POPULATION DYNAMICS AND MOVEMENT OF OZARK CAVEFISH IN

LOGAN CAVE NWR, BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, WITH

ADDITIONAL BASELINE WATER QUALITY INFORMAT ION

by

Myron L . Means

Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wi ldlife Research Unit Department of Biological Sciences University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas 1993

COOP UNIT PUBLICATION NO. 15 This study was funded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Contaminant Study Funds &fl-1-f//( Project Code 92-4N07 13 .~~~0 7 30 f 3 POPULATION DYNAMICS AND MOVEMENT OF OZARK CAVEFISH

IN LOGAN CAVE NWR, BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS WITH

ADDITIONAL BASELINE WATER QUALITY INFORMATION iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:

Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and

Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge, personnel for funding

this project and allowing me to work on the Ozark cavefish.

I would like to thank the Arka.nsas Game & Fish Commission, especially Rex Roberg, for assisting in several sampling runs and technical advice. I would especially like to thank

Mark Clippenger, Arkansas State Parks and Tourism, for

spending countless hours of his own time helping me with

sampling runs in frigid cave waters.

A great deal of thanks goes to my major professor, Dr.

James Johnson, who always sacrificed his time unselfishly to

assist me in obtaining federal permits and offering valuable

advice while formulating and completing my thesis. I would

like to thank all the students who assisted with my project, namely: Darrell Bowman, Lowell Aberson, Madeline Lyttle,

Gary Seigwarth, Andy Thompson, Jody Walters, and Kristie

Hurbert. I also wish to thank my committee, Dr. Charlie

Amlaner and Dr. Kenneth Steele, for offering valuable

information and technical assistance.

Last, but certainly not least, a special thanks goes to my family. My parents for their support of my academic

history, and Trish, thank you most of all for making

immense sacrifices and offering me invaluable support to

further my professional career. Thanks Trish. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

.Abstract...... • ...... • ...... • • • • • ...... • 1

Introduction...... • ...... • . . . . 3

Study Site...... 12 Objectives...... 15

Methods and Materials

Cave fish sampling...... 17 Water qu.ali ty...... 2 0

Results Cavefish populations...... 22 Cavefish movement ...... ••.• 23

Growth .••••.•••..•••••.••••••• 24 Water qu.ality...... 25 Discussion

Cavefish movements. • . . • • • • • . . • • • . • . • . . . . . • • • • • • • . • • • • • 27

Cavefish populations •••• 31

Growth and reproduction. 36

Water qu.ality .. 38

Literature Cited ...... ••...... •..•... 46

Figures. 51 Tables...... 93

Appendix A. • • • • . • • • . • . • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9 7

Appendix B • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9 9

Appendix C • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • . • . • • • . • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • l 0 6

Appendix D. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 12 3 1

ABSTRACT

The population dynamics, general biology, and movements of the threatened Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) were studied in Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas.

General water quality characteristics for surface recharge streams as well as Logan Cave were monitored from Aug 1992 to Dec 1992 to determine the significance of recharge streams to the Logan Cave stream system. A DataSonde 3

Hydrolab Unit recorded water quality for Logan Cave from Aug

1991 to Jan 1993. Rainfall for the recharge area of Logan

Cave was also recorded and plotted against Logan Cave water quality parameters. Logan Cave was mapped and classified into regions to monitor cavefish movements.. Cavefish were tagged using visual implant tags developed by Northwest

Marine Technilogical Institute. A mark/recapture sampling effort marked a total of 80 cavefish over a six month period, ranging in size from 8 to 65 mm total length.

Schnabel and Peterson population estimates yielded 92 and 72 fish, respectively. Cavefish were captured throughout the entire cave system, and moved throughout the entire system as well. Gross movements of the cavefish ranged from 1 m to

985 m. Net/gross movement ratio was higher in the upper region than the lower regions. Movement was positively correlated with size of the fish, with larger fish moving greater distances. Growth was calculated at a rate of .7 mm/month for nine fish. Two hundred and eighty-nine mean 2 daily readings were recorded for conductivity, dissolved oxygen and temperature from Logan Cave stream, with means of

245.6 uS/em, 6. 95 mg/l, and 14. 48°C, respectivily. Rainfal·l events were closely correlated with fluctuations in the

Logan Cave water quality parameters. There was no significant difference (P > .OS) between the water quality! of Logan Cave stream and its surrounding recharge streams • .

All heavy metal and pesticide analysis were well below the

EPA lower limits. 3

INTRODUCTION

At present, there are 40,000 known caves in the United

States, with perhaps only 10% of them opening to the outside

(Curl 1958). These cave systems are not just limited to

passages large enough for a person to pass throug~, but

include countless smaller cracks and crevices that have

never been explored (Holsinger 1988). Because of ~imited

access to such vast underground systems, only a portion of

cave dwelling organisms that inhabit them have been

observed, identified, or studied. Troglobitic faunas in

cracks and intersticial spaces filled with groundwater have

been documented for years by sampling of wells, pumping

ground water, and collecting in and around .caves, resurgent

streams, seeps, and drain tiles (Vandel 1965) .

The cave environment is extremely stable (Barr and

Keuhne 1971) and such stability is considered a requisite

for the troglobitic organisms that inhabit cave systems

(Heuts 1951) . Cave aquatic systems are not as stable as

their underground terrestrial counterparts because of

relationships with surface waters that includes periodic

flooding (Poulson 1961). Hawes (1939) stated that flooding was primarily responsible for organic import into cave

aquatic ecosystems and is the most important ecological

factor benefiting cave environments. Bats, and especially

bat guano, are also reported to be important nutrient

sources for aquatic ecosystems (Poulson 1972). Barr (1968) 4 and Culver (1982) reported the basic food source in most cave ecosystems was organic matter from external sources, which in turn, when consumed by microorganisms, created a food source for vertebrates. Heuts {1953) described the cave system as an neconomically closed systemn with few species and niches. ~

With few species and niches, ecological diversity in caves is limited. The major reason for low species diversity in caves is the absence of light and thus photosynthesis, causing a reduced energy food base {Poulson

1990) . Underground aquatic systems receive approximately

.001% of the energy input of their surface counterparts

(Aley and Aley 1979). This low food supply has resulted in cave species becoming generalists and reducing their metabolic rate.

Cave dwelling organisms generally tend to be blind, while surface dwelling species rely heavily on sight. To compensate for the blindness, cave dwellers have developed keen and sophisticated sensory systems especially adapted to the cave environment (Culver 1970) . Cave systems are inhospitable to surface dwelling organisms which lack the necessary metabolic and sensory adaptations that are essential to living in cave environments. Conversely, these adaptations make establishment of cave organisms in outside habitats unlikely. This limited ecological diversity in cave communities can lead to rapid extirpation of cave 5 adapted organisms by direct or indirect adverse environmental alterations.

Groundwater storage systems (aquifers} usually have hydraulic connections with surface waters. Aquifer volume is the result of topography, geology, temperature, and climate (Dilamarter and Csallany 1977}. Aley and Aley

{1987} discussed the dynamic aspects of groundwater systems.

The "water table" of an area is an irregular, non­ continuous, non-uniform boundary between saturation zones.

Water tables receive water through two types of recharge: discrete and diffuse. Discrete recharge is water that is channelled, usually quite rapidly, into the aquifer at specific localities. Recharge channels usually consist of cracks in the underlying rock formations that open directly into the water table. There are three types of discrete recharges: sinkholes, losing streams, and open underground channels. Diffuse recharge water enters the water table very slowly, over a broad, non-specific area.

Aley and Aley (1987} also discussed the amount of time that water is in transit from the surface to the water table as a factor which affects the amount of pollution an aquifer may receive. Soil, rocks, sand, and roots act as filters, trapping particulate matter. Normally, the more time water spends in transit, the less particulate matter it contains.

Water that does not spend much time in transit does not receive this natural filtering effect. If surface waters 6

are not filtered extensively during the transit process, many organic and inorganic compounds may enter groundwater

systems. Water that spends weeks or years percolating

through soil and rocks before entering the water table

system is usually well-filtered, reducing organic nutrie~s

and many toxic substances from being carried into the

aquifer (Aley and Aley 1987).

The direct effects of land-use activities on aquifers

and cave-dwelling organisms have not been extensively

studied. Polluted runoff, such as raw animal wastes,

leaching into cave systems through discrete recharge, could

severely impact resident cave organisms and populations

through high biological and chemical oxygen demands (Aley

and Aley 1979). Some pollutants may cause indirect impacts

(i.e. killing invertebrates), which can be as devastating as

directly killing the species of concern (Vandike 1985) •

Other pollutants may be selective, affecting only the most

susceptible species. If the base of the already

foreshortened food web is depleted, higher consumers will

also be affected (T. Poulson, personal communication,

University of Illinois) . Holsinger (1966) reported the

effects of organic pollution on cave fauna in Virginia, but

only assessed the effects on the micro- and macroscopic

invertebrate organisms. Vandike (1982, 1985) studied the

effects of a liquid-fertilizer leak on the fauna of a cave

in Missouri, but did not relate the impacts to the land-use 7 practices of the recharge area.

The family Amblyopsidae (cavefishes and swampfishes) occurs only in the eastern United States (Berra 1981) .and contains four genera and six species (Lee et al. 1980 and

Robins et al. 1991). All species in the family are small

(maximum length of 90 mm), have absent or reduced pelvic fins, a jugular anus, and well developed sensory papillae

(Robison and Buchanan 1988) . The troglobitic forms are always associated with limestone formations (Berra 1981) and specialized for underground habitats by having no eyes, low metabolism, enlarged fins, enlarged heads covered with rows of sensory papillae, and little or no pigmentation (Poulson

1961). Little is known about the population dynamics, trends, or biology of these troglobitic organisms.

Evolutionary trends in cavefishes have allowed them to live in low pay-off systems (Poulson 1961). Burbanck et al.

(1948) provided evidence for lowered metabolic rates as a general adaptation for troglobites by conducting respiration work on cave crayfish. He reported cave crayfish were able to live longer than surface stream crayfish in water with low oxygen tension. Cave systems promote organisms that are efficiency experts with a narrow range of adaptability

(Poulson 1961) • Organisms which have low adaptability and live in a delicate environment have a low stability which increases their chance for extinction (Marga1ef 1968,

Poulson 1976, Poulson and Kane 1977, Shaffer 1981, Culver 8

1982, and Wiley and Brooks 1982).

The Ozark cavefish (Amblyopsis rosae) is listed by the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a threatened species (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1990). Eigenmann (1898) reported that the closest relative to the Ozark cavefish was the southern cavefish (Typhlichtbys~subterraneus). Weise

(1957) and Pflieger (1979) studied the habitat of the springfish (Cbologaster agassizi), a cavefish species closely related to the Ozark cavefish that inhibits the transition areas of drains and caves. Cooper and Kuehne

(1974) studied the morphology of the recently described

Alabama cavefish (Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni), and found it to be even more adaptive to the cave aquatic environment than the Ozark cavefish.

The Ozark cavefish is one of the most highly adapted species of the cavefishes (Poulson 1961). It inhibits clear, slow moving streams in soluble limestone cave systems in Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma that maintain a constant water temperature of 12.8-15.6°C (Robison and Buchanan

1988) . Poulson (1961) is responsible for most of the known biology of Ozark cavefish. In his doctoral dissertation, he discussed food habits, morphology, metabolism, behavior, and degree of cave adaptation. More recently, Pflieger (1975),

Lee et al. (1980), Willis and Brown (1985), and Robison and

Buchanan (1988) have discussed aspects of life history, biology, habitat, and ecology of Ozark cavefish and related 9

species. However, there is little specific information

about any particular aspect of the population dynamics, movement, or biology of this unusual species. It is

essential to learn more about the Ozark cavefish to ensure

survival and develop management strategies for its recovery.

Ozark cavefish feed primarily on small invertebrates

such as isopods, amphipod~, and copepods, but are also known

to feed on small crayfish, salamanders, and even their own

species (Poulson 1961) . Reproduction is thought to occur in

spring, prompted by the rise in water and nutrients from

spring rains {Poulson 1963). The female Ozark cavefish

carries approximately 20-30 fertilized eggs in her gill

chamber until they hatch. Low fecundity and oral brooding

are responses to low population numbers and high

survivability of individuals. Information on age and growth

for A. rosae is scarce; it is uncertain if they lay down

true annual marks on scales or bone segments like epigean

fishes in surface waters with more fluctuating temperatures.

Poulson (1961) first stated that A. rosae may live as long

as twelve years, but later suggested they may reach fifty or

more years of age (T. Poulson, University of Illinois,

personal communication) .

Ozark cavefish are presently thought to inhabit 13

caves in northwestern Arkansas, southwestern Missouri and

northeastern Oklahoma (Willis and Brown 1985) • Distribution

of Ozark cavefish has been discussed by Hall (1956), 10

Tafane1li and Russell (1972), McDaniel and Gardner (1977),

McDaniel et al. (1979), Mayden and Cross (1983), Willis and

Brown (1985), and Brown (1991). The total known population of Ozark cavefish tallied from Willis and Brown (1985) and

Brown (1991) is estimated at 200 individuals. Recent work on A. rosae by Aley and Aley (1979), Willis and Brown

(19~5), and Brown (1991) concluded the range of the Ozark : cavefish was shrinking due to habitat destruction and water pollution. The largest estimated population of Ozark cavefish is in Cave Springs Cave, Benton County, Arkansas, which was sampled in 1986, was suggested to contain 139 fish

(Brown 1991). During the came survey, Logan Cave National

Wildlife Refuge, Benton County, Arkansas was reported to contain the second largest Ozark cavefish population, estimated at 32 fish. Fourteen and 18 Ozark cavefish were counted in the two most recent Logan Cave surveys conducted by Brown (1991), causing him to suggest that the Logan Cave population was shrinking. The method of survey involved walking through the cave with bright lights and counting the fish that were observed (Brown 1991).

Aley and Aley (1979) suggested water quality in northwest Arkansas caves could be altered by surface land­ use practices on recharge areas and listed three principle mechanisms by which these land-use practices could affect

Ozark cavefish: direct groundwater degradation/pollution, physical obstruction of cave habitats, and indirect off-site 11 disturbances. Underground aquifers can be directly influenced by the sinking surface streams which recharge them (Aley and Aley 1987) . If surface streams are polluted by agricultural or residential pollution (dumping pollutants directly into the stream), the underground aquifers they recharge may likewise become polluted. Physical obstruction of cave entrances or recharge channels with dirt, debris, gates, or bars can indirectly effect the cave system by preventing access to bats, resulting in a depletion of valuable influxes of nutrients and energy (Willis and Brown

1985). Indirect off-site disturbances can effect the cave system by degrading or polluting the recharge basin (Aley and Aley 1979) . If the recharge basin is polluted, the streams of the basin can likewise become polluted by runoff from surrounding lands. 12

STUDY SITE

Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge is located in

Benton County, Arkansas (NW 1/4, NE 1/4 of section 33, T18N,

R32W of the Gallatin 7.5 Minute Topographic Map) in the

Springfield Plateau Region of the Ozark Highlands. The

Springfield Plateau is the western-most part of a large karst region that basically outlines the range of troglobitic amblyopsids (Woods and Inger 1957, Barr 1968).

The Plateau is a large geocline dome region that has been cut by streams and rivers to form a hilly terrain of roughly

21,000 kml (Willis and Brown 1985). The Osage River is the major drainage system for Logan Cave stream, which in turn flows into the Illinois, Arkansas, and Mississippi rivers.

The average annual rainfall for this region is 112 em, with an average runoff of 30.5 em (Willis and Brown 1985).

The recharge area for Logan Cave is described by Aley and Aley (1987) as 3,108 ha in area, lying north and east of the cave entrance. Nearly the entire recharge area for

Logan Cave is underlain by the Boone Formation (Haley et al.

1976) . In 1968, 59% of the recharge was forested; this had decreased to 43% by 1987 (Aley and Aley 1987) . The surface

streams are primarily discrete sinking streams that flow

through mostly agricultural pasture land (Aley and aley

19 87) •

Two major classes of land-use activities occur in the

Logan Cave recharge area: residential/light commercial 13 development and agriculture. The recharge area has numerous livestock operations (85 animal rearing houses in 1987} from which Aley and Aley (1987} identified four potential types of impacts. First, feedlots and animal houses are usually placed on well drained slopes which can lead to,runoff from rearing operations during heavy rains. If the runoff waters contain high concentrations of harmful biological (i.e. fecal coliform} or chemical (i.e. pesticides} pollutants, or high nitrates and phosphates, a biological oxygen demand

(BOD} and chemical oxygen demand (COD} can occur. If high

BOD or COD waters containing agricultural effluent enter the cave system, an abnormal oxygen demand can be placed on the cave aquatic system and limit or even eliminate the resident aquatic cave fauna Aley and Aley 1979}. Secondly, it is common for agricultural operators to spread animal wastes over fields for fertilizer. Heavy rainfalls after field application of wastes can produce runoff waters with a high

BOD, resulting in low dissolved oxygen in recharge streams and cave streams. Third, in order to avoid the costs of disposal, operation owners may dispose of wastes in an unused area of their property. These high concentration sites may be located in areas where runoff could reach stream sources and eventually the cave stream. Fourth, toxins and chemicals in animal feeds can pass through the animals and reach streams, via land application of wastes, that contribute water to the cave system. Aley and Aley · 14

{1979) suggested agricultural activities are probably the largest threat to the Logan Cave population of Ozark cavefish. Aley and Aley (1987) also stated the two major impacts of residential development were inappropriate sewage disposal (i.e. septic field systems for on-l~t disposal) and increased erosion or storm runoff. Increased storm runoff can channel undesirable nutrient loads to caves which can increase the BOD of the aquatic ecosystem.

This study was funded by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Vicksburg, Mississippi to ascertain if present land-use activities within the Logan Cave recharge area could threaten the Logan Cave population of Ozark cavefish.

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Atlanta, Georgia) provided the endangered species permit (SA 92-29), and Holla

Bend National NWR and Arkansas Game and Fish Commission provided special use permits for working in Logan Cave NWR and collecting cavefish. The purpose of this study was to gather baseline information on water quality of Logan Cave stream, study the movements, ecology, and population trends of the Ozark cavefish, and determine if population trends could be related to the water quality of the cave ecosystem. 15

OBJECTIVES

1. To assess selected biological parameters of the Ozark

cavefish population in Logan Cave NWR stream.

Question 1. Is it possible to estimate the population of

Ozark cavefish in Logan Cave NWR stream by

mark/recapture censusing?

Question 2. How successful is the visual population

estimation method presently being used to

estimate numbers.

Question 3. Is there immigration or emigration of the

Ozark cavefish population within Logan Cave

NWR stream?

Question 4. Do Ozark cavefish move throughout Logan Cave

stream or are their patterns of movement

limited to specific areas of the cave?

Question 5. Can sex ratios, maturity, fecundity, and

numbers of offspring be determined by visual

observation?

2. Investigate water quality of Logan Cave stream and

surrounding surface streams within the recharge and

determine their significance to Logan Cave stream.

Question 1. Will the following water chemistry parameters

differ between Logan Cave stream and selected

surface streams within the recharge area:

nitrate, phosphate, conductivity, pH, total

phosphorus, total Keldjal nitrogen, total 16

organic carbon, alkalinity, and fecal

coliform?

3. Relate changes of Ozark cavefish in Logan Cave stream to

changes in water chemistry.

Question 1. Are there correlations between water

chemistry and Ozark cavefish population

fluctuations in Logan Cave stream? 17

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Cavefish sampling

In order to conduct a systematic sampling scheme, the cave was divided into three regions classified losely by habitat type (Fig. 1). Each section was marked at 5 m

intervals to obtain specific locations of marked :fish. It was necessary to distinguish individual fish in order to

trace fish movements throughout the cave system,· so each

fish was tagged with a Visual Implant Tag (1.0mm x .Smm x

.1mm) developed by Northwest Marine Technological Institute

(Haw et al. 1990). Each fish was lightly anesthetized in a

2 ppt solution of quinaldine until equilibrium was lost

(Poulson 1961, Stickney 1983). Once equilibrium was lost,

fish were placed on a wet board, tagged, measured, held in clean water until they revived, and released at the site of capture.

To test the tagging procedure, the common black spotted

topminnow (Fundulus olivaceus) was first used as a surrogate

test fish. Black spotted topminnows are the closest phylogenetic relative to the Ozark cavefish in this region.

Forty F. olivaceus were captured and brought into the lab at

the Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at

the University of Arkansas. The fish ranged· in size from 57 mm to 78 mm total length. Eighteen fish were tagged and

eighteen used as controls. Three tagging location were

tested: the nape, abdominal region, and caudal peduncle · 18

just above the lateral line. No mortality was observed from the tagging procedure, and the caudal peduncle location had the highest tag retention of the three locations (Appendix

A) •

Southern redbelly dace (Pboxinus eur¥throgaster) were then used to test retention time of the tags. The dace were used because they have very small, cycloirl scales much like

Ozark cavefish. Thirty individuals were captured from the epigial portion of Logan Cave stream and brought to the lab.

They ranged in size from 20 mm to 65 mm and were all tagged in the caudal peduncle region. Fish smaller then 30 mm were damaged by the tagging process, resulting an established minimum tagging size of 30 mm total lengt~ for cavefish. No mortality was observed with the Phoxinus, but tag retention time was low, as 12 of 20 fish lost their tags within 30 days. I believe this extensive tag loss was due to the erratic swimming nature of Phoxinus and because I did not slide the syringe far enough beneath the epidermis to allow the incision to close once the tag was in place. Based on this assumption, I felt retention rates would be much higher in a fish with a more moderate swimming behavior, like the

Ozark cavefish, especially if the tag was placed further beneath the epidermis.

For a final test of the tagging procedure, four Ozark cavefish were collected from Logan Cave stream on 28

February 1992, brought back to the lab, and placed in a 19 temperature controlled 75 L aquarium. Water temperature was maintained at l4°C ± l °C to simulate the cave environment.

Rocks from Logan Cave were placed in the aquarium to act as substrate and perhaps to stabilize the water quality. Fish were fed live amphipods (Gammerus minus) obtained from a pool outside the entrance of Logan Cave. Two of the four fish were tagged to determine mortality, tag retention, and abnormal response to the tags; the remaining two fish were controls. One tagged fish and one control fish died, due to circumstances unrelated to the tagging procedure. The tagged fish jumped out of the aquaria through a small crack between the aquaria and its glass cover and the untagged fish became infected with a fungus. The other two fish remain alive in the lab and the tagged fish still retains its tag after 15 months.

I began tagging resident Ozark cavefish in Logan Cave

NWR on 15 June 1992. All cavefish were tagged in the caudal peduncle because of the higher retention rate for this location of surrogate species. Cavefish were tagged with the previously mentioned procedure. When the fish revived from the anesthetic, they were placed back into the cave stream within ±2 m of their capture location. The cavefish population was monitored twice monthly between June and

December 1992. During tagging, I attempted to sex fish by illuminating them in a photobox with a strong backlight

(Weise 1957). During each sampling period, notes were taken 20 on habitat use by each fish which included: specific location of the fish to the nearest meter within each region, and type of substrate at that location (Appendix B) .

Schnabel (Ricker 1975) and Peterson (Lagler 1956) estimates were used to calculate numbers of fish. Gross movements were calculated by summing the total distance of each recorded movement. Net movements were calculated from the distance between first and last capture. Bartlett's homogeniety of variance test was used to determine significance between fish sizes in different regions of the cave.

Water quality

Water quality for Logan Cave was monitored from August,

1991 to January, 1993. Parameters monitored included temperature, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen (mg/1 and percent saturation) . These four parameters were sampled at

30 minute intervals using a DataSounde 3 Hydrolab Unit.

Water from Logan Cave stream and Palmer Hollow and

Galey/Hamilton Hollow surface streams in the Logan Cave recharge area were tested for: nitrate, ammonia, phosphate, conductivity, pH, total phosphorus, total Keldjal nitrogen, total organic carbon, alkalinity and fecal coliform.

Samples were taken at three locations within Logan Cave

Stream: Logan 1 Station at the cave entrance, Logan 2

Station just above the sinkhole, and Logan 3 Station at the upper end of the upper region (Fig. 1). Samples were taken 21 in August, September, October and November, 1992 to assess differences in water quality between surface streams and the cave stream. Water quality samples from surface streams and the cave stream were statistically analyzed by Kruskal­

Wallis' rank sum test at the 0.05 significance level. Water quality analysis was performed by the University of Arkansas

Water Resources Research Center. Water and sediment samples were taken in January and July 1992, at two locations within the cave system to test for heavy metals and pesticides.

These samples were frozen and shipped to contract laboratories of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be analyzed.

Rainfall was estimated for the Logan Cave recharge area from October 1991 to January 1993 by averaging data from the

National Climatic Data Center for Fayetteville and

Bentonville, AR. The Logan Cave recharge area is located directly between and west of the two towns. With the nature of weather patterns in northwest Arkansas to move in a northeasterly direction, rainfall averages from the two towns should have provided sufficicant information for Logan

Cave and its recharge area. 22

RESULTS

Cavefish populations

From June 15, 1992 to December 3, 1992 a total of 80

Ozark cavefish were tagged within the Logan Cave system

(Figs. 2 and 3). The size of tagged fish ranged from 31 mm to 65 mm total length. Several fish smaller than 30 mm were observed, some as small as 9 mm. These fish were captured, measured, their location noted, and released. A population estimate of 92 Ozark cavefish was calculated using the

Schnabel multiple census method. A Peterson single census yielded an estimate of 72 fish.

The number of times individual cavefish were recaptured varied from 0 to 8 times during the 11 sampling trips, with a mean of 2.54 recaptures/fish (Fig. 4). Twenty-two (29%) of the 75 tagged fish were never recaptured. The five fish tagged during the last sampling run, 3 December 1992, were not considered in the recapture calculations. Fifty-two fish were recaptured at least once, and 45 (87%) of those were recaptured within the first or second sampling trip after being tagged. Seven of the 80 marked cavefish (8.7%) lost their tags, which was determined by observation of an incision scar made during the initial tagging. These fish were retagged, but not counted as new fish, and released.

Ozark cavefish were captured throughout the entire

Logan Cave system that was accessible, but most (72.6%) were captured in the middle pool region (Fig. 5). Nineteen fish 23

(23 . 8%) were captured in the upper region and 4 (5%) in the lower region of the cave. Of the 51 fish captured in the middle region, 37 (73%) were recaptured. Of the 19 fish captured in the upper region, 14 (74%) were recaptured, seven of which moved downstream out of the upper region.

Only one of the four fish captured in the lower region was recaptured. That fish moved from the lower region of the cave into the middle pool region. No fish were found to have moved from the middle region of the cave into the lower region.

Cavefish movements

Movement within the cave varied depending upon individual fish and capture locality. Looking at the cave system as a whole, of 170 separate Ozark cavefish movements greater than two meters, no significant difference (P >

0.05, X2 = 2.133) was found between upstream and downstream movements (Fig. 6). Eighty-six percent of the fish moved at least 2 m from their original capture locality. Fish with no movement accounted for 15% of the total number of observations. When cavefish movements were separated by region, cavefish in the upper region exibited significantly more (P < 0.05, X2 = 14.727) downstream movements (Fig. 7). Cavefish in the middle region showed no significant difference between unpstream and downstream movements.

Some cavefish in the middle region remained in close proximity to their initial capture site for the duration of 24 the study, while others moved almost the entire length of the cave area. Gross movement (summed distances for all recorded recaptures of each fish) ranged from 1 m to 985 m

(Fig. 8). Movement information based only on a two week interval showed 26 of .42 (61.9%) fish moved less than 100 m

(Fig. 9), and almost all (97.6%) moved less than 300m.

Mean gross movement of fish in the upper region exceeded mean gross movement in the middle region, 443.9 m and 168.2 m respectively. Mean net movement of fish in the upper region also exceeded mean net movement in the middle region,

382 m and 56.2 m respectively. The net/gross movement ratio in the upper region was 0.86 while the net/gross movement ratio for the middle region was only 0. 33, .indicating a more directed movement in the upper region. Maximum movements of individual fish for the 6 month duration of the study showed that 23 of 52 (44.2%) fish moved less than 100 m from their point of capture (Fig. 10). Each fish was calculated to have a mean daily movement of 4 m.

Movement correlated positively with fish size (r1 = 0.28); 30 mm fish moved less than 60 mm fish (Fig. 11). The average total length of the fish in the middle region (41.15 mm) was significantly different (P < 0.05, F = 4.478) than the total length of fish in the upper region (44.44 mm).

Growth

Growth for nine Ozark cavefish was recorded over the four to nine month period between first and last captures. 25

These fish increased in size from 2 mm to 20 mm (Fig. 12).

Mean growth of four cavefish for the maximum nine month period was 7.04 mm. The average daily growth was .03 mm with a standard deviation of .02 mm. Smaller fish grew at a

.faster rate than did the larger fish (Fig. 13), and maximum growth was recorded for a 33 mm fish captured in June and recaptured the following March at a total length of 53 mm.

Water Quality

Two hundred and eighty-nine mean daily readings from

Logan Cave stream were recorded for conductivity, dissolved oxygen and temperature from the Hydrolab DataSonde between

August 1991 and October 1993. Water temperature ranged from

12.67°C to 15.99°C during this period (Fig. -14), with a mean water temperature of 14.48°C and a standard deviation of

0.6°C (Table 1). Conductivity ranged from 148 uS/em to 278 uS/em with a mean value of 245.6 uS/em and a standard deviation of 29.07 uS/em (Fig. 15) (Table 1). Dissolved oxygen in mg/1 ranged from 5.15 mg/1 to 9.77 mg/1 (Fig. 16) with a mean of 6.95 mg/1 and a standard deviation of 1.21 mg/1 (Table 1) . Dissolved oxygen in percent saturation had minimum and maximum values of 54.9% and 96.4%, respectively

(Fig. 17). The mean percent saturation was 70.9% with a standard deviation of 11.17% (Table 1). Dissolved oxygen was negatively correlated with temperature.

Rainfall events in the Logan Cave recharge area were closely related to fluctuations in water temperature, . 26

dissolved. oxygen, and conductivity (Fig. 18, 19 and 20). Major rainfall events (Nov/91, Feb/92, and Aug/92) were

directly related to increases or decreases in the water

parameters of Logan Cave, depending upon season.

Fluctuations in Logan Cave stream water quality parameters

generally followed a 2 to 5 day lag time from surface £

rainfall events.

Surface water quality samples were scheduled to be

taken monthly from August through November 1992, but

September and October samples were not obtained because

surface sample stations were dry. Logan Cave stream water

quality was sampled during all four months. Water quality

measurements for the cave system were strongly correlated

with water quality of the surface streams (Table 2). All

water quality sample parameters showed no significant

difference (P > 0.05) between surface and cave streams.

General water quality parameters for surface and cave

streams were similar to other Ozark highland streams (Bennet

I et al. 1987)~ except for elevated levels of fecal coliform

bacteria and nitrates (Pig. 21). Water quality for Logan

Cave and the recharge streams were well below the U.S.

Enviroiunental Protection Agency (EPA) (1976) limits for

environmental compounds except for fecal coliform (Table 2).

Similar comparisons between Logan· Cave and recharge streams were noted for conductivity, phosphorus and total phosphorus

(Fig. 21). Alkalinity for Logan Cave was comparable to the

I u 27 other highland streams, but the Palmer and Galey/Hamilton stream complex was low in comparison to the highland streams

(Fig. 21}.

Water samples tested for heavy metals fell well within the domestic water supply standards set forth by EPA (Table

3}. All pesticides analyzed tested below EPA contract lab lower quanitification limits (Tabre 4} . . 28

Dl:SCUSSXOH Cavefis4 movement I believe Ozark cavefish are moving into and out of the main channel of Logan Cave stream from portions of the stream unaccessible to my study. In order for a cavefish to be able to move into or out of the sampling area, they first must have the ability to move. My data shows that cavefish are capable of extended movements within the Logan Cave system (Fig. 10). If Logan Cave stream was a closed system, the number of untagged fish should have eventually declined to zero with continued marking. This was not the case. A linear graph of the number of new fish being tagged each sample period never reached zero, and seemed to equate after the first sample effort, averaging 5.7 untagged fish each sample run (Fig. 3). This indicates about 11.4\ of the Logan Cave population of Ozark cavefish is renewed monthly. New, untagged fish were still being captured in the cave stream after six months of sampling (11 sample trips). Therefore, I believe the Logan Cave stream system is open to movement of Ozark cavefish from areas outside of my study 0 reaches. If Logan Cave stream is open to cavefish moving into 0 the system, it seems as likely that cavefish can move out of [J the system as well. If Logan Cave stream was a . closed r • system, the numbers of tagged fish that I recaptured should ~J have increased to meet the cumulative total of all marked

I i.J 29 fish in the system. However, after three months (six sampling trips) the number of recaptured marked fish continued to decline as the cumulative total of marked fish increased (Fig. 3) . · Loss of marked fish would also produce this result (see later). It seems that fish are continually moving out of, as well as into, the Logan Cave system from an unknown unaccessible area.

Movement of Ozark cavefish through Logan Cave stream varied as to upper, middle, and lower regions, and within a region perhaps by habitat type. Unmarked fish were captured in all regions of the cave. In the first sample run, the middle region accounted for 22 of 24 fish captured.

However, after the first capture effort, the upper region accounted for almost half of the new, untagged fish. The upper region comprises approximately 54% of the entire study area, but only 6% (40 m) of the region has pool habitat, the preferred habitat of Ozark cavefish (Poulson 1961). There are four small pool areas in the upper region, each approximately 10 m long and divided by swift riffles and long bedrock runs. These reaches of swift water

(unpreferred habitat) likely account for the long, downstream directed movements of fish in the upper region, and the reason fish tended to move out of this area. The middle region of Logan Cave is 230 m of preferable habitat

(pool), and cavefish in this region did not exhibit directed movements (Fig. 7). Directed downstream gross and net 30 movements in the upper region were about equal. However, in the middle region, net cavefish movements were less than one n third the gross movements because of an almost equal number c of upstream and downstream movements. The net/gross movement ratio for the upper region (0.86) was much closer ~ to 1.0, showing that movement in the upper region was more [j directed, while movement in the middle region (net/gross ratio = 0.33) was more randomized. I propose this [ nondirectional movement pattern in the middle region results from cavefish being in suitable habitat, and the directional u movement patterns in the upper region resulted from cavefish moving from unsampled upstream sites through the stream D system to seek suitable habitat. This dif~erence in n movement patterns between the upper and middle regions of the cave could also be interpreted to mean untagged fish . in [ the upper region were new to the sample area from an upstream source. These fish, not being in suitable habitat, continued to move through the cave stream system until suitable habitat was found (i.e. the middle region). Most cavefish moved out of the upper region and into {] the middle region within two sample periods (4 weeks) • Fourteen of the 19 fish (74%) tagged in the upper region [J exhibited exclusive and continuous downstream movement from their initial capture locations. One cavefish moved from u the 400 m mark in the upper region, a pool, to the 108 m r 1 mark in the upper region in two weeks and then back to 395 m 31 mark (the same pool area) two weeks later. This fish traversed some very swift physical barriers to get back upstream including a 0.3 m waterfall and several reaches of swift water where current flow exceeded 1 m/sec.

No cavefish were found to have moved out of the middle region of Logan Cave stream into the lower region, which contains little preferred habitat. In fact, of the four fish tagged in the lower region, one moved upstream into the more suitable middle region, and the other three were never recaptured. This recaptured fish also had to traverse very swift physical barriers to reach the middle region from the lower region, including a reach of the stream that goes under a debris pile resulting from the sinkhole collapse; this collapsed material forms the middle region pool. Given that Ozark cavefish can surmount swift current and move long distances within the cave stream, I suggest that the Logan

Cave population of Ozark cavefish is larger than the fish inhabiting the cave at any one time. Thus, valid population estimates are difficult to obtain, and brings into question any method of cavefish population estimation that cannot include the fish in inaccessible areas.

Cavefish population

The mark/recapture method of estimating Ozark cavefish populations attempted in this study provides more information than the former spotlight censusing method. The

Schnabel population estimate of 92 fish was almost three - 32 . t~es higher than the previous higheat population eatimate of 32 fish (Brown 1991), and a Peterson census (from first and second runs) estimated 72 fish. However, Lager (1956) discussed assumptions for the mark/recapture method indicating that migration can not occur during the mark\recapture effort. ~suming that cavefish move into and out of the cave as I have auggested, a multiple census population estimate (Schnabel) is invalid according to one Lagler's (1956) assumptions. A Peterson census population estimate would comply with the these assumptions because it c involves only one sample run (Ricker 1975) and alleviates the problem of migration. However, I believe that neither 0 the single nor the multiple census method accurately n estimated the actual numbers of Ozark cavefish ·in the Logan Cave system, because neither can take into account the [ numbers of young fish that were seen but not tagged, · the new fish .that continue to enter the population, or the decline [J in tagged fish. If continued marking results in an eventual decline of unmarked fish, the unaccessible portion of the D population is probably small. However, if new, unmarked 0 fish continue to enter the accessible areas, . the unaccessible population may be quite large. 0 The number of tagged fish decreased throughout the l] study period even though new cavefish were tagged during each sampling effort. Several factors besides migration [j could explain this decline in numbers. One possibility is

L 33 that tagged fish were losing their tag, which could have worked-out from under the skin before the incision healed over, which was the case with the serrogate species. If a cavefish lost a tag and was not detected, it would appear to - be a new, untagged fish entering the cave system as well as

~ tagged fish that had left the system. I did locate six cavefish, 7.5% of the total number of tagged fish, which lost their tags. These fish, due to the incision scar on the caudal peduncle, were obvious recaptures and were not counted as new fish. I believe I correctly identified all fish that lost their tags by comparing size and location of captures.

Another possibility to account for disappearance of tagged fish is they were dying. If disappearing fish were dying, it seems likely that bodies would have accumulated on the silt substrate of the pool in the middle region cave.

No dead fish were observed by divers during any of the 11 sample trips in spite of the extremely clear water. I would have also expected dead fish to be collected in drift nets which were placed at the end of the middle and lower regions of the cave. These nets were monitored for 48 hour periods twice a month for the duration of my study. No live or dead cavefish were found in the nets, even though banded sculpins

(Cottus carolinae) were occasionally captured (K. Hurbert,

Westark Community College, personal communication) •

Marked cavefish could have also become prey of banded 1

. 34 sculpins or the endangered cave crayfish (Cambarus aculabrum) • The lower region of the cave contains numerous banded sculpins and epigeal crayfish that could have been 0 consuming Ozark cavefish as they continued their migration through the cave. However, only three cavefish disappeared n from the lower region. Xf cavefish were dying in the middle

region, it is unlikely they w~re swept into the lower ~gion D and then consumed. Only four sculpins and five cave 0 crayfish were observed in the middle region of the cave where most of the tagged fish disappeared. rt seems 0 unlikely that 14 cavefish in the middle region and five cavefish in the upper region of the cave were consumed. rn 0 addition, low numbers of organisms in a cave system in n general (Heuts 1953) would seem to make it unlikely that a total of 19 dead cavefish could be consumed without some [ activity being observed by divers. rt is also possible that tagged cavefish became more D wary after tagging and better at avoiding capture. Howeve~, 0 each fish was expected to be seen 40\ of the time ~hroughout the study, indicating an individual fish was expected to be fj seen at least once in three trips. Also, numbers of cavefish recaptured in each sample run stayed about the same D throughout the study period (Pig. 3) which would not be the case if fish were getting better at avoidance. 0 Finally, based upon sampling time frames and movement u patterns of cavefish in the upper region, cavefish could

u 35 have moved into the lower region. After finding unsuitable habitat there, they could have continued to move out of the region, ending up outside the cave system before the next sampling run. However, if this were the case, I would have either expected to collect some fish in the drift net samples or infrequently observe fish outside the cave; neither of these possibilities occurred.

It seems most likely that Ozark cavefish moved out of the main channel of Logan Cave into an unaccessible region or regions of the cave system. The middle region is where most of the cavefish were found during sample runs and where most of the tagged fish disappeared. These fish would have

to move of the system out through the upper or lower region of the stream, or attain access to other portions of the cave that were unaccessible to me. This option appears possible, as the cave stream takes several considerable detours beneath rock walls and fall-ins (portions of the cave where the ceiling collapsed). These fall-ins divert

the stream to areas that are unaccessible to surveying. One

instance is a large fall-in at the end of the middle region where the stream disappears and then reappears in the lower

region; at least a 30 m reach of stream is unaccessible to

survey. There is also a large upwelling in the lower region

that could be a redirected portion of the cave stream

through an unaccessible channel; it could also be new water

entering the cave from the aquifer. There could also be . 36 watered regions of the cave that are not apparent. These unaccessible areas, which could provide considerable refuge ~ for cavefish, could include the aquifer itself, as well aa [J numerous water filled fissures and channels branching laterally off the main cave stream. These •pockets• could 0 contain cavefish that never or on+y infrequently enter the accessible sample areas. Ozark cavefish appear to be D masters of wedging themselves into rock cracks and beneath D ledges. The two captive fish held at the University of Arkansas are often not visible to even a trained cavefish D watcher, due to their ability to rest for long periods in small, vertical and horizontal cracks and crevases in rocks. D Out of 246 observed locations of wild cavefish, they were n found over rock (cobble or boulder) or rock/silt 45\ of the time. The rest of the time they were found over silt c substrate.

Reproduction and Growth []

Sex and fecundity of tagged fish could not be determined using the methods described by Woods and rnger fl . (1957). Gut contents were observable, however, implying no [ eggs were present. Most fish tagged either had full or partially full guts. Lack of observable eggs in Ozark D cavefish could be due to the sampling period starting after the suggested breeding season, which, according to Poulson u (1961), starts in the early spring. If this were the case, L gonads would not have been enlarged and easy to see during

L 37 the June through December data collection period. If Ozark cavefish do reproduce during the spring, some fish would be expected to be brooding young in their gill chambers during summer or early autumn. No adults with young in their gill chambers or around them were ever observed at any time during the study period. However, in late October, four cavefish 8 to 10 mm long were observed in a small, partially isolated pool adjacent to the entrance of the cave. The young cavefish were transparent and very difficult to see in the clear cave water, leading me to believe that numerous other young cavefish could have easily been overlooked during sampling. Whether these four young cavefish were hatched during the spring as Poulson (1961) suggests, or were even hatched in Logan Cave is unknown. However, based upon the growth information from the nine Ozark cavefish observed over a nine month period (Fig. 12) and the occurrence of young fish 8 to 10 mm seen in late October, it seems likely they originated Logan Cave.

Growth rates averaged 0.77 mm/month for the cavefish I observed from June 1992 to March 1993. If growth occurred at a continuous rate, it would only take an individual cavefish seven years to reach the maximum length of this species (65 mm). With such a rapid growth rate, it seems possible that large, adult cavefish may be only a few years old, and not 20 or 60 years old as has previously suggested. If growth was a continuous straight line, fish would be ' \

- 38

expected to survive until they reached about seven to eight

years of age. It is more likely that the growth is

curvilinear {sigmoid type growth curve) and that cavefish

could live longer than eight years. However, finding 10 mm

fish in Octobe~ and another fish that increased from 33 mm

to 53 mm in only nine months certainly indicates there is a

lot more to learn about Ozark cavefish age and growth. Water Quality 0 In October and November, when surface streams and cave stream fecal coliform levels were comparatively low, 0 coliform levels were still higher than EPA contact water

standards of 200.0 col./100 ml {Table 2) . Fecal coliform 0 levels were much higher in surface and cave streams in 0 August 1992 (Table 3). August 1992 was a month of heavy rainfall following a dry period. Summer (May-September) is 0 the time of hay production in the Ozarks, when organic fertilizers including chicken and cattle litter are applied n to fields. During these months, streams would be expected [l to have the highest amounts of fecal coliform for the year due to the runoff from pasture lands. However, even in [ November after hay production and after the grey bats have left the cave, coliform levels still do not meet EPA contact 0 water standards.

Differences in the water quality within the cave stream u itself may be partially related to bat colony roost L locations . Logan cave has approximately 20,000 grey bats 39 and probably a few hundred additional bats of various other species (Jerome Ford, OSFWS, personal communication). A bat population this large, making several flights over the cave stream each night, could be expected to drop large amounts of guano into the cave stream, causing fecal coliform and nitrate levels to increase. In August, high fecal coliform counts came from the uppermost and lowermost stations of the cave system (Logan 3 Station and Logan 1 Station, respectively) . The largest bat roost in Logan Cave is located between the entrance and the middle region (between the Logan 1 and Logan 2 Stations) which could explain the elevated Logan 1 Station coliform count. However, another large bat roost is located between the middle region and the uppermost water sample site (Logan 3 Station). This should result in coliform levels being lower at the uppermost Logan

3 Station than the middle, Logan 2 Station, if bats and guano are significant contributors to nutrients and coliform. But the Logan 3 coliform count was higher than any other Logan station, and even higher than the surface streams. The difference between surface stream coliform counts and the Logan 3 Station could be attributed to the lag time of the water transport between surface and cave.

The differences might also indicate the presence of an additional recharge source(s), in addition to Palmer and

Galey/Hamilton streams . It also seems to indicate that the grey bat population in the cave is not contributing an D

. 40 0 overwhelming amount of nutrients to the cave system. Palmer and Galey/Hamilton Hollow streams had similar amounts of fecal colifor.m in August but were considerably different in

November. This could be due to Palmer Hollow draining more agriculturally active lands, or tha~ livestock operations in

Galey/Hamilton Hollow could have been shifted to different pastures away from the stream.

Logan Cave water quality parameters measured by the recording Hydrolab were very constant. This agrees ~th

Barr and Keuhne's (1971) findings on the stability of cave environments in general. All four measured parameters

(temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen-mg/1, and dissolved oxygen-percent saturation) exhib!ted either maximum or minimum value between the February and March 1992

(Figs. 14, 15, 16, and 17). During this period dissolved oxygen showed a maximum value, while temperature and conductivity showed minimum values. Fluctuations of these parameters within the cave stream were relatively minor when compared to surface rainfall events.

I related fluctuations in the cave stream water quality to daily rainfall records for Bentonville and Fayetteville.

With a four to five day lag period to allow for water transport (Figs . 18, 19 and 20), I found shifts in cave water quality to be closely related to surface stream flood events, as did Poulson (1961). Quick and sharp changes in the aquatic parameters of Logan Cave reflect the discrete 41 recharging of the stream. These fluctuations and lag times between precipitation events and water quality changes in

Logan Cave result from a discrete recharge system, supporting Aley and Aley's (1987} findings. If Logan Cave was mainly recharged by a diffuse aquifer, oxygen in the transit water would be expected to decline during its holding period(s}. Temperature would also remain more constant within the cave stream with a diffuse recharge systems, as the aquifer holding process would allow the water to acclimate before it entered the stream system {Aley and Aley 1987}. Generally, spring rains are cooler than the average groundwater temperature and summer rains are warmer.

This explains the decreases in cave water temperature in the autumn and winter months with the increased rainfall and snow melt and the increases during warm summer thundershowers (Fig. 14}. Conductivity variations are believed to result from increased turbidity from the floodwater (Poulson 1961} • The lack of differences of water quality parameters between surface streams and the cave stream is attributed to the discrete recharge. The surface streams and Logan Cave stream had strong correlations, but

Logan Cave stream consistently had slightly higher quality

(Table 2}.

Heavy metals and pesticide samples were only taken from

Logan Cave stream system. All water analysis were well within the EPA lower detectible limits of the contract labs 0

. 42 m (Tables 3 and 4). Substrate samples seemed comparitively ~ I low ~ith the exception of manganese, nickel, and iron. One I of the primary uses of manganese is as a micro-nutrient L1 additive to inorganic fertilizers (BPA 1976), and its high levels could be attributed to the use of certain fertilizers fl wi~i~ the recharge area. Iron is probably a naturally occurring metal within the aquifer in spite of the high 0 amount. The European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission [ (1964) recommended iron concentrations should not exceed 1.0 mg/1 in waters that support aquatic life. Logan Cave has [ approximately 13,000 ppm of iron in the substrate, but the aquatic species within the cave appear to show no adverse n affects. Nickel concentrations are also naturally occurring r within the system and are probably not the result of any outside source. Nickel salts are fairly common in r freshwater and marine systems in small amounts (Hem 1985).

Though the Logan Cave substrate concentration is f ~ approximately 90 ppm, there should be no significant threats r : to the aquatic species within the system based on ~formation from Biesinger and Christensen (1972) • Of the L heavy metals and pesticides tested, none should pose a significant threat to the aquatic species within Logan Cave [ stream. [ f. 43

CONCLUSIONS

1. I believe numbers of Ozark cavefish in Logan Cave to be

dynamic due to movement of fish to and from portions of

the stream unaccessible to my study. New, untagged

fish continually entered into the cave stream system

and marked fish move out of the main cave channel.

2. Movement of cavefish within the cave stream varied with

habitat type. Cavefish that were in preferred habitats

did not show a directed movement pattern. Fish in the

upper and lower regions moved towards the preferred,

middle (pool) region. Upstream movement did not seem

to be limited by swift current or small, vertical

waterfalls (< 0.3 m).

3. Ozark cavefish were not equally distributed in Logan

Cave, but were concentrated in the 230 m middle region.

This region was on~ large pool, confirming this as

preferred habitat. Only four adult cavefish were found

in the lower 365 m region. This may have been due to a

lack of pool habitat region, the presence of numerous

predatory banded sculpin and epigiel crayfish, or a

combination of both. This suggests two possible

recovery schemes for threatened Ozark cavefish:

elimination of cave-dwelling epigiel predators, and/or

construction of baffles to increase the pool/riffle

ratio in the upper and lower regions to increase

preferrable habitat. · 4<& 4. The mark/recapture method of population estimation is a I ! more infor.mat;ve census method for Ozark cavefish than visual observations. However, I believe both single and multiple population census methods failed to give an accurate population estimate, principally due to

fish movement into and out of the cave stream system. Predation could also play a role in the difficulty of obtaining an accurate population estimate due to the

long t~e frames for sampling efforts. s. Ozark cavefish exhibit rapid periods of growth, up to 20 mm (33 mm to 53 mm) in nine months . This brings into question .the previous age estimates of Ozark cavefish due to what was thought to be a vary slow growth rate. r believe that cavefish in 40 to SO mm

size classes may be no more than four and five years old. 6. I believe that Logan Cave has a healthy, reproducing population of Ozark cavefish, based upon the sighting& of juvenile cavefish in October of 1992. This is also based upon the general condition of the cavefish seen in the sampling runs and the high frequency of full

guts observed in the untagged and tagged cavefish. 7. Logan Cave stream has good water quality with the exception of a high fecal colifor.m count in the summer.

Present fecal colifor.m levels in Logan Cave stream do not apear to be negatively affecting the population of

L 45

Ozark cavefish.

8. Logan Cave has a discrete recharge system that rapidly

reflects water quality of the surface recharge streams as well as rainfall events. The present water quality

of Logan Cave stream is comparable to other Ozark

highland surface streams.

9. I found no significant impacts to the aquatic life

within Logan Cave stream due to the water quality of

the cave stre~ or the present land-use activities

within its recharge. However, high coliform counts

indicate heavy agricultural use of the watershed and

should be watched carefully, along with dissolved

oxygen that could also be affected by agricultural

materials. No information is available for lethal or

sublethal levels of coliform bacteria or dissolved

oxygen for Ozark cavefish. . 46

Ln'BRATURB C:ITBD r ~ I Aley, T. and C. Aley. 1979. P~evention of Adverse ~pacts on endangered, threatened and rare animal species in Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas. Phase 1. Ozark Underground Laboratory contract report to Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission, Protem, Missouri. r Aley, T. and c. Aley. 1987. Final Report: Water quality protection studies for Logan Cave, Arkansas. Ozark Underground Laboratory contract report to Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and u.s. Piah and Wildlife Service, 0 Protem, Missouri.

Barr, T. C. 1968. Cave ecology and the evolution of L troglobites. Evolutionary Biology 2:35-102. Barr, T. c. Jr. and R. A. Kuehne. 1971. Ecological studies in the Mammoth Cave system of Kentucky. II. The Ecosystem 26:47-96. Bennet, c., J. Giese, B. Keith, R. McDaniel, M. Maner, N. n O'Shaughnessy, and B. Singleton. 1987. Physical, chemical and biological characteristics of least­ disturbed reference streams in Arkansas' ecoregions. f) Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, vol. 1&2.

Berra, T. M. 1981. An Atlas of Distribution of the r: Freshwater Fish Families of the World. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. r ~ Biesinger, K. E. and G. M. Christensen. 1972. Effects of various metals on survival, growth and reproduction of Daphnia magna. Journal of Fisheries Research Board, Canada 29:1691-1700.

Brown, A. V. 1991. Status Survey of Amblyopsis rosae in Arkansas. A Final Report to the Endangered, Nongame &: Urban Wildlife Section of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. Burbanck, w. D., J. P. Edwards and M. P. Burbanck. 1948. · Toleration of lowered .oxygen tension by cave and stream crayfish. Ecology 29(3):360-367. u Cooper, J. E. and R. A. Kuehne. 1974. Speoplatyrbinus poulsoni, a new genus and species of subterranean fish from Alabama. Copia 1972:486-493. I~ 47

Curl, R. L. 1958 . A statistical theory of cave entrance evolution. Bulletin of the National Speleological Society 20:9-22.

Culver, D. C. 1982. Cave life: Evolution and Ecology. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts.

Dilamarter, R. R. and S. C. Csallany. 1977. Hydrologic Problems in Karst Regions. Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green.

Eigenmann, C. H. 1898. A new blind fish. Proceedings from Indiana Academy of Science (1897} :231.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency}. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, D.C.

European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. 1964. Water quality criteria for European freshwater fish. Report on finely divided solids and inland fisheries. Technical paper 1 .

Ford, J. 1992. Personal communication.

Haley, B. R. et al. 1976. Geologic map of Arkansas. Arkansas Geological Commission, Little Rock.

Hall, G. E. 1956. Additions of the fish fauna of Oklahoma with a summary of introduced species. Southwestern Naturalist 1(1} :16-26.

Haw, F., P. K. Bergman, R. D. Fralick, R. M. Buckley, and H. L. Blankenship. 1990. Visible implant fish tag. American Fisheries Society Symposium 7:311-315.

Hawes. R. S. 1939. The flood factor in the ecology of caves. Journal of the Anneles of Ecology 8(1) :1-5.

Hem, J. D. 1985. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water. United States Geological Survey water-supply paper 2254. Third Ed.

Heuts, M. J. 1951. Ecology, variation, and adaptation of the blind African cavefish Caecobarbus geertsi Blgr. Annual Society of Royal Zoology, Belgium 82(2) :155- 230.

Heuts, M. J. 1953. Comments on cave fish evolution. Evolution 7(4} :391-392. . 48

Holsinger, J. R. 1966. A preliminary study on the effects ~ ~ of organic pollution of Banners Corner Cave, Virginia. ~ International Journal of Speleology 2:75 ~89. Holsinger, J. R. 1988. troglobites: the evolution of cave dwelling organisms. American Scientist 76:147-153. c

Hurbert, K. 1993. Personal communication. Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980 et aeg. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. D Lagler, K. F. 1956. Freshwater fishery biology. Dubuque, [ Iowa. 261pp.

Margalef, R. 1968. Perspectives in ecological theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. c Mayden, R. L. and F. B. Cross. 1983. Reevaluation of Oklahoma records of the southern cavefish xypblicbtbys subterraneus Girard (Amblyopsidae) • Southwestern 0 Naturalist 28(4):471-473. McDaniel, v. R. and J . E. Gardner 1977. Cave fauna of c Arkansas: selected vertebrate taxa. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 31:68-71. [ McDaniel, J . R., K. A. Paige and c. R. Tumilson. 1979. Cave fauna of Arkansas : additional invertebrate and vertebrate records. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 33:84-85.

I Pflieger, W. L. ·1975. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson. I Pflieger, W. L. 1979. The spring cavefish, Chologaster agassizi, (Pisces: Amblyopsidae), in southeastern Missouri . American Midland Naturalist 102(1):194-196.

Poulson, T. L . 1961. Cave adaptation in amblyopsid fishes. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan. University 0 microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Poulson, T. L. 1963. Cave adaptation in amblyopsid fishes. 0 American Midland Naturalist 70:257-290. Poulson, T. L. 1972. Bat guano ecosystems. Bulletin of the National Speleological Society 34 : 55-59. L

I...... 49

Poulson, T. L. 1976. Management of biological resources in caves. Proceedings I. National Cave Management Symposium. Speleobooks, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Poulson, T. L. 1990. Developing a protocol for assessing groundwater quality using biotic indices in the Mammoth Cave region. Proceedings I. Mammoth Cave National Park Karst Conference. Mammoth Cave, Kentucky.

Poulson, T . L. 1991. Personal communication.

Poulson, T. L. and T.C. Kane. 1977. Ecological diversity and stability; principals and management. Proceedings II. National Cave Management Symposium Speleobooks, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board, Canada. 191: 382pp.

Robins, C. R., R. M. Bailey, C E. Bond, J. R. Brooker, E. A. Lacbner, R. N. Lea, and W. B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. 5th ed. American Fisheries Society, Bethessda, Maryland.

Robinson, H. W. and T. M. Buchanan. 1988. The Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville.

Shaffer, M. L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. Bioscience 31(2) :131-134.

Stickney, R. R. 1983. Care and handling of live fish. Pages 91-92 in L. A. Nielsen and D. L. Johnson eds. Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 468pp.

Tafanelli, R. and J. E. Russell. 1972. An extension of the range of the blind cavefish Amblyopsis rosae (Eigemann). Southwestern Naturalist 17(3) :310.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Title 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12.

Vandel, A. 1965. Biospeleology, the biology of caverniculous animals. (Translation from French) Pergamon Press, New York.

Vandike, J. E. 1982. The effects of the November 1981 liquid-fertilizer pipeline break on groundwater in Phelps County, Missouri. Water Resources Data and . so

Research, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey. Vandike, J . B. 1985. Hydrologic aspects of the November 0 1981 liquid-fertilizer pipeline break on groundwater in · the Maramec Spring recharge area, Phelps County, Missouri. Proceedings of the 1984 National Cave Management Symposium. Monthly Speleology 25:1-4. 0 Weise, J. G. 1957. The spring cavefish, Chologaster papilliferous, in Illinois. Ecology 38:196-204. Wiley, B. o. and D. R. Brooks. 1982. Victims of history-a 0 non-equilibrium approach to evolution • . Systematic Zoology 1-24. 0 Willis, L. D. and A. V. Brown. 1985. Distribution and habitat requirements of the Ozark cavefish, (Amblyopsis rosae). American Midland Naturalist 114(2) : 311-317. 0 Woods, L . P . and R. P. Inger. 1957. The cave, spring, and swamp fishes of the family Amblyopsidae of central and eastern United States. American Midland Naturalist 0 58:232-256. 0 c n rl I c 0 lJ u 51

FIGURE 1.-Map of Logan Cave stream showing the three

sampling regions. Regions were divided by habitat

classification: the lower region contained principly

riffle habitat, the middle region was dominated by a

single, large pool, and the upper region had both

riffle and pool habitat. - 52

n, f1 N 0

UPPER 685 m ( ~ [1 0 n c SINK HOLE~ n r~ {, 0 CAVE ENTRANCE 100 meters u L

,..J 53

FIGURE 2.-Length frequency of Ozark cavefish tagged in

Logan Cave stream from June 1992 to December 1992. . \

. 54 ~ c r. ~ [ 7

6 [ -is n u:: ...... o4 ::~.: ~::~;;::; ~: ;:: :~ • G) ~ ~~~[, j~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~;~;ii~; f• · · :::~;~\[@~j[:[P •~-- :·:·::"::: :::::ooc r ~3 c 2

\ I r· 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 Standard Length (mm) L l ~ lJ L 55

FIGURE 3.-Mark/recapture information for Ozark cavefish in

Logan Cave stream at two week sampling intervals for

the period between June 1992 to December 1992.

Cumulative total, numbers of tagged fish per sample,

number of fish collected per sample, and number of

untagged fish per sample were recorded for each

sampling effort. ·56

100~~------~ -- no. fish/coli. + # recap *new fish -o- cum. total

80

.c ii: 60 .... 0. z0 40

20

Date

I. 57

FIGURE 4.-Recapture frequency for individual Ozark

cavefish for eleven sample runs. 58

25~------~

20- ~· ·...

.c .!!! 15- ....u. N 75 0. 10- z~

5-

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nos. of Recaptures 59

FIGURE 5.-Total number of captures and recaptures of Ozark

cavefish in each region of Logan Cave stream. . 60

60 ~------~------~ D captures 50 • recaptures

-; 40 ·-u. 0. 30 0 0 z 20

10

Upper Middle Lower Regions 61

FIGURE 6.-Movement of Ozark cavefish in Logan Cave from

170 observed recaptures.

'. - 62

No Movement N = 170

Upstream

Downstream

No movement (±2m) 63

FIGURE ?.-Movements of Logan Cave Ozark cavefish by region

calculated from 170 observed recaptures. . 64

70 ~------~------. D u PSTREAM • DOWNSTREAM 60 .NONE

50 .c 0 -LL c;40 th llo. Q) ~30 z= 20

10

Upper Middle Lower .65

FIGURE 8.-Gross movement (summed movements of all

recorded recaptures of each fish) of 52 Logan Cave

Ozark cavefish. . 66

20 ~------.

.c:15 - 0 ·-u. ~ 0 10 -~ • tn 0 _.. _ .- z 5 -t- ~ __,. __

Distance {m) 67

FIGURE 9.-Movement of 42 Logan Cave Ozark cavefish based

on any two week interval. . 68

30 ~------~

25

.::::20 u:UJ 015 N = 42

5

0

Distance (m) 69

FIGURE 10.-Maximum movement of individual Logan Cave Ozark

cavefish from the original point of capture for six

months. . 70

25~------,

20

, .c l !! 15 I LL. -0. N =52 z~10

5

0

Distance (m) . 71

FIGURE 11.-Maximum movement of individual Logan Cave Ozark

cavefish over a six month period plotted against the

size of fish. . 72

300_ ~------~

250 -f-

-200-f­ E -C1) g 150-- cu ...... ;: r- ·-0 c 100-f- ;.-

I I i I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 Size (mm) 73

FIGURE 12.-Growth rates of nine Logan Cave Ozark cavefish

plotted over a 4 to 9 month period. . 74

25~------~ .-.. E 20 ·········· ·········· · · · ········ · ········· ·· ···· ·· ··· · ········+-· E .c... 15 ··························· ······································ en c (1) ..J 10 ···········-············ ·········· ...... : ...... ·;c ______.-- + ----+ Cl) 5 -...... -...... -.. -. ·-:-~-----<-- ...... ·+ .... . ca _,,_.,""""~ + (1) ·£,.=-'~ T ...L ~ ~~~~~~ i (,) - -__...---- .5 u- ~-;?-- ~------1

-5 . ~ rv~ t)t.~ ro~ ro~ "~~ "rv~ "t)t.~ "ro~ "ro~ rv~~ rvrv~ ~~ rvro~ rvtO~

Time {No. of days) .75

FIGURE 13.-Growth rates of 9 Logan Cave Ozark cavefish

plotted -against the size of the fish. . 76

Length Increase/Day 0.1 ~------~

0.08

0.06

0.04

+ 0.02 ...... +...... ~ ......

I T

o ~~--~~--~~~~~--~~--~--~ 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 Total Length (mm) 77

FIGURE 14.-Temperature profile for Logan Cave stream from

August 1991 to October 1992. Peaks and valleys are the

result of high precipitation events in summer and

winter. . 78

17 ~------~

16-

-(.) - - 1 5 - k· - ·...;-.,._ ...G) -...=ca G) c. p E 14- ..~ ·~~,"' ~

13-

Date (Month/Year) . 79

FIGURE 15.-Conductivity profile for Logan Cave stream from

August 1991 to October 1992. . so

~210 ·-> ·-..(,) ,= s160 0

Date (month/year) . 81

FIGURE 16 . -Dissolved oxygen (mg/1) profile for Logan Cave

stream from August 1991 to October 1992. . 82

10

....._ 9 -0) ._..E I"" c 8 Q) 0) >- )( · 7 0 "C Q) > 6 -0 UJ UJ ·c- 5

4 ~------~ ~.... ~OJ" ~" f:l" f.JtV fJtV ~OJtV ~tV ~tV ~tV \OJtV ~tV ~tV ~tV OJ "~ "" ....~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ (() ~ co OJ ,~

Date (Month/Year) 83

FIGURE 17.-Dissolved oxygen (percent saturation) profile

for Logan Cave stream form August 1991 to October 1992. . 84

100 -c 0 .., 90 ·-ca ..,a.. =ca fl) 80 ';fl. . 70 -~ )( 0 "C C1) 60 > -0 fl) fl) 50 ·-c

Date (Month/Year) ~...... ~~ .. ~.-·-..- .... · · ·~ ·- --.. -

. 85

FIGURE 18.-Rainfa11 for Logan Cave recharge area from

October 1991 to October 1992 and temperature for Logan

Cave stream plotted aganist time. SG

17 ~------~ 10

16 8 .- () .- E -f! 15 (,) ....::s - cu -ca '- ...c ~ 14 4 -ca E a: ~ 13 2

12 . . ... 0 ~" ~O:J" ~" ~~ ~rv ~rv firv fJrv firv ~rv ~rv firv ~rv ~rv ~ "() "" ,llf " llf n., ~ " ~ '\ co 0; "()

Date (Month/Year)

--Temperature + Rainfall !

87

FIGURE 19.-Rainfall for Logan Cave recharge area from

October 1991 to October 1992 and dissolved

oxygen (mg/1) for Logan Cave stream plotted against

time. 88

10 ~------~ 10 - -C) 9 8 --E -c 8 G,) -E C) 6 (J >- >< - 7 -C'CS 0 ~ c "C 4 G,) ·-C'CS > 6 a: 0 -tn tn 2 ·-c 5 4 ' . ' ' .... . 0 'fJ" 'fJ" \OJ" ~OJ" ~ft, ~OJft, ~ft, ~~ ~ft, ~ft, fJft, ~ft, ~OJ~~~ OJ "f:l "" "q_.: " q_.: ~ ~ " co ~ Date (Month/Year)

-- D.O. (mg/ 1) -: Rainfall ~..,_..._ ~ .AA --··-·•·~ .. j-... •- -·--

89

FIGURE 20.-Rainfall for Logan Cave recharge area from

October 1991 to October 1992 and conductivity for Logan

Cave stream plotted against time. 90

~------10

-E 260 8 ..._(,) en := -E 6 (,) -~210 - ·-> ....-ca ~ ·-(,) 4 c := ·-ca "C a: c 160 0 () 2

Date (Month/Year)

--Conductivity + Rainfall - ~-..-... ,..,..__, ____ ._.._I ...... __ -

. 91

FIGURE 21 . -August 1992 conductivity, phosphorous, fecal

coliform, nitrate, and alkalinity readings for Logan

Cave stream and Palmer and Galey/Hamilton streams

compared to August 1992 readings from selected Ozark

Highland streams. PA/GA represents reading for Palmer

and Galey/Hamilton Hollow streams. 92

Lopa Pa/Ga S.SpaY Fllat Lopa Pa/Ga Yocam Looc W.EcJ Klaas Oz:arlt IUcJaland strumJ O:tark blp!aad Jtl'eUIS

$~------, Total ploospboru (mlfl) 0.1r------,

O.ot ......

0.06 .••.•

O.Ol

0 ..r· ~·c,?~~ ~~ ~... ~·'" ~4~ ~·~ OD.rtt blp!aad ......

l'llospbonu (mc/1) 0.1.------,

l.oplo Pa/Ga S.Spe,. Jllat YOCIIIII Ozark blahl&aclotrums . 93

Table 1. -Statistical information for the water quality parameters of Logan Cave National Wildlife Refuge, Benton County Arkansas.

Statistic parameters Cond. (uS/em) D.O. (mg/1) Temp. (°C)

N 289.00 289.00 289.00

Minimum value 148.00 5.15 12.67

Maximum value 278.00 9.77 15.99

Mean 245.65 6.95 14.58

Median 255.00 6.72 14.75

Standard deviation 2 9 .08 1.21 0.66 . 94

Table 2.-Comparison of Logan Cave water quality against the surface recharge streams and EPA domestic water limits.

Stream N03-N P04-P COND. TOTAL-P NH3-N F.C. ALKAL. mg/1 mg/1 uS/em mg/1 mg/1 col/.11 mg/1 August 1992 Gal/Ham 3.62 0 .. 05 220 0.03 <0.10 38000 ----- Palmer 3.45 0.07 130 0.09 <0.10 32000 ----- Logan 1 4.06 0.01 160 0.05 <0.10 70000 ----- Logan 2 4.10 0.03 160 0.06 <0.10 42000 ----- Logan 3 4.01 0.01 155 0.05 <0.10 59000 -----

September 1992 Gal/Ham ----- Palmer ----- Logan 1 3.34 0.00 250 0.05 <0.10 500 104.0 Logan 2 3.33 0.00 245 0.02 <0.10 180 106.0 Logan 3 3.31 0.00 250 0.03 <0.10 18 106.0

October 1992 Gal/Ham ----- Palmer ----- Logan 1 3.11 0.00 255 0.07 0.01 12 5.3 Logan 2 3.11 0.00 260 0.05 0.02 19 5.8 Logan 3 3.10 0.01 260 0.03 0.02 1 5.7

November 1992

Gal/Ham 5.25 0.04 185 0.04 0.01 9 3.3 Palmer 3.54 0.05 110 0.07 0.01 55 1.7 Logan 1 5.08 0.04 140 0.04 0.01 9 2.0 Logan 2 5.07 0.02 140 0.03 0.01 24 2.0 Logan 3 5.08 0.03 140 0.63 0.01 2 2.1

EPA Limits 10 0.10 0.02 200 20.0 .- -..... ---.--4··--··--...,;----·------·--··I

95

Table 3.--Heavy Metal water sample results from January and July 1992 compared to EPA limits for freshwater aquatic life or domestic water supplies(*).

Analyte January July EPA Limits (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (EPA 1976)

Aluminum .041 .025 ----- Arsenic <.005 <.001 0.05*

Barium .052 .047 1.00*

Beryllium <.000 <.001 1 . 10

Boron .117 .047 0.75*

Cadmium <.002 <.001 0.01

Chromium <.003 <.002 0.10

Copper <.003 .002 1.00*

Iron .044 .031 1.00

Lead .013 <.010 0.05*

Manganese .003 .002 0.05*

Mercury <.000 <.000 0.00005

Nickel <.003 <.002 1.00

Selenium .001 .001 0.01*

Zinc <.005 .015 5.00* - 96 Table 4 . -0rganochlorine sediment analysis for Logan Cave stream for April of 1992 and EPA contract lab detection limits for each compound. LC-1 is the Logan Cave entrance sample and LC-2 is the Logan Cave sink hole sample.

Compound LC-1 LC-2 Detection Limit (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

HBC ND ND 0.017

PCB's (total) ND ND 0.173 a-BHC ND ND 0.017 a-Chlordane ND ND 0.017

B-BHC ND ND 0.017

Dieldrin ND ND 0.017

Endrine ND ND 0.017 r-BHC ND ND 0.017 r-Chlordane ND ND 0.017

Hept. Epox. ND ND 0.017

Mirex ND ND 0.017 o, p' -DDD ND ND 0.017 o,p' -DDE ND ND 0.017 o, p' -DDT ND ND 0.017

Oxychlordane ND ND 0.017 p,p' -DDD ND ND 0.017 p, p' -DDE ND ND 0.017 p, p' -DDT ND ND 0.017

Toxaphene ND ND 0.173

trans-nonachlor ND ND 0.017

ND = None Detected l ... .. - •

- 97

APPENDIX A

Preliminary tagging information of Fundulus

olivaceus and Phoxinus eurythrogastor. - 98 Fundulus olivaceus information:

~ Position Length {mm} Mortality Tag ret.--30 days 00 abdominal 57 None present 01 abdominal 68 None absent 02 abdominal 74 None absent 03 abdonimal 77 None present 05 abdominal 75 None absent 06 nape 71 None 3.bsent 08 nape 65 None present - 09 nape 74 None absent 10 nape 62 None absent 11 nape 64 None absent 12 nape 67 None absent 13 caud ped 66 None absent 14 abdominal 78 None absent 15 caud ped 65 None present 16 caud ped 65 None present 17 caud ped 71 None absent 19 caud ped 67 None present 20 caud ped 76 None present

Phoxinus eurytbrogaster information:

~ Position Length {mm} Mortality .Tag ret.--30 days 21 caud ped 60 None present 22 caud ped 58 None present 23 caud ped 61 None absent 24 caud ped 50 None absent 25 caud ped 51 None absent 26 caud ped 51 None absent 27 caud ped 55 None absent 28 caud ped 63 None present 29 caud ped 57 None absent 30 caud ped 45 None absent 31 caud ped 53 None absent 32 caud ped 62 None absent 33 caud ped 47 None present 34 caud ped 65 None absent 35 caud ped 60 None present 36 caud ped 56 None present 37 caud ped 51 None present 38 caud ped 43 None absent 39 caud ped 49 None present 40 caud ped 57 None absent . ·-l. ----

99

APPENDIX B

Mark/recapture, length, location, and substrate

infor-mation for Ozark cavefish in Logan Cave. R = rock substrate, S = silt substrate, ABPL represents above pool (upper) region and BLPL

represents the below pool (lower) region of Logan Cave stream. (mm) = total length. 100

~ (mm) Date Local/Sub. Recap.Date/Local./Move Sub.

00 56 7/2 Pool( 16m), s 7/15, Pool( 87m),+71 R/S 8/12, Pool( 32m),-SS s 9/9, Pool( 80m),+48 s ..... 9/23, Pool(203m},+l23 s 10/7, Pool(215m),+l2 R 10/22, Pool(217m),+2 R 12/03, Pool( 24m),-193 s 01 37 7/2 Pool( 6Sm},R/S 7/15, Pool( 44m},-21 s 8/12, Pool( 34m},-10 s 9/23, Pool(204m},+l70 s 02 49 7/2 Pool(l76m), s 7/15, Pool( 28m},-148 s 04 35 7/2 Pool(l90m}, R 7/15, Pool(l8lm),-9 s

OS 43 7/2 Pool(203m), R 7/15, Poo1(20Sm},+2 R

06 so 7/2 ABPL(S20m}, s 7/15, ABPL(28lm},-239 R 8/12, Poo1(150m),-36l R

08 41 7/2 ABPL(650m), R 7/15, ABPL(637m),-13 R/S

09 33 7/2 ABPL(690m), R 10 46 7/15 Pool( 10m), s 9/9, Pool(l34m),+124 s 9/23, Pool(21Sm),+81 R ll 37 7/15 Pool(l42m), R 8/12, Pool{ 77m),-65 R/S 9/9, Pool( 85m),+8 s 9/23, Pool(l50m),+65 s ll/19, Pool{ll2m),-38 R/S

12 36 6/15 Pool(l30m),*** 7/15, Pool{l42m),+l2 R **-8 was retagged with 12 tag** 8/12, Pool.{l36m), -6 s 9/9, Pool(l74m),+38 s

13 34 7/15 Pool(l97m), R

14 32 7/15 Pool(198m),R/S 9/9, Pool(199m),+l s 9/23, Pool(193m),-6 R 10/7, Pool{l99m),+6 s

15 42 7/15 Pool(198m),R/S 8/12, Pool{20Sm),+7 R/S 9/9, Pool{208m),+3 R 11/05, Pool{208m),O s 12/03, Pool(l96m),-14 s ..... l .. ·• ...... ~

1.01

~ (mm) Date Local/Sub. Recap.Date/Local./Move Sub.

16 31 7/15 Pool(214m),R/S 9/23, Pool(172m),-42 s 10/7, Pool(l82m),+10 R 10/22, Pool(186m),+4 R 11/19, Pool(l92m),+6 s

17 36 7/15 Pool(221m),R/S

18 41 7/15 ABPL ( 31m) I R 8/12, Pool(20lm),-60 s 9/9, Pool( 49m),-152 s , ...... 19 32 7/15 ABPL(402m), R

20 35 7/15 ABPL(Sl2m), R 9/23, ABPL(409m),-103 s 12/03, ABPL(410m),+l. s

21 45 7/l.S ABP1.(512m), R 8/12, ABPL(409m),-l.03 s 9/9, ABPL{409m), 0 s 10/7, ABPL{409m), 0 s 10/22, ABPL(397m),-12 s

I, 22 38 8/1.2 Pool{ 12m), s 9/9, Pool{ llm),-1 s

24 35 8/12 Pool{ l.SM), s 9/9, Pool{ 3lm),+16 s 9/23, Pool{ 27m),-4 s 10/7, Pool{ 29m),+2 s l.0/22, Pool( 43m),+l.4 s l.l/05, Pool( 56m),+l3 s 12/03, Pool( 34m),-22 s

25 43 6/15 Pool{ 80m), R 7/2, Pool{ 85m),+S R **-1 was retagged with #25 7/15, Pool( 37m),-48 R/S 8/12, Pool{ 18m),-19 s 9/9, Pool{ 39m),+21 s 9/23, Pool{l51m},+l.l2 R/S 11/05, Pool{215m},+64 R 12/03 , Pool{ 69m),-146 R

26 52 8/12 Pool{ 33m}, s 9/23, Pool{ 7m},-26 R/S 10/7, Pool{190m}.+l83 · R/S 10/22, Pool{ 95m),-95 R 11/19, Pool{l5lm),+l.06 s 27 46 6/15 Pool{21Sm), s 8/12, Pool{ Sl.m},+41 s **#75 was retagged with #27** 9/9, Pool{ 98m),+47 R 9/23, Pool( 72m),-26 s l.0/22, Pool(l0lm),+29 s 11/19, Pool{ll7m),+16 s 12/03, Pool{ 79m},-98 s 102

~ (mm) Date Local/Sub. Recap.Date/Local./Move Sub.

28 47 8/12 Pool{222m), R 9/9, Pool( 11m),-211 s 9/23, Pool(l77m),+l66 s 10/22, Pool(ll6m),-61 s 11/05, Pool( 57m),-59 s 12/03, Pool{152m),+95 R/S

30 35 8/12 Pool{218m),R/S 9/9, Pool(218m), 0 R 9/23, Pool(212m),-6 R

35 36 10/22 Poo1(150m), s

37 ** 10/22 Pool(101m), s 11/05, Poo1(136m),+35 s

39 40 9/9 Pool(218m), R 9/23, Pool(218m), 0 R **10/7 length 41mm** 10/7, Pool(219m),+1 R 10/22, Pool(219m), 0 R 11/05, Pool(17Sm),-44 R 11/19, Pool{ 13m),-162 s

46 60 8/26 ABPL ( 63Sm) , s 9/23, ABPL{410m),-225 s 10/7, ABPL(40Sm),-S R 10/22, ABPL{408m),+3 s

47 65 8/26 ABPL{694m), s 9/23, ABPL(232m),-462 R 10/22, ABPL(21Sm),-17 R 11/05, Pool(174m),-271 s 11/19, Pool{ 24m),-150 s 12/03, Pool{ 18m),-6 s

49 42 9/9 BLPL(260m), R so 43 9/9 Pool( 17m), s 9/23, Pool( 82m),+65 s 10/7, Pool( 26m),-56 s 10/22, Pool{17Sm),+149 s 11/05, Pool( 34m),-141 s 11/19, Pool( 37m),+3 s 12/03, Pool( 46m)+11 R/S

51 so 9/9 ABPL{409m), s 10/22, ABPL(400m),-9 R 11/05, ABPL(108m),-292 s 11/19, ABPL(39Sm),+287 s

52 45 7/2 ABPL{600m), s 8/12, Poo1{153m),-677 R **07 was retagged with #52 9/9, Pool(218m),+65 R 9/23, Pool ( 9m),-209 s 10/7, Pool( 12m),+3 s 10/22, Pool( 43m),+31 s

53 42 9/23 Pool(170m),R/S 103

Tag# (mm) Date Local/Sub. Recap.Date/Local./Move Sub.

54 40 9/23 Pool(173m), s 10/7, Pool(176m),+3 s

55 38 9/23 ABPL (696m), R 10/7, ABPL(423m),-273 R

56 40 10/7 BLPL( Om), S

58 41 10/7 BLPL(l88m), R

59 39 10/22 ABPL( 77m), R

60 42 10/7 BLPL(265m), R 10/22, BLPL(265m), 0 R 12/03, Pool(119m),+219 s

61 42 10/22 Pool(187m), s

62 32 10/7 Pool( 17m), S 63 45 11/05 Pool( 13m), s 11/19, Pool ( 8m), -5 s 12/03, Pool ( 31m),+23 s

64 52 10/22 ABPL (597m) , s 11/05, ABPL(520m),-77 R 12/03, Pool( 84m),-666 R

65 49 10/7 ABPL(665m), R

67 40 11/05 Pool( 20m), s 68 47 11/05 Pool( 28m), s 11/19, Pool( 69m),+41 R/S

69 38 6/15 Pool(163m),R/S 7/2, Pool(173m),+10 s 7/15, Pool(171m),-2 R/S 9/9, Pool( 54m),-117 s 9/23, Pool{166m),+108 s 10/7, Pool(170m),+4 s 10/22, Pool(155m),-15 R

70 53 6/15• Pool( 40m), s

M71 40 11/05 Pool{ 97m), R

72 33 6/15 Pool(175m), R

73 34 6/15 Pool(150m), R 7/2, Pool(150m), 0 R 8/12, Pool(216m),+66 s 9/9, Pool(217m),+l R/S 9/23, Pool(218m),+l R 10/7, Pool(218m),O R 11/19, Pool(212m),-6 R

M73 50 11/05 Pool(104m), R 104

~ (mm) Date Local/Sub. Recap.Date/Local./Move Sub.

74 35 6/15 Pool( 10m), s 7/2, Pool( 40m),+30 s 7/15, Pool( 20m),-20 s 9/23, Pool(151m),+129 R/S 10/7, Pool(190m),+39 s 10/22, Pool(218m),+28 R 11/05, Pool(215m),-3 R

M74 37 11/05 ABPL ( 656m) , R 12/03, ABPL(409m),-245 s

M75 38 11/19 Pool ( 7m), s

76 37 6/15 Pool(123m), R 7/2, Pool( 17m),-106 s 8/12, Pool( 63m),+46 R/S

M76 52 11/19 ABPL (693m), s

77 42 6/15 Pool ( 75m), R

M77 48 12/03 Pool( 11m), s

M78 44 12/03 Pool( 24m), s

M79 45 12/03 PooL( 54m), s

M80 49 12/03 Pool(178m), s

M81 44 12/03 Pool(217m), R

80 32 6/15 Pool(130m), R 7/2, Pool(138m),+8 R/S 8/12, Pool( 85m),-53 s 9/9, Pool(132m),+43 R/S 9/23, Pool(114m),-18 R/S 11/05, Pool(193m),+79 s 11/19, Pool(135m),-58 s

82 38 6/15 Pool(175m),R/S 10/7, Pool( 9m),-166 s 12/03, Pool(187m),+178 R

83 38 6/15 Pool( 25m), s

84 52 6/15 Pool( 35m), s 7/15, Pool( 37m),+2 s **10/7 length 57mm** 8/12, Pool( 38m),+1 s 10/7, Pool(218M),+180 R 11/05, Pool( 62m),-156 s

85 36 6/15 ABPL(410m), s 8/12, Pool(134m),-506 R

87 45 6/15 Pool( 45m), s 7/15, Pool( 10m),-35 s 10/22, Pool(108m),+36 R 105

~ (mm) Date Local/Sub. Recap.Date/Local./Move Sub.

88 52 6/15 Pool( 65m), R

89 40 6/15 Pool( 20m), s 7/2, Pool( 40m),+20 s 7/15, Pool( 45m),+5 s 8/12, Pool( 50m),+5 s

90 40 6/15 Pool( 57m), s

91 31 6/15 Pool( 70m),R/S 7/15, Pool( 65m),-5 R/S 8/12, Pool( 71m),+6 R/S 9/23, Pool( 86m),+15 R/S 10/7, Pool(105m),+19 s

93 52 6/15 Pool(135m),R/S 7/2, Pool( 16m),-119 s 7/15, Pool(221m),+205 R/S

94 43 6/15 Pool(193m),R/S 7/2, Pool(193m), 0 R/S 7/15, Pool(192m),-1 R

95 33 6/15 Pool( 55m), s 7/2, Pool( 55m), 0 s 7/15, Pool( 47m),-8 s 8/12, Pool{ 60m),+13 s 9/9, Pool( 47m),-13 s 10/22 , Pool( 55m),+8 s 11/05, Pool( 13m),-42 s 11/19, Pool( 46m),+33 s 12/03, Pool( 35m),-11 s

96 42 6/15 ABPL(640m),R/S 7/2, ABPL{410m),-230 R 7/15, ABPL{409m),-1 s 8/12, Pool(179m),-460 R/S 106 APPENDIX C

Heavy metal hard data for Logan Cave

National Wildlife Refuge. HAZLETON LOBORAlORIES OMEkiCO, INC. ~:'101 K\ro!".tllttlo E:lvd. Madl5on, Ul 5'704 608-741-4471 w2393

REPORT or ONALY~JS

r~tuxent Analyt\cal Control facility c~talog tt 0627 U.S. F\~h ~rod Ulldltfe Service Purclra:r.e Order tl 85930-2-067.7 Pnfywent U\1d11fe Re~~arch Cenl~r c~tct. It "' Ldurel, MO 20708 Contract tl 14-16-0009-91-011 D~te Entered• 01/29/92 Ot tn • .John Moore o.,t 1.':' f'r In ted I 06/08/9 2 Aro

J...Q!LJ!.P.l!)___ ~rup I!: 10 Matrix ~ (1.:01 j!ill!l I ORYl .L!ULJI

1 . LC-151 ss I 2~·00. 00 l!i022.79 3. 16 20104(1117 7. LC-251 ss 16200. <•O 7.7045.07 ..... 17 201040411 3. LC-lloll 110 .041 tlA .020 2010110!i3 tr. LC-2UJ un ''• .020 NO .0;>(1 7.0 l 0111}!>·'\

Pt~tv,.ent Aoalytlcal Control r~rcl 1 lty Cat~r log t1 :'1246 Purcloa;.e Order II 858;'10-2-;1246 U.S. fl:.lo end Ullo~llfe Service Pnt•rwent lllldllfe Re~earch Center Batch II II• 4N07 . Contract II 14-16-0009-87-007 laurel, MD 20709 Date f.ntered• 07/10/92 Ottn• John Moore Oatt! l'r \ntc•l• 09/28/92 nro~rlyte• ALUMINUM

[t[tffi ( !lll..l r±r'l,____{_Q&.ll UllL.. ~~- l..flJUI. s.~IJIU.c:..J o. 5.75 20701574 I. ss 10600.00 24:'167.02 I.C-151 5.76 20701575 7.. LC-25 I ss 9160.00 21105.99 UA .025 HA .020 20701500 3. Lt-liJJ 207015.81 II. LC-2111 110 .039 HA .020 .020 2070;'1728 !i. UH:IIOlER IIA .59;'1 HA

' I (X) 0 ri

Hn /L f TON LABO~A l ORJ£ 5 AMfW IC n, IN C. 3'01 K ln ~mon 8 1v~ . M e di~o n, Ul 537 0 4 609-24 1- 4471 ~ 2~93

~ErO~T OF ANALYSIS

r~tu~ent An~lytlcal Control Facility Cata loq It 06'J.7 I' U.S. F I ~•· and '" ld 11 f~ ServIce rurcha;e Orrler ~ 8~030-2 - ~6 2 7 r~tUM~nt Ulldllf~ Research Center Batch It ~· li'IIHel, MD 70708 Corolract t1 14·· 16· 0009· 91· OJ 1 0fttr Enter~d• 01/7.9/97. Attn• Jot\n Moore Oat~ Prlnt~rl• 06/0U/92 Anolyte• ARSENIC

C!.£!_rr,_ _ tlA.tJ: .11! (J!llJ ~.m CORY) lJ!D__r!.f~L--- .l~(l_ jl

I . I C- 151 ss 10 . 70 I 7. 91 .63 7 0104Bii7 'I. LC-251 55 3.20 ~-'~ .03 20104H4!l 3. LC-11.11 LIA < . 00~· NA .005 :?Ot04fl~,;, 4 . lC - 21.11 I.IA < . 005 NA . 005 201040~"

retuMent Analytical Control Facility Catalog II 3246 U. S . rl~h end Lllldllfe Service rurcha;e Order II 95930-2-,246 r~tuwent U\ldl\fe Re5earctl Center Batch II II• 4N07 laurel, MD 20709 Contract II 14-16·0009-87- 007 Dote Entered• 07/10/92 Attn• John Moore Oat~ rrlnted• 09/29/92 Anelyte• ARSENIC

I r,.,, llroto h: 1 p Motr h P'•m OlE I '''''n rpRYI LPP L.1llL..Jl 1 . LC-151 ss 6.00 1, . 79 .23 20701574 2 . LC-251 ss 6 . .50 14.99 .23 20701575 '· LC-JUI UA < . 001 NA .001 20701590 4 . LC-21.11 I.IA < .001 NA .001 20701581 5. LREli.IAHR UA .030 NR .001 20703728 0\ 0 r-f

IHllUTON UIIWfiOlO~ll.!i AMI: filCA, INC. 3301 Kln!:·lo'lllro ~Jlvd . Modl!.on, WI 53704 600-241 - 4471 x2393

REPOfiT OF ANALYSIS

ratux~nt Analytical Control F~c\1\ty · Cot a 1og t1 0627 U.S. fl5h end Wlldllf~ Service Purcho~c Order N S~830-2-06Z7 r~tu x~nt Wildlife Rc~eorch Cent~r El<1tch tl II• l<'lurel, MD 20700 Contract U 14-16-0009-91- 011 Date [ntercd• 01/29/92 Ottn• John Moore Oatr rrlnt~rl• 06/08/97 Onolyt~• EARIIJ11

~- ~ wr!.l(t _ JJ! tl!U.t:..l~ f!l~·~J.!l I!J!l!l___ {~ Ul.!LJ!.l!!!!____ L!lC •.U 1 . I.C·· l SI ss 77.. 20 91.39 .63 2010401\7 2. I.C - 251 ss 101.00 161).61 .03 201040fo0 3 . LC - 1Ul un . o~,'] ,, . Nn .004 20101\Et~, ;l I. 1: -l.U I un .0~0 lln . 004 20104A'>4

ratooxent Analytical Control Facility Catalo9 II 3~46 U.S. fl,_t, arod lllldllfe Service rurcha,_e Order II 95930-2-,246 r~tuwent ll~ldllfe Research Center Botch II •• 4N07 laurel, MO 20709 Contract • 14-16-0009-97-007 Date Entered• 07110192 Attn• John Moore Oatr. rrlnted• 09/28192 Anelyt~• BARIUM

~-"'"" I c I 1)./ Motr!x p"!!l !UETl N•!O fQRYl LOP P[•ID l.B..&._l · 1. LC-151 ss 95. I 0 218.62 I. J 5 20701574 2. Ll:-251 ss 74.40 171 . 4' I. 15 20701575 3. LC-1U1 UA .047 NA .004 20701580 4. Ll:-2111 IIA .045 NA .004 20701581 5. LAEJLIOTER IIA .563 NA .004 20703728 0 rl .-i HA7l.HON UIOOf\AlOIO[S AMUllCA, li~C. 'i:iOl Kln~.mlln ~:h•ol. M~dl~on, ~~ 53704 608-741-4471 ~7393

RCPORT OF ANALYSIS

r~tuKent Analytic~! Control Facility C~t.~io~ II 0617 U.S. rlsh and U\ldl\(~ Service l'urcha~c Orrl~r ft 85830-2-0677 FatuKent ~lldllfe Rese~rrh Cent~r C~tch t1 N• Lburf'l , MO 20708 Co~ttroc I, U I 4- I 1.> ·· 0009-9 I -I) I I Oate E11ter~d• 01/29/92 Attn• John Moore 0.'\to• f'r \nt:c-d r 06/00/Y7. Orottl y te 1 U£ RYll J UM

(!!!.l(t____.{_~.. l.U J:!J.! [ii___ JJl.R.'O. Lc.tJLJ!J!!Jl ___ !JHI . II

1. 1.[ '':1 ss 1. 04 l.!'IZ .06 20104841 2. lt . .d ss 1 . 37 2.19 . 00 201040/tA 3. LC-IIJJ ~n < .001 NA .001 20104W>3 4. LC-2~ 1 ~A .-: .001 NA . 001 201(\ldjo.;ll

P~tuxent Analytical Control Facility Cotolo•1 II '246 U.S. Fish and Ulldllfe Service rurcho;e Order II 85830-2-,246 P~tvx~nt Ylldllfe Re~earch Center Botch II II• 4N07 lfturel, MD 20708 Contract II 14-1 6-0009-87-007 Dote Entered• 07/10/92 Attn• John Moore Oat~ Printed• 09/20/92 Anelyte• aERYLLJUM

.SA!!t.Rie 10 Motrlx "[I(Q !IIEJ) t•Prn !ORO LOP pt•m .L..aLJt

1. LC-151 ss 1 . 10 2.5, . 11 20701~74 2. LC-251 ss 1. 08 2.49 .12 20701575 3. LC-1YJ YA < .000 NA .000 20701580 4. LC-2111 IIA < .000 NA .000 20701581 5. LiH:IIATER: UA . 01:1 NA .000 20703728 .-i .-i ~ HAZlflON LACORAlORJ[S OM ERltn, INC. 3301 Kinsffi~n Blvd . Mndl ~. on, loll 53704 60 8 -241 - 4471 x23 93

RErORT OF ANOLYSIS

r fttUMent Annlytlcol Control Facility Cotolog t1 0627 U. S. Fish and IJildllfe Service Purclra!".e Order t1 85830- 2-0627 r~tuxent IJildllfc Research Center Botch ft tl• laurel. MD 20708 Contract ~ 14- 16-0009-91 - 011 Date Entered• 01129192 Attn• John Moore Date rrlnt~d• 06/08/92 Analyte• BORON

Motrlx ['[•10) CIJE.ll llf•l CORY l LOO ''P"' 1JlfLtl

1. LC - 151 ss 6 . ~9 0.34 1 . 27 20104(147 2. LC-251 ss 12.40 20.70 1. 67 20104848 3. LC - 11Jl IJA .047 NA .008 2010405:-J 4 . LC - 21JI IJA .026 NO . 001) 201040<;4

rntuMent Anelytl~ol Control Facility Cettllog 41 3246 rurcloese Order 41 85830-2 .. 321\t. u.S. Fish end Ulldllfe Service &etch M II• 4H07 r~tu~ent IJildllfe Research Center Contract H 14-16-0009-87- 007 laurel, MD 20708 Dote Entered• 07/10/92 Detr rr lrot.c•l• 09/29/92 Attn• John Moore Oroelyte• E\OROH 0/ETl CDRXl LOP pc•m J..AIL.Jl .s..a_r~cl.J:_J. P. Matrix ""m ""'" 2.:'10 20701574 55 ,,71 8.!i3 I. LC-151 }.29 2,,0 20701575 7. . LC-251 55 1.43 20701580 .117 NA .008 :'1. LC-11JI IJA .008 20701501 lolA .072 HA 4 . LC-2UI . HA .008 2070:'1720 5 . LAE:UATER UA .086

-, N ~ n HAZLETON LABORATORIES AMERICA, INC. :'1:'101 Kln~m~n Blvd. M~dl~on, UI 53704 v ' 608-241-4471 x2J93

REPORT OF ANALYSIS

Pntyxent Analytical Controi Facility C

~ll.l~ MotriK fU>...m__O!.E_U. ppm fDBYl L_QJL_p..J)._rn___ l...OELit. 1. LC-1SI ss 1. 03 1 . 30 .19 20104047 ?. • LC-25 I ss 1.22 2.04 .25 20 l 041}1\8 :'1. LC-11.11 LIA < .002 NA .002 20104053 ,._ LC-2UI wn < .002 NA .002 201041154

r~tvxent Analytlc~l Control Foclllty Catalog t1 H46 U.S. Ft~h · o~d ~lldllfe Service rurcho;e Ord~r M 85830-2-3246 rnt~xent Lllldllfe Re~earch Center Batch II. II• 4N07 l.n•Jrel, MD 20709 Controct II 14-16-0009-07-007 Dnte Entered• 07110192 Attn• John Moore Dot~ rrl~t~~· 09/20/92 A~alyte• CAOMIUM

,S.ru'l.t!..l.s:_lD. flAllJJt [t[tOO l IJETl JUt!O lORYl LOP (t[t(Q .L.B..£Ltt

1 . t.C-151 ss .56 1. 29 20701!i74 2. LC-2SI ss I. 08 2.49 ·"',,5 20701575 LC-1\JJ IJA < .001 HA . 001 20701500 4.'· lC-21J1 LIA < .001 HA .001 20701501 5. LABIJAlER IJA .014 HA .001 20703728 ('I')...... HAZLETON LABORATORIES AMERICA, INC. 3~01 Kln~mdn D1ud. ·n;,d I '5on, UI 53704 609-241-4471 x2393

REPORT OF ONOLYSIS

Patuwent An~lytlc~l Control Foclllty c~t.ilog It 0627 U.S. Fish ~n~ Wildlife Service Purchase Order # 858,0-2-0627 P~tuxent Ulldllfe Re'5e~rch C~nter Batch It #• L.s•Jre 1, MD 20708 Contrnct N 14-16-0009-91-011 Date Entere~• 01/29/92 Attn• John ~oore Date Printed• 06/08/92 An.slyte• CHROMIUM

,S,§rt~JU.e I P Ms2tr!x ~pm CWEil ~[tDl CORY! LOD [tQ(f,L_____ L.(lC. .Jt . l. LC-lSl 55 11 . 00 ., . 92 .)2 20104841 'l. Lf.-251 ss 15.40 25.71 .42 20104U4£l 3. LC-1WI UA < .003 NA .003 7.01048!iJ A. LC -21oll un < .003 NO .OOJ 7.01040~1\

rotYKent Anolytlc.sl Control Foclllty Cotalog · ll '246 U.S. Fl~h o~d Wildlife Service Pvrct•O!·e· Order tt 8!i830-2-J246 r~tu•ent lllldllfe Research Center Batch tt II• 4H07 lt~oHel , MD 20709 Co~troct tt 14-16-0009-97-007 Oat~ Entered• 07/10/92 nttn• John Moore .Dott• rr lntcd• 09/28/?2 Aronlyte• CHROMIUM ' I .S~Jill!.l.J: IQ tlUL.l.x .P.J>Jn OlE! l ~__J..QB.ll LOP [t [!Dl

I. LC-151 55 10. 10 23.22 .~7 20701574 2. LC-751 ss 7.81 18.00 .sa 7.0701!>75 3. LC-HII IIA < .002 HA ,002 20701590 4. LC.-2111 IIA < .002 HA .002 20701501 ~. LAE:IIOHR IIA 1. ~20 HA .002 207037:{0

--. HnZLF.TON LACO~ATORIES AMERICn, INC. Jl01 Klnsmon elud. Madison, WI 53704 ~Gd-241-4471 ~239}

RF.PORT OF ANALYSIS

PiltvK~nt Anolytlcol Control Facl I lty Cot a I o •l It 0 6 2 7 U.S. F\!.t. onli Ulldllfe Service Purc~a~e Order » 85R30-2-0627 Pntv~cnt U\ldl\fe Re~earch Center Batch It It• LoOJrel, MD 20708 C~ntract It 14-1 6 - 0009-91 - 011 Dote Entered• 01/29/92 Attn• John Moore Date Printed• 06/00/92 Anolyte• COPPER

~.W!J... ._L~.E.li pN!) (DRY). l..OJL_~r· l.!ltL.It 1 . LC-151 ss 8. 16 10.33 . 32 201 04(M7 l. LC-251 ss 13.30 22.20 .42 20104848 3. LC-1UI lolA < . oo :~ NA .OOJ 20104053 4 . LC-21H lolA < .003 NA . 00.1 20104R'>4

Patv~ent Analytical Control Facility Cat a log II H46 Purcho~e Order II 85830-2-3246 U.S. Fl~h and Wildlife Service PotuKent Wildlife Re~earch Center Botch II II• 4ti07 laurel, MD 20708 Contract II 14-16-0009-87-007 Dote Entered• 07/10/92 Attn• John Moore Dote Printed• 09/28/92 Anolyte• COPPER ppm 1..ftfL1I. Sample 10 ppm I WEll ppm I PRYl LOP 18.00 41. '8 .57 20701574 1. LC-151 ss .58 20701575 2. LC-251 ss 9.22 21.24 tiA .002 20701580 3. LC-1&11 WA .002 20701581 IIA < .002 NA .002 4. LC-2WJ .002 20703728 5. LAB WATER IIA 1.900 HA IIAZLI:.TON UlEJORATORIE.S AMERICA, INC. '101 Klnsm~n Clud . M<1o:l i.~on, U I 53704 9~0 - 241 - 4471 xZ39J

REPORT OF ANALYSIS

P~t~xent Analytlcdl Control Facility Catalog It 0627 U. S. Fish and Ulldllfe Service Purchd$e Order It 85830-2-0627 P~.t t. •Jxerot lolll·flll'e Re'5eo!lrch Center Batch It It• La~r(' I, MO 20708 Contro!lct It 14-16-0009-?1-011 0fttc Entered• 01/29/?2 Attn• John Moore Date Printed• 0~/08/92 Anolyte• IRON

~(/!!! !WE!l "''to"! l.lllill 1...!1.0 ppm .k.A.Il .• lt. 1 . I. C.·l S I ss 10~00.00 U291. 14 '. 16 20104047 2. LC-7.51 ss 26600.00 44407.34 4. 17 20104040 3. LC-IIU UA .044 NA .020 20104£1~; :s ll. u:-7.UI U{l .029 NA .020 7.0104054

Patv•ent Analytical Control Facility Cat a log tl H46 U. S . Fl~h end Vlldllfe Service Pvrche~e Order tl 05830-2-3246 Potu•ent Wildlife Re~eorch Center Botch t1 tl• 4H07 Lourel, MD 20708 Contract t1 14-16-0009-87-007 Dote Entered• 07/10/92 Attn• John Moore Dote Printed• 09/28/92 Anelyte• IRON LOO ppm ~[!lc: lP Motrlx ppm !VEil ppm IDRYI L...BJLJt 5.75 20701574 1. LC-lSI ss 14000.00 H18,.91 10700.00 24654.38 5.76 20701!>75 2. LC-2SI ss 20701!>80 3. lC-lWI IIA .OH HA .020 .052 HA .020 20701581 4. LC-2WI IIA 20703728 !>. LABWATER IIA .H5 HA .020 -·

\0 M '" Hr."ll. f.TON l.A&ORIHORf£5 AMERtCn, INC. ''01 Kln~man Blurl . M~dl~on, Wt 53704 608 - 241-4471 w2J?l

kEPORT Of ANALY~lS

Patywent Andlytlcal Control facility Catoloq II O~Zl U . S . fl!-h anrl Wildlife Service Purch~;e Order # 85010- 2-0621 Pdtuwent Wildlife Res~~rch C~nt~r Botch It #• l ct•Jre I, MO 20708 Contract It 14-16-000'>-? l··(ll.l D~te Entererl: 01/2?/92 Attn• John Moor~ 0-'l:r! Print<:>•l• 0~/0fi/92 n,, "' 1 v t I': • L F.: A0

s. 4 '1' ~.l..c. JJl r- rwL __ _J I.!.EI.l. P..S:!!''-·--~.lO.B.YJ . l...OJL..J!~.~!,.• - · -··- . l.llf: .U

I . LC-151 55 10.50 13.29 l. 50 20 1 041.1ll/ 2 . LC-251 ss 26 . 50 114.24 2.0? 20 I 041!<\tl :s. I.C-1Ul UA < . Ot:l NA .01' 20104!15~ .. -1..:_ LC - ZWI UA < .013 NA .on ZOI04n54

Patuwent Analytlc~l Control facility Cote log II H46 U.S . rl~h ond Wildlife Service Purcho~e Order II 95830-2-3246 Potvwent Wildlife Re~eorch Center­ Botch II II• 4H07 laurel, MD 20709 Controct II 14-16-0009-97-007 Dote Entered• 07/10/92 Rttn• John Moore Dote rrlnt~d• 09/29/92 Rnelyte• LERD

5omrlc: Jp Motrlls ppm !WEll Pl!m IPB::tl LOP porn L.fULJl 1 . LC-151 ss 24.70 56.78 2.87 20701574 2. LC-251 55 16.30 37.56 2.89 20701575 3. LC-lWJ WA < .010 HA .010 20701580 4. LC-2WJ WA < .010 HA .010 20701581 5. LAEIWATER WA .017 HA .010 20703728 IIAZLElON UlCORAlOfiJES AMCRJCO, JNC. 3301 Kln~~~n ~lud. Mnd\~.on, LIJ !i3704 600-241 -4471 w2~9~

k~PORT or ONALYSJS

rntuxent Analytical Control Facility C~t.., 1 oq II 0627 U.S. Fl~h ond Lllldllfe Service rurchn;e Order~ 8~030-2·0627 Potuxcnt Lllldllfe Re~enrch Cent~r Betch # tt• la•Hel, MO 20708 Contrnct ~ 14-16-0009-91 - 011 Dote [ntered• 01/29/92 Attn• John Moore Oatr:- rr \r,t·~·l• 06/08/92 Annlyter MOGNESIUM

Motr h f~p.!J)_~IJ. 1 l !.f.' 0 IIH!:U. I...O.IL__J!"' It) J...nrt.tt 1 . LC-151 ss 9}9. 00 1188.61 3. 16 201011847 2. LC-251 ss 1~40.00 2!'70.9S II . 17 7.010401\0 3. LC-11.11 IUl 1. :no Nn .020 20 I 01\ll!d II. LC-11.11 un 1 . 280 r~n .070 201011ll~4

Patuxent Analytical Control Facility Catalog t1 )246 U.S. Fish end Wllrlllfe Service Purchase Order tl BSB,0-2-,246 Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Batch M tl• 4N07 Laurel, MD 20709 Contract t1 14-16-0009-87-007 Oete Entered• 07/10/92 Attn• John Moore Oete Printed• 0~/29/92 Rnalyte• MRCNESIUn

Sample 10 Motr lx ppm (VET l ppm CQRYl LOP ppm UlJLJt

I. LC - 151 ss 864.00 IY86 .21 5.75 20701!>74 2. LC-251 ss 661.00 152L 04 5.76 20701575 '· l .C-1111 IIA I. 060 HA .020 20701S90 4 . LC-2111 WA 1 . 060 HR .020 20701581 It 5. LABIIATER IIA ,8.~00 HA .020 2070,728 HAZL(TON LABORA10RIE5 AM£~ICA, INC. 3301 Kln~m~n Blvd. Modl~on, ~I 53704 608-241-4471 x2393

REFORT OF ANALYSIS

Patuxent Analytical Control Facility Cot& log M 0627 U. S. Fl~h and Ylldllfe Service Purcha~e Order M 85830-2- 0627 Pfttuxent Ylldllfe Re5eorch Center Botch tt M• laurel, MD 20708 Contract M 14-16-0009-91- 011 Dote Entered• 01/29/92 Attn• John Moore Date Prlnte~• 06/08/92 Anolyte• MANGANESE

.S..

PotuMent Analytical Control Facility Cat a log M H46 U.S. Fish end Ulldllfe Service Purchase Order M 85830-2-,246 PotuMent Wildlife Research Center Botch M M• 4N07 laurel, MD 20708 Contract M 14-16-0009-87-007 Dote Entered• 07/10/92 Attn• John Moore Dote Printed• 0~/28/92 Analyte• MANGANESE

Somcdc ID Matrix pom f llEI 1 Prm fPBYl LOP ppm LruLJI. I. LC-151 ss 2120.00 4&n .56 .57 2070J!j74 2. LC-251 ss 1200.00 2764.98 .58 20701575 LC- HII IIA .002 NA .002 20701580 4.'. LC-2WI IIA .007 NA .002 20701581 5. LAfJIIATER IIA 1. 460 NA .002 20703728 llnZI.fTON LA!::OF\Rl01{)[,S AMUOCn, INC. ~~01 Kln~m~~ Ulvd. MAdl~on, ~~ ~:'1704 600-241-4471 x239~

F\li'ORT OF ONALYSJS

Pntuxent nnalytlcal Co~trol Facility Catalog t1 0627 U.S. Fi~h ahd ~lldl\fe Service rurcha~e Order fl 85930-2- 0627 Patux~nt ~lldllfe Re~earch Center Botch tl It• laurel, MD 20708 co~troct" 14-16-0009-91-011 Date Entered• 01/29/92 Attn• John Moore Oate Printed• 06/09/92 Analyte• MERCURY

.$.a.!QP~c:._jj), ~ I!J•!O (UEJ l J)..[•ID IPRYl I 00 t· [1[1) 1Jl~..JI 1 . LC - 1$1 ss .026 , 0,, .032 20104(1117 7.. LC-2SI ss .0~2 .007 .042 70104041l :'1. LC - 1~1 I.Ul < .0002 NA .0002 201 01\EI~;:J 4. u:-2~1 Ufl <: .0002 Nfl .0002 Z(l1 04W;Il

Patuxent Analytical Control facility Catalog It H46 u.s. Fi5h ar.d Wildlife Service Purcha5e Order 8~8,0-2-::1246 Potv1

Sam!:! 11:: 10 l:lat[ h llRm (~El) lllliO (l)fl:( l LPI2 1:!1:!00 J..8.ILII. 1. LC-151 55 .0,9 .097 .046 20701574 2. LC-251 55 .040 . 092 .046 20i01575 LC-1111 UA < .0002 HA .0002 20701590 4.'. LC-2111 llfl < .0002 Mfl .0002 20701591 5. l~DIIATER IIA .0090 MA .0002 2070:'1728

.... _ -- 0 N H

HOZlllON lADOkATOHJ(5 AMERICA, INC. 3301 Kln ~ mon Elvd. M~dl~on, loll 53704 608-241-4471 K2~93

REPORT OF ANALYSIS

Potuwent An~lytlc~l Control F~clllty Cot.!!log II 0627 U.S. Fish ~nd Ulldllfe Service Purch~~e Order II 95830-2-0627 Pntuwent Ulldllfe Rese~rch Center B~tch II II• L~urel, MD 20708 Contract M 14-16-0009-91-011 Dote Entered• 01/29/?2 Attn• John Moore O.!!te Prlnt~d• 06108192 Analyte• NICKEL I .511l!ll• I c IO 11tl.LlM l!t•ro (1o1fT) ~.l.!Ui.ll l..OJL__{~lfL--- -·· J,..flO___ tt

1. LC-151 55 Ol.!iO I 03. 1 <'> .38 20104047 2. LC-2SJ ss 102.00 170.20 .50 20J04n<'IR LC-Jioll lolA < .003 tHl .003 201040!>3 4.'· I.C-21.11 lolA < .00:'1 NA .00:'1 201040<;4

Patuwent An~lytlcal Control Facility Ceto log II 3246 U.S. Fl5h end Wildlife Service Purche5e Order II 8~830-2-3246 PetuMent lollldllfe Research Center Botch t1 II• 41'107 laurel, MD 20708 Contract II 14-16-0009-87-007 Dote Entered• 07/10/92 Attn• John Moore Oote Printed• 0~/28/92 Anolyte• HICKEL

Soml'lc: IQ n~tr!x rpm CHEll rpm fPRYl LOP pcm J...BlL.JI. 1. LC-151 ss 98.80 227.13 .69 20701574 2. LC-251 ss 81.00 186.64 .69 20701575 '· LC-11.11 lolA < .002 HA .002 20701~80 4. LC-21.11 un < .002 HA .002 20701~81 ~. t AElloiATE R IIA 1. 610 HA .002 20703728 HA7.L[TON LABOkAlORIES AMERICA, INC. ~301 Kl~sme~ Blvd. Medl~o~, UI 5,704 608-241-4471 w2'9'

REPORT OF ANALYSIS

.. , I Patuxent Analytical Control Facility Cotc!!lot:~ It 0627 U.S. Fl5h end U\ldllfe Service Purcha;e Order It 85830-2-0677 ret~w~nt Wildlife Re~eerch C~nter Catch It II• I eoJre I, MO 20708 Contract # 14-16-0009-91-011 Oote E~tered• 01/29/92 Attn• John Moore Date Pr\nt~d• 06108192 Anelyte• SELENIUM

,!J,•Jj1 _ ___1 ~.D.J. ~l:'.lll__uuro. UtlLJ!!!ffi.. ___ l..I)J; _tl

1. LC-1SI ss .41 0 ~; 2 .i3 20104847 2. LC-ZSI ss .2, .38 .17 7.01041l4H 3. LC-1WI wn .001 NA .001 201 048!;3 4, LC-Zio/1 UA .001 NA .001 20104B~4

rotuxent A~alytlcol Control facility Co to lo·~ II )7.41. II.S. fl!.lt ond 11\ldllfe Service rurcht~~e Order It 8~0'10-7·,246 rt~t•,•erot loll lo:lllfe fie!>earch Center 8oich H It• 4N07 Laur~l, MU 20708 Co~lroct M 14 - 16 - 0009-07-007 Ot~t~ [nterr~• 07/10/92 Attn• John Moore 0Dto•' l'o i11l•••l• 0'}/7.11/97 Atot~lyte• S(L(tU liM

:;,.,.,,:..~ ~.. J.Q tln.t.c.l.IC. N!!t'·-· _J !!UJ f•HIII _, _,(01\)'j L.CIJl._r!~'!•L--·-· Lll£l. Jl I. I f.-lSI ss .li' .i'O .n 20701!;74

7. I 1:-25 I r.s 0 10 .~n 7.0701~!~ '1. U > lUI un .001·" NO .001 2070 I !·EIO .... I.Q-2111 UA . 001 NA .001 20701~Hl •• 0 I M:UO'IIt; IIA .014 NO .001 207037:/11 HOZL(TON LACONATORI[S OMERitA, INC . 3~01 Klro~ruon Olvd. Mod\~on, Ul 53704 608-241 -447 1 w2393

REtORT OF ANOLYSJS

r~tuwent An~lytlcol Control r~clllty Catalog t1 0627 U.S. Fl~h ~~d Ulldllfe Service rurcho~e Order # 8~830-2 -0627 rotuwent Ulldllfe R~~eorch Center Botch tJ tl• l~urel, MD 20708 Cc11otroct tl 14-16-0009-91 -0 11 Dote Entered• 01/29/92 Attn• John Moore Dot~ rrl~tcd• 06/08/92 Onolyte• ZINC

.S.!ltm~....l.D. !lotr h ~!l!!O !UET l Wll!L ---Lil.fU 1 I...OJl_..J!J• [!L____ L..!\B_JI 1 . LC-JSJ ss 47.40 60.00 .63 201048117 2. LC -251 ss 69.40 115.86 .83 20104040 3. LC-IUJ IIA < .005 NA .005 201 048!·3 4. LC-2UJ IIA < .OO!i NA .OO!i 201041l!i4

r~tuxc~t nn~lytlcol Control Facility Ct~t~log II J246 U.S. fl!.lo orod lllldll(e Service rurch~;c Order t1 0~030-2-J246 r~tu~ent Ul ldllfc Re~e~rch Center Bntch M H• 4N07 l~urcl, MD 70700 Corotr~ct H 14-16-0009-87-007 o~tP Entnr~d· 07/10/97 Ottn• Jnh~ Moore 0<5\o• l'o lrol•·ol• 0?/7.8/97 tlro

!' ~J t!rili·.- .I.D. t1 tt.\.. t.J..x r!S!!!t...__L\U.J.l l!S.'.!P, __. Ulii:U. I..O.L.l!l• m J...!l..f.l...J1

l. I C· IS J ss 6!i. 40 1 ~;o. 34 1.1 ~ 20701!i74 '}. lC-Z!iJ ss 51. !iO 118 .66 J. 15 20701575 .0011 20701 !·00 ~· :1. I C-1 U I un .O I!i HA II. I.C-2111 un . 007 Hn .004 20701~1!1 !,. I. 0(:1.1111 E It un . Ill !• HA .004 207037711 123

APPENDIX D

Pesticide hard data for Logan Cave

National Wildlife Refuge.

t I 124

ud.~d ,... .v. lh~ca Date Spts !ICJcd 0-4/15/9::!O:S/02/9llJ Oucue O;,tto D·l/15/0~

(WH WT) -· r==: -·· - -- Uatrlx FWS ll LC-lSO LC-1\VO LC-2SO LC-2'110 Stant Blanl: Spike••

LAB ;; 829282 £129283 (12920-4 8292tl5 82~~8G for 829287

Water UATRIX -Sediment Sedilllarot-· water Reagf>nt Sedln•ent Sediment COUPOUNO I HCD NO• NO NO NO NO Ill> 0.023 l • a-BHC NO NO NO NO NO NO NS••• r-BHC NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.0<12 , -BHC NO NO NO NO NO NO o.o.co 6-BHC NO NO NO NO NO tlO NS Oxychlordane NO NO NO NO NO .. NO 0.037 Hept. EPOl. NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.040 r-Chlordane NO NO NO NO NO NO NS t-Nonilchlor NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.038 TOXiiPhelne NO NO NO NO NO NO NS PCB's (total) NO NO NO NO NO NO NS o, p·-ooe NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.040 a-chlordane NO NO NO NO NO .NO 0.039 p, p•-OoE NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.037 Dieldrin NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.03G 0, p'-000 NO NO NO NO NO NO NS Endrln NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.04-4 cls-nonachlor NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.0<42 o, p·-ooT NO NO NO NO NO tlO 0.0-45 p, p'-000 NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.0-40 p, p'-OOT NO NO NO NO NO . NO o.o.co Ulrex NO NO NO NO NO 0.01 0.036 OTHER: -

WEIGHT (g or IDL) 699 g 510 1111. 706 g 510 1111. - - - I.IOISTURE (%) .C8.G - <49.2 - - 50.0 50;.0 LIPIIl (X) - -.. - - - - - Lower Lovel of Detection- 0.01 ppm for Tissue, Soli, Etc. 0.05 for Toxaphene and PCBs. For Water, LLD- 0,005 ppm tor OCs, Tox , PCBs. • • Confirmed by GC/Uass Spectrometry •NO w Nona ·oet6cted ••spike - o.o.co ppm tor Sediment •••NS • l.j()T'""Sl51'ked-

.. 125

:a~lo

COIITAI\1111\NT COIICENTRI\l'IVNS (Cont.)

Sample Result Oet.o:ctlon L1a1 t Resul Analyt.e NWIII:ler Sample tlGI Ory tit. ) t ppoa Dry 11t.. ) (pptR liet. ------Ueldrin LC-lSO Sediments < .014 .014 < .61 LC-250 Sediments < .0n .0n < .01 LC-lWO Water < .002 LC-2'«> Water < .002 LC-400 Water < .001 LC-51«> \fater < .001

!ndrin LC-lSC. Sediments < .014 .014 < .01 LC-2.50 Sediments < .017 .017 < .01 LC-11«> Water < .002 LC-21«> Water < .002 LC-4WO Water < .001 LC-500 Wat.er < .001

< .01 } llat.er < .001 LC-51i0 lfat.er < .001

< .01 ;amma chlordane LC-150 Sediments < .014 .014 LC-250 Sediments < .017 .017 < .01 LC-lWO liater < .002 LC-2WO Hater < .002 LC-41«> Water < .001 LC-51i0 \facer < .001

lepcachlor epoxide LC-lSO Sediments < .014 .014 < .01 LC-2.50 Sediments < .017 .0n < .01 LC-1WO Wacer < .002 < .002 LC-:!WO Water :~ : LC-41«> Water < .001 . . LC-SWO Water < .001 ------·------· HCB LC-lSO Sedi~~ents < .e14 .014 < .01 LC-2.50 Sedillencs < .en .0n < .01 LC-11«> Water < .002 LC-21i0 \later < .002 LC-400 Wacer < .001 LC-5110 \later < .001

· PCB-TOTAL LC-150 Sedi11encs < .145 .145 < .1 LC-250 S~dia~nts < .17l .173 < .1 LC-1140 \1acer < .02 LC-2\iO Water < .02 LC-41«> Wat.-:1· < .011 LC-5\10 liacer < .011

alpha BHC LC-1SO Sedimencs < .014 .014 < .01 LC-2.50 Sediment.:; < .017 .017 < .01 LC-1WO w.-.ter < .002 LC-21i0 Wat.er < ;002 LC-4WO liat.er < .001 LC-SiiO Water < .001

alpha chlordane LC-lSO Sedi~~encs < .e14 -~>14 < :01 LC-2.50 Sedi~~encs ' < .en .()l1 < .01 LC-1WO Water < .002 LC-2'«> 11ater < .002 LC-4WO Water < .001 LC-5WO Water < .001

beca BHC LC-lSO Sediments < .014 .014 < .01 LC-2.50 Sediments < .017 .017 < .01 LC-11i0 Water < .002 LC-2WO Hater < .002 LC-41«> Water < .001 LC-5WO Hater < .001 t 126

Cat.aloq: 4110005 Lat. Na.a~ : IIAZL ~ ~ -A(;r-92 Purer.~:;,! Urd~r: 13583

CO!l'I'AiliNI\HT COIICE!l'I'AATIOH$ (Cont. l

Sample Result O.:tt::ct~on L1.o~t Resul Analyte Nuaber Saaple ~latrix (l>pe Dry Wt. l fPl"" Dry I'll. l (ppm l·let ------p,p'-000------LC-150 SediKnt.s < .014 .014 < .01 LC-250 Sed ilaen t.s < .017 .017 < .01 LC-1WO Water < .002 LC-2WO Water < .002 LC-4110 Water < .001 LC-51«:> 11ater < .001

p,p'-OOE LC-150 Scdille!nt.s < .014 .014 < .01 LC-250 Sedhaent.s < .017 .017 < .01 LC-1110 Water < .002 LC-2110 liato:r < .002 LC-4110 Wut~r < .001 tc-5wo liater < .001

p.p·-oor LC-150 S~ 1-later < .001

caxaphene LC-150 Sedisent.s < .145 .145 < .1 LC-250 Sediments < .173 .173 < .1 LC-1WO Water < .02 LC-2110 \tater < .02 LC-4tl0 Water < .011 LC-St«> Water < .011

' trans-nonachlor LC-lSO SediAents < .014 .014 < .01 LC-250 Sedt.ent.s < .017 .017 < .01 LC-1WO water < • 002 : ... LC-2WO Water· < .002 LC-4110 tlater < .001

LC-5110 Water 1 < .001

sirex LC-150 Sediaenu < .014 .014 < .(H LC-250 Sediaent.s < .017 .017 < .01 LC-1110 \later < .002 LC-2110 Water < .002 LC-4110 Water < .001 Le-St«> Water < .001 o,p'-000 LC-lSO Sedi.aent.s < .014 .014 < .01 LC-250 Sedisents < .017 .017 < .01 LC-1110 Water < .002 LC-2WO liater < .002 LC-4tKl Water < .001 LC-Stx:> liater < .001 o,p'-OOE LC-1SO Sedi•enu < .014 .014 < .01 LC-250 Sedill \later < .002 LC-4110 Hater < .001 LC-SWO Water < .001 t Fish. & Wildlife Manuals

gif ID Numbers

rpt# gif# .. paqe # 00/? I 0 0 I 6-2_ tJeZ- ~sy (}03 S:b t}tJ¢ -~r (JtJJ- ~0

! OLJ t. 62- I oo7 b'/ I tJtJ f' 6t l // CJ1 b~ tJ/0 ?ZJ \ CJ II J::L_ ) · 1)12- .. 7'/ C/3 7/, 1.-~ -.f)/'/-.,-= 7f? I &IJ-· rc Glb Rc 0/7 ·x--if ... •.,-;• . , :l. D! {/_- J?G /)/9 . ?? - ... ~- - () 2.22---- 9o I ., t}&/ 9'2- c._~1>J7} ~ z2,; . t!f> P ) i'W

~ . ·-

-" · ~ ! '· . . ~ --- -~ _ ... J'7t:...... : ; t . .

P :\WP \ DOCS\F&W \ GI FLOG

! \'"

\ r

...

< c

'