Bullitt County Monitoring Data
The Floyds Fork watershed in Bullitt County (County) is considered an impaired waterbody and has consistently been included on the Kentucky Division of Water’s (KDOW) 303(d) list of impaired streams. To reduce nonpoint sources of pollution to Floyds Fork, the Bullitt County Fiscal Court (BCFC) proposed to implement a variety of stormwater control measures that were identified in a comprehensive stormwater management plan. The plan was based primarily on the implementation of six minimum control measures required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II stormwater program. For their proactive approach and comprehensive plan for water quality improvements, the County was awarded a Clean Water Act §319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant with a project name of Reduction of Nonpoint Source Urban Runoff in the Floyds Fork Watershed Through a Stormwater Management Plan. The 2003 319(h) Grant awarded to the County allowed the use of funding for implementing the NPDES Phase II MS4 permit requirements.
The water quality monitoring data utilized for this project was collected in accordance with the QAPP approved by KDOW. The QAPP includes industry standard quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures and checks for the data collection, equipment maintenance, and laboratory analysis. Figure 2.01-1 shows the Floyds Fork watershed, urbanized areas and cities within the County, and locations of water quality sampling. Summaries of the dry weather and wet weather sampling results are also included in Appendix H and Appendix I, respectively.
The project began with three dry weather monitoring events at 21 locations to establish baseline conditions for the urbanized area of the County. The dry weather in-stream water quality monitoring was performed during the recreational contact period of 2005. Wet weather monitoring occurred at four locations for two sampling events to provide a better indication of wet weather water quality. Priority areas were determined based on the degree of fecal contamination in the streams. Sampling locations with the highest geometric mean over the three events were located in the northern and northwestern portions of the county’s urbanized areas, as displayed in Figure 3.08-1.
Appendix H: 2005 Dry Weather Quality Monitoring - Summary Bullitt County (BH)
Appendix I: 2006 Wet Weather Wuality Monitoring Summary Bullitt County (BI)
Curry’s Fork Watershed Plan Monitoring Data
To develop a comprehensive Watershed Plan (WP), the condition of the watershed must be well documented through water quality data. Existing water quality data was compiled and reviewed by the WP Internal Project Team and considered insufficient for developing a WP. For additional information on existing water quality data compiled and reviewed for the WP, see the data summaries below. Thus, a Curry’s Fork Watershed Sampling Program was developed, approved, and conducted specifically for the development of the WP. The WP data collection effort included bacteria, physicochemical parameters, biology and habitat assessments, and a sediment and geomorphic assessment collected by Strand Associates, Inc.® (Strand), Third Rock Consultants, LLP (Third Rock), and University of Louisville (UL). An existing mussel study performed by Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) was also used in the development of the WP.
Results from the WP Sampling Program were used to identify potential pollutant sources, priority areas for protection and restoration, probable causes, and solutions for remediating water pollution problems in Curry’s Fork. The WP Sampling Program ensured water quality data collected were recent enough to be used for planning purposes and were collected using KDOW-approved sampling plans, sampling methods, or procedures to confirm accuracy and reduce risks of contaminating samples.
The following subsections briefly discuss sampling data collected by Strand, Third Rock, and UL for the WP Sampling Program including the types of data collected, why it was collected, the time frame of data collection, and the quantity of data. Refer to each subsection for a list of sampling sites and sampling locations. See the data summaries below all data reviewed and collected for the WP. A summary of sampling sites for the WP Sampling Program is shown in Table 3.01-1. Please note that sampling sites in the Asher’s Run were referred to with Site IDs that began with “TB” in the beginning stages of the field data.
Physicochemical data sources include sampling conducted by Strand, Third Rock, and UL. Figure 3.02-1 shows the primary bacteria and physicochemical sampling site locations. UL collected physicochemical data at numerous other sampling sites as part of its geomorphic assessment.
Strand’s physicochemical portion of the WP Sampling Program provided baseline conditions in the Curry’s Fork watershed and was used by the Water Quality Data Analysis Team (WQDAT) and the Technical Committee (TC) to identify pollutants of concern, priority protection and restoration areas, pollutant sources, and pollutant causes to develop pollutant loads for select parameters and select appropriate solutions and best management practices (BMPs).
Physicochemical water quality samples were collected as part of the WP Sampling Program during the 2007 primary contact recreational season at eight sampling sites within Curry’s Fork. Four of the eight initial sampling sites had portable automatic samplers with flow metering equipment installed to take continuous flow velocity and depth measurements; these sites were NC1, SC1, AR1, and CF2. See Figure 3.02-1 for the location of these sites. Physicochemical water quality samples were taken approximately every other week for a total of 12 sampling dates. Samples were taken as close to the same day each week as possible regardless of weather conditions. As a result of drought conditions observed in May through September 2007 and the subsequent missed sampling events because of low flow or no flow conditions in streams, the physicochemical water quality sampling conducted in 2007 was repeated in 2009 with the addition of three sampling sites. The area in and around Curry’s Fork typically receives 19.26 inches of rainfall between May and September [Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO, 1994)]. Between May and September of 2007, Curry’s Fork received 15.66 inches of rainfall according to the Jeffries Farm rain gauge (Jeffries Farm has a privately-owned weather station that was used to provide local weather conditions for this report) located in South Curry’s Fork, which is 3.6 inches or approximately 19 percent less than average. The three additional sites were added in consultation with KDOW and others to further aid identification of pollutant sources based on 2007 sampling results. The QAPP was updated to reflect changes made to the sampling program in 2009. Curry’s Fork received 32.42 inches of rain between May and September of 2009.
Two storm events were also sampled intensively during the recreational contact season in 2009 to obtain additional wet weather sampling data, one on September 20, 2009, and one on October 30, 2009, to obtain pollutant load information over rain-influenced hydrograph. Samples were taken at Hour 0 (start of the storm), Hour 4 (4 hours after the start of the storm, and Hour 12 (12 hours after the start of the storm) to determine wet weather influences on stream water quality. Storm event samples were taken at all WP project sites except NC1a, NC1b, and NC2 for safety reasons.
Normal vs. Rain Influenced Events
To differentiate between normal and rain influenced WP sampling events during 2007 and 2009 physicochemical water quality sampling, sampling dates were compared with rainfall information obtained from the Jeffries Farm rain gauge located in the South Curry’s Fork watershed. It is important to identify which sampling events were affected by stormwater/runoff conditions so that the types and sources of pollutants are determined throughout the watershed. Rainfall and stream flow conditions (depth and velocity) were also used to help determine if an event was dry weather or wet weather. Initially, any sampling event that occurred within 24 hours of a precipitation event (defined for this evaluation as > 0.1 inches from the Jeffries Farm rain gauge) was tagged as a potential wet weather event. Stream flow conditions were then reviewed for each potential wet weather event. If stream flow conditions were elevated and indicative of runoff conditions in response to rainfall, the event was considered a wet weather event. If stream flow conditions were indicative of base flow conditions (dry conditions), the rainfall had not impacted the stream and the event was considered a dry weather event. This process was repeated for each sampling event.
Fecal coliform bacteria data was collected as part of the WP sampling program. Fecal coliform bacteria data is collected for many water quality sampling programs because it is an indicator organism. Indicator organisms, while not pathogenic themselves, may indicate the presence of waterborne pathogens. Indicator organisms are typically used in water quality monitoring because testing for the pathogens themselves is impractical. There are many types of pathogens, and they typically require a specific test with special materials or equipment, making the cost for directly monitoring pathogens expensive. Testing for indicator organisms can identify areas of concern in a watershed but at a fraction of the cost.
Fecal coliform bacteria data was collected at the same time as physicochemical data at project sites during biweekly sampling and the two storm events described in Subsection 3.02. See Figure 3.02-1 for sampling site locations.