1. What are the surface sizes and capacities of each of the present wastewater lagoons and when were they put in operation?
Cells #1 (the middle lagoon) and #2 (the lagoon farthest from the road) are each 48,305 ft2 at the top of the liner and hold 1,951,000 gallons. They were constructed in 1964 and lined in 1989. Cell #3 (nearest the road) is 42,273 ft2 at the top and holds 2,265,000 gallons. It was constructed in 1996.

2. The liners installed in 1989. Were they impervious, e.g. did they allow any perk?
They are impervious liners.

3. Prior to the installation of the first two lagoons, how was the on-site sewage handled?
We are unsure how wastewater was handled prior to 1963. There was a sewer main that extended out to the area the existing ponds now occupy, but we do not know how it was treated.

4. Was the slip lining done prior to the installation of double wall piping or were these two different projects?
The slip lining and installation of the double walled pipe were different projects.

5. When was the slip lining done?
Slip lining projects were completed in 1982 and 1985.

6. What has the history of wastewater flows been?
Wastewater has never been metered into the lagoons. The ponds have depth gauges, or story poles, and readings are periodically manually recorded. Stored and discharged volumes (in gallons) from 1989 to present are as follows.

Date ------------- Stored --------------Discharged
1989 -------------1,566,671
1990------------- 2,455,101
1991 -------------3,286,459
1992------------- 3,732,012
1993 -------------3,069,198 ------ 1,600,000
1994 -------------3,036,007
1995 -------------3,823,365
1996 -------------3,971,094 -------- 600,000
1997 -------------4,070,635
1998 -------------4,320,092
1999 -------------3,665,238 ------ 2,575,800
2000 -------------2,008,501 ------ 1,656,220
2001 -------------1,757,274
2002 -------------2,396,795
2003 -------------3,036,316

7. How much flow reduction was achieved because of the low flow toilets, showerheads, etc.?
Water savings of low flow fixtures is difficult to quantify because none of the park buildings have individual water meters. The park only meters how much water is pumped out of the well, but not all of this water ends up in the sewer system. A substantial amount is used to irrigate lawns, for prescribed and wildland fire suppression, etc…. Also, prior to 1999 when the water system was replaced, a fair amount of water leaked out of the distribution lines before it reached the buildings.

The fixtures were switched to low flow between 1992 and 1994. The five-year average of water pumped from the well from 1987 to 1990 was 6,047,020 gallons per year. The average consumption for the five years following the conversion, 1995 to 1999, was 4,047,900 gallons for a difference of about 2 million gallons per year. We do not know how much of this can be attributed to the low flow fixtures. After replacing, the headquarters water distribution system, our annual
water use has dropped to 3,373,000 gallons in 2002.

8. How much extra flow are you getting from the campground?
We pumped 253,700 gallons of water to the campground during the 2002 season but not all of this returned in the sewer system. Prior to the 2002 season, the campground restrooms were not connected to the lagoons.

9. Are there any other water sources, such as a storm sewer, connected to the sewer?
No other water sources are connected to the sanitary sewer.

10. Is there any plan to relocate the NPS service yard, which in the EA is noted as a pollution source to the cave?
Our General Management Plan calls for relocation of this facility; however, we have not yet determined a suitable location. The park now takes special precautions to insure that no treated wood is put in slash piles that are periodically burned in this area. The park also now attempts to minimize the quantity of asphalt and other materials stored in this location.

11. What is the estimated evaporation rate at the new location?
This is difficult to estimate quantitatively without a pan evaporation study. The proposed site on the ridge has greater exposure to sun and wind, so evaporation should be improved. To determine the preliminary size of the lagoons in Alternative D, a conservative annual evaporation rate of 40-inches was assumed.

12. The state required testing of the effluent while disposing of excess wastewater. What were the results, total nitrates, etc.?
A typical chemical analysis of the wastewater that was discharged is as follows:

Parameter ----------------------- Result (mg/l)
Chloride (Cl) --------------------- 67
Sulfate (SO4)-------------------- 36
Nitrogen, Nitrate (NO3) ---- < 0.10
Nitrogen, Nitrite (NO2) -------- 0.02
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl ------- 9.0
pH, Units --------------------------- 7.74
Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml) ---- 5
Solids, Dissolved ------------ 450

13. Why has the park not applied for a permanent disposal (irrigation) permit?
a. Existing lagoons were intended to be a zero discharge facility. The park knows from experience that the existing lagoons are not of adequate size and that regular intermittent discharges would be needed. Effluent from park evaporation ponds would not meet water quality standards generally permitted for surface water discharge.
b. Even if permitted, continued, repetitive discharges of wastewater would be an unnatural water and nutrient source that could result in undesirable changes in plant and animal ecology in the area of discharge. If this water were to reach cave passages, which are believed to exist under the area of the existing lagoons and the area used for irrigation, it would have negative impacts.
c. The park shares the concerns of the South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural Resources that continued discharge of wastewater could have a detrimental affect on ground water quality.

14. Over how many acres did you have to apply the excess wastewater in previous years?
The spray field used in 1993, 1999, and 2000 was about seven acres in size.

15. Who is the state contact person for ground water?
Our contact at SD DENR for the irrigation permit was Eric Meintsma, Natural Resources Engineer, Surface Water Quality Program.

16. How was the wastewater in the lagoons disposed of while the lagoons were lined?
The park believes there was very little water impounded in the ponds before they were lined. The percolation through the floor of the ponds was so high that typically only one pond was used. Likely, the empty pond, Cell #2, was lined first, and then water was pumped from Cell #1 to Cell #2, so Cell #1 could be lined

17. What is the legal description of the land that was used to surface apply the effluent?
SE 1/4, Section 1, T6S, R5E

18. What is the history of nutrient testing and when did the nutrient loading drop and to what levels?
Available records indicate the first water testing in the cave was conducted by Alexander and Davis from 1985-1988. This testing of water dripping into the cave occurred in the upper levels of the cave. The levels of nitrates (NO2/NO3-N) at that time were between 2-10 mg/l.

An Environmental Protection Agency study conducted from 1991-1994 showed continued high levels of nitrates. The levels of nitrates (NO2/NO3-N) detected in this study were 1-3 mg/l.

In 1999, Marc Ohms (Wind Cave Physical Science Technician) found the level of nitrates (NO2/NO3-N) at 3.7 mg/l.

Because of these investigations, the park applied for and received funds to install double wall piping to clean up the situation. The double wall piping was completed in 2000. On page 47 of the EA, it states, "The association of these findings with the presence of sewage in the cave was further supported by water quality testing performed after slip lining of the sewage transmission piping." This must be clarified that "sewage" has not been found in the cave, only pollutants indicating a problem above the cave. Again, the same paragraph states, "Once slip lining was complete, cave waters no longer carried elevated quantities of pollutants commonly found in untreated wastewater." "Slip lining" should read "double walled lining", as the slip lining, as noted above, was not successful in preventing sewer leakage.

US Geological Survey cave water tests in 2002 found nitrates (NO2/NO3-N) to be 0.54 mg/l, a significant reduction. This testing will be followed by continued testing to ensure a downward trend.

19. What were the annual amounts of precipitation in each of the last 15 years?

Year ---- Annual Precipitation
1988 --------12.66
1989 --------16.38
1990 --------17.48
1991 --------19.10
1992 --------23.00
1993 --------27.52
1994 --------17.78
1995 --------27.27
1996 --------18.83
1997 --------22.87
1998 --------28.87
1999 --------22.08
2000 --------18.10
2001-------- 22.07
2002 --------16.23

20. The nutrient levels did not mention the testing for coliform or fecal coliform bacteria. Were these found?
There has not been any testing done on cave water for coliform.

21. What was the park's maximum visitation?
The maximum visitation the park received was in 1970 with 997,100 visitors.

22. How many park employees were there in the year of maximum visitation?
We do not have housing or employment records dating back to 1970.

23. How did the park determine its visitation of 800,000 visitors?
800,000 visitors is based on the number of cars counted on the highway with traffic counters and then multiplied by a factor (the factor varies by season and is the estimated number of people in each vehicle) to arrive at the estimated number of people who entered the park.

24. Has a survey ever been conducted to determine how many people driving through the park were there to actually visit the park?
No surveys have been conducted to stop people on the highway and ask them why they are in the park.

25. How many employees does the park have now?
The park has not finished its hiring for 2003, and thus the number is not known. In 2002, the park had 48 seasonal employees, the majority of which worked mid-May to early September, and 38 permanent employees.

26. How long does each employee work?
Shift lengths vary, but each employee works 80 hours every two weeks.

27. How many employees live in the park?
This number varies throughout the year. In 2002, there are 32 employees living in the park for most of the summer and 13 in the middle of winter.

28. How many families live in the park?
This number varies annually. In 2002, there was one family living in the park during the summer, and three families in the winter. (Any families with both people working in the park, and already counted in question number 25, were excluded from this answer.)

29. You note a large number of pollutants from a '91 wildfire. How far away was the fire?
The Shirttail Canyon Fire was immediately above and to the west of the cave.

30. What were the actual changes, in part per million, from baseline measurements because of this fire?
In 1991, the park began a four-year EPA funded water quality inventory and monitoring project. Through this study, elevated levels of phosphorus in Wind Cave water were detected and believed to be the result of the Shirttail Canyon Fire. In October of 1991, four of twenty monitoring sites showed elevated levels of phosphorus (0.015 to 0.082 mg/l, with an average of .033). By January, all twenty sites contained phosphorus levels ranging from 0.028 to 0.759 mg/l with an average of .377 mg/l. By April of 1992, no site had detectable levels of phosphorus. Frequent flood events following the fire carried large amounts of water and ash into the Wind Cave Canyon drainage. The elevated levels of phosphorus were a short-lived natural event.

31. Does the cave constitute a loss zone for the streambeds passing over the cave?
The cave itself does not constitute a loss zone.

32. How much of the surface stream flow actually drops into the cave?
The two drainages overlying Wind Cave are Wind Cave Canyon and Cottonwood Creek. Neither has perennial flow, and thus rarely contain flowing water. When there is flow, since the streams flow over the exposed Pahasapa Limestone, both will and do lose some or all of their flow, but since they are seldom flowing, no measurements have been taken or are planned.

There is no direct opening in which this occurs. It takes place over the entire course of the stream when in contact with the Pahasapa Limestone and to a lesser extent the overlying Minnelusa Formation, which the water will flow across further down the canyon. How much water is lost to the subsurface depends on the amount and duration of flow, and the porosity of the underlying rock unit.

33. How many acres of the park are drainage basins for those streambeds losing flow over the cave?
There are approximately 6,444 acres (22%) of the park covered by drainage basins above Wind Cave.

34. Has there been any indication of the various pollutants measured in the cave reaching the lakes at the bottom of known cave?
Sampling has been conducted at the lakes, but no pollutant has ever been found.

35. Has there been any indication of the various pollutants measured in the cave reaching the park's wells?
The pentachlorophenol detected in the cave in 1994 was not detected in the well, nor have any high level of nitrates associated with problems with the old sewer system in the visitor center and housing area. There are no known connections between the known Wind Cave and the park wells.