watershed program report tracking sheetdeq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/downloads/monitoring... ·...

1

Watershed Program Report Tracking Sheet

Report name: Goose Creek stormwater Watershed: Tongue River

HUC: 10090101

Field Personnel: Scott Colllyard, Jason Martineau, Jermey Zumberge, Jim Eisenhauer

Author: Scott Collyard

No. Pages (including tables): 51 No. Illustrations: 1

No. Tables: 9

CHECK STEP COMPLETED

NAME: DATE IN DATE OUT A

utho

r

Pee

r Rev

iew

Mon

. Sup

ervi

sor

Pro

gram

Man

ager

Add

ition

al E

valu

atio

n

ENTER NEXT ROUTING HERE

1 Scott Collyard 6/24/2005x Jeremy Zumberge

2 Jeremy Zumberge 6/24/2005 6/29/2005 x Scott Collyard

3 Scott Collyard 6/29/2005 6/30/2005x Jeremy Zumberge

4 Jeremy Zumberge 6/30/2005 7/1/2005 x Scott Collyard

5 Scott Collyard 7/1/2005 7/5/2005 x Beth Pratt

6 Beth Pratt 7/1/2005 7/13/2005 x Scott Collyard

7 Scott Collyard 7/15/2005 7/18/2005 x Beth Pratt

8

9

10

Watershed Program Manager Date

2

BACKGROUND Recent studies have identified storm water runoff as a major source of water pollution in our streams, rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Runoff pollution occurs every time rain or snowmelt flows across the ground and picks up contaminants. Sediment, nutrients, bacteria, oil and grease, trace metals as well as other pollutants are commonly found in storm water runoff. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now considers urban storm water pollution to be one of the most important sources of contamination in our nation’s waters. Recent federal changes to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water regulations require Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) to evaluate towns with populations between 10,000 to 50,000 and a population density of at least 1000 persons per square mile for possible designation as a regulated municipality. Towns that are designated are required to obtain a municipal storm water permit. To designate a municipal storm sewer system (MS4) as regulated, the WDEQ must establish that storm water discharges from the MS4 result in or have the potential to result in exceedences of water quality criteria, including impairment of designated uses, or significant water quality impacts, including habitat and biological impacts. To comply with these new federal regulations, WDEQ will determine what effects municipal storm water runoff has on local water bodies. Towns in Wyoming that fall into this population/density range include: Evanston, Gillette, Laramie, Rock Springs and Sheridan.

PURPOSE The purpose of this monitoring project is to develop data to support effective watershed storm water quality management programs. The major objectives of this study are to: • Identify and assess significant potential water quality problems related to storm water discharges within

the watershed. • Identify sources of pollutants in storm water runoff. • Assess the impacts of storm water runoff on receiving waters. To achieve these objectives WDEQ will identify storm water discharges into local receiving waters and monitor both receiving waters and storm water discharges for various water quality constituents of concern in storm water during periods of runoff. In addition, WDEQ will evaluate the condition of the receiving waters using biological surveys and direct measurements of the bottom substrate composition. This document is intended to serve as a guide to achieve these objectives and can be adjusted, in terms of chemical parameters, sampling events and site selection, as needed depending on a particular city’s infrastructure and receiving waters for storm water discharge.

STORMWATER SAMPLING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF SHERIDAN

Background

Goose Creek waterway Big and Little Goose Creeks originate in the Big Horn Mountains west of Sheridan, Wyoming and then converge to form Goose Creek near the center of Sheridan. Approximately 10 miles of Little Goose Creek is within the city limits and is influenced by storm water runoff. The majority of Little Goose Creek within the city limits has been channelized to prevent flooding during high flow events. Approximately 3 miles of Big Goose Creek flows within the city limits and is influenced by both rural drainage basins and some storm water outfalls. Much of the banks on the Big Goose Creek channel have been historically built up to prevent flooding, however, much of the channel exhibits natural sinuosity. Goose Creek originates at the confluence of Big and Little Goose Creeks and flows north through the city limits approximately 3 miles

3

and is influenced by both rural and urban drainage basins as well as outfall from the City of Sheridan’s wastewater treatment facility. Much of Goose Creek within the city limits has been channelized to prevent flooding. Sheridan’s Infrastructure The city of Sheridan has a population of approximately 17,000 people with approximately 7,000 dwelling units. Most of Sheridan’s industry is limited to the industrial and commercial parks located in the area west of I-90 and consists of mostly repair shops and warehouses. These parks are located in a rural drainage basin, meaning drainage is accomplished by natural channels that terminate at a depression storage area on the east side of I-90. Additional concentrations of commercial areas are located in North Sheridan and consist of repair shops, service businesses and warehouses. Sheridan’s railroad yard is located in the northeast and is contained within a rural drainage basin. The majority of storm water flows generated in this basin are generally conveyed in a northerly direction into Grinnell ditch, which eventually discharges into Goose Creek near the port of entry. The city of Sheridan has 23 major rural drainage basins. The majority of drainage in these basins is accomplished by natural channels and either terminate at areas of depression or enter the Goose Creek watershed via channels or ditches. It appears that drainage may enter the Goose Creek waterway only during very heavy storm events and may not provide adequate sampling for direct measurements of storm water. Effects of storm water from these areas will be better addressed by in-stream sampling during rainfall events and through biological surveys. The majority of information concerning Sheridan storm water was taken from the City of Sheridan, Storm Water Management Plan (City of Sheridan, 1987). The city of Sheridan has approximately 17 urban drainage basins, meaning the majority of drainage is accomplished by routing water through a storm water system to direct outfalls in the Goose Creek waterway. The majority of these urban drainage basins have no storage for natural attenuation of pollutants. According to the City of Sheridan, several of the outfalls have sand traps to trap sand and sediment before they enter the creek, however, these traps are often not maintained and have not proved to be effective.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Stormwater Sampling Events There are three major runoff events that were sampled that are responsible for significant stormwater discharge into the Goose Creek waterway. This first event sampled was a snowmelt event. Snowmelt can create runoff that may result in point source discharges very similar to that from other storm events. Pollutants accumulate in snow, and when a thaw occurs, the pollutants are discharged to receiving waters much like during a rainstorm event. The next event sampled was a street-washing event. This involves the pressure spraying of streets over the summer months to suppress dust within the city limits (See below for detailed description). The final event sampled was a rain event. The rain event was sampled using the following EPA recommended storm event sampling criteria: 1) Precipitation must exceed 0.1 inches. 2) The storm must be preceded by at least 72 hours of dry weather. Stormwater sampling locations Four of the urban drainage basins where chosen to represent different land uses with the city of Sheridan. See Map 1 for sampling locations. These sites include: N-Line: This stormwater outfall has a drainage area of approximately 28 acres. Development in this basin is a mixed business and residential area. This outfall was sampled during a street-washing event.

4

P-Line: This stormwater outfall has a drainage area of approximately 110 acres. Development in this area is mixed residential with some businesses and several small parking lots. Portions of Coffeen and Sheridan Avenue drain into this outfall. This outfall was sampled during a street-washing event. S-Line: This stormwater outfall has a drainage area of approximately 28 acres. Development in the basin consists of small and large businesses including several gas stations, a Super Wal-Mart, a strip mall and several auto dealers. The majority of the drainage basin consists of large and small parking lots and heavily traveled streets (e.g. Coffeen Avenue). There are few residential areas. This outfall was sampled during a rain event. Q-Line: This stormwater outfall has a basin drainage area of approximately 30 acres. Development in this basin consists of residential areas. This outfall was sampled during a snowmelt event. Photographs of urban storm water outfalls can be found in Appendix B. Sampling Outfalls Stormwater samples were taken using a flow-weighted composite method (USEPA, 1992). Flow-weighted composite samples are a mixed or combined sample that is formed by combining a series of individual, discrete samples of specific volumes at specified intervals. Flow-weighted composite samples reflect the average pollutant concentrations of the stormwater discharge during the sampling period. After the start of a flow event a total of nine discrete samples were taken at equal increments of time. Flow was measured at the end of pipe in conjunction with the chemical sample. Samples were then composited proportional to the flow rate at the time each sample was taken. See Appendix C for examples of these calculations. Samples were analyzed at Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc. in Sheridan using methods found in Appendix E. E. coli samples were collected and analyzed using the Colilert-enzyme substrate method as described in WDEQ/WQD (2005). Flow Data In addition to collecting samples of stormwater discharges, the flow rate and flow volume for each stormwater discharge was measured. Flow rate was necessary to combine proportional volumes of individually collected aliquots. For the purpose of this monitoring, flow rates were estimated using the slope and depth method. This procedure required that the slope and inside diameter of the pipe be known. This information was obtained from the City of Sheridan Stormwater Management Plan (City of Sheridan, 1987). This procedure involves recording the time that each sample is taken and measuring the depth of the flow in the middle of the pipe. See Appendix D for examples of this calculation.

Biological sampling and survey There are numerous methods to determine if anthropogenic activities are having a negative impact on surface waters however, no one of these methods can alone determine the full impact the activity may have. By applying a weight of evidence approach using multiple methods one can extrapolate as to the impact the activity is having on surface waters. Macroinvertebrate community structure, substrate composition, fine sediment cover and particle embeddedness are all different measures that can effectively be used in combination to determine stream health and function. To assess the long term effects of storm water on the Goose Creek waterway WDEQ conducted assessments on nine locations in Little Goose, Big Goose and Goose Creeks (Map 1). Assessment data included biological, physical and chemical information. All collection, analysis, and evaluation of assessment data collected on the Goose Creek waterway was conducted in accordance with approved assessment procedures as outlined in the following documents:

5

1) Manual of Standard Operating Procedures for Sample Collection and Analysis (WDEQ/WQD, 2005).

2) Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Project (BURP) Water Quality Monitoring (WDEQ/WQD, 2001).

3) A bioassessment method for use in Wyoming stream and river water quality monitoring (King, 1993).

4) Beneficial use reconnaissance project-wadeable stream monitoring methodology (WDEQ/WQD, 1998).

5) Wyoming’s method for determining water quality condition of surface waters (WDEQ/WQD, 2002).

Biological Sampling Locations Sampling locations were chosen to determine the effects of land use on the Goose Creek waterway within Sheridan’s City Limits. Two sites where chosen to functions as “control” sites, or sites with little or no impacts from stormwater discharge. Data from these sites were used to compare with downstream sites. See Table 1 for descriptive information on these sites. Where possible, sampling sites were located to coincide with historic WDEQ sites: NGPI20: Located on Little Goose Creek just south of the Sheridan City limits. Assessments were conducted by WDEQ in 1994 and 1998. Land use in this area includes livestock grazing, recreation and wildlife habitat. This section of stream is minimally influenced by rural drainage and no urban drainage (no stormwater outfalls). Urban drainage from Sheridan Junior College enters a nearby draw that enters Little Goose Creek just upstream of this site. This site was used as a control site for Little Goose Creek. NGP0182: Located on Little Goose Creek within Emerson Park. No previous assessments have been conducted at this site. Land use in this area is a city park with some rural residential developments. One urban drainage outfall (Q-Line) influences this section of Little Goose Creek. Much of the stream channel in this section remains un-channelized and has a heavy canopy cover over the stream. NGPI26: Located on Little Goose Creek north east of the Coffeen Street Avenue bridge. Assessments were conducted by WDEQ in 1994, 1997. Land use in this area is urban. Several urban drainage outfalls and two rural drainage basins influence this section of stream. This section of stream is heavily channelized and has some canopy cover. NGP0181: Located on Little Goose Creek near the intersection of Loucks and Canby Street. No previous assessments have been conducted at this site. Land use in this area is residential. Several urban drainage outfalls influence this section of Little Goose Creek. This section of stream is heavily channelized and has no canopy cover. NGPI21: Located on Big Goose Creek just within the Sheridan City limits. Assessments were conducted by WDEQ in 1994 and 1998. There are few influences from rural or urban drainage basins in this section of Big Goose Creek. Land use in this area is residential. Much of the stream channel in this section remains unchannelized and has a heavy canopy cover. This site was used as a control site for Big Goose Creek. NGP0180: Located on Big Goose Creek near the north east corner of Kendrick Park. No previous assessments have been conducted at this site. There are few influences from rural or urban drainage basins in this section of Big Goose Creek. Land use is this area is residential and a city park. Moderate channelization has occurred at this site and there is little canopy cover. NGP0183: Located on Goose Creek just upstream of the 5th Street Bridge. No previous assessments have been conducted at this site. There are several influences from urban drainage basins in this section of Goose Creek. Land use in this area is residential. Extensive channelization has occurred at this site and there is no canopy cover.

6

NGPI51: Located on Goose Creek approximately 1 mile north of the confluence of Big and Little Goose Creeks. Three urban drainage basins and several rural drainage outfalls influence Goose Creek in this area. Solider Creek enters Goose Creek just downstream of this site and are influenced by several rural drainage basins. Assessments were conducted by WDEQ in 1998. NGP21: Located on Goose Creek approximately 1/2 mile north of the Sheridan City limits. Several urban and rural drainage basins influence Goose Creek in this area as well as outfalls from Sheridan’s wastewater treatment facility and a small campground wastewater package plant. Assessments have been conducted by WDEQ in 1998. Macroinvertebrate sampling Macroinvertebrates have been used in Wyoming and throughout the U.S. to examine water quality changes related to a wide range of point source discharge effluents, non point source (NPS) pollutants and land use changes. Because macroinvertebrates respond quickly to changes in water quality and environmental conditions a systematic analysis of the macroinvertebrate community within a given section of stream can indicate a negative change in water quality or stream habitat (King, 1993). Macroinvertebrate data was collected from riffles that were representative of the section of stream of interest. Eight macroinvertebrate samples were collected in each riffle using a 1 foot square surber sampler. Large cobble and gravels within the surber sampler were scraped by hand and soft brush, visually examined to ensure removal of all organisms, and then discarded outside the sampler. Remaining substrate within the sampler was then thoroughly agitated to a depth of 2 to 3 inches. After all eight samples were collected; the surber samples were composited and preserved in alcohol and sent to a contractor for identification. Detailed methods for sampling macroinvertebrates can be found in Manual of Standard Operating Procedures for Sample Collection and Analysis (WDEQ/WQD, 2005). Macroinvertebrate data analysis Primary evaluation of macroinvertebrate data was conducted using the Wyoming Stream Integrity Index (WSII; Stribling et. al., 2000; Jessup and Stribling, 2002). The WSII is a regionally calibrated multi-metric biological index for assessing aquatic life support in Wyoming streams. Ten macroinvertebrate metrics were incorporated into the WSII. Scoring of the individual metric values was based on a comparison to the 5th or 95th percentile of bioregional reference stream data for each specific metric. Specific metric scoring formulae are presented in Jessup and Stribling (2002). The final index score is calculated by averaging the sum of individual metric scores. Criteria for narrative assessment of final index scores and determination of aquatic life use attainment are presented in Table 2. To help relate macroinvertebrate community composition to environmental variables, a Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) was performed. CCA is a multivariate analysis that can determine if there are any environmental conditions driving differences in macroinvertebrate communities among the sites assessed in 2004 (Braak, 1986). In this analysis, relative abundance of macroinvertebrates among all sites was compared with measured substrate composition parameters that are associated with stormwater discharge (fine sediment cover, embeddeness, stormwater drainage area). The resulting graph plots sites that are similar in species abundance together while plotting parameters that appear to have significant influences on abundance. Substrate composition The composition of the riffle substrate is a very important feature of stream channels. Coarser materials, such as cobbles and gravels, provide a variety of small niches important for small fish and benthic invertebrates (MacDonald et. al. 1991). Coarser materials also have more interflow through the bed, effectively expanding the suitable habitat for macroinvertebrates and other organisms down into the stream bed, and facilitating fish reproduction. A decrease in the median particle size of bed material will decrease the permeability of the bed material, and can decrease intergravel dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations.

7

Even a small decline in intergravel DO can severely affect the survival of salmonid eggs and macroinvertebrates. To assess the effects of stormwater discharges on riffle substrate in the Goose Creek Watershed within the city limits of Sheridan, riffle substrate composition from sites with little or no influence from stormwater runoff were compared with those that are heavily influenced by stormwater discharge. It is hypothesized that the substrate composition from riffles under the greater influence of stormwater runoff will be composed of finer materials, such as silt and sand, when compared to sites with little or no influence from stormwater runoff. Riffle substrate composition was estimated according to WDEQ/WQD (2005) bioassessment protocols. Visual estimates of riffle substrate were determined at each of the eight surber sampler quadrates where macroinvertebrates were sampled. Estimates were averaged over the eight quadrates and recorded as percent composition by particle size. In addition to the visual estimates, 100 particles were measured within each sample riffle. Particles were selected at evenly spaced intervals across the entire bankfull channel of each riffle and were measured across the median axis and recorded as percent composition by particle size. Fine sediment covering The purpose of this measure is to evaluate the extent to which gravel, cobble or boulders are covered by fine sediment. The fine sediment cover evaluation is intended to provide information on sediment movement and/or deposition. Long-term sediment deposition may limit substrate surface area available to macroinvertebrates and periphyton growth. Excessive or long-term sediment cover is symptomatic of large-scale sediment input and deposition and is often indicative of anthropogenic activities. It is expected that fine sediment cover should increase with increasing influence of stormwater outfalls. Fine sediment cover was visually estimated for particles >2 mm within each of the eight surber sampler quadrates used for where macroinvertebrates were sampled (WDEQ/WQD 2005). A weighted average of fine sediment cover was calculated over the eight samples. Decreasing weighted fine sediment values indicate increasing silt cover. Embeddedness In streams with a large amount of fine sediment or sand, the coarser particles can become surrounded or partially buried by the fine sediment or sand. Embeddedness is a quantitative measure of the extent to which larger particles are embedded or buried (McDonald et. al. 1991). Biologically, areas with a high embeddedness have very little space for invertebrate or juvenile fish to hide. The accumulation of fines also fills in the spaces between larger particles limiting the interstitial habitat. Similarly, the reduction in surface area associated with increasing embeddedness limits the attachment area for periphyton. The use of embeddedness presumes that increasing embeddedness reflects an increased input of fine sediment and sand to the stream channel. It is expected that embeddedness within riffles should increase with increasing influence from stormwater outfalls. Methods for measuring embeddedness were adopted from McDonald et al. (1991). The procedure for measuring embeddedness was to select a particle within the sample riffle, remove it from the streambed while retaining its spatial orientation, and then measure both its total height and embedded height perpendicular to the streambed surface. Percent embeddedness was calculated for each particle until at least 100 particles were measured. The individual embeddedness values were averaged to yield a mean embeddedness value for the riffle.

8

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

STREET WASHING EVENTS To meet DEQ Air Quality requirements the City of Sheridan regularly washes the streets of Sheridan between the months of April through September to suppress dust within the city limits. In 2004 the City flushed 265 miles of streets using 1,121,110 gallons of water. Water is delivered using gravity fed water tank trucks and enters the Goose Creek waterway, untreated, via stormwater inlets (Personal communication, Judy Shamley, WDEQ (AQD) Sheridan). In addition to street washing, the City of Sheridan operates several street sweepers daily throughout the year. In 2004, 6,657 miles of streets were swept collecting a total of 3,318 cubic yards of debris. It is believed that street sweeping occurs just before a section of the city is washed. To assess what impacts these practices have on the Goose Creek waterway, two street washing events were monitored at the stormwater outlet in the area where the washing was occurring. After locating a section of town that was undergoing street washing, the appropriate stormwater outlet was located and composite samples were taken. In both cases the stormwater outlet was reached just prior to the street washing discharge. Depending on location and size of the area being washed the stormwater discharge could last from 30 to 60 minutes with flows ranging between 1.5 to 2.5 cubic foot per minute (cfm). RAIN / SNOWMELT EVENT Composite stormwater discharges were captured from one snowmelt event and one rain event. The snowmelt event occurred during on 3/8/2004. Flows were sporadic throughout the day and at the time of collection ranged between 0.55 and 1.4 cfs. The rain event occurred on 4/28/2004 and a total of 0.26 in of rain was received over the period of approximately two hours (Sheridan Airport). Peak flows during the event are unknown because the outfall was not reached until after flow started to dissipate. Flows ranged between 4.6 and 11.5 cfm during the time of collection and were the highest observed during any of the stormwater sampling.

STORMWATER DISCHARGES: CHEMICAL RESULTS Stormwater events and chemical results reflected here are by no means a comprehensive study of what may be occurring throughout a typical year within the City of Sheridan. The basis of this chemical monitoring was to provide WYDEQ a snapshot of different stormwater events that may occur and what results may be expected. Typical studies addressing such issues are generally conducted over several years and involve hundreds of samples and parameters. The stormwater results discussed below are for those parameters that were above chemical detection limits at end of pipe and may be potential chemicals of concern to comprehensively monitor in the future. When possible, for reference, results were compared to Wyoming surface water critera and by no means are indicative of what is occurring in the Goose Creek waterway. All chemical results are presented in Tables 3 and 4. METALS Aluminum All four stormwater samples contained aluminum with the highest observed concentration (6.8 ppm) collected during a rain event at the S-line storm drain. All aluminum values observed exceeded the total recoverable chronic water quality criteria for aquatic life of 0.087 ppm (WDEQ 2001a). The majority of the drainage basin consists of large and small parking lots, heavily traveled streets (e.g. Coffeen Avenue),

9

several used car lots, two tire shops and a car cleaning facility. Aluminum in stormwater is generally associated with auto repair and dismantling. Arsenic Arsenic was detected in one stormwater sample during a street washing event at the P-line storm drain. The sample contained 0.003 ppm of arsenic and was below the human health water quality criteria value for fish and drinking water (0.007 ppm). The majority of the drainage basin consists of residential use. Arsenic in stormwater is generally associated with auto repair and motor vehicle waste disposal. The source of arsenic in this stormwater sample is unclear. Cadmium Cadmium was detected in one stormwater sample during a street washing event at the P-line storm drain. The sample contained 0.002 ppm of Cadmium and was below the human health water quality criteria value for fish and drinking water (0.005 ppm). The majority of the drainage basin consists of residential use. Cadmium in stormwater is generally associated with gasoline, rubber, diesel oil and insecticide application. Copper All but one stormwater sample contained copper with the highest observed concentration (0.015 ppm) collected during a street washing event at the P-line storm drain The hardness dependent acute and chronic water quality criteria for aquatic life is 0.015 and 0.013 ppm respectively. The majority of the drainage basin consists of residential use. Copper in stormwater is generally associated with gasoline, brake linings, rubber, asphalt and insecticide application. Iron All four stormwater samples contained iron. The highest observed dissolved concentration (0.31 ppm) was collected during a street washing event at the N-line storm drain. The human health water quality criteria for drinking water and fish is 0.3 ppm. The majority of the drainage basin consists of residential use. Iron in stormwater is generally associated with motor oil and grease, antifreeze and brake linings. Zinc Dissolved Zinc was detected in two of four stormwater samples. Concentrations were well below all water quality criteria. Zinc in stormwater is generally associated with tire wear, motor oil and grease, antifreeze, brake linings and engine wear. ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS E. coli E. coli was detected during all sample events and ranged between 14.8 and 1732.9 cells/100 ml with the highest concentration observed at the N-Line during a street washing event (Table 3). E. coli in stormwater can come from many sources which include wildlife, human waste water and domestic animals. It is unclear why the street washing event at the N-line contained such elevated concentrations of E. coli. A follow up sample at base flow conditions at the N-line indicated E. coli concentration <1 cells/100 ml suggesting that human waste from a connected waste water line was not the source. A brief discussion with a water tank operator suggested that individuals in the area might be disposing of domestic animal waste in the storm drain. To determine if any sewer lines could be associated with the stormwater lines and contributing E. coli to the Goose Creek waterway, several stormwater outfalls were measured for E. coli under base flow conditions. Because of ground water infiltration and other unknown factors, several of the stormwater

10

outfalls discharge water year round. E. coli concentrations were found to be low, ranging from <1 to 117.8 suggesting that sewer lines were not associated with the stormwater lines that were monitored (Table 8). In addition to sampling storm water outfalls a one time sampling event on the Goose Creek waterway as it runs through the City of Sheridan was conducted in July to determine potential problem areas within the city. The highest concentrations observed occurred in Little Goose in the downtown area and in Goose Creek just above the 5th Street Bridge (Table 9). E. coli concentrations significantly dropped from 1203.3 cells/100 ml to 248.6 cells/100 ml between the 5th Street Bridge and the sample taken below Thorne Rider Park. The most probable source for the high E. coli concentrations near the downtown area are the high numbers of pigeons which inhabit the many bridges crossing Little Goose Creek in the downtown area. During early spring sampling significant amounts of pigeon feces were observed on sheets of ice just under the bridges at Coffeen Street crossing and the downtown area (Appendix B). Also, researchers at Idaho State University found a significant correlation between bridge crossings and high E. coli concentrations in the Portneuf River within the city of Pocatello Idaho (Fifteenth Annual Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitoring Result Workshop, 2005). The high E. coli concentrations were attributed to the large numbers of pigeons roosting under the bridges. A more comprehensive study is needed to determine if this is the case for the Goose Creek waterway. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) TDS ranged from 250 to 650 ppm with the highest value observed at the N-line during a street washing event. TDS is used as a general indicator of water quality and is comprised of inorganic salts and small amounts of organic matter. Federal guidelines recommend that TDS levels do not exceed 500 ppm in drinking water. High concentrations of TDS can limit the growth of aquatic life. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) TSS ranged from 28 to 460 ppm. The highest value was observed at the P-line during a street washing event. For the sake of comparison, in a one year stormwater monitoring project in Los Angeles County the highest observed TSS concentration 205.8 ppm. The objective for TSS in Los Angeles County is 300 ppm (County of Los Angeles 1998-1999). TSS includes all particles suspended in water that will not pass through a filter. TSS is a key water quality parameter used to monitor point source discharges. High TSS concentrations introduced during low streamflow conditions result in sediment deposition to the streambed. Deposition can negatively affect fish reproduction and rearing success by decreased gravel permeability and intergravel dissolved oxygen. Density and diversity of macroinvertebrates may be reduced by reducing the habitat for colonization. Wyoming has not established numerical water quality criteria for TSS, however, substances attributable to or influenced by the activities of man that will settle to form sludge, bank or bottom deposits shall not be present in quantities which could result in significant aesthetic degradation, significant degradation of habitat for aquatic life, adversely affect public water supplies, agricultural or industrial water use, plant life or wildlife (WDEQ 2001a). Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) BOD ranged from 7 to 44 ppm. The highest value was observed at the S-line during a rain event. BOD is a measure of oxygen used by microorganisms to decompose organic waste such as dead plants, leaves, grass clippings, manure, and sewage. If there is a large quantity of organic waste in the water supply, there will also be a lot of bacteria present working to decompose this waste. In this case, the demand for oxygen will be high so the BOD level will be high. At high BOD levels, macroinvertebrates that are more tolerant of lower dissolved oxygen may appear more numerous.

11

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) COD ranged between 25 and 210 ppm. The highest value was observed at the S-line during a rain event. COD is indicative of the amount of oxygen required to break down, or oxidize, oils and solvents in the water. The greater the level of COD, the greater the suspected amount of dissolved solvents or oils. Ammonia Nitrogen Ammonia nitrogen ranged between <0.1 and 0.8 ppm with the highest value observed at the S-line during a rain event. Ammonia-nitrogen is an inorganic, dissolved form of nitrogen. Sources of ammonia to a stream can include: fertilizers, human and animal wastes, and by-products from industrial manufacturing processes. High ammonia concentrations can stimulate excessive aquatic production and indicate pollution. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Total Kjeldahl nitrogen ranged between 1.4 and 18 ppm with the highest value observed at the S-line during a rain event. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen is a measure of ammonia plus organic nitrogen. Sources include the decay of organic material such as plant material, animal wastes and urban and industrial disposal of sewage and organic waste. Large amounts of ammonia and organic nitrogen are applied as fertilizer. The higher concentrations of TKN during the stormwater sampling as compared to ammonia nitrogen suggest that the source of nitrogen in the stormwater is mostly organic. Oil and Grease Oil and grease was only detected during a rain event at the S-line site and had a concentration of 6 ppm. Oil and grease include hydrocarbons, fatty acids, soaps, fats, waxes and oil. Expected sources of oil and grease in stormwater include parking lots, fast food restaurants and gas stations. In water, these compounds often attach to sediment particles and settle to the bottom of rivers where they can adversely impact aquatic organisms. Wyoming has numerical surface water quality standard for surface water of 10 ppm (WDEQ 2001a). The detection limit for oil and grease is >5 ppm. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) TPH was detected at the S-line during a rain event and the N-line during a street washing event. The TPH concentrations were 1 ppm in both cases. TPH is a term used to describe a large family of chemical compounds including hexane, benzene, toluene, as well as other petroleum products. They are deposited on roads, parking areas and other areas where there is heavy vehicular use. The detection limit for TPH is 1 ppm. Chlorides Chloride concentrations ranged between 18.1 and 69.7 ppm with the highest concentration observed during a street washing event. Sources of chlorides include industrial and municipal effluent and road salt. The Wyoming surface water quality standard for an instantaneous chloride concentration is 860 ppm (WDEQ 2001a). Summary Overall, most parameters observed in stormwater sampling were those indicative of runoff from streets and parking areas and are associated with motor vehicles. Metals appeared to be associated with street washing events while TPH and oil and grease were associated with the rain event. The elevated measures of TPH and oil and grease during the rain event were related to location rather than event. Most of the drainage area covered by the S-line is either storefront parking, heavily traveled streets or car lots and may collect more hydrocarbons associated with oil and gas. The increased COD levels during the rain event also

12

suggest increased levels of dissolved solvents or oils. The higher metals concentrations during the street washing event may have to do with the way the water is delivered onto the streets (e.g. higher pressures). TSS concentrations were highest during a street washing event at the N-line and may still be an underestimation of the likely TSS concentration if a rain event would have been measured. Heavier particles such as sand and gravel may settle out in the stormwater line before discharging into the surface water. These heavier particles may discharge into surface waters during a rain event when the discharges could be 10-fold or greater. Evidence of this was observed at some stormwater outfalls with the formation of isolated sand bars just below some of the stormwater discharge points.

PHYSICAL DATA: SUBSTRATE RESULTS Riffle substrate composition Stream riffle substrate composition at both control sites was a cobble and/or gravel complex (Table 5). Measured riffle substrate at Little Goose Creek assessment sites NGPI20 and NGPI21 was composed of a greater than 70% mixture of cobbles and coarse gravels. Similarly, substrate at Big Goose Creek site NGP0180 and Little Goose Creek sites NGPI26 was composed of a greater than 70% mixture of cobbles and coarse gravels. Stream substrate composition at Little Goose Creek downstream sites and sites located on Goose Creek were primarily a sand/silt and/or fine gravel complex with the exception of the most downstream site, NPG21. The dominant substrate at the most downstream Little Goose Creek site, NGP0181, was particles <7.6 mm which made up 57.3% of all particles. Also, the dominant substrate at Goose Creek at NGP0183 and NGPI51 was particles <7.6 mm which made up 30 and 35% respectively, of all particles. These three sites dominated by this sand/silt complex were located within the highest concentration of stormwater outfalls (Map 1). Fine Sediment Covering Fine sediment covering of cobble and gravels, in general, increased downstream through Sheridan with the exception of NGP21which had the lowest fine sediment covering rating. The three lowest silt cover scores (the lower the value the higher the amount of silt) were observed at NGP0181, NGP0183 and NGPI51 and were located within the highest concentrations of stormwater outfalls (Table 5). Embeddedness Substrate embeddedness of cobbles and gravels generally increased downstream through Sheridan with the exception of NGP21which had the lowest embeddedness scores. Cobbles and gravels were surrounded by a greater amount of sand or silt the further the Goose Creek waterway moved through Sheridan. The four highest embeddedness scores were observed at NGPI26, NGPI21, NGP0183 and NGPI51 and were located within the highest concentrations of Stormwater outfalls (Table 5). Summary All three analyses used to measure substrate condition identified the same three sites as being most impacted by sand or sediment when compared with control sites. NGP0181, NGP0183 and NGPI51 were all identified has having substrate degraded with sand and sediment when compared to control sites. NGP0183 and NGP0181 were within the area of greatest concentration of stormwater outfalls. Although there were not a significant number of outfalls just upstream of NGP0183 it is clear the extent of impacts from upstream outfalls was still negatively impacting the riffle substrate. The furthest site downstream on Goose Creek had the most desirable substrate for biological inhabitation and suggests that sediment input between Goose Creek NGP0183 and NGP 21 is not exceeding the stream’s ability to remove it. In addition, Big Goose Creek, which had relatively few stormwater outfalls, had the greatest percentage of cobbles and gravels in addition to having lowest embeddedness scores. Given these results stormwater

13

outfalls within the City of Sheridan are clearly having a significantly negative impact on bottom substrate in Little Goose and Goose Creek as it flows through the City of Sheridan.

BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING: MACROINVERTEBRATE RESULTS

WSII The WSII score at the control site on Little Goose Creek (NGPI20) rated “good” and had the highest index score of 63.8 (Table 7). The downstream sites on Little Goose Creek rate “fair” and had scores ranging from 37.0-38.9. The reason for the reduced scores at the downstream sites was significant reductions in Trichoptera and Ephemeroptera taxa, increases in non-insects as well as reduction in the percent Trichoptera. Reductions in trichoptera and ephemeroptera taxa and increases in non-insect taxa are a typical response to increasing perturbation in a stream. WSII scores on both Big Goose Creek sites were similar and rate “fair” with scores of 48.9 at the control site (NGPI21) and 48.0 at Kendrick park (Table 7). The reduction of WSII scores in Big Goose Creek when compared to Little Goose control site (NGPI20) were because of reductions in trichoptera abundance. The reduction in these metrics may be a product of fine sediment cover. Although particle embeddeness was low and percent cobbles and gravels were high when compared to the Little Goose control site, fine sediment covering cobbles and gravels was higher when compared to the Little Goose control site. The WSII score on Goose Creek above 5th (see site description on page 4) street (NGP0183) scored “poor” with an index score of 35.4 (Table 7). This was the lowest score of all sites assessed. The metrics contributing to the “poor” rating at this site were a higher biotic condition index (BCI) score, lower relative abundance and richness of trichoptera, higher richness of non-insect taxa, and lower abundance of semi-voltine taxa and a lower abundance of scrapers. BCI is an average of tolerance values for all taxa in a sample. Communities with predominantly pollution tolerant species will have a high BCI value (Winget and Magnum, 1979). Tolerance values are assigned to taxa based on tolerance to levels of alkalinity, sulfates, fine sediments and low gradients. The optimal value is 63 in the non-mountain regions. Low percentages of herbivorous scraper fauna can indicate stressors. The premise is that specialist feeders are more sensitive to disturbances because they depend on a single food type; periphyton and associated microfauna. General disturbances such as sediment cover could affect the food web by covering cobbles and gravels and limiting periphyton growth (Jessup and Stribling 2002). Increased percentages of non-insects are indicative of stressed water conditions. Many of the non-insects are pollution tolerant. Semi-voltine taxa are taxa that require more than a single year to develop and reproduce and require a stable environment. A loss of semi-voltine taxa can indicate an unstable stream bed and frequent perturbations in water quality. The two most downstream sites NGPI51 and NGP21 both rated “fair” with index scores of 45.9 and 38.7 respectively. The metrics contributing to the lower scores were reduced relative abundance and richness of trichoptera taxa and reduced relative abundance of ephemeroptera taxa at NGPI21. The rating of “fair” at the most downstream site (NGP21) was somewhat perplexing given that the bottom substrate was well suited for macroinvertebrate habitation and was similar to the most upstream site on Little Goose Creek. There are two wastewater treatment plants just upstream of NGP21. A small campground wastewater treatment plant is located upstream approximately 100 yards from the sample site. In addition, the City of Sheridan’s wastewater treatment plant discharges approximately 1 mile upstream of the sample site. These wastewater treatment plants may be influencing the macroinvertebrates in terms of water chemistry. In this case the macroinvertebrate community may be responding to an input of chemicals from these facilities such as nutrients or other chemicals rather than constituents that would effect bottom substrate. Similar results were found by other investigators at sites on Goose Creek below the City of Sheridan in a watershed wide assessment of Goose Creek in 2001 and 2002 (SCCD, 2003). Additional investigation is needed to determine the effects of these wastewater treatment facilities on Goose Creek.

14

WSII Summary Overall the WSII identified degradation in the macroinvertebrate community as the Goose Creek waterway flows through the City of Sheridan. The extent of the degradation was more pronounced than degradation observed in bottom substrate suggesting that factors in addition to sediment deposition and substrate composition are influencing the macroinvertebrate community. The most notable difference in the macroinvertebrate community downstream from the control sites was the loss of trichoperta taxa, a drop in the relative abundance and richness of trichoptera and increases in the non-insect taxa. Anecdotal data suggests that bottom substrate parameters such as embeddedness, percent silt and sand, and the fine sediment cover rating may be the cause of the loss of trichoptera taxa. Figure 1 demonstrates a steady decline of trichoptera taxa as percent embeddedness increases as Little Goose flows through town with the exception of the most downstream site NGP21. The same is observed in Big Goose Creek. Similarly there is a decrease in trichoptera taxa as the percent sand plus silt and the amount of fine sediment covering cobbles and gravels increase (Fig 2 and Fig 3). All of these metrics are indicative of environmental instability. In general non-insect species will increase with increasing instability in water chemistry and sediment input while trichoperta require a stable bottom substrate in order to thrive. Continuously changing bottom substrate composition due to anthropogenic inputs and sediment and sand is most likely the cause of this instability in metrics. CCA ordination The result of the CCA is displayed in an ordination diagram with sites represented by triangles and environmental variables represented by lines (Fig. 4). The site points represent the dominant patterns in the community composition insofar as these sites can be explained by environmental variables. Sites with degraded biotic condition tended to group to the left of the ordination axis while those non-degraded sites (those similar to the controls sites) tended to group to the right. Of the environmental variables that were evaluated, larger stormwater drainage area, increased amounts of fine sediment cover and a lower percentage of cobbles tended to be strongly associated with the degraded sites. Conversely non-degraded sites tended to be influenced by a smaller stormwater drainage areas, decreased amount of fine sediment and high percentage of cobble. These patterns would suggest that biotic condition are characterized by a higher percent of fine substrate and silt cover that appear to be linked to increasing stormwater water drainage area. CCA ordination summary The patterns in biological condition of sites in Goose and Little Goose Creeks appeared to be strongly correlated with the influence of stormwater drains into the system. Stream sites influenced by greater stormwater catchment areas were generally characterized by lower biotic condition than streams sites with minimal or little storm water drain influences. Similarly, stream sites with greater biotic condition tended to possess greater percentages of coarse substrates. We can infer from the available information that within the City of Sheridan, the low biological condition of Goose and Little Goose Creek sites appears to be linked to an increased percentage of fines in the channel via inputs from the stormwater drains into the system.

FINAL ASSESSMENT AND SIGNATURES

Based on a weight of evidence approach, given the data collected during this study, it appears that stormwater discharges within the City limits of Sheridan are degrading the Goose Creek waterway as it runs through the City of Sheridan. Stormwater discharges are contributing excessive amounts of sediment and sand that in turn are causing instability in the waterway and impairing the macroinvertebrate community. Given the data presented above, both Little Goose Creek and Goose Creek as they run through the City of Sheridan are not supporting aquatic life because of excessive amounts of sediment input from stormwater runoff. Its is also recommended that best managements practices be implemented by the City

15

of Sheridan to reduce the amount of sediment entering the stormwater system and remove sediment from stromwater discharge points before entering the creek. It is the opinion of this author that sediment input could be greatly reduced by simply modifying the practices of street washing, implementing better stormwater prevention plans for construction sites, commercial areas and parking lots, paving unpaved streets within the city limits and educating the public on these issues. In addition to evidence presented above, anecdotal data presented by other investigators suggests that constituents other than sediment may be negatively affecting the macroinvertebrate communities just below the City of Sheridan. Constituents such as nutrients or other aqueous chemicals from either upstream stormwater discharges or effluent from the City of Sheridan’s waste water treatment facility maybe negatively influence the macroinvertebrate community on Goose Creek below the City of Sheridan. Additional investigation is needed to determine the extent of these effects on Goose Creek. _________________________________________ _______________ Author Date _________________________________________ _________________ Monitoring Program Supervisor Date

16

References:

City of Sheridan, Wyoming. 1987. Stormwater Management Plan. HDR Infrastructure. Denver Colorado. County of Los Angeles. Department of Public Works. 1998-99 Storm water Monitoring Report.

http://www.ladpw.com/WMD/npdes/9899TC.cfm Braak, C.J.F.T. 1998. Canonical correspondence analysis: A new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct

gradient analysis. Ecology: 67(5). pp 1167-1179. Jessup, B.K. and J.B. Stribling. 2002. Further evaluation of the Wyoming Stream Intergrity Index, considering

quantitative and qualitative reference site criteria. Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD. King K. 1993. A bioassessment method for use in Wyoming stream and river water quality monitoring. MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities

on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. EPA 910/9-91-001. SCCD. 2003. Goose Creek Watershed Assessment. 2001-2002. Sheridan County Conservation District. 1949

Sugarland Drive, Suite 102. Sheridan, Wyoming 82801. Stribling, J. B., B.K. Jessup, and J. Gerritsen. 2000. Development of biological and physical habitat criteria for

Wyoming streams and their use in the TMDL process. March, 2000. Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD. 46pp.

USEPA. Office of Water. 1992. NPDES Storm Water Sampling Guidance Document. EPA 833-B-92-001.

Washington, D.C. Water Quality: Fifteenth Annual Nonpoint Source Water Quality Monitoring Result Workshop, January 4-6, 2005.

Idaho State University, Boise Idaho. WDEQ/WQD. 1998. Beneficial use reconnaissance project-wadeable stream monitoring methodology. Wyoming

Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY. WDEQ/WQD. 2001. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Project (BURP)

Water Quality Monitoring. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Watershed Program, Cheyenne, WY.

WDEQ/WQD. 2001a. Water Quality Rules and Regulations: Chapter 1. Wyoming Surface Water Quality

Standards. Water Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY. WDEQ/WQD. 2002. Wyoming’s methods for determining water quality condition of surface waters. Wyoming

Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY. WDEQ/WQD. 2005. Manual of Standard Operating Procedures for Sample Collection and Analysis. Wyoming

Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Watershed Program, Cheyenne, WY. Winget, R.N. and F.A. Mangum. 1979. Biotic condition index: Integrated biological, physical, and chemical

stream parameters for management. Intermountain Region, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.

17

Table 1: Descriptive information for the Goose Creek waterway assessment. Site ID Legal

Sec/Twn/Rng. Latitude Longitude Elevation

(ft) USGS 7.5’ Quad

1:100,000 BLM Map

NGPI20 SWNW Sec. 02, T55N, R084W

44° 46’ 14.91” 106° 56’ 59.89 3780 Sheridan Sheridan

NGP0182 NESE Sec. 35 T56N,

R084W


NGPI26 SWNE Sec. 35, T56N,

R84W

44° 47’ 10.48” 106° 56’ 31.38” 3745 Sheridan Sheridan

NGP0181 NWSE Sec. 23, T56N, R084W


NGPI21 NWSW Sec, 27, T56N,

R84W

44° 47’42.80” 106° 57’ 56.14” 3750 Sheridan Sheridan

NGP0180 SESE Sec. 21, T56N, R084W


NGP0183 SESE Sec. 22, T56N,

R84W


NGPI51 NWNE Sec. 22, T56N,

R84W


NGP21 NWNW Sec. 15 T56N,

R84W


18

Table 2: Criteria for narrative assessment and determination of aquatic life use support in the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion in Wyoming.

Aquatic life use support status

Narrative assessment Percentile of reference index values

WSII score

Full support Very good - >77.5 Full support Good ≥ 25th 55.5 - 77.5 Partial support Fair < 25th 36.7 – 55.5 Non support Poor - 18.3 – 36.7 Non support Very poor - < 18.3

19

Table 3: Chemical results for stormwater discharges with the City limits of Sheridan. Parameter Q-Line S-Line P-Line N-Line E. coli (cells/100ml) 14.8 98.8 50.4 1732.9 PH (S.U) 8.10 7.8 7.64 - Turbidity (NTU) - 697 737 - Conductivity (µS/cm) 393 306 473 - TDS (mg/L) 290 250 480 650 TSS (mg/L) 28 390 460 88 Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 122.7 104 113.6 296.9 Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 137 72 145 227 BOD (mg/L) 7 44 19 16 COD (mg/L) 55 210 25 37 Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.1 .8 .3 .3 Total Kjdldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 1.4 18 2.2 1.7 Total Cyanide (mg/L) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Oil and Grease (mg/|L) <5 6 <5 <5 TPH 418.1 (mg/L) <1 1 <1 1 Bicarbonate (mg/L) 167 88 180 276 Cl (mg/L) 20.8 18.1 58.7 69.7 Nitrate-Nitrite (mg/L) 0.92 0.41 0.27 0.44 Sulfate 13.3 48 23.1 138 Ca (mg/L) 26.1 27 32.9 71.3 Mg (mg/L) 14 8.9 7.7 28.9 Na (mg/L) 23 17 54.8 80.6

-parameter not measured.

20

Table 4: Results from metal analysis for stormwater discharges within the City of Sheridian.

Q-Line S-Line P-Line N-Line Parameter Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Al (mg/L) 1.51 0.16 6.8 - 6.17 <0.05 1.62 0.21 As (mg/L) <0.001 <0.001 <0.005 - 0.003 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 Cd (mg/L) <0.0002 <0.0002 - <0.002 0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 Cr (mg/L) 0.002 <0.001 - <0.01 0.011 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 Co (mg/L) <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Cu (mg/L) 0.007 0.005 - <0.01 0.015 0.005 0.008 0.003 Fe (mg/L) 1.69 0.13 - 0.11 8.97 0.29 3.20 0.31 Pb (mg/L) 0.003 <0.002 - <0.02 0.017 <0.002 0.004 <0.002 Hg (mg/L) <0.0004 <0.0004 - <0.001 <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0004 Ni (mg/L) <0.01 <0.01 - 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 P (mg/L) 0.29 0.22 1.2 0.8 0.65 0.19 0.34 0.11 Se (mg/L) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 Zn (mg/L) 0.02 <0.01 - 0.05 0.11 <0.01 0.06 0.02 - parameter not measured.

21

Tabl

e 5:

Stre

am su

bstra

te c

ompo

sitio

n pa

ram

eter

s col

lect

ed a

t ass

essm

ent s

tatio

ns in

the

Goo

se C

reek

wat

erw

ay w

ithin

the

city

lim

it of

She

ridan

.

Para

met

er

NG

PI20

N

GP0

182

NG

PI26

N

GP0

181

NG

PI21

N

GP0

180

NG

P018

3 N

GPI

51

NG

P21

Cob

ble

32.7

23

.6

37.3

17

.3

59.1

54

.5

18.2

14

.5

30.9

C

oars

e G

rave

l 39

40

32

.7

17.2

7 17

.27

26.4

29

.1

32.7

45

.5

Fine

Gra

vel

13.7

19

.09

8.18

8.

18

7.27

8.

2 22

.7

18.2

19

.1

Sand

+ S

ilt

14.6

17

.27

21.8

57

.3

16.4

10

.0

30.0

34

.5

5.42

Sa

nd*

11.9

24

.4

23.1

1.

25

26.7

4.

4 9.

4 28

.8

7.5

Silt

* 0

13.8

10

75

0

0 20

31

.3

4.4

Roo

ted

Mac

roph

ytes

82

.5

39.4

16

.7

82.5

15

23

30

.7

49

56.3

Fi

lam

ento

us a

lgae

0

16.9

4.

8 0

11.3

1.

4 1.

9 8.

8 5.

6 Fi

ne S

edim

ent C

over

70

57

48

.2

24

46.4

54

.2

17.6

33

.4

78.6

Em

bedd

edne

ss

40

43.6

64

.3

76.4

35

.7

36.6

59

.5

71.7

25

.4

*par

amet

ers e

stim

ated

.

22

Tabl

e 6:

Che

mic

al re

sults

for G

oose

Cre

ek w

ater

shed

ass

essm

ent s

tatio

ns w

ith th

e ci

ty li

mits

of S

herid

an.

Pa

ram

eter

N

GPI

20

NG

P018

2 N

GPI

26

NG

P018

1 N

GPI

21

NG

P018

0 N

GP0

183

NG

PI51

N

GP2

1 D

ate

10/2

5/04

10

/25/

04

10/2

5/04

10

/25/

04

10/2

5/04

10

/25/

04

10/2

5/04

10

/25/

04

10/2

5/04

Ti

me

1520

14

49

1415

13

45

1300

12

20

1105

10

30

840

Tem

pera

ture

(°C)

8.

1 7.

6 7.

6 7.

2 6.

3 6.

3 7.

0 6.

8 5.

2 pH

(S.U

.) 8.

59

8.61

8.

49

8.53

8.

42

36.9

8.

42

8.45

8.

34

Dis

solv

ed O

xyge

n (m

g/L)

11

.79

13.6

3 11

.43

13.2

0 12

.33

12.3

6 12

.60

11.6

6 10

.32

Turb

idity

(NTU

) 5.

44

4.76

4.

48

6.01

1.

97

3.02

4.

4 9.

77

7.01

TS

S (m

g/L)

6

6 3

6 <2

<2

4

13

12

Alk

alin

ity (m

g/L

as C

aCO

3)

285

280

265

272

310

320

300

315

295

Sulfa

te (m

g/L)

83

84

88

91

17

6 19

7 15

4 14

3 13

9 C

hlor

ide

(mg/

L)

<5

<5

<5

<5

5 5

5 5

6 N

itrat

e-N

itrog

en (m

g/L)

<0

.1

<0.1

<0

.1

<0.1

<0

.1

<0.1

<0

.1

<0.1

0.

1 To

tal P

hosp

horu

s (m

g/L)

<0

.1

<0.1

<0

.1

<0.1

<0

.1

<0.1

<0

.1

<0.1

0.

2 To

tal H

ardn

ess

(mg/

L as

CaC

O3)

308

310

316

320

420

432

380

380

370

E. C

oli

(num

ber/1

00 m

ls)

31.7

38

.4

24.3

21

.3

38.4

38

.4

36.9

31

.8

73.8

23

Table 7: WSII metric values, scores, and site rating for Little and Big Goose assessment stations. Little Goose Creek abv. Sheridan (NGPI20) – 10/26/2004 ENTER

Metric Scoring formula METRICS Score 5th or 95th %ile

(as per formula) Total taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 43 95.6 45 Ephemeroptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 6 66.7 9 Plecoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 5 Tichoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 8 80.0 10 % Plecoptera 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 13 % Trichoptera (no Hydropsychidae) 100*metric / 95th %ile 30.09 96.8 31.1 % non-insects 100*(55 – metic) / (55 – 5th %ile) 9.46 83.6 0.5 % scrapers 100*metric / 95th %ile 37.32 100.0 31.8 BCI CTQa 100*(110 – metic) / (110 – 5th %ile) 89 44.3 62.6 Semi-voltine taxa 100*metric / 95th%ile 5 71.4 7 Index Score 63.8 good Western High Plains good Northwestern great Plains Sa

mpl

e ra

ting

good Wyoming Basin

Little Goose Creek Emerson Park (NGP0182) – 10/26/2004 ENTER Metric Scoring formula METRICS Score

5th or 95th %ile (as per formula)

Total taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 40 88.9 45 Ephemeroptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 5 55.6 9 Plecoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 5 Trichoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 6 60.0 10 % Plecoptera 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 13 % Trichoptera (no Hydropsychidae) 100*metric / 95th %ile 4.84 15.6 31.1 % non-insects 100*(55 – metic) / (55 – 5th %ile) 34.34 37.9 0.5 % scrapers 100*metric / 95th %ile 9.09 28.6 31.8 BCI CTQa 100*(110 – metic) / (110 – 5th %ile) 97.48 26.4 62.6 Semi-voltine taxa 100*metric / 95th%ile 4 57.1 7 Index Score 37.0 good Western High Plains fair Northwestern great Plains Sa

mpl

e ra

ting

poor Wyoming Basin

Little Goose Creek Emerson Park (NGPI26) – 10/26/2004 ENTER Metric Scoring formula METRICS Score



mpl

e ra

ting

poor Wyoming Basin

24

Table 7 (cont.): WSII metric values, scores, and site rating for Little and Big Goose assessment stations. Little Goose Creek Loucks St. (NGP0181) – 10/26/2004 ENTER


(as per formula) Total taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 36 80.0 45 Ephemeroptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 4 44.4 9 Plecoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 5 Tichoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 2 20.0 10 % Plecoptera 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 13 % Trichoptera (no Hydropsychidae) 100*metric / 95th %ile 0.09 0.3 31.1 % non-insects 100*(55 – metic) / (55 – 5th %ile) 7.61 87.0 0.5 % scrapers 100*metric / 95th %ile 16.85 53.0 31.8 BCI CTQa 100*(110 – metic) / (110 – 5th %ile) 101.27 18.4 62.6 Semi-voltine taxa 100*metric / 95th%ile 6 85.7 7 Index Score 38.9 good Western High Plains fair Northwestern great Plains Sa

mpl

e ra

ting

poor Wyoming Basin

Big Goose Sheridan (NGPI21) – 10/27/2004 ENTER Metric Scoring formula METRICS Score


Total taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 31 68.9 45 Ephemeroptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 3 33.3 9 Plecoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 5 Trichoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 7 70.0 10 % Plecoptera 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 13 % Trichoptera (no Hydropsychidae) 100*metric / 95th %ile 7.72 24.8 31.1 % non-insects 100*(55 – metic) / (55 – 5th %ile) 4.29 93.0 0.5 % scrapers 100*metric / 95th %ile 34.65 100.0 31.8 BCI CTQa 100*(110 – metic) / (110 – 5th %ile) 90 42.2 62.6 Semi-voltine taxa 100*metric / 95th%ile 4 57.1 7 Index Score 48.9 good Western High Plains fair Northwestern great Plains Sa

mpl

e ra

ting

fair Wyoming Basin

Big Goose Kendrick Park (NGP0180) – 10/27/2004 ENTER Metric Scoring formula METRICS Score


Total taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 36 80.0 45 Ephemeroptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 4 44.4 9 Plecoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 5 Trichoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 4 40.0 10 % Plecoptera 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 13 % Trichoptera (no Hydropsychidae) 100*metric / 95th %ile 5.61 18.0 31.1 % non-insects 100*(55 – metic) / (55 – 5th %ile) 8.95 84.5 0.5 % scrapers 100*metric / 95th %ile 32.89 100.0 31.8 BCI CTQa 100*(110 – metic) / (110 – 5th %ile) 97 27.4 62.6 Semi-voltine taxa 100*metric / 95th%ile 6 85.7 7 Index Score 48.0 good Western High Plains fair Northwestern great Plains Sa

mpl

e ra

ting

fair Wyoming Basin

25

Table 7 (cont.): WSII metric values, scores, and site rating for Little and Big Goose assessment stations. Goose Creek 5th St. (NGP0183) – 10/26/2004 ENTER


(as per formula) Total taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 37 82.2 45 Ephemeroptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 4 44.4 9 Plecoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 5 Tichoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 2 20.0 10 % Plecoptera 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 13 % Trichoptera (no Hydropsychidae) 100*metric / 95th %ile 14.59 46.9 31.1 % non-insects 100*(55 – metic) / (55 – 5th %ile) 18.55 66.9 0.5 % scrapers 100*metric / 95th %ile 10.63 33.4 31.8 BCI CTQa 100*(110 – metic) / (110 – 5th %ile) 101.72 17.5 62.6 Semi-voltine taxa 100*metric / 95th%ile 3 42.9 7 Index Score 35.4 good Western High Plains poor Northwestern great Plains Sa

mpl

e ra

ting

poor Wyoming Basin

Goose Creek abv. WWT (NGPI51) – 10/27/2004 ENTER Metric Scoring formula METRICS Score



mpl

e ra

ting

fair Wyoming Basin Goose Creek blw. KOA (NGP21) – 10/26/2004 ENTER


(as per formula) Total taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 39 86.7 45 Ephemeroptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 3 33.3 9 Plecoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 5 Tichoptera taxa 100*metric / 95th %ile 2 20.0 10 % Plecoptera 100*metric / 95th %ile 0 0.0 13 % Trichoptera (no Hydropsychidae) 100*metric / 95th %ile 0.46 1.5 31.1 % non-insects 100*(55 – metic) / (55 – 5th %ile) 16.84 70.0 0.5 % scrapers 100*metric / 95th %ile 20.33 63.9 31.8 BCI CTQa 100*(110 – metic) / (110 – 5th %ile) 97.97 25.4 62.6 Semi-voltine taxa 100*metric / 95th%ile 6 85.7 7 Index Score 38.7 good Western High Plains fair Northwestern great Plains Sa

mpl

e ra

ting

poor Wyoming Basin

26

Table 8: Additional stormwater outfall E. coli samples at base flow conditions Sample ID Site description Date E. coli (cells/100 mls) Q-Line Discharge into Little Goose Creek near Emerson Park 4/12/2004 10.9 S-Line Discharge into Little Goose Creek near Coffeen street

bridge 4/12/2004 <1

P-Line Discharge into Little Goose Creek in Coffeen Park 4/12/2004 6.3 I-Line Discharge into Little Goose Creek at Collage and Canby 4/12/2004 14.6 N-Line Discharge into Little Goose Creek at Works and Candy 4/12/2004 12.1 I2-Line Discharge into Little Goose Creek near hockey rink 4/12/2004 6.3 H-Line Discharge into Little Goose Creek at Broadway and 1st street 4/15/2004 117.8 G-Line Discharge into Little Goose Creek near Main and 1st street 4/15/2004 1.0

27

Table 9: Results of E. coli samples collected from Goose Creek waterway within the City limits of Sheridan Sample ID Site description Date E. coli (cells/100 mls) Brundage Little Goose Creek at Brundage street bridge 7/20/2004 488.4 Sheridan Street Little Goose Creek at Sheridan Street bridge downstream of

Emerson Park 7/20/2004 118.7

Coffeen Park Little Goose Creek in Coffeen Park 7/20/2004 410.6 Hockey Rink Little Goose Creek just downstream of hockey rink 7/20/2004 517.2 Downtown Little Goose Creek upstream of confluence with Big Goose

Creek 7/20/2004 1986.3

Kendrick Big Goose in Kendrick Park 7/20/2004 184.2 5th Street Goose Creek above 5th street bridge 7/20/2004 1203.3 Thorne Rider Goose Creek below Thorne Rider Park 7/20/2004 248.9 Port of entry Goose Creek below Sheridan Port of Entry 7/20/2004 248.1

28

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

NGPI20 NGP0182 NGP26 NGP0181 NGPI21 NGP0180 NGP0183 NGPI51 NGP21

Site ID

No.

Tax

a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Em

bedd

edne

ss

Trichoptera Richness Embeddedness

Figure 1: Taxa richness of Trichoptera in relation to percent cobble and gravel embeddedness in the Goose Creek

waterway through the City of Sheridan.

29

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

NGPI20 NGP0182 NGP26 NGP0181 NGPI21 NGP0180 NGP0183 NGPI51 NGP21Site ID

No.

Tax

a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

%Sa

nd+s

ilt

Trichoptera Richness sand+sil t

Figure 2: Taxa richness of Trichoptera in relation to percent sand and silt in riffle substrate in the Goose Creek

waterway through the City of Sheridan.

30

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

NGPI20 NGP0182 NGP26 NGP0181 NGPI21 NGP0180 NGP0183 NGPI51 NGP21

Site ID

No.

Tax

a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Sedi

men

t Cov

er R

atin

g

Trichoptera Richness Fine Sediment Cover Rating

Figure 3: Taxa richness of Trichoptera in relation to fine sediment cover ratings (the lower the rating the greater the

amount of fine sediment covering cobbles and gravels) in the Goose Creek waterway through the City of Sheridan.

32

Figure 4: CCA ordination plot based on macroinvertebrate relative abundance data and abiotic variables. % FG=percent fine

gravel, SCDA=stormwater cumulative drainage area, %C=percent cobble, FSC=fine sediment cove

33

Appendix A – Summary of macroinvertebrate collection results and selected biometrics for Little and Big Goose Creeks. NGPI20 NGP0182 NGPI26 Taxon Abundance % Composition Abundance % Composition Abundance % Composition Acari 188 0.92 81 0.44 266 2.66 Ambrysus 27 0.13 Erpobdella 81 0.4 Ferrissia Gammarus Glossiphonia complanata Gyraulus Helobdella 27 0.15 Hyalella 54 0.26 136 0.74 Imma. Tubifice w/ocap Setae 4412 24.05 48 0.57 Imma. Tubificid w/cap. Setae Lumbriculidae Lymnaeidae 54 0.26 27 0.15 Nais 27 0.15 Nematoda 54 0.26 27 0.15 Ophidonais serpentina Orconectes Physidae 54 0.26 511 2.79 16 0.19 Pisidiidae 350 1.91 65 0.76 Pisidium 54 0.29 32 0.38 Planorbidae Prostoma Setae 726 3.55 Sphaerium 215 1.05 97 1.14 Stagnicola Turbellaria 484 2.36 646 3.52 129 1.52 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 1937 9.46 6296 34.31 613 7.21 Acentrella 54 0.26 Asioplax 27 0.15 Baetidae Baetis tricaudatus 1291 6.31 1614 8.8 210 2.47 Caenis Choroterpes 780 3.81 Ephemera 27 0.13 Fallceon quilleri 242 1.18 108 0.59 16 0.19 Leptophlebiidae 27 0.15 Paraleptophlebia Stenonema Tricorythodes 1237 6.04 4223 23.02 3309 38.9 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 3631 17.74 5999 32.70 3535 41.56 Cheumatopsyche 377 1.8 81 0.4 Chimarra 565 2.8 Helicopsyche borealis 3685 18 753 4.1 242 2.8 Hydropsyche 699 3.4 54 0.3 48 0.6 Hydropsychidae 108 0.5 Hydroptila 269 1.3 54 0.3 32 0.4 Hydroptilidae 27 0.1 Nectospyche 54 0.3 533 6.3 Neotrichia 27 0.1 Oecetis 1614 7.9 TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 7344 35.87 1022 5.57 855 10.06 Pterophila 538 2.63 54 0.29 32 0.38 TOTOAL: LEPIDOPTERA 538 2.63 54 0.29 32 0.38 Gyraulus 27 0.13 32 0.38 TOTAL: HETEROPTERA 27 0.13 32 0.38 Dubiraphid 995 4.9 2233 12.2 759 8.9 Elmidea Haliplidae 27 0.1 Microcylloepus 3255 15.9 323 1.8 1275 15 Optioservus 54 0.3 Stenelmis 161 0.8 27 0.1 97 1.1 Zaitzevia 54 0.3 16 0.20 TOTAL: COLEOPTERA 4519 22.07 2609 14.22 2147 25.24 Coenagrionidae 54 0.26 27 0.15 TOTAL: ODONATA 54 0.26 27 0.15

34

Appendix A (cont) – Summary of macroinvertebrate collection results and selected biometrics for Little and Big Goose Creeks. NGPI20 NGP0182 NGPI26 Taxon Abundance % Composition Abundance % Composition Abundance % Composition Ceratopogoninae 108 0.53 188 1.03 16 0.19 Chelifera 65 0.76 Dicranota 81 0.4 Dixa 16 0.19 Ephydridae 27 0.15 Forcipomyiinae Hemerodromia 27 0.13 215 1.17 242 2.85 Hexatoma 27 0.13 Muscidae Psychodidae Simulium 323 1.76 65 0.76 TOTAL: DIPTERA 243 1.19 753 4.11 404 4.74 Sialis 27 0.15 TOTAL: MEGALOPTERA 27 0.15 Corynoneura Cricotopus (Cricotopus) 861 4.21 81 0.44 129 1.52 Cricotopus (Isocladius) Cricotopus bicinctus 350 1.91 Cricotopus trifascia 81 0.4 296 1.61 16 0.19 Cryptochironomus 27 0.15 Diamesa 54 0.29 Dicrotendipes 54 0.29 Eukiefferiella Brehmi Gr. Micropsectra 215 1.05 81 0.44 Microtendipes 215 1.05 Orthocladius 135 0.66 Pagastia 27 0.13 16 0.19 Parakiefferiella Parametriocnemus 27 0.13 Phaenopsectra 27 0.15 Potthastia Procladius Rheotanytarsus 619 3.02 592 3.23 710 8.35 Tanytarsus Thienemanniella Thienemannimyia Gr. Tvetenia Bavarica Gr. 16 0.19 Zavrelimyia TOTAL CHIRONOMIDAE 2180 10.65 1560 8.50 888 10.44 GRAND TOTAL 20473 100.00 18347 100.00 8506 100.00 Selected metrics Taxa Richness 43 40 29 %EPT 53.61 38.27 51.61 EPT/Chironomidae 5.04 4.50 4.95 Shannon H (log2) 4.72 3.49 3.07 Shannon H (LN) 3.27 2.42 2.13 Eveness 0.07 0.06 0.07 Simpson D 0.08 0.14 0.20 HBI 6.56 7.07 6.36 BCI (CTOa) 89.00 97.48 95.75 % 5 Dominant 54.14 72.14 77.42 % 10 Dominant 73.98 85.48 89.75 % Multivoltine 23.39 22.43 17.65 % Univoltine 54.53 63.20 57.12 % Semivoltine 22.08 14.22 25.24 Collector-gatherer (%) 34.82 76.54 59.39 Collector-filterer (%) 11.56 5.72 9.68 Scraper (%) 37.32 9.09 18.41 Shredder (%) 4.20 0.44 1.52 WSII Metric Score 63.8 37.0 40.1 WSII Metric Rating Good Fair Fair

35

Appendix A (cont.) – Summary of macroinvertebrate collection results and selected biometrics for Little and Big Goose Creeks. NGP0181 NGPI21 NGP0180 Taxon Abundance % Composition Abundance % Composition Abundance % Composition Acari 538 1.71 215 1.37 968 3.01 Ambrysus Erpobdella Ferrissia Gammarus 27 0.17 Glossiphonia complanata Gyraulus Helobdella Hyalella Imma. Tubifice w/ocap Setae 27 2.14 Imma. Tubificid w/cap. Setae 673 0.09 Lumbriculidae 27 0.17 Lymnaeidae 81 0.25 Nais Nematoda 215 0.68 188 0.59 Ophidonais serpentina 27 0.08 Orconectes 27 0.09 Physidae 780 2.48 296 1.89 511 1.59 Pisidiidae 161 0.5 Pisidium 27 0.09 81 0.51 Planorbidae Prostoma 27 0.08 Setae Sphaerium 81 0.26 Stagnicola 27 0.17 Turbellaria 27 0.09 915 2.85 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 2394 7.61 673 4.29 2878 8.95 Acentrella Asioplax Baetidae Baetis tricaudatus 430 1.37 2556 16.3 1883 5.86 Caenis 27 0.09 Choroterpes Ephemera Fallceon quilleri 27 0.09 81 0.25 Leptophlebiidae 54 0.34 27 0.08 Paraleptophlebia Stenonema Tricorythodes 1453 4.62 2932 18.7 7451 23.18 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 1937 6.16 5541 35.33 9442 29.37 Cheumatopsyche 54 0.2 242 1.5 Chimarra 511 3.3 Helicopsyche borealis 430 2.7 565 1.8 Hydropsyche 215 1.4 54 0.2 Hydropsychidae Hydroptila 108 0.7 27 0.1 Hydroptilidae Nectospyche 27 0.1 54 0.3 1211 3.8 Neotrichia Oecetis 108 0.7 TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 81 0.26 1668 10.63 1856 5.77 Pterophila 350 2.23 673 2.09 TOTOAL: LEPIDOPTERA 350 2.23 673 2.09 Gyraulus TOTAL: HETEROPTERA Dubiraphid 15656 49.8 720 4.6 2260 7 Elmidea 484 1.5 699 2.2 Haliplidae 54 0.2 Microcylloepus 4223 13.4 4331 27.6 8796 27.4 Optioservus 27 0.1 Stenelmis 296 0.9 269 1.7 915 2.8 Zaitzevia 54 0.3 81 0.3 TOTAL: COLEOPTERA 20713 65.87 5380 34.31 12778 39.75 Argia 54 0.17 54 0.17 Coenagrionidae 484 1.54 27 0.08 Enallagma 511 1.63 TOTAL: ODONATA 1049 3.34 81 0.25

36

Appendix A (cont.) – Summary of macroinvertebrate collection results and selected biometrics for Little and Big Goose Creeks. NGP0181 NGPI21 NGP0180 Taxon Abundance % Composition Abundance % Composition Abundance % Composition Ceratopogoninae 135 0.43 81 0.25 Chelifera 27 0.09 54 0.34 27 0.08 Dicranota Dixa Ephydridae Forcipomyiinae Hemerodromia 377 1.2 215 1.37 135 0.42 Hexatoma Muscidae 27 0.17 Psychodidae Simulium 430 1.37 269 1.72 1049 3.26 TOTAL: DIPTERA 968 3.08 565 3.60 1291 4.02 Sialis 54 0.17 TOTAL: MEGALOPTERA 54 017 Corynoneura 1076 0.08 Cricotopus (Cricotopus) 296 1.89 27 3.35 Cricotopus (Isocladius) Cricotopus bicinctus 215 0.68 Cricotopus trifascia 484 1.54 592 3.77 538 1.67 Cryptochironomus 215 0.68 Diamesa 135 0.86 27 0.08 Dicrotendipes 54 0.17 Eukiefferiella Brehmi Gr. Micropsectra 27 0.17 Microtendipes Orthocladius 27 0.08 Pagastia 108 0.33 Parakiefferiella 27 0.17 Parametriocnemus Phaenopsectra 296 0.94 Potthastia 27 0.09 Procladius 27 0.09 Rheotanytarsus 2744 8.73 430 2.74 135 3.6 Tanytarsus Thienemanniella Thienemannimyia Gr. 27 0.09 Tvetenia Bavarica Gr. 54 0.42 Zavrelimyia 161 0.51 1157 0.17 TOTAL CHIRONOMIDAE 4250 13.52 1506 9.61 3147 9.79 GRAND TOTAL 31446 100.00 15683 100.00 32146 100.00 Taxa Richness 36 31 36 %EPT 6.42 45.97 35.15 EPT/Chironomidae 0.47 4.79 3.59 Shannon H (log2) 2.73 3.44 3.52 Shannon H (LN) 1.90 2.39 2.44 Eveness 0.05 0.08 0.06 Simpson D 0.28 0.15 0.15 HBI 6.39 6.46 6.28 BCI (CTQa) 101.27 90.00 97.0 % 5 Dominant 79.04 71.01 67.20 % 10 Dominant 87.60 83.88 83.26 % Multivoltine 17.45 27.96 22.43 % Univoltine 16.60 37.74 37.82 % Semivoltine 68.95 34.31 39.75 Collector-gatherer (%) 63.13 45.45 49.37 Collector-filterer (%) 10.27 10.63 7.03 Scraper (%) 16.85 34.65 32.89 Shredder (%) 0.09 1.89 3.35 WSII Metric Score 38.9 48.9 48.0 WSII Metric Rating Fair Fair Fair

37

Appendix A (cont.) -Summary of macroinvertebrate collection results and selected biometrics for Little and Big Goose Creeks. NGP0183 NGPI51 NGP21 Taxon Abundance % Composition Abundance % Composition Abundance % Composition Acari 2044 7.34 269 1.79 484 2.73 Ambrysus Erpobdella 27 0.1 27 0.18 27 0.15 Ferrissia 27 0.1 54 0.3 Gammarus Glossiphonia complanata 27 0.1 Gyraulus 54 0.36 27 0.15 Helobdella Hyalella 81 0.54 Imma. Tubifice w/ocap Setae 161 0.58 377 2.51 673 3.79 Imma. Tubificid w/cap. Setae Lumbriculidae Lymnaeidae Nais Nematoda 27 0.1 188 1.25 54 0.3 Ophidonais serpentina 81 0.29 161 0.91 Orconectes Physidae 2287 8.21 2340 15.59 968 5.46 Pisidiidae 27 0.18 161 0.91 Pisidium 81 0.29 Planorbidae 27 0.1 Prostoma 27 0.1 269 1.52 Setae Sphaerium Stagnicola 27 0.15 Turbellaria 350 1.26 54 0.36 81 0.46 TOTAL: NON INSECTS 5165 18.55 3416 22.76 2986 16.84 Acentrella Asioplax Baetidae 81 0.46 Baetis tricaudatus 161 0.58 215 1.43 Caenis 27 0.1 188 1.25 Choroterpes Ephemera 27 0.18 27 0.15 Fallceon quilleri 296 1.06 54 0.36 Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 27 0.18 Stenonema 27 0.18 Tricorythodes 4304 15.46 861 5.73 6779 38.24 TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 4788 17.20 1399 9.32 6886 38.85 Cheumatopsyche 1802 6.5 Chimarra Helicopsyche borealis 27 0.2 Hydropsyche Hydropsychidae Hydroptila 4062 14.6 54 3.2 Hydroptilidae Nectospyche 484 0.4 54 0.3 Neotrichia Oecetis TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 5864 21.06 538 3.58 81 0.46 Pterophila 27 0.1 27 0.18 135 0.76 TOTOAL: LEPIDOPTERA 27 0.1 27 0.18 135 0.76 Gyraulus TOTAL: HETEROPTERA Dubiraphid 538 1.9 2932 19.5 1695 9.6 Elmidea 215 1.2 Haliplidae 27 0.2 Microcylloepus 619 2.2 2287 15.2 2394 13.5 Optioservus Stenelmis 430 1.5 350 2.3 350 2 Zaitzevia 27 0.2 TOTAL: COLEOPTERA 1587 5.70 5595 37.28 4681 26.40 Argia Coenagrionidae 27 0.10 135 0.90 27 0.15 Enallagma 27 0.18 27 0.15 TOTAL: ODONATA 27 0.10 161 1.08 54 0.30

38

Appendix A (Cont.) – Summary of macroinvertebrate collection results and selected biometrics for Little and Big Goose Creeks. NGP0183 NGP0183 NGP21 Taxon Abundance % Composition Abundance % Composition Abundance % Composition Ceratopogoninae 108 0.72 27 0.15 Chelifera 54 0.19 Dicranota Dixa Ephydridae Forcipomyiinae Hemerodromia 27 0.1 81 0.54 188 1.06 Hexatoma Muscidae 54 0.19 Psychodidae 27 0.1 Simulium 430 1.55 27 0.15 TOTAL: DIPTERA 592 2.13 188 1.25 242 1.37 Sialis TOTAL: MEGALOPTERA Corynoneura Cricotopus (Cricotopus) 108 0.72 673 3.79 Cricotopus (Isocladius) 27 0.18 54 0.3 Cricotopus bicinctus 108 0.39 Cricotopus trifascia 1749 6.28 269 1.79 296 1.67 Cryptochironomus 27 0.18 27 0.15 Diamesa 457 1.64 27 0.18 Dicrotendipes 54 0.19 780 5.2 161 0.91 Eukiefferiella Brehmi Gr. 27 0.15 Micropsectra 108 0.39 135 0.9 Microtendipes 27 0.18 Orthocladius 161 0.58 27 0.15 Pagastia 27 0.15 Parakiefferiella Parametriocnemus Phaenopsectra 27 0.15 Potthastia 27 0.1 Procladius 27 0.18 Rheotanytarsus 27 25.51 2071 13.8 1291 7.28 Tanytarsus 7102 0.1 Thienemanniella 54 0.36 27 0.15 Thienemannimyia Gr. Tvetenia Bavarica Gr. Zavrelimyia 135 0.9 27 0.15 TOTAL CHIRONOMIDAE 9792 35.17 2663 15.02 GRAND TOTAL 27842 100.00 3685 24.55 17727 100.00 Taxa Richness 37 39 39 %EPT 38.26 12.90 39.30 EPT/Chironomidae 1.09 0.53 2.62 Shannon H (log2) 3.47 3.82 3.28 Shannon H (LN) 2.41 2.65 2.28 Eveness 0.07 0.11 0.06 Simpson D 0.13 6.00 0.19 HBI 6.42 6.72 6.75 BCI (CTQa) 101.72 94.28 97.97 % 5 Dominant 71.11 69.89 74.05 % 10 Dominant 89.66 84.95 88.01 % Multivoltine 60.10 32.97 18.97 % Univoltine 34.20 29.57 54.48 % Semivoltine 5.70 37.46 26.56 Collector-gatherer (%) 33.43 42.83 62.06 Collector-filterer (%) 33.62 13.80 7.44 Scraper (%) 10.63 31.54 20.33 Shredder (%) 0.00 0.90 4.10 WSII Metric Score 35.4 45.9 38.7 WSII Metric Rating Poor Fair Fair

39

APPENDIX B

PHOTOGRAPHS

40

OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPH Water Quality Division

Department of Environmental Quality

Subject: A-line storm water discharge Location/County: Near Thorne rider/ Sheridan County Date/Time: 3/2/2004/14:56 Photographer: Scott Collyard Witness: Jason Martineau

41



Subject: A-line storm water discharge Location/County: Near Thorne rider/ Sheridan County Date/Time: 3/2/2004/14:56 Photographer: Scott Collyard Witness: Jason Martineau

42



Subject: S-line storm water discharge Location/County: Coffeen Bridge Crossing Little Goose Creek/Sheridan County Date/Time: 3/2/2004/15:20 Photographer: Scott Collyard Witness: Jason Martineau

43



Subject: Collection of pigeon feces near the downtown area of Little Goose Creek Location/County: Coffeen Bridge Crossing Little Goose Creek/Sheridan County Date/Time: 3/2/2004/15:20 Photographer: Scott Collyard Witness: Jason Martineau

44



Subject: Looking upstream of J-line storm water discharge Location/County: Downtown Sheridan Little Goose Creek/ Sheridan County Date/Time: 3/2/2004/15:00 Photographer: Scott Collyard Witness: Jason Martineau

45



Subject: Typical riffle substrate Location/County: Little Goose Creek (NGP0181) / Sheridan Date/Time: 10-26-2004 / 1145 Photographer: Jason Martineau Witness: Scott Collyard

46



Subject: Typical substrate in riffle Location/County: Goose Creek (NGP0183) / Sheridan Date/Time: 10-28-2004 / 0835 Photographer: Jason Martineau Witness: Scott Collyard

47



Subject: Typical riffle substrate Location/County: Big Goose Creek-Sheridan / Sheridan Date/Time: 10/27/2004 / 1300 Photographer: Scott Collyard Witness: Jason Martineau

48

Appendix C Step 1: Determine the necessary volume for composite sample analysis.

Example: A total composite sample volume of 5,000 ml is needed by the laboratory to analyze all constituents.

Step 2: Determine an appropriate interval for collection of samples.

Example: Manually collected flow-weighted composite samples must consist of at least three sample aliquots collected per hour and must be gathered at least 15 minutes apart. For this example, sample aliquots will be collected exactly 20 minutes apart.

Step 3: Estimate or measure the volume of discharge for each sampling event. Example: An initial discharge flow volume of 4.63 ft3/min will be used here. Step 4: Convert the discharge to liters/min (sampling event #1).

33

132.28)()(

ftlitersftVolumelitersVolume ×=

min/131132.2863.4 3

3 litersftlitersftVolume =×=

Step 5: Using steps 3 and 4, calculate discharge volume at each sampling event.

Aliquot number Time of Collection Discharge Volume (L/min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2:15 2:35 2:55 3:15 3:35 3:55 4:15 4:30 4:45

131 93 112 56 112 93 93 93 72

(Note: discharge volumes provided for aliquots 2-9) Step 6: Determine the appropriate minimum aliquot volume as the basis for

collecting other aliquot samples that together will provide adequate volume to fulfill the analytic requirements.

Example: In step 1, it was determined that at least 5,000 ml of sample were

required for analytical sampling. Basing the sample collection on a minimum aliquot volume of 1,000 ml gathered every 20 minutes should result in adequate sample volume.

49

Appendix C (continued) Step 7: Calculate the volume of the sample aliquot that must be collected during each

aliquot sample period using the following formula:

)(arg)(arg')()(

litersvolumeedischInitiallitersvolumeedischsAliquotmlvolumealiquotMiniumummlvolumeAliquot ×=

Example: Step 6 shows that the minimum aliquot volume is 1,000 ml.

mlliterslitersmlmlvolumeAliquot 000,1

131131000,1)(1# =×=

mlliterslitersmlmlvolumeAliquot 710

13193000,1)(2# =×=


131112000,1)(3# =×=


13156000,1)(4# =×=


131112000,1)(5# =×=


13193000,1)(6# =×=


13193000,1)(7# =×=


13193000,1)(8# =×=


13172000,1)(9# =×=

Aliquot Number Discharged Volume (liters/min) Aliquot Volume (ml)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

131 93 112 56 112 93 93 93 72

1000 710 855 427 855 710 710 710 550

A combination of the above sample aliquots results in a composite of 6527 ml for constituent analysis.

50

Appendix D

Step 1: Obtain the pipe percent slope from engineering data. Step 2: Determine the inside diameter of the pipe. Step 3: Measure the depth of water in the center of the pipe. Step 6: Calculate the flow rate using the following equation:

SDDIQ ×××= 67.1).(004.0

Where: Q = Flow rate (cfm) I.D. = inside diameter of pipe (in) D = water depth in center of pipe (in) S = pipe slope (%) Example data: For purposes of this example a slope of 0.22% and inside diameter of 30

inches is assumed. Aliquot Number Time of Collection Depth of Water

(in) Discharge

(cfm) Discharge (L/min)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2:15 2:35 2:55 3:15 3:35 3:55 4:15 4:30 4:45

8.4 6.0 7.2 3.6 7.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.6

4.63 3.30 3.97 1.98 3.97 3.30 3.30 3.30 2.53

131 93

112 56

112 93 93 93 72

Step 7: Convert discharge to liters/min (See Appendix B step 4).

51

Appendix E

(307) 674-7506 fax: (307) 672-9845

Quotation for Analytical Services Quotation for:

Wyoming DEQ Water Quality Division

1043 Coffeen Avenue Suite D

Sheridan, WY 82801 Contact: Scott Collyard Bus: (307) 672-6457 Cell: (307) 674-6050 E-mail: [email protected]

Matrix: Water Suite Name: Storm Water

Parameter Detection Limit Units Method

General parameters Alkalinity 1.0 mg/L SM2320B Ammonia as N 0.1 mg/L EPA350.1 BOD 2 mg/L SM5210 B COD 5 mg/L SM5220 D Nitrate + Nitrite as N 0.1 mg/L EPA353.2 Oil & Gease 5 mg/L EPA 413.1 Total Cyanide 5 µg/L EPA 335.4 Total Dissolved Solids 10 mg/L SM2540C Total Kjeldahl (TKN) 0.5 mg/L EPA 350.2 Total Residual Chlorine 0.1 mg/L SM 4500 Cl H Total Suspened Solids 5 mg/L SM2540D TPH 1 mg/L EPA 418.1

Anions Bicarbonate 1.0 mg/L SM 2320 B Chloride 5.0 mg/L EPA 300.0 Sulfate 10.0 mg/L EPA 300.0

Cations Calcium 1.0 mg/L EPA 200.7 Magnesium 1.0 mg/L EPA 200.7

52

Potassium 1.0 mg/L EPA 200.7 Sodium 0.2 mg/L EPA 200.7

Dissolved Metals Appendix E (cont.)

Aluminum 0.05 mg/L EPA 200.7 Arsenic 0.003 mg/L EPA 200.8 Cadmium 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 Chromium 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.7 Cobalt 0.01 mg/L EPA 200.8 Copper 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 Iron 0.03 mg/L EPA 200.7 Lead 0.002 mg/L EPA 200.8 Mercury 0.0001 mg/L EPA 245.1 Nickel 0.01 mg/L EPA 200.7 Phosphorus 0.1 mg/L EPA 200.7 Selenium 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.8 Zinc 0.01 mg/L EPA 200.7

Total Metals Aluminum 0.05 mg/L EPA 200.7 Arsenic 0.003 mg/L EPA 200.8 Cadmium 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 Chromium 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.7 Cobalt 0.01 mg/L EPA 200.8 Copper 0.001 mg/L EPA 200.8 Iron 0.03 mg/L EPA 200.7 Lead 0.002 mg/L EPA 200.8 Mercury 0.0001 mg/L EPA 245.1 Nickel 0.01 mg/L EPA 200.7 Phosphorus 0.1 mg/L EPA 200.7 Selenium 0.005 mg/L EPA 200.8 Zinc 0.01 mg/L EPA 200.7 Total Metals Digestion NA NA EPA 200.2

Detection limits may vary based on matrix, interferences and method utilized. Average turnaround time is 10-15 working days from receipt of samples at the Sheridan lab.

watershed program report tracking sheetdeq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/downloads/monitoring... ·...

Documents