mammoth Cave Project area is situated within a five-county region in southcentral Kentucky. These counties are Barren, Edmonson, northern Warren, Hart, andMetcalfe. The closest major city is Bowling Green, located just to the southwest. See Figure1 for layout of the project area.

5

Geologic Information:

Physiographically, the Mammoth Cave Project area is situated within thePennyroyal Interior Lower Plateau Province (Shawnee Hills Section, Mammoth CavePlateau Subsection) of the Mississippian Plateau (KGS, no date). This area is underlain bythe St. Louis Limestone and St. Genevieve Limestone of the Mississippian Formation. TheSt. Louis Limestone is a medium-gray to yellowish-gray, mostly fine to very finely grainedrock, containing silt and clay. Minor amounts of embedded chert also occur within thisstratum. The St. Genevieve Limestone is white to gray, locally containing silty rock withbeds and lenses of blue to bluish gray to reddish chert. This region is typically karstic withmany sinkholes scattered throughout. Most of the slopes within the study area range from0 to 20 percent. (Haynes 1966, Nelson 1963)

Hydrologic Information:

There are very few intermittent or perennial streams within the project area. For themost part, surface runoff flows laminarly to sinkholes. Once becoming subterraneous, thiswater travels through an intricate system of conduits forming groundwater basins. Thegeneral flow pattern of the Mammoth Cave groundwater basin is north-northwest draininginto the Green River. To the north, groundwater basins flow into the Hidden River; and tothe south, groundwater basins flow into the Barren River. (Quinlan 1989)

General Project Area Land-Use Information:

Although only 17 percent of the total work force within the project area is employedby agriculture, almost 80 percent of the land here is used for this purpose. Fifteen percentof the land area is forestland or woodlots, and five percent is residential. Total cash receiptsfrom farming in 1989 were more than $50 million. Milk and burley tobacco productioncomprise a large portion of the farm income. The 1989-90 Kentucky Agricultural Statisticsreport indicated that four of the five counties in the project area are in the top ten statewidefor the production of milk, tobacco, alfalfa hay and for total cattle population. Barren, Hart,and Metcalfe counties rank first, sixth, and tenth, respectively, in milk production. BarrenCounty was second in production of alfalfa hay, while Hart County was fourth, andWarren County was ninth. Barren County is fourth in tobacco production, while HartCounty was ranked tenth. (KDA 1990)

6

OVERVIEW OF PROJECT MONITORING PROGRAM

Land-Use Tracking:

Farm-specific land-use data were collected for each of the five demonstration farmsby the Kentucky Division of Conservation (KDOC). Items being tracked by KDOC includehead of cattle, manure produced, pesticides used and application rates, fertilizer types andapplication rates, and BMPs implemented. Land-use information is provided in the Farm-Specific Monitoring Program section.

Water Quality Monitoring:

Monitoring data are being collected at the five demonstration farms for the purposeof documenting water quality changes resulting from BMP implementation. To accomplishthis objective, pre-BMP data collected thus far will be analytically compared to post-BMPdata. This information will be used to promote BMPs to area farmers. Agronomic BMPshave been monitored at two of the farms, and animal waste BMPs have been monitored atfour of the farms. Water quality data were collected by KDOW staff and by WarrenCounty Conservation District water quality specialists.

Project monitoring centered on storm-event sampling; however, occasional low-flow/normal-flow samples were collected from stream stations. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen(TKN), nitrite-nitrate nitrogen (NO2-NO3-N), ammonia-ammonium (NH3-NH4-N), totalphosphorus (TP), total organic carbon (TOC), and total suspended solids (TSS) wereanalyzed for all animal waste monitoring stations. Selected pesticides were analyzed foragronomic stations. BOD5 samples were collected on occassion, and flow measurementswere taken when possible using a Marsh-McBirney flow meter. In addition, dissolvedoxygen, specific conductance, and turbidity measurements were taken for stream stations. Results of the water quality monitoring are provided in the Farm-Specific MonitoringProgram section.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control:

Sampling locations, water quality parameters, and project objectives are provided infarm-specific study plans. Sampling techniques and handling procedures employedfollowed the criteria outlined in the Ecological Support Section's QualityAssurance/Quality Control Guidelines and standard operating procedures manuals(KDOW 1987, 1993). The American Public Health Association (APHA 1992) and U.S. EPA-approved field and laboratory methods and procedures were followed, where appropriate,

7

including adherence to holding times and proper sample preservation. The KentuckyDivision of Environmental Services performed the analysis for all water chemistry samples,except for one set of data analyzed by Ogden Laboratory (WKU). The National ParkService, Mammoth Cave Laboratory, and Ogden Laboratory performed the analyses forfecal coliform bacteria on water samples by the membrane filter technique.

All pertinent field equipment was calibrated according to manufacturer'srecommendations prior to sampling. Duplicates or splits were collected and analyzed forat least ten percent of the water samples. Proper chain-of-custody procedures werefollowed for all samples. Taxonomic verifications have been performed for at least tenpercent of the fish and macroinvertebrate samples by KDOW Ecological Support Sectionbiologists with an in-depth knowledge of the subject groups. Furthermore, a log wasmaintained for all water and biological samples.

Rainfall data:

Rainfall was monitored for the Mammoth Cave Project area by Western KentuckyUniversity (Conner) through the deployment of automatic rain gauges. Refer to Appendix1 for rainfall data.

Photodocumentation:

Photographs were taken to document important pre-BMP activities and featuresrelevant to the Mammoth Cave project. This included meetings, educational activities, landuse activities, pre-BMP conditions, BMP installation, monitoring stations, and datagathering. Slide film was used for this purpose. The slides were labeled and catalogued inphoto albums retained by the KDOW Nonpoint Source Section.

FARM-SPECIFIC MONITORING

Demonstration Farm 1:

Land-Use data: Both animal-waste BMPs and cropping BMPs are being evaluated at thisfarm (Figure 2). The dairy operation here supports approximately 63 cows, which equatesto roughly 6,410 pounds of manure per day (2,339,741 lbs/yr). An animal-wastemanagement system was installed during fall 1990 to treat this waste. A small basin hasalso been constructed to collect waste from the milk parlor. (KDOC)

9

A 36-acre tract of this farm is being utilized to monitor a variety of agronomic BMPs(fields 10 and 11). BMPs under investigation include crop rotation, no-till planting, wintercover cropping, contour farming, grassed waterways, integrated pest management, andconservation tillage. Crops that have been planted at fields 10 and 11 include corn, hay(clover and alfalfa), winter wheat, and tobacco. Pesticides that have been used here includecarbofuran, isopropalin, atrazine, simazine, primisulfuron, matalaxyl, and lindane. (KDOC)

Water Quality Data Collection Methodology: Two principal stations have beenmonitored at this farm during or immediately following storm-events. Station 1 is locatedjust below the site of the proposed animal waste facility in a drainage ditch. This stationwas sampled by the grab method for the purpose of evaluating the animal wastemanagement system. Pre-BMP samples were also collected from milk parlor wastewaterrunoff nearby. Station 2 is located on the northwest sector of the farm, between fields 10and 11. A weir and ISCO automatic sampling system were installed at Station 2 formonitoring storm-event runoff. This sampler is stage activated and has been programmedto collect water at specific intervals. However, occasional grab samples have been collectedat this station when the automatic sampler was not functioning. Water samples collectedfrom Station 2 will be used to link water quality to agronomic BMPs.

Parameters being analyzed at Stations 1 and 2 include TKN, NH3-NH4-N, NO2-NO3-N, TP, TOC, and TSS. Some fecal coliform data have been collected for Station 1, andselected pesticides have been analyzed for Station 2.

Discussion of Findings: Three sets of pre-BMP storm-event samples were collected atStation 1 (dairy station). High nutrient concentrations were detected in these samples(Appendix 3). TP ranged from 4.67 to 10.00 mg/l, TKN ranged from 27.2 to 55.3 mg/l, andNH3-NH4-N ranged from 4.28 to 33.10 mg/l. BOD5, TOC, and TSS levels were also foundto be elevated. The milk parlor wastewater (two samples) was also shown to be a source ofpollution, yielding NH3-NH4-N values of 3.14 and 59.00 mg/l, TKN values of 20.6 and 90.5mg/l, and TP values of 8.62 and 36.50 mg/l (Appendix 3). Rain amounts for Station 1sampling events ranged from .37 to .77 inches over the previous 24 hours (Appendix 1).

A total of 13 storm-events were monitored at Station 2 (agronomic station) fromMarch 1991 to April 1995 (Appendix 4). Multiple samples were collected by the automaticsampler for nine of these events, and four of these events were sampled by the grabmethod. Agronomic (cropping) BMPs were used since the initiation of water qualitysampling at this station; therefore, a pre- vs. post-BMP comparison cannot be made in thiscase.

10

Generally, water quality has remained relatively good at Station 2 (Appendix 4). TPlevels have typically ranged from .025 to .150 mg/l (however, TP was detected at .60 mg/lon 3/22/91 following 1.30 inches of rain), and nitrogen compounds (TKN and NO2-NO3-N)have rarely exceeded 1.5 mg/l (Figure 7) (TKN ranged from .102 to 1.660 mg/l). Basedupon KDOW data (Reference Reach Program unpublished data), mean nutrient values forMammoth Cave-area reference reach streams are .207 mg/l for TKN, 1.08 mg/l for NO2-NO3-N, and .085 mg/l for TP. NH3-NH4-N was not detected for most Station 2 samples;however, when detected, it ranged from .05 to .152 mg/l. Mean NH3-NH4-N for theMammoth Cave area is less than .05 mg/l (KDOW Reference Reach Program). Pesticideshave only been detected for only one sampling event (a trace of carbofuran was detected on4/21/92 following just .29 inches of rain). Carbofuran was one of the pesticides used whilemonitoring was occurring. Rain amounts for Station 2 sampling events ranged from .28 to1.30 inches over the previous 24 hours (Appendix 1). Six of the 13 storm-events sampledproduced well over an inch of rain for the 24 hours prior to sampling.


Land-Use Data: This farm involves both a dairy operation and crop production (Figure 3). The feedlot at this farm supports approximately 300 head. An estimated 30,525 pounds ofmanure is produced daily (11,141,625 lbs/yr). An animal waste management system wasinstalled during 1990 for the purpose of treating this waste. (KDOC)

A 48.5-acre tract (fields 2 and 3) was selected at this farm for monitoring a variety ofagronomic BMPs. Crops that have been planted on this portion of the farm include corn,soybeans, tobacco, and winter wheat. Specific BMPs that have been or will be evaluatedinclude corn-wheat-soybean rotation, minimum tillage and no-till practices, contourfarming, winter cover cropping, grassed waterways, strip cropping, and integrated pestmanagement. Pesticides being applied at fields 2 and 3 include metribuzin, metachlor,alachlor, pendimethalin, and paraquat. (KDOC)

More specifically, corn was grown (in Fields 2 and 3) during 1991 usingconventional methods. Beginning in 1992, a no-till, double cropping regime was employed. Under this scheme, wheat was grown during winter 1991/1992. In the spring, a herbicide(paraquat) was applied, then soybeans were grown. The following year (1993), corn wasplanted. Further, pesticide application was to be kept at a minimum after 1991. (KDOC)

Water Quality Data Collection Methodology: A weir and ISCO automatic samplingsystem were installed at this farm for the purpose of monitoring storm-event runoff at asingle station. Figure 3

12

This stage-activated sampler was programmed to collect samples at specific intervals. Occasional grab samples were collected at times when the automatic sampler was notfunctioning. Initially, monitoring at this farm was to center on the implementation of theanimal waste management system. Because no pre-BMP data were collected (prior toanimal waste lagoon installation), the focus was shifted to agronomic BMPs.

Discussion of Findings: Six storm events were monitored at this farm from November1991 to April 1994. Parameters analyzed included TSS, TOC, NH3-NH4-N, TKN, NO2-NO3-N, TP, and selected pesticides (Appendix 5). NO2-NO3-N was detected in concentrations of5.0 to 13.1 mg/l for four out of six sampling events (Figure 7). TKN was detected inconcentrations of 2.0 to 5.22 mg/l on several occasions. Based upon KDOW data (ReferenceReach Program unpublished data), mean nutrient values for Mammoth Cave-area referencereach streams are .207 mg/l for TKN and 1.085 mg/l for NO2-NO3-N. A trace of atrazine(5.93 ug/l) was detected on one occasion. The National Park Service has been monitoringpesticides at this location and has observed several pesticide detections (Appendix 6). Rainamounts for storms monitored at this farm ranged from .80 to 2.39 inches for the 24 hoursprior to sampling.


Land-Use Data: Prior to the installation of an animal waste management system, animalwaste runoff was allowed to flow from the milk parlor area directly to a sinkhole located onthis farm (Figure 4). An animal-waste management system, designed to accommodate upto 50 dairy cows, was installed during summer 1991. However, this operation has beenmilking only about 40 head. Approximately 54 acres of this farm have been devoted topasture. The 40 head of dairy cows produce roughly 4,070 pounds of manure per day(1,485,550 lbs/yr.). (KDOC)

Water Quality Data Collection Methodology: Two sets of storm-event grab samples werecollected at this demonstration farm prior to the installation of the animal-wastemanagement system during spring 1991. These samples were collected from a ditchdraining the milk parlor/feedlot area that led to a sinkhole. Parameters analyzed includedBOD5, TSS, TOC, NH3-NH4-N, TKN, NO2-NO3-N, TP, and fecal coliform bacteria.

Discussion of Findings: The water quality of the runoff at this farm was found to beextremely degraded (Figure 7, Appendix 7). According to the two sets of data, TSS were980.0 mg/l and 515.0 mg/l respectively, and TOC was 319.0 mg/l and 480.0 mg/lrespectively. TKN (45.8 and 96.1 mg/l) and TP (90.3 and 19.3 mg/l) were of particularconcern, as were fecal coliform bacteria. Based upon KDOW data (Reference Reach

14

Program unpublished data), mean nutrient values for Mammoth Cave-area reference reachstreams are .207 mg/l for TKN, and .085 mg/l for TP. Fecal coliform counts ranged from158,000 to 160,000 colonies per 100 ml on 5/9/91 (Figure 8). The KDOW Primary andSecondary Contact Recreation Standards for fecal coliform bacteria are 200/400* coloniesper 100 ml and 1000/2000* colonies per 100 ml respectively (KDOW 1994b). In addition,BOD5 was 442 mg/l for the 5/9/91 event. Rain amounts for the two storms monitored atthis farm were .77 inches and .56 inches over the previous 24 hours (Appendix1).


Land-Use Data: An animal waste management system was installed during fall 1992designed to treat waste from approximately 200 dairy cows at this farm (Figure 5). Much ofthis 500-acre farm is utilized as pasture to support the dairy operation. The 200 head ofdairy cows produce roughly 20,350 pounds of manure daily (7,427,750 lbs/yr.). (KDOC)

Water Quality Monitoring Data Methodology: Pre-BMP, upstream and downstream,storm-event grab samples were collected from an adjacent stream in an effort to monitor ananimal- waste management system at this farm. Occasional low-flow/normal-flowsamples were also collected. Parameters analyzed included BOD5, TSS, TOC, NH3-NH4-N,TKN, NO2-NO3-N, TP and fecal coliform bacteria. Occasional flow measurements werealso taken using a Marsh-McBirney flow meter.

Discussion of Findings: Nine sets of pre-BMP water samples were collected at this farmprior to the installation of the animal-waste management system, eight of which werestorm-event samples. Monitoring results indicate that the downstream station wassomewhat more degraded than the upstream station. Both TKN and NO2-NO3-N valueswere usually at least .2 to .3 mg/l higher at the downstream station. When detected, NH3-NH4-N was usually higher at the downstream station as well. TKN values ranged from.486 to 1.680 mg/l at the downstream station, and NO2-NO3 values ranged from .194 to 1.90mg/l at that location (Figure 7). TP values remained below .40 mg/l at the downstreamstation. These nutrient concentrations correlate to rain amounts ranging from .37 to 2.39inches over the previous 24 hours. Three of the eight storm events monitored producedrain amounts in excess of 2.0 inches over the previous 24 hours (Appendix 8).

* The lower value is based on a monthly geometric mean with not less than five samples, and thehigher value shall not be exceeded by more than 20 percent of the samples per month.

16

At the time pre-BMP sampling began at this site in December 1991, a temporarycatch basin had been installed by the farmer (not to be confused with the animal-wastemanagement system referenced above). The construction of this structure probablyprecluded the observation of worst-case conditions at the downstream station. Previously,animal waste from the farm was allowed to wash directly into the stream unabated.


Land-Use Data: This farm was selected for the purpose of evaluating a proposed animalwaste management system (Figure 6). At the time that this farm was incorporated into theproject, approximately 50 dairy cows were being milked. As time passed, the herd sizedwindled to about 12 head. This farm has since withdrawn from the project. When thedairy operation was at full capacity (50 cows), roughly 5,087 pounds of manure wereproduced daily (1,856,937 lbs/yr). Currently, only about 1,221 pounds of manure areproduced daily (445,665 lbs/yr). Most of this 60-acre farm was used as pasture to supportthe dairy operation. Moreover, the cows have access to the local stream. (KDOC)

Water Quality Data Collection Methodology: Pre-BMP, upstream and downstream waterquality data were collected from an adjacent stream to evaluate a proposed animal wastemanagement system at this farm. Since February 1993, storm-event samples were collectedby two stage-activated automatic samplers, one upstream and one downstream. Prior tothat time, upstream-downstream storm-event water samples were collected by the grabmethod. Water chemistry parameters included BOD5, TSS, TOC, NH3-NH4-N, TKN, NO2-NO3-N, TP, and fecal coliforms. Flow was measured using a Marsh-McBirney flow meter(Appendix 2). In addition, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, turbidity, and watertemperature measurements were taken when possible.

Three sets of fish and macroinvertebrate samples were collected during late April,from 1991 to 1993. Fish were collected by seining, and three unit-effort traveling kicknetrepetitions were taken at both stations each year for sampling benthic macroinvertebrates. The macroinvertebrate collections were supplemented by selective sampling to ensure thatall habitats present were represented (e.g., root mats, leaf packs, logs, pool rocks). Habitatcomposition appeared to be very similar at both stations.

The index of biotic integrity (Karr 1981) and community related observations wereused to evaluate fish populations. Macroinvertebrate data from this farm were evaluatedtwo different ways. First, the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) was derived for eachmacroinvertebrate sample1Ephemeroptera=Mayflies; Plecoptera=Stoneflies; Trichoptera=Caddisflies

18

to summarize the overall pollution tolerance of the benthic arthropod community(Hilsenhoff 1977, 1982, 1987, 1988; Klemm 1990). The principle of the HBI is that aprevalence of tolerant species or lack of sensitive species may indicate a pollution problem. Also, an upstream vs. downstream comparison was made of EPT (Ephemeroptera,Plecoptera, Trichoptera1) composition to that of dipterans (primarily chironomids) for the1993 data (Ferrington 1987). As a group, the EPT organisms are considered pollutionsensitive, whereas dipterans (fly larvae) are generally considered pollution tolerant.

Discussion of Findings: The upstream-downstream approach was the intended studydesign for this farm, with the upstream station to serve as a control. Based upon the data,the downstream station appears to be somewhat more degraded than the upstream station,but the upstream station also seems to have problems. Animal access within the upperportion of the stream, upstream of the milk parlor/loafing area, has apparentlycompounded water quality degradation at this site. Furthermore, because the herd size atthe farm varied from approximately 12 to 50 cows, worst-case conditions were not alwaysevident.

Even though the water quality data indicates that the downstream station is moredegraded than the upstream station, it is not to an appreciable degree. On several occasionsnutrient levels were found to be elevated at both stations: TKN has been detected in excessof 5.0 mg/l; NO2-NO3-N has been detected in excess of 6.0 mg/l (Figure 7); and TP hasbeen detected in excess of 2.0 mg/l (Appendix 9). Based upon KDOW data (ReferenceReach Program unpublished data), mean nutrient values for Mammoth Cave-area referencereach streams are .207 mg/l for NO2-NO3-N, and .085 mg/l for TP. Rain amounts for the 14storm events monitored at this farm ranged from .26 to 4.02 inches over the previous 24hours (Appendix 1).

Because several low-flow/normal-flow samples were collected from the receivingstream in addition to storm-event samples, a comparison of nutrient inputs from storm vs.non-storm events can be ascertained for this farm. Based upon the data, nutrient levelswere markedly higher during storm-events (Figure 9).

Only a few fecal coliform bacteria samples were collected and analyzed for this site(Appendix 9). However, the data clearly indicate that animal waste has had a negativeimpact. Fecal coliform counts ranged from a low of 200 colonies/100 ml to more than700,000 colonies/ 100 ml. Fecal coliform counts were usually higher at the downstreamstation; however, the upstream station appeared to be impacted as well. The KDOW fecal

The lower value is based on a monthly geometric mean with not less than five samples, and thehigher value shall not be exceeded by more than 20 percent of the samples per month.

19

coliform Primary and Secondary Contact Recreation standards are 200/400* colonies per100 ml and 1000/2000* colonies per 100 ml, respectively.

Even under the best conditions, only a few fish species would be expected to residein a small, intermittent, sinking stream such as the one sampled at this farm. Only fivespecies total were collected; thus, fish collections from this site do not lend themselves verywell to biometric analysis (Appendix 10). In spite of the low fish diversity, a couple ofinteresting observations were noted. First, more species were collected at the upstreamstation, and second, the total number of individuals collected at that location was greater. Fish IBI values were consistently in the poor to very poor range at both stations, which islargely a reflection of small stream size and limited habitat availability.

Of the five fish species that were collected, three were centrarchids (bluegill sunfish,Lepomis macrochirus; longear sunfish, L. megalotis; and green sunfish, L. cyanellus). Theother two species were the southern redbellied dace (Phoxinus erythrogaster) and creekchub (Semotilus atromaculatus). No centrarchids were collected at the downstream stationfor any of the three biological sampling events conducted. It is of particular interest that thegreen sunfish seemed to be avoiding the downstream location since it is considered apollution-tolerant species. Whether this phenomena was water quality related or areflection of subtle habitat inadequacies at the downstream station can only be conclusivelyascertained once pollution sources are eliminated. Only creek chubs and southernredbellied dace were collected at the downstream station and were found in lesser numbersthan at the upstream station.

According to the HBI evaluation, this stream reach would fall within the good toexcellent range, both upstream and downstream (Appendix 11). The presence of severalspecies considered sensitive to pollution, collected in relatively high numbers, clearly had adominating influence on the HBI values, which ranged from 4.06 to 4.75 at the downstreamstation and from 3.84 to 5.12 at the upstream station (Figure 10). The HBI values indicatinggood water quality may seem paradoxical; however, the apparent fertility of this stream isprobably promoting biodiversity.

A closer examination of the community structure of the 1993 macroinvertebrate datasupports the assumption that an animal-waste problem exists (Figure 11). Twenty-sixdipteran taxa (16 chironomid taxa) were collected at the downstream station, and 17dipteran taxa (11 chironomid taxa) were collected at the upstream station during thatsampling event. This is compared to EPT taxa counts of 15 and 13 respectively.

25

REFERENCES

APHA. 1992. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 18th ed.Amer. Pub. Health Assoc., Amer. Water Works Assoc. and Water Poll. Contr. Fed.,Washington, D.C.

Burr, Brooks M. and Melvin L. Warren. 1986. A distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort, Ky. Scientific andTechnical Series Number 4, 398 pp.

Clay, W.M. 1975. The fishes of Kentucky. Kentucky Department of Fish and WildlifeResources, Frankfort, Ky.

Conner, Glen. Western Kentucky University, personal communication.

Edmunds, G.F., S.L. Jensen, and L. Berner. 1976. The mayflies of North and CentralAmerica. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Mn.

Ferrington, L.C. 1987. Collection and identification of floating exuviae of chironomidae foruse in studies of surface water quality. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region VII, Kansas City, Ks. SOP No. FW130A.

Haynes, Don D. 1966. Geologic map of the Horse Cave Quadrangle, Barren and HartCounties, Kentucky. USDA Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior,Washington, D.C., in cooperation with the University of Kentucky and KentuckyGeological Survey.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Seasonal correction factors for the biotic index. Great LakesEntomol., 21: 9-13.

. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomol.,20: 31-39.

. 1982. Using a biotic index to evaluate water quality in streams. WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. Tech. Bull. No. 100.

26

Hornig, C.E. and J.E. Pollard. 1978. Macroinvertebrate sampling techniques for streams insemi-arid regions: Comparison of surber method and unit-effort traveling kickmethod. Office of Resource Development, USEPA, Las Vegas, Nv. EPA 600/4-78-040.

Karr, James. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries, Vol. 6,No. 6, pp. 21-27.

Klemm, D.J., P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, and T.M. Lazorchak. 1990. Macroinvertebrate field andlaboratory methods for evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters. Environmental Systems Lab, USEPA, Cincinnati, Oh. EPA 600/4-901-/030.

KDA. 1990. 1989-90 Kentucky Agricultural Statistics. KY Dept. of Agriculture, Frankfort,Ky.

KDOC. Kentucky Division of Conservation, unpublished data.

KDOW. 1995. Kentucky Division of Water Administrative Regulations: 401 KAR Chapter5. Division of Water, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet,Frankfort, Ky.

. 1994. Mammoth Cave Project close out report: FFY90 cooperative agreement#C9004789-90. Nonpoint Source Section, Division of Water, Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection Cabinet, Frankfort, KY.

. 1993. Methods for assessing biological integrity of surface waters. Ky Div. of Water, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Frankfort, Ky. 139 pp.

. 1989. Kentucky nonpoint source assessment report. KY Div. of Water, NaturalResources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Frankfort, Ky.

. 1987. Standard operating procedures manual. Water Quality Branch, Division ofWater, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Frankfort, Ky. 176pp.

. 1986. Quality assurance guidelines. Division of Water, Natural Resources andEnvironmental Protection Cabinet, Frankfort, Ky. pp. 9-12.

. Ecological Support Section, unpublished data.

27

KGS. No date. Physiographic diagram of Kentucky. Ky Geological Survey, Univ. of Ky,Lexington, Ky.

Lenat, D.R. 1993. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collectionmethod for benthic macroinvertebrates. J.N. Amer. Benthol. Soc., 7(3): pp. 222-233.

NPS. 1982. The national rivers inventory. Nat. Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior.

. Unpublished data, National Park Service, Division of Science and ResourceManagement, Mammoth Cave, Ky (Joe Meiman).

Nelson, Willis, H. 1963. Geological quadrangle maps of the United States: Geology of theMeador Quadrangle, Kentucky. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1984. An introduction to the aquatic insects of NorthAmerica. 2nd ed. Kendall/Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, Ia.

Pennak, R.W. 1953. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States. The Ronald PressCompany, New York.

Quinlan, J.F. and J.A. Ray. 1989. Groundwater basins in the Mammoth Cave Region,Kentucky. U.S. DOI National Park Service, Mammoth Cave, Ky.

Richards, Paul W. 1964. Geological map of the Smiths Grove Quadrangle, Kentucky. USDA Geological Survey, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington D.C., incooperation with the University of Kentucky and Kentucky Geological Survey.

Stewart, K.W. and B.P. Stark. 1988. Nymphs of North America stonefly genera(Plecoptera). Entomol. Soc. of Amer.

Wiederholm, T. 1986. Chironomidae of the holarctic region: Part I (larvae) and Part II(pupae). Entomologica Scandinavica, Canada. Ent. Scand. Suppl. No. 19, 1983 andNo. 28, 1986.

Wiggins, G.B. 1977. Larvae of the North American caddisfly genera (Trichoptera). University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.

28

APPENDIX 1

PRECIPITATION DATA

Sampling Date Demonstration Farm(s) Sampled Precipitation Amount (inches)

08/07/90 Demonstration Farm 1 .37



03/22/91 Demonstration Farm 1Demonstration Farm 3

1.30.77

04/03/91 Demonstration Farm 5 Low flow/Normal flow

05/09/91 Demonstration Farm 1Demonstration Farm 3Demonstration Farm 5

1.27.56.58


1.20.80

1.00-1.50

12/06/91 Demonstration Farm 4 2.10 on Saturday 12/3 (raineduntil Monday 12/5)


Low flow/Normal flow.26


2.342.04


.29

.40

.40




.37

.32


.86

.65


2.39.50

09/22/92 Demonstration Farm 4 1.16(.78 on 09/21/92)

11/05/92 Demonstration Farm 1 1.09

29

APPENDIX 1 (Continued)

Sampling Date Demonstration Farm(s) Sampled Precipitation Amount (inches)


02/10/93 Demonstration Farm 5 Low flow/Normal flow(pre-storm event)



.28

.83

.93

03/25/93 Demonstration Farm 5 -


.36

.36

.56




.331.48




1.084.02



30

APPENDIX 2

FLOW DATA (DEMONSTRATION FARMS 4 AND 5)

Sampling Date Demonstration Farm/Station Flow (CFS)

4/03/91 Demonstration Farm 5 - downstream .455

4/03/91 Demonstration Farm 5 - upstream .369

4/24/92 Demonstration Farm 5 - upstream & downstream .036*

2/10/93 Demonstration Farm 4 - downstream .110*

2/10/93 Demonstration Farm 4 - upstream .056*





3/01/93 Demonstration Farm 4 - downstream 2.085





3/03/93 Demonstration Farm 4 - upstream 1.910









4/21/93 Demonstration Farm 5 - downstream 2.975*

4/21/93 Demonstration Farm 5 - upstream 1.057*

* Normal flow/Low flow

31

APPENDIX 3

PRE-BMP WATER SAMPLE DATA

(DEMONSTRATION FARM 1 - STATION 1 AND MILK PARLOR WASTEWATER)

SamplingDate

Parameter

BOD5

(mg/l)TSS

(mg/l)TOC(mg/l)

NH3-NH4

(mg/l)TKN-N(mg/l)

NO3

(mg/l)TP

(mg/l)

Station 1

8/07/90 190.0 12,300.0 - 33.10 55.3 .085 10.00

8/13/90 202.0 390.0 336.0 8.93 50.6 .978 11.60

9/10/90 29.5 - 70.2 4.28 27.2 2.950 4.67

Milk Parlor Wastewater

8/07/90 544.0 2,200.0 - 59.00 90.5 .015 36.50

8/13/90 75.3 490.0 133.0 3.14 20.6 1.270 8.62

- = Not Analyzed

32

APPENDIX 4

PRE-BMP WATER SAMPLE DATA(DEMONSTRATION FARM 1 - STATION 2)

Parameter

SamplingDate

Sample/Interval

TSS(mg/l)

TOC(mg/l)

NH3-HN4

(mg/l)TKN-N(mg/l)

NO3

(mg/l)TP

(mg/l)Pesticide

(mg/l)

03/22/91 Grab 17.0 6.3 ND .780 .671 .600 -

05/09/91 Grab 20.0 5.5 .091 .421 .018 .024 -

11/20/91 12345678

8.0 - 86.0 - 70.0 38.0 - 10.0

19.2 16.4 11.9 14.8 12.8 12.4 12.7 12.3

.090 .10 ND .050 ND ND ND .070

1.300 1.480 .900 1.320 1.290 1.020 .640 .710

.460 .727 .070 .123 .242 .154 .043 ND

.048 .152 .098 .244 .220 .176 .096 .079

- - - - - - - -

04/21/92 1234

9.0 3.0 10.0 5.0

3.1 3.1 3.7 3.2

ND ND ND ND

.102 .160 .213 .357

.045 .037 .029 .028

.038 .037 .042 .038

.00141

- .00181

-

05/06/92 123456

3.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 6.0 6.0

15.4 8.3 9.1 5.0 6.2 6.4

.050 ND ND ND ND ND

.699 .546 .551 .428 .604 .630

ND ND ND .020 .060 ND

.131 .089 .069 .052 .033 .017

ND - - - - -

11/05/92 1 47.0 8.6 .152 .681 .028 .362 -

03/02/93 12

- -

- -

ND ND

1.090 1.090

.190 .174

.219 .182

- -

03/31/93 12

219.0 164.0

10.1 12.0

.094 ND

1.070 1.150

.127 .147

.105 .129

- -

05/03/93 123456

- - - - - -

12.2 16.7 14.8 8.4 5.4 4.0

ND ND ND ND ND ND

.825 .908 1.590 .851 .513 .360

.061 .082 .425 .116 .058 .037

.075 .056 .220 .078 .049 .042

ND - ND - ND -

04/10/94 123456

2.0 18.0 19.0 21.0 18.0 19.0

7.3 3.8 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.7

ND ND ND ND ND ND

.426 .321 .232 .346 .445 .361

1.470 1.480 1.620 1.590 1.620 1.560

.062 .068 .049 .055 .053 .055

ND ND ND ND ND ND

12/05/94 Grab - 10.0 ND .899 .021 .021 -

04/20/95 Grab 9.0 12.2 ND 1.660 .199 .134 -

ND = Not detected1Carbofuran- = Not analyzed

33

APPENDIX 5

PRE-BMP WATER SAMPLE DATA(DEMONSTRATION FARM 2)

Parameter

SamplingDate

Sample/Interval

TSS(mg/l)

TOC(mg/l)

NH3-NH4

(mg/l)TKN-N(mg/l)

NO3

(mg/l)TP

(mg/l)Pesticide

(mg/l)

11/20/91 12345678

14.0 14.0 - - - - - -

22.5 24.6 25.6 25.6 24.2 23.6 22.5 24.2

.380 .430 .160 .350 .350 .340 .300 .280

5.11 5.22 3.50 2.78 3.43 3.37 3.34 3.00

3.60 5.19 5.91 5.98 6.59 7.24 7.99 8.12

.857 .968 .945 .898 .874 .865 .874 .810

--------

04/21/92 Grab 8.0 10.0 .351 1.66 10.40 .226 ND

03/02/93 123456

30.0 163.0 270.0 126.0 98.0 41.0

5.9 11.7 15.6 11.9 13.8 9.7

ND .077 .184 .106 .074 .059

.09 2.06 2.61 2.10 1.81 1.46

5.73 1.35 1.22 2.08 3.03 3.33

.114 .384 .639 .397 .353 .255

------

03/31/93 1234

- - - -

23.0 15.6 16.8 14.0

1.380 .609 .426 .369

13.10 3.50 1.37 1.20

.77 1.40 2.17 2.69

.661 .495 .342 .280

----

05/04/93 1 - 12.2 ND 1.18 2.47 .193 .003931

04/11/94 1 20.0 10.2 ND 1.07 1.13 .225 ND

ND = Not detected1Atrazine- = Not Detected

34

APPENDIX 6

PESTICIDE DATA FOR DEMONSTRATION FARM 2(NATIONAL PARK SERVICE)

Sampling Date

Pesticide 05/02/92 06/02/92 07/03/92

Butylate (ug/l) ND ND ND

Trifluralin (ug/l) ND .0094 .0160

Simazine (ug/l) ND ND ND

Atrazine (ug/l) ND 14.0000 .4300

Metribuzin (ug/l) ND .1700 .0090

Alachlor (ug/l) ND ND ND

Linuron (ug/l) ND ND ND

Malathion (ug/l) ND ND ND

Metolachlor (ug/l) ND 9.4000 .3300

Endosulfan I (ug/l) ND ND ND

Endosulfan II (ug/l) ND ND ND

Permethrin (ug/l) ND ND ND

Chlorpyrifos (ug/l) ND ND ND

Pendimethalin (ug/l) - .0770 ND

Precipition Amt.* 1.43 2.39 .95

ND = Not detected- = Not analyzed* Inches of rain during previous 24 hours.

35

APPENDIX 7

PRE-BMP WATER SAMPLE DATA(DEMONSTRATION FARM 3)

Parameter

SamplingDate

BOD5

(mg/l)TSS

(mg/l)TOC(mg/l)

NH3-NH4

(mg/l)TKN-N(mg/l)

NO3

(mg/l)TP

(mg/l)Fecal

Coliforms(per 100 ml)

03/22/91 - 980.0 319.0 1.21 45.80 1.840 90.30 -

05/09/91 442.0 515.0 480.0 24.90 96.1 .549 19.30 158,000to

160,000

- = Not analyzed

36

APPENDIX 8


(DEMONSTRATION FARM 4)

Parameter

SamplingDate

Station BOD5

(mg/l)TSS

(mg/l)TOC(mg/l)

NH3-NH3

(mg/l)TKN-N(mg/l)

NO3

(mg/l)TP

(mg/l)Fecal


12/06/91 Downstream - 8.0 7.5 ND .486 1.900 .089 -

12/10/92 UpstreamDownstream

2.32.5

10.06.0

12.012.1

.054

.053 .855 1.010

.224 .435

.030

.065--


2.41.2

13.06.0

10.57.8

NDND

.838 .582

.241 .305

.024

.032--


3.75.0

13.012.0

11.612.1

.084

.310 1.000 1.470

.309 .506

.105

.254**


4.54.5

37.036.0

--

ND.086

1.430 1.600

.099 .504

.079

.194--


--

16.012.0

8.7-

.111

.217 .996 1.260

.301 .194

.041

.199--


3.34.1

17.028.0

9.214.3

.216

.371 1.260 1.680

.382 3.780

.102

.347--


--

74.090.0

11.712.8

.105

.156 1.000 1.260

.106 .217

.112

.159--


4.04.0

12.012.0

--

NDND

.600 .600

.180 .350

.370

.3502,5453,909

ND = Not detected - = Not analyzed * = Greater than (60/lowest dilution) x 100

37

APPENDIX 9


(DEMONSTRATION FARM 5)

Parameter

SamplingDate

Station/Interval

BOD5

(mg/l)TSS

(mg/l)TOC(mg/l)

NH3-NH3

(mg/l)TKN-N(mg/l)

NO3

(mg/l)TP

(mg/l)Fecal


04/03/91* UpstreamDownstream

.3 1.2

8.0 5.0

- -

ND ND

.202 .231

- -

ND ND

100-1000320-1000


3.0 4.4

9.0 11.0

5.6 6.9

.071 .065

1.500 1.070

.335 .385

ND .038

2820-3180538


11.0 21.8

44.0 164.0

10.8 25.4

.950 .460

3.78 4.37

1.060 1.980

.335 2.350

212,000-***710,000-***


.8 1.2

ND 9.0

2.0 1.9

ND ND

.323 .348

.718 .850

.012 .006

200-10001650-4000


4.7 6.1

42.0 76.0

7.5 9.4

.108 .206

1.290 1.890

.788 1.050

.254 .477

******


- -

- -

1.9 2.1

.060 .052

.298 .310

.215 .204

.012 .018

--


- -

ND 2.0

2.2 2.5

.130 .076

.320 .441

.261 .206

ND .020

--


1.5 2.2

7.0 12.0

3.8 5.9

.087 .146

.502 1.080

.400 .421

.068 .158

--


- -

142.0 200.0

28.9 33.2

.695 .631

5.500 2.250

6.550 6.240

1.770 2.130

--


5.0 6.0

12.0 14.0

- -

ND .100

.800 .900

.840 .490

.480 .460

9,9098,727


1.8 2.7

5.0 13.0

5.6 7.1

.096 .191

.751 1.340

.575 .796

.073 .144

--


- -

3.0 18.0

3.4 8.7

.022 .063

.157 .560

.611 .469

.005 .070

--

02/11/93** Upstream/1Upstream/2Upstream/3Upstream/4

- - - -

- - - -

- - - -

ND ND ND ND

.251 .217 .084 .138

.610 .551 .708 .576

.029 .023 .030 .021

----

02/11/93** Downstream/1Downstream/2Downstream/3Downstream/4

- - - -

- - - -

- - - -

ND ND ND ND

.216 .160 .144 .163

.738 .638 .609 .694

.034 .031 .021 .041

----

* Normal flow/Low flow**Note: Before 02/11/93, samples were collected by the grab method, after that time, samples were collected by automatic samplers.*** = Greater than (60/lowerst dilution) x 100ND = Not detected- = Not analyzed

38

APPENDIX 9 continued

Parameter

SamplingDate

Station/Interval

BOD5

(mg/l)TSS

(mg/l)TOC(mg/l)

NH3-NH3

(mg/l)TKN-N(mg/l)

NO3

(mg/l)TP

(mg/l)Fecal


03/02/93 Upstream/1*Upstream/2Upstream/3Upstream/4Upstream/5Upstream/6Upstream/7Upstream/8Upstream/9

---------

---------

1.642.151.771.691.451.673.526.169.29

ND ND .110 ND ND ND ND ND .055

.984 .484 1.090 .828 .198 .050 .273 .490 1.510

1.220 .112 1.060 1.030 1.040 1.090 1.040 .682 .435

.025

.011

.011

.017

.018

.019

.072

.107

.344

---------

03/02/93 Downstream/1*Downstream/2Downstream/3Downstream/4Downstream/5Downstream/6Downstream/7Downstream/8Downstream/9

---------

---------

2.47 1.75 1.94

1.72 1.67 2.21 9.34 8.14

13.00

ND ND ND ND ND ND .159 1.146 .207

.182 ND ND .181 .130 ND .541 1.040 1.530

1.220 1.280 1.290 1.260 1.260 1.330 1.36 1.050 1.100

.029

.027

.029

.031

.036

.042

.529

.378

.732

---------

03/25/93 Upstream/1Upstream/2Upstream/3Upstream/4Upstream/5Upstream/6Upstream/7Upstream/8Upstream/9Upstream/10Upstream/11Upstream/12

------------

---- --------

------------

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

.769 .704 .533 .444 .444 ND .586 .542 .665 .628 .526 .519

.830 .810 .814 .898 .835 .846 .838 .857 .869 .869 .842 .833

.067

.041

.030

.029

.028

.029

.028

.030

.029

.300

.031

.032

------------

03/25/93 Downstream/1Downstream/2Downstream/3Downstream/4Downstream/5Downstream/6Downstream/7Downstream/8Downstream/9Downstream/10Downstream/11Downstream/12

------------

------------

------------

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

.694 .518 .610 .539 .661 .678 .686 .752 .998 .908 .233 .032

1.040 1.060 1.060 1.060 1.080 1.070 1.070 1.080 1.110 1.100 1.090 1.060

.050

.043

.047

.046

.046

.045

.044

.044

.047

.045

.045

.037

------------

39

APPENDIX 9 continued

Parameter

SamplingDate

Station/Interval

BOD5

(mg/l)TSS

(mg/l)TOC(mg/l)

NH3-NH3

(mg/l)TKN-N(mg/l)

NO3

(mg/l)TP

(mg/l)Fecal

Coliforms(per 100

ml)

03/31/93 Upstream/1Upstream/2Upstream/3Upstream/4Upstream/5

-----

-----

4.68.7

13.911.54.5

ND.081NDNDND

.468 1.040 1.070 .930 .523

.638 .648 .374 .391 .440

.070 .150 .211 .166 .110

-----

03/31/93 Downstream/1Downstream/2Downstream/3Downstream/4Downstream/5

-----

-----

13.212.815.015.812.6

ND.081.054.050ND

.551 55.6001

1.460 1.140 1.220

.729 .690 .466 .500 .571

.080 .650 .285 .219 .176

-----

04/15/93 Upstream/grabUpstream/grab

--

--

8.610.0

.097

.530 1.120 1.600

1.753 .543

.180 .425

--

04/15/93 Downstream/grabDownstream/grab

--

--

19.18.8

.470

.389 - 1.470

.814 .626

- .470

--

04/21/93 Upstream/grabDownstream/grab

--

--

1.61.9

NDND

.066 .134

.320 .318

.010 .022

--

05/03/93 Upstream/1Upstream/2Upstream/3Upstream/4Upstream/5Upstream/6Upstream/7Upstream/8Upstream/9Upstream/10Upstream/11Upstream/12

------------

------------

2.58 2.22 2.68 2.46 2.37 2.31 2.60 2.44 8.34 10.3013.7013.40

ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND .067 .095 .165 ND

.204 .110 .218 .340 .192 .161 .192 .364 .569 1.400 4.370 1.840

.353 .340 .334 .354 .367 .333 .353 .322 .338 .422 .257 .246

.032 .030 .036 .030 .029 .028 .037 .030 .098 .163 .699 .687

------------

05/03/93 Downstream/1Downstream/2Downstream/3Downstream/4Downstream/5Downstream/6Downstream/7Downstream/8Downstream/9

---------

---------

19.10 17.00 15.60 14.80 12.00 11.00 7.50 7.20 9.20

1.480 .604 .509 .445 .454 .301 .195 .214 .262

5.170 3.160 2.300 1.840 1.830 1.580 .276 1.190 1.430

1.360 .631 .575 .610 .647 .647 .682 .655 .680

1.710 1.150 .808 .686 .542 .396 .206 .238 .303

---------

04/11/94 Upstream/grabDownstream/grab

--

--

8.70 6.90

ND ND

.325 .728

.436 .512

.127 .280

--

1Probably an error

40

APPENDIX 10

PRE-BMP FISH DATA(DEMONSTRATION FARM 5)

April 3, 1991 April 24, 1992 April 21, 1993

Species Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream

Southern redbellied dace (Phoxinus eurythrogaster) 25 27 103 32 233 170

Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) 6 6 18 10 22 51

Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) 8 - 8 - 5 -

Bluegill (L. macrochirus) 4 - - - 4 -

Longear sunfish (L. megalotis) - - - - 1 -

Number of species 4 2 3 2 5 2

Number of specimens 43 33 129 42 265 221

IBI 24(poor to

very poor)

20(very poor)

26(poor to

very poor)

22(very poor)

34(poor)

26(very poor)

- = Not Collected

APPENDIX 11

PRE-BMP MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA(DEMONSTRATION FARM 5)



Gastropoda Physidae

Physella sp.

Pelecypoda Sphaeriidae Pisidium sp.

4 5 2 11

1

23

Oligochaeta Lumbriculidae

Lumbriculus inconstanus Lumbricidae

Lumbricus sp. Lumbricidae sp. A. Enchytracidae

Enchytracus sp. Naiadidae

Chaetogaster sp.

Several

2

16

1

17

3

1

16

Hirudinea Erpobdellidae

Dina sp. Rhynchobdellidae

Helobdella fusca Piscicolidae

Illinobdella moorei

17 1

1

2

Decapoda Cambaridae

Orconectes sp.Cambarus bartoni Several

4 10

Isopoda Ascellidae

Lirceus lineatus 20 4 59 2 14 30

Amphipoda Gammaridae

Gammarus fasciatusCrangonyx sp. 2 3 5

46

Ostracoda Cytheridae

Entocythere sp. 1

Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae

Rhyacophila fenestra 39 6 19 19 30 72




PhilopotamidaeWormaldia sp.

LimnophilidaePycnopsyche sp.

1 51

11

8 196 78

Plecoptera Perlodidae

Isoperla bilineataIsoperla sp.Diploperla sp.

NemouridaeAmphinemura sp.

PeltoperlidaeTallaperla sp.

PteronarcyidaePteronarcella sp.

PerlidaePerlesta sp.

Chloroperlidae sp.

119812

6

3128

43

80

130

14

53

1

44

3

410

644

127

2472

526

37

1

Ephemeroptera Baetidae

Baetis sp. ABaetis sp. BAcerpenna sp.Acentrella amplus

HeptagenidaeRhithrogena sp.Stenonema femoratumStenonema sp.Heptagenia sp. AHeptagenia sp. BLeucrocuta sp.

LeptophlebiidaeLeptophlebia sp.Paraleptophlebia sp.

SiphlonuridaeAmeletus sp.Siphlonurus sp.

8

48

2

7

12

50

32

38

67

6

12

2396

337

8

6

143

38

37

4195

203

717

242

9

10025

325

56

618

92

11

Odonata Libellulidae

Libellula sp. Coenagrionidae

Argia sp. Calopterygidae

Calopteryx sp. Corduliidae

Somatochlora sp.

1 1 1

3

5

5

43




Megaloptera Corydalidae

Nigronia sp. 1

Hemiptera Notonectidae

Notonecta sp. 2

Coleoptera Elmidae

Stenelmis sp. Dytiscidae

Laccophilus sp.Hydaticus sp.Hydroporus sp.

HydrophilidaeTroposternus sp.Helophorus sp.Hydrophilidae sp.

DryopidaeDryops sp.

PsephenidaeEctopria sp.

HaliplidaePeltodytes sp.

20

1

3

6

1

1

23

62

2

3

1

1

18

15

1

20

6

11

3

6

5

Diptera Tipulidae

Tipula abdominalisPseudolimnophila sp.Pilaria sp.

TabanidaeTabanus sp.

EmpidaeHemerodromia sp.Clinocera ap.

CeratopogonidaeBezzia sp.

TanyderidaeProtoplasa fitchii

Culicidae sp. (mosquito larvae) Simuliidae Simulium vittatum

S. canadenseS. venustrum (or tuberosum)Simulium sp. A.Simulium sp. B.

15

1

1

9

71

6

2

3

1

1

414

4

6

249

74

6

21

1

51467

44




ChironomidaeThienemannimyia sp.Larsia (or Natarsia) sp.Paramerina sp.Chironomus sp.Dicrotendipes sp.Paracladopelma sp.Polypedilium sp.Parametriocnemus sp.Heleniella sp.Eukiefferiella sp.Tanytarsus sp.Phaenopsectra sp.Pentaneura sp.Potthastia sp.Saetheria sp.Chironomini sp.Pelopiinae sp.Tanypodinae sp. ATanypodinae sp. BOrthocladiinae sp. AOrthocladiinae sp. BChironomidae sp. AChironomidae sp. BDipteran sp. ? (Pupae)

3 7

1

1211

51512

58254

59

21

102

1

1

58915452

76472525

2

1

13

111

Number of taxa 25 22 28 19 42 55

Number of specimens 1429 604 1027 355 3688 3188

EPT 10 9 11 9 13 15

HBI 5.12 4.75 3.84 4.06 4.28 4.34

mammoth cave demonstration project: pre-bmp report

Documents