Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/25/.2011
Council Work Session July 25, 2011 4:00 p.m. Council Chambers Roll Call. Approval of Agenda, as proposed or amended. 1. Discussion of Neighborhood Watch Patrol—Submitted by Daniel J. Trelka, Director of Safety Services. ADJOURNMENT Suzy Schares City Clerk FBI a TA ck_x_r o\cQ 1 CITY OF WATERLOO 6 Council Communication City Council Meeting: July 11, 2011 / Prepared: June 29, 2011 Dept., Head Signature: Daniel J.Trelka # of Attachments: SUBJECT: Neighborhood Watch Patrol Submitted by: Daniel J. Trelka, Director of Safety Services Recommended City Council Action: Request City Council to pass a resolution authorizing the expenditure of$2,000.00 in seized and forfeited monies to conduct a pilot neighborhood watch patrol program in identified neighborhoods such as Church Row. Summary Statement: This program is merely an extension of a neighborhood watch. The police would partner with willing neighborhood members. The most important aspect of the program is that they be seen in the neighborhood. We would provide them with a vehicle, such as a code enforcement vehicle, with City of Waterloo markings on it. A large magnetic placard would also be attached to the vehicle that proclaims something such as, "Neighborhood Watch Patrol." Our insurance allows volunteers to drive city vehicles as long as their driving status is vetted,just like potential employees. All volunteers would be subjected to training/orientation by a WPD employee before being allowed to participate. This orientation could easily be done in a few short hours. A background investigation would also be conducted on all volunteers prior to participation. The forfeiture funding would be used to fund items such as fuel, the placards, some minimal administrative cost, etc. The most important aspect of the program is for the volunteers to simply be seen driving around the neighborhood in a clearly identified vehicle. But if they do see any suspicious or criminal activity afoot, they would contact dispatch. The volunteers would not take any direct action whatsoever. The volunteers could also document any code enforcement issues and make it available for discussion at a neighborhood association meeting with the discussion moving toward implementation of a plan to correct. Expenditure Required: Source of Funds Policy Issue Alternative Background Information: Council Work Session July 25, 2011 4:15 p.m. Council Chambers Roll Call. Approval of Agenda, as proposed or amended. 1. Presentation by Robinson Engineering Co. of the Sink Creek Watershed Assessment results—Submitted by W. Wayne Castle, PLS, El, Associate Engineer. ADJOURNMENT Suzy Schares City Clerk _. ...... ...... ...... Sink Creek Watershed _. Assessment _. ihr .. .. lt Fes - r 'i F`" .P' ! y T 4, Y E j _ �f; ][. • ik is . - fi ' , - ► r ' tR F i 11-; $ 1' r �[ t t� r tti a C-/';r1 r��, 4 �� .?l :-' r y'" .e,4c fr; �' �� �.. '�.r off° y/ Fyf�i .., - s-..- # < .* "" <;A, °-•:.; ... r`'- ✓ '£per^ k, ,. '-P , : t y. �." '` -. a. 44. ], " €' t _�. Si$�"CF g. __,�y`�•- ° {' t � �1 t{r,is€. �"' t ,� -'siV.. ,- '41`-rz.'P'4EAa �3,r- s'w". } -- x t y.Fy e x a 6 �, Alii '.'' s -:1+'-. ';N g x�`f 1ewLti$'• /+ .hh�k 4 4 sY]i ,;._,' r' .13- OM4 R.. "i•.d•�wa- 3 ] si _ .fir t r - -•:: ^li$. t P _'v _ ). _ a �. = . a a June, 2011 By: Robinson Engineering"' neering Company a Table of Contents Page .... 1. Introduction 5 2. GIS Assessment 7 '� 2.1. Location and Area 7 .. 2.2. Hydrology 9 2.3. Topography 11 .. 2.4. Soils 13 .• 2.5. Population 14 ,� 2.6. Ownership 16 2.7. Historical Land Use 17 ^ 2.8. Current Land Use 22 — 2.9. Current Zoning 23 2.10. Geology 25 '.. 2.11. Climate 25 .. 2.12. Threatened&Endangered Species 25 3. Physical Assessment 29 3.1. Methodology—RASCAL Protocol 29 .. 3.2. Methodology— Field Data 29 ,^ 3.3. BMI Sampling 30 3.4. RASCAL Results 30 '� 3.4.1• Assessment Points 30 .. 3.4.2. Land Use 31 3.4.3. Livestock Access 32 3.4.4. Canopy Cover 33 .• 3.4.5. Bank Stability 34 ,� 3.4.6. Storm Water Point Sources 35 3.5. Summary of Stream Conditions 35 .• 4. Chemical Assessment 39 4.1. Previous Water Testing 39 4.2. Water Testing Sites 39 '� 4.3. Water Testing Protocol 42 .. 4.4. Testing Results 43 5. Social Assessment 45 .� 5.1. Purpose and Objective of the Survey 45 .. 5.2. Methodology 45 ,� 5.3. Results 45 6. Data Analysis 47 6.1. GIS Assessment 47 ,^ 6.2. Physical Assessment 47 6.3. Chemical Assessment 47 6.3.i. General Observations 47 .. 6.3.2. Statistical Analysis 48 6.4. WinSLAMM Analysis 49 7. Conclusions 53 •• 7.1. GIS Assessment 53 7.2. Physical Assessment 53 7.2.1. Stream Assessment— Site Specific 53 Recommendations 7.3. Chemical Assessment 54 Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 3 .. June,2011 r. 7.3.i. Sample Site Location Observations& 54 Recommendations 7.3.2. Water Testing Recommendations 55 7.4. Social Assessment 56 7.5. Overall Conclusions 57 APPENDIX 59 A.2.3a. Slope Tabulations 61 A.2.4a. Soil Types by Detailed Soil Units 62 .. A.2.4b. Soil Types by Soil Series 64 A.2.4c. Soils Tabulations 66 *.use A.2.8a. Current Land Use Tabulations 68 A.2.9a. Current Zoning Tabulations 69 A.2.12a. Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat 71 A.2.12b. Special Concerns Species Habitat 72 A.3.1a. RASCAL Protocol 73 A.3.1b. RASCAL Stream Assessment Variables 76 A.3.3a. Assessment Field Data Abbreviations&Notes 81 A.4.4a. Contaminant Descriptions 83 .. A.4.4b. Testing Results 88 A.4.4c. Testing Lab Reports 89 A.5.3a. Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness Survey 149 A.5.3b. Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness Survey 155 Report NEO NEW 4111 Nue Imnso Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 4 June,2011 .01 1. Introduction The storm water in the City of Waterloo is covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. As a part of the Post-Construction Storm Water Management section of the permit, a watershed assessment program is to be completed for each watershed which falls inside the Waterloo city limits. This assessment was put together to determine the existing conditions of the Sink Creek Watershed in 2010. This information will help to identify areas of the watershed that need to be preserved, and those areas that need to be repaired/improved. Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 5 June,2011 .e'N 2. GIS Assessment A GIS Assessment was completed using existing information from the City of Waterloo, Black Hawk County, the Iowa Department of Transportation, and the Natural Resource Geographic Information Systems Library maintained by the GIS section of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. This information will help to establish the watershed limits, the current and historic uses of the watershed, and aid in identifying problem areas that need to be addressed throughout the watershed. 2.1. Location and Area Sink Creek (HUC 12 No. 07o8o2050804) is located in Black Hawk County with a large portion of the watershed falling within the city limits of the City of Waterloo. Sink Creek is located within the Middle Cedar Watershed (HUC 8 No. 07080205), and the Poyner Creek Watershed (HUC to No. 07o8o20508). ^ The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IA DNR)has an interactive mapping application on their website that can be used to determine the location of all watersheds within the State of Iowa. Currently,the Watershed Atlas shows the Sink Creek Watershed on both sides of the Cedar River, and covering a much larger area than identified in this report. For the purposes of this report, Sink Creek Watershed is defined as that area directly contributing to Sink Creek. Using the watershed delineation provided by City of Waterloo staff the watershed covers 5,333.6 acres and has 9.43 miles of channelized stream. It is anticipated that the IA DNR will revise this map in the future,based on the information provided here. r1 63 rr' Ea4 .Yn tie"JN a'I2f +\ 01 11 �^ -- Waterlau "r ne•✓cen 1l Evatnatc Reyme. 1 Elk Run HooON 01.44( 0.44 Cwlben1I 45 if r 21 � ) Figure 1: Sink Creek Watershed-DNR Watershed Atlas—HUCi2 No. 07o8o2oso804 Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 7 /1 June,2011 "%e -A r ..i rg� 64 N = • Legend .i 1 f' (ede Ilala CTmocl _ I log LuW hw Cuc: �� t• _ ..SunurMivNl C'halm! ft/ '_Il Ill katnluo(m Lmm 4 d .E - - Noe \II. Figure 2:Sink Creek Watershed .aw' Of the total area, 77% of the watershed is located within the Waterloo city limits. The `a' jurisdictions break down as follows: .. 4,094.3 acres in the City of Waterloo(77%of the watershed) 1,239.3 acres in Black Hawk County(23%of the watershed) `.- The Sink Creek Watershed has been broken up into 14 subwatersheds. Each subwatershed has v been named based on its location for easy reference. The subwatersheds are broken down as shown in the table below with the area that each subwatershed covers and the stream branch ... that flows through it. ..,. Subwatershed Tabulation Subwatershed Name Creek Branch Area(acres) `... Bertch Subwatershed Main 281.5 — Cedar Hills Subwatershed Cedar Hills 157.8 Cedar Terrace Subwatershed Main 639.2 ... East Shaulis Subwatershed Main 398.4 Hawkeye North Subwatershed Main 504.7 ... Hawkeye South Subwatershed Main 563.1 Highway 21 Subwatershed Main 369.8 Lost Island Subwatershed Lost Island 506.4 `"'' Orange North Subwatershed Main 196.9 Orange Road Subwatershed Main 346.o �... Orange South Subwatershed Main 530.6 �... Randall Park Subwatershed Cedar Hills 136.E South Hills Subwatershed Main 265.5 Summerland Subwatershed Summerland 437.0 Total Watershed 5333.6 e.. v ... Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 8 June,2011 ..! 1_ost Island Suhwatrrshrd lienah SUh\Ym.rsh,d Cedar Terrace Subwatershcd - - "•. ,.East Shaulis - Subwatcrshcd" "° South Hill: Subwatershed tunmerland i s tr4 Suh�t utershed Hiahwav?1 - X‘ ' Subwatcfshed Hatrknc worth A.:�'� Subwatershed tlmnue Road _ Orange tiort , . Suhwatcrshed Subwatershed vs.' Hay.keyeSouth = Le_u5d Orange South Subwatershed -- -� JUDwaICrShtd - 4stnlGri'• 0:Wand Channel Gann l StiintncrlAndCG.a,d 2010 Waterloo c ny Lim Figure 3:Sink Creek Watershed—Subwatersheds 2.2. Hydrology Sink Creek has been broken down into four distinct branches. The Main Branch is the backbone of the creek system and runs the entire length of the watershed. The Lost Island Branch is in the northern portion of the watershed and flows through the Lost Island Waterpark. The Summerland Branch flows north to the Main Channel through the Summerland development. The Cedar Hills Branch flows from the Cedar Hills development through Randall Park to the Main Branch. The branch lengths are broken down as shown below. The watershed has 19 water bodies within its boundaries. These water bodies include detention ponds, private ponds and lakes. All of the water bodies either flow into Sink Creek or are included as a portion of the creek. The map and statistics below give the locations and sizes of these ponds and lakes. Branch Length Tabulation Branch Stream Length Main Branch 5.79 miles Summerland Branch 1.33 miles i\ Lost Island Branch 1.27 miles Cedar Hills Branch 1.04 miles Sink Creek Watershed Assessment o June,2011 9 \ v\ ',am/ N.. Lakes and Ponds Tabulation .... Water Body Name Creek Branch Subwatershed Water Area(acres) v Bertch Pond Main Bertch I.o Bertch-Terrace Pond Main Cedar Terrace 3.2 .r Brustkern Pond Cedar Hills Cedar Hills o.5 Cedar Hills Pond Cedar Hills Cedar Hills 2.1 \le Fork Estates Pond Main Fast Shaulis 3.4 Harken Lake Main Cedar Terrace 2.9 ... Isle Casino Pond Lost Island Bertch 2.4 Lawless Pond Main South Hills o.34 Lost Island Pond Lost Island Lost Island 2.6 Mather-Nicol Pond Main Cedar Terrace 3.5 North Hawkeye Pond Main Hawkeye North 0.65 v Silver Estates Lake Main Cedar Terrace 7.4 ,.. Sink Lake Main Cedar Terrace i8.o South Hawkeye Pond Main Hawkeye North o.5 South Hills East Pond Main South Hills o.6 South Hills West Pond Main South Hills o.4 Summerland North Pond Summerland Summerland 1.7 ',me Summerland South Pond Summerland Summerland o.6 Weiden Road Pond Main Cedar Terrace o.5 y r - k Lot bland ` Cnna,- -+ Subwam-shed 'nil Boith SO,ater.h.Si .Ikslek4am:a - r t'nnd - ta+mn Ilr.::l'.,..1 =Cedar Tam,: L- ,-I Wand Juno aMnitCL \ t '% PuntI Pm.) f Myelp-rl ^S.AA�AI Subw aittshed -l. slnr�2..ti South Wlt. P.,J ,b t t r.r,;. �-'Suhwaterhul .\\�bz,> ,n u.ua- k�i.ri ll: St�atenik�'d 51 a -- 1�;Poem. Swmn.L _ -tkeAsr SJ,a • `e II,ghwa.21 t lama North eL mat\\s\_.,,-; Item t M Sub"watcrnhud >Imh �rnl l �a4r n„z r- .A \mih ih•.._.. tiAr i L� COLTRnaC� I w„ln H.,al \ c„La NM. Pond N./ Pond V, . Subwalenh t \ Orange North Sub%atenhed Ilaw k.4c -1 \/ Subs ut(r>hcd - Ilaw hew:South i - Legend vas"' Suewatcrshcd g Suns c South h a - �/ aum4 aleDh<d Main Channel - - -t- L'edWrl tb aoleI ,, - - Lost Island t Tani a Same*eland C'(u s t ]r)Ilr wSmr!;m Cap .Irmo - \noe \/ Figure 4:Watershed Ponds and Lakes ... N. Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 10 June,2011 `,./ `/ Portions of Sink Creek are included in the FEMA Floodplain Mapping program. The ioo year floodplain impacts a large portion of the watershed. The 50o year floodplain increases the impacts slightly. (Map obtained from City of Waterloo staff in October, 2010. Map generated from GIS shape files.) Att • r qq Lcgcnd ._ Figure 5:FEMA Floodplain 2.3. Topography The Sink Creek Watershed is composed mostly of gentle slopes. Steeper slopes tend to be found near the roadway in the watershed. Current Watershed Slopes Watershed Slope Area(Acres) Percent of Total Watershed City: o to 2% 1359.5 25.5% 2 to 5% 1846.9 34.6% 5 to 8% 729.3 13.7% 8 to 15% 150.2 2.8% ^ 15%and Over 8.4 0.2% County: o to 2% 508.7 9.5% 2 to 5% 636.2 11.9% 5 to 8% 67.5 1.3% ^ 8 to 15% 26.4 0.5% 15%and Over 0.6 0.01% The watershed ranges from an elevation of 994.8 at its high point to an elevation of 821.9 at the outlet. There is 173' of elevation difference in the watershed. (See Appendix A.2.3a for -� additional information.) The channel gradient was calculated as o.0056 ft/ft. Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 11 June,zo11 t NIF r . "—,e ' • 1...:r kiby-• . it 1 r i.. ,. us.'oti, As �"` .\ ,: `t, 1�it .�►M. r — r Legend .. ,.;,ws.slop..., i ` >' V.,ivIV.%Wm. \I \ :•_� M I. Slug.aml Ora �4 J/ ]alb KmaLw('iYy Limn. • ` \./ V Ni we Figure 6:Topography(Slopes) N.. lior -4410W 11k. '1C—__ _.-,--' k - 4\,,,r ,,,,,,Ss i,.. '� _ ass j ,�''.�� ,�`� � .., ,i4 _411 311kWk'1111101. r Ak et44. 1P--.4. ..r0 '''' ' 14917 /461. --_„ _ciitor ydre4,4 'llal , e D' %L 1r ��� 1' '-u W R'Mak%)Ca,Lnnn> .41I/ / ` wi , Wk. J n`v1 r../ Figure 7:Watershed Contours v Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 12 June,2011 *ftA N..r 2.4. Soils The majority of the soils found in the Sink Creek Watershed are mostly loam soils with sands ,� and clays mixed in. The clay loam soils are found along the drainage paths in the upper portions of the watershed. The sandy loam soils are found in the lowland areas along the Cedar River (mostly between US Highway 218 and the Cedar River). As shown in the soil map in Figure 8, ,1 some areas are noted on the Black Hawk County Soil Survey as having no native soils remaining. These areas are shown on the soil map in white. Details for each soil classification can be found in the Appendix(Section A.2.4a to A.2.4c)of this document. .� Soil Classification Tabulation .� Soil Types Soil Classification Area(Acres) Percent of Total Watershed ^ City: ^ Clay Loam Floyd and Coland 381.1 7.1% Silty Clay Loam Nevin,Maxfield,Sawmill 272.6 5.1% .-. Silt Loam Waukee,Donnan,Lawler,Wiota,Colo, 1301.8 24.4% Klinger,Dinsdale,Ely ^ Loam Kenyon,Saude,Aredale,Spillville, 1649.8 30.9% Marshan,Dickinson,Clyde .. Loamy Sand Finchford 103.9 1.9% 9 ,.., Sandy Loam Flagler 126.9 2.4% Sand Sparta 110.4 2.1% No Soil 147.8 2.8% County: n Clay Loam Floyd and Coland 148.4 2.8% /'. Silty Clay Loam Nevin,Maxfield,Sawmill 73.7 1.4% Silt Loam Waukee,Donnan,Lawler,Wiota,Colo, 427.9 8.0% /• Klinger,Dinsdale,Ely Loam Kenyon,Saude,Aredale,Spillville, 351.o 6.6% n Marshan,Dickinson,Clyde eft.. Loamy Sand Finchford 134.0 2.5% Sandy Loam Flagler 76.0 1.4% e. Sand Sparta 11.3 0.2% No Soil 17.2 0 3% In general, soils within the State of Iowa were created through three different processes,either i-, by glacial activity, deposited by water,or deposited by the wind. Glacial deposits include soils in r. the Aredale, Clyde, Donnan, Floyd, and Kenyon soil classes. Soils deposited by water fall into ,1 the Dinsdale, Klinger, and Maxfield soil classes. Soils in the Dickinson and Sparta classes are deposited by the wind. The other soil classes mentioned here are created by a combination of ^ these processes. Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 13 .. June,2011 4 N.am.of 1 4 l' *' \ •••• •4 I Leoend .�•� s,..L.(las .. .. � #9dF C:a,Lam r""- on 5,lt L,'an a Laau 110 M L.,am,sail A .► IN saute Loan /',Ind \. Q\u\m.c 1010 Wna4.,1., l'aY I un.. 7 4 Figure 8:Soils 2.5. Population s..• Census data from 1.990 and 2000 was used to determine the density of people living within the watershed. As shown in Figure 9 and Figure io, population density within the watershed has increased since 199o. Although some areas have maintained a low population density, much of ... the watershed has seen a major increase in population density. Using the Census information compiled for this assessment,the approximate populations in the ... watershed were established. The approximate population for the watershed in 1990 was 842 The approximate population in 2000 was 2 6 nearlya 00%increase over io years. v people. pp p p 4 3� 3 e. 1990 Watershed Population Statistics ,..., Population Density Area Percentage of Estimated (People per Square Mile) (acres) Watershed Population for Area `e City: ... o to 5o 26944 50.5% 69 51 to 100 660.6 12.4% 66 ..r 101 to 35o 369.6 6.9% 101 351 to moo 274.9 5.2% 238 `••' 1001 to 2500 102.9 1.9% 266 2501 to 300o 8.o 0.2% 35 ... County: ...e o to 5o 1096.4 20.6% 23 51 to too 13.5 0.3% 1 N,..• ioi to 350 100.3 1.9% 3o 351 to moo 13.0 0.2% 12 Total watershed population=842 (City=776,County=66) ... .•. Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 14 June,2011 \. r t - ,. __ rJ I j F I `A��� Legend awl m:n People p.•r 41.S ,_ MI S I to I(III People par, SE WI to:Gl People p.. 6„ 3' to tom People p. Si 1y \ : I001 so 2S00 People per Ny.Nile 1.1 24111 to JINNI People per sy.lit ' - -.. in Ovrr 46L00 Pa.ple per Sy.SW. 1010 Waterloo i In Lmu1Y Figure 9:Population Density from 1990 Census N .r ir .._ ..... 4. 5,.. ..,._ .._ „w� Legend ' Mil01m MO PpIp C �IU)b LlPopl S. S ,: MI 141 to 1)I11 People p.: I.. 1001 t 'ml PYtpl•per',y,NI la x` - _'Ill 40011'epkpu Sy MI rg �., .. �Over 4l0IIPeople per Jy.Ni1a > - •6µ� 2010 Waterloo C err Lout, z rt 0 f sS;T e ^ Figure to:Population Density from 2000 Census n Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 15 June,2011 2000 Watershed Population Statistics Population Density Area Percentage of Estimated (People per Square Mile) (acres) Watershed Population for Area City: o to 50 1481.0 27.8 38 ..r 51 to 100 1007.0 18.9 117 101 to 350 923.1 17.3 253 .•• 351 to 1000 337.0 6.3 277 loot to 250o 199.6 3.7 437 2501 to 4000 111.7 2.1 523 4000 to 6000 41.2 0.8 325 ... Over 6000 29.7 o.6 279 ♦r County: o to 50 769.0 14.4 19 v 51 to 100 181.0 3.4 18 1.0 101 to 350 187.2 3.5 51 351 to woo 40.3 0.8 45 1001 to 2500 15.1 0.3 35 2501 to 4000 10.8 0.2 46 - Total watershed population=2463 (City=2248,County=215) 2.6. Ownership The majority of the land in the Sink Creek Watershed is privately owned. The City of Waterloo property includes: Randall Park, Gates Park Golf Course, a municipal well, and a number of individual parcels of land. The other publically owned land owner in the watershed is Hawkeye Community College, whose campus covers approximately 34o acres. The Waterloo Community School District, Black Hawk County, and the State of Iowa own land within the watershed as ss well. `� ' I N 'N Vii 1 V . ,„.,,,:,' , ii,„ . N \ \ Sr '', '...,/ --1. I *UJ Lcacnd M ens al pmp.fl, 1..d 1 mi Haw10rc t.ommunln(olkc. .._. 1.Smc atI0,3 7 ••. NI V.U TI I.1 mmumM1 SaLml:)I.IS I v M Hlxk Ila k Co.nry :Olo Na do.('I.l Iml J ____ **awe' %fuseI ~' Figure 11:Property Ownership L v Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 16 June,2011 Property Ownership Tabulation Property Ownership Area Percentage of Watershed (acres) Black Hawk County 20.5 0.4% Black Hawk County Landfill 102.2 1.9% City of Waterloo 77.6 1.5% Hawkeye Community College 428.4 8.o% Private 4065.2 76.2% State of Iowa 14.7 0.3% _ Waterloo Parks and Recreation 201.7 3.8% Waterloo Community Schools 23.9 0.4% Roads—No Ownership 399.5 7.5% Property Ownership 20.5,0.004% 102.2, 1.916% 77.6, 1.455% 201.7,3.782% 23.9,i.448% ■Black Hawk County 399.5 14.7,0.276% 7.490% ^ ■Black Hawk Co. Landfill ■City of Waterloo tea ' •Hawkeye Comm.College ■Private •State of Iowa n /� Waterloo Parks and Rec. 4065.2,76.217% Waterloo Community Schools /e's ... Roads n 2.7. Historical Land Use Aerial photographs taken in 1930, 1960, and 1990 were analyzed to determine how land use had changed in the watershed. The watershed changed slightly between 1930 and 1960, with the primary land use being agricultural. However, the next thirty years saw the watershed change dramatically. It was during this time that Hawkeye Community College was established, the South Hills Golf Course was created, more subdivisions were built, and the industrial area in the northeast corner of the watershed was created. NOTE: For consistency,the city limit line shown on these historical land use maps is the current Waterloo City Limit line. Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 17 June,2011 193o Land Use Tabulation .. Land Use Area(Acres) Percent of Total .. Watershed Agricultural 4960.8 93.o% Cemetery 1.6 0.03% ..� Residential 234.1 4.4% Roads 106.5 2.o% ..r Subdivision 26.3 0.5% Institutional 4.3 0.1% 1960 Land Use Tabulation Land Use Area(Acres) Percent of Total ..,i Watershed Agricultural 4863.8 91.2% Cemetery 1.6 0.03% Residential 263.9 4.9% v Roads 123.0 2.3% Subdivision 77.3 1.4% Institutional 18.2 0.3% %Me i990 Land Use Tabulation Land Use Area(Acres) Percent of Total Watershed Agricultural 3946.5 74.0% Cemetery 1.8 0.03% Residential 240.7 4.5% Roads 185.4 3.5% �.. Subdivision 459.2 8.6% Industrial 65.7 1.2% �r Institutional 236.6 4.4% Parks 197.9 3.7% `gm we me Nemo Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 18 June,2011 i Fri Figure 12: 193o Aerial Photo of Watershed 4111101Pill% pir Legend NB�Cerner.�. RcsiJcmwl i School iM Roads.•, MI Sink Creek Figure 1 g11 3: 1.93o Land Use Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 19 /'� June,2011 r - t vse tAk v v Legend `r Rttk in 1060 2910W nkw,CuY Lamas **1/ Nini Figure 14: 1960 Aerial Photo of Watershed v v v immii6tIkli*-.14M111% A. 14. Legend .i :\errcWlum 11111 Ho.Wemul M,nerlmlCn}Limn, Sin chool Road. 11111 Slnk Cnrok Figure 15: 1.96o Land Use v `/ Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 20 June,2011 �./ _ 1 _ I ,• i Lc Bend E,.N: r. Ilev I.n.Iit. Figure 16:1990 Aerial Photo of Watershed 11/4 Le_gend ` %grmullura ■ C Sp Coco eter) .Pad, •M111 Nu4•rlw Ca!,1 iron. Irxln>uul Insu,Ir.al Rtutlonzi rn Nual alw�. SuEJ ia� an �\ / School R OMm/S Crr4 Figure 17:1990 Land Use Sink Creek Watershed Assessment June,2011 21 2.8. Current Land Use The 2007 aerial photographs of the watershed were used to determine the current land uses within the watershed. This information shows that a large majority of the watershed is still used for agricultural use. 9 II 41, i 111 • Legend nnun.•,.w N./ — Grtrn Spa t.Parks al 6ulwmol Insmmwnal ResamIIaI Rswemial )luhi.ramdy Figure 11:zolo Land Use Nftse Watershed Land Use 3.9% 14.396 ■Agricultural 1.9% a Roads Commercial ■Green Space Industrial Institutional Residential r.. Name NEI Name Nme Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 22 June,2011 n es es es e• The current land use information shows that the amount of agricultural area within the city ^ limits of the City of Waterloo has dipped below 5o% of the watershed in the last twenty years. The amount of agricultural land within Black Hawk County limits has been reduced as well. Those agricultural lands have been replaced by: additional residences/subdivisions, more P.. industrial areas, Hawkeye Community College, and the South Hills Golf Course. The "Green Space"land use category includes cemeteries within the watershed. ek 2010 Land Use Tabulation Land Use Area(Acres) Percent of Total PS Watershed es. City: Agricultural 2499.0 46.9% 0r1 Commercial 86.5 1.6% Green Space 185.7 3.5% /'.-4 Industrial 99.6 1.9% ^ Institutional 206.0 3.9% Residential 638.6 12.0% ^ Residential 80.1 1.5% -Multi Family __ Roads 298.7 5.6% es Agricultural Agricultural 993.9 18.6% ^ Green Space 23.2 0.44% Residential 142.6 2.7% " Roads 79.6 1.5% /o To easily compare the changes in the watershed,the following tabulation was put together. This shows that there were only slight changes in the land use between 1930 and 196o. The __ watershed added industrial,institutional, commercial, and park areas between 196o and i99o. Additional developments continued between 1990 and the present. n Com- arison of Land Uses by Year 1930 Land Use 1960 Land Use 1990 Land Use Current Land Use /'• Area Percent Area Percent Area Percent Area Percent ^ Land Use (acres) watershed (acres) watershed (acres) watershed (acres) watershed Agricultural 4960.8 93.0% 4849.6 90.9% 3946.5 74.0% 3491.1 6596 Cemetery 1.6 0.03% 1.6 0.03% 1.8 0.03% 1.8 0.03% Residential 260.4 4.9% 341.2 6.4% 699.9 13.1% 861.4 16.1% ". Roads 106.5 2.0% 123.0 2.3% 185.4 3.5% 378.3 7.1% ^ Industrial 65.7 1.2% 99.6 1.9% Institutional 4.3 0.1% 18.2 0.3% 236.3 4.4% 206.0 3.9% /•-k Parks 197.9 3.7% 209.0 3.9% INCommercial I 86.5 1.6% es2.9. Current Zoning The current zoning ordinances of both the City of Waterloo and Black Hawk County show a picture of the watershed similar to that seen when looking at the existing land uses. Agricultural n zoning within the city limits is currently at 5o% of the watershed. The remaining areas of the watershed within city limits are currently zoned for commercial, industrial, and residential purposes. County zoning show a consistent agricultural percentage slightly below 20%. eN ek Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 23 June,2011 1 *16 _ Legend - - - r'ammcrcial cu Sparc-Park, - tL�iiwanunng ' -- 1• .:JcnnJl 1010 tialirl.n Cily Li na, Figure 19:Current Zoning - It should be noted that under the current City of Waterloo Zoning ordinances,the Hawkeye Community College campus, Gates Park Golf Course, and city parks are classified as agricultural - lands. (See Appendix section A.2.9a for additional information.) Watershed Zoning Zoning Areas Percent of Total (Acres) Watershed City: A-1 Agricultural 2712.4 50.9 C-1 Commercial 3.3 0.06 - C-1,C-Z Cod.Zoning Commercial 2.9 0.05 r„ C-2 Commercial 13.8 0.3 C-P Planned Commercial 144.4 2.7 M-1 Light Industrial 90.0 1.7 R-1 One&Two Family Residence 156.6 2.9 R-1 C-Z Cond.Zoning One&Two 3.0 o.o6 Family Residence R-2 One&Two Family Residence 233.6 4.4 R-2,C-Z Cond.Zoning One&Two 0.5 0.01 Family Residence R-3 Multiple Family Residence 52.3 1.0 ... R-3,R-P Planned Multiple Residence 106.4 2.0 R-4 Multiple Family Residence 44.8 0.8 .� R-4,R-P Planned Multiple Residence 184.2 3.5 Roads 346.3 6.5 County: Agricultural 1144.3 21.5 Residential 24.4 0.5 Roads 70.6 1.3 Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 24 June,2011 2.10. Geology ,^ According to the Soil Survey of Black Hawk County, Iowa, Black Hawk County is located in the Iowan Erosional Surface. Erosion on a large scale is the key to the geological origins of this surface. The landscape was last glaciated in Pre-Illinoisian time (more than 150,00o years ago) - and has since lain exposed to various episodes of weathering and erosion. Specifically,the Sink Creek Watershed falls into the Cedar Valley Geological Group, according to the Iowa Geological and Water Survey Department of the Iowa DNR. The Cedar Valley Group is composed primarily of limestone. This limestone layer can be between 25o and 35o feet thick in northern Iowa. 2.11. Climate The climate within the watershed varies dramatically from season to season. The average lowest -• temperature is seen in January at around 15 degrees Fahrenheit. The average highest temperature each year is seen in July at 73 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures can vary from-25 degree Fahrenheit in the winter to 98 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer months. Annual precipitation includes 33.7"of precipitation and 31.8"of snow annually. The growing season for the area averages 154 days. This information can be found in the Soil Survey of Black Hawk County, Iowa, published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Natural Resource Conservation Service(NRCS). 2.12. Threatened&Endangered Species There are a number of species of plants, amphibians, reptiles, and birds that may be found within the Sink Creek Watershed that are on the threatened and endangered species list. Additionally, there are a number of species that are noted as Special Concerns. These species are not listed as threatened and endangered, but they are very close to meeting the threatened and endangered criteria. The following lists detail the species and their status. Information in the Appendix details the type of habitat each species requires. This information was compiled by EarthView Environmental. (See Appendix section A.2.12a and A.2.12b.) .01 Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 25 June,20ll ^ Threatened and Endangered Species ... Common Name Scientific Name Class State Federal Potential to be Status Status Present In Creek Blue-spotted Ambystoma laterale Amphibians Endangered Moderate ... Salamander Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta Reptiles Endangered Moderate .,. Blanding's Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Reptiles Threatened Moderate Woodland Horsetail Equisetum sylvaticum Plants Threatened Moderate `-' Central Newt Notophthalmus Amphibians Threatened Moderate viridescens Cylindrical Anodontoides Freshwater Threatened Low ..., Papershell ferussacianus Mussel Creek Heelsplitter Lamigona compressa Freshwater Threatened Low .,. Mussel Red-shouldered Buteo lineatus Birds Endangered Low ,.'' Hawk Silky Prairie Clover Dalea villosa Plants Endangered Low Northern Dichanthelium boreale Plants Endangered Low ... Panicgrass Yellow Sandshell Lampsilis teres Freshwater Endangered Low ... Mussel ... Plains Pocket Perognathus Mammals Endangered Low Mouse flavescens .,, Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius Mammals Endangered Low Western Sand Ammocrypta clara Fish Threatened Low `.... Darter Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus Birds Threatened Low ... henslowii Wooly Milkweed Asclepias lanuginose Plants Threatened Low Kitten Tails Besseya bullii Plants Threatened Low .. Bog Birch Betula pumila Plants Threatened Low Leathery Grape Botrychium Plants Threatened Low ... Fern multifidum v Little Grape Fern Botrychium simplex Plants Threatened Low American Brook Lampetra appendix Fish Threatened Low .. Lamprey Narrowleaf Pinweed Lechea intermedia Plants Threatened Low •.'' Prairie Bush Clover Lespedeza Plants Threatened Threatened Low leptostachya Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei Fish Threatened Low .. Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus Amphibians Threatened Low Western Prairie Platanthera praeclara Plants Threatened Threatened Low ..'' Fringed Orchid .. Pink Milkwort Polygala incarnate Plants Threatened Low Bog Willow Salix pedicellaris Plants Threatened Low ... Creeper Strophitus undulates Freshwater Threatened Low Mussels `.' Ornate Box Turtle Terrapene ornata Reptiles Threatened Low ... .. v Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 26 June,2011 '. Species Under Special Consideration .. Common Name Scientific Name Class Potential to be Found in Sink Creek .-. Toothcup Rotala ramosior Plants Moderate Pipevine Swallowtail Battus philenor Insects Moderate .•. Hawksbeard Crepis runcinata Plants Moderate Pretty Dodder Cuscuta indecora Plants Moderate Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Birds Moderate _ •• Purplish Copper Lycaena helloides Insects Moderate ^ Glade Mallow Napaea dioica Plants Moderate Ragwort Senecio pseudaureus Plants Moderate _ ,.. Violet Viola macloskeyi Plants Moderate Pearly Everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea Plants Low .. Flat Top White Aster Aster pubentior Plants Low Bent Milk-vetch Astragalus distortus Plants Low '.'• Water Shield Brasenia schreberi Plants Low Hill's Thistle Cirsium hillii Plants Low Small White Lady's Slipper Cypripedium candidum Plants Low .. Tall Cotton Grass Eriophorum angustifolium Plants Low Dion Skipper Euphyes dion Insects Low '—, Green's Rush Juncus greenei Plants Low Silver Bladderpod Lesquerella ludoviciana Plants Low Water Milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum Plants Low .. Northern Adder's-tongue Ophioglossum pusillum Plants Low Cleft Phlox Phlox bifida Plants Low '� Bullsnake Pituophis catenifer sayi Reptiles Low ^ Broad-winged Skipper Poanes viator Insects Low Sage Willow Salix candida Plants Low .. Ledge Spikemoss Selaginella rupestris Plants Low Earleaf Foxglove Tomanthera auriculata Plants Low Valerian Valerian edulis Plants Low ,,` Marsh-speedwell Veronica scutellata Plants Low I\ .. .-. 1 Sink Creek Watershed Assessment June,2011 27 e, %. 4.110 NNW NNW Now Nal 41/ "Nsine Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 28 June,2c n 3. Physical Assessment A physical assessment of Sink Creek was completed to determine the existing physical health of the creek. This work was completed by Earthview Environmental in October and November of 2010. 3.1. Methodology — RASCAL Protocol (Written by Earthview Environmental ^ personnel.) The NRCS1, IDALS2 and the Iowa DNR3 have developed and standardized a set of tools and protocol for assessing a Watershed, with one for Water Assessment and the second for Land Assessment. (See Appendix Section A.3.1.a and Section A.3.lb for additional information on ^ RASCAL Protocol.) A Water Assessment is done with a handheld GPS-enabled computer, running a GIS application. As opposed to the Land Assessment, the Water Assessments points of interest are essaved with GPS location information. When the operator stands, for example, at an eroded bank, the screen is touched and the GPS location is read and saved with the user's input description of the observation. The description of the observation is entered by answering a series of menu-based questions, such as length of erosion. The use of the equipment's pre- defined menu and standardized points of interest encompass a tool called 'The Rapid Assessment of Stream Conditions Along Length'or RASCAL Protocol. The Water Assessment is completed with a series of reach assessments. A reach assessment is made after walking a predetermined time or during an instance where there is a change in stream flow, stream ^ substrate,bank condition, canopy, riparian zone or adjacent land use. This assessment involves answering a series of questions about the section of water that has just been walked, since the last assessment. Collected data documents substrate, bank condition, bank height, riparian zone makeup and width, and adjacent land use. ^ esA Land Assessment is done with a Tablet computer running a GIS application. The computer displays a detailed aerial and road map of the area. As the operator walks or drives, he or she can, by touching the screen, mark the location of points of interest, such as land use, tillage es, practices, feed lots and in-field gullies. This was not completed as part of this phase of the study. 3.2. Methodology—Field Data (Written by Earthview Environmental personnel.) Field data was collected using a handheld Trimble GeoXH GPS receiver. Base data was prepared with area information provided by Robinson Engineering, along with the installation of the RASCAL program provided by the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. Trimble GPS field data was uploaded. Raw data processing included organizing and defining attribute abbreviations, adding related data such as Lat/Long coordinates, ^ tributary and sequence information, and organizing raw data into accessible tabular format in Excel. The software used for field collection and data processing included: Windows Mobile 5, ^ ArcPad 7 for Trimble with RASCAL and GPS Correct extensions,ArcView 9.3.1 with GPS Analyst extension. (See Appendix Section A.3.2a for Field Data Abbreviations.) ^ ^ 1 Natural Resources Conservation Service 2 Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship 3 Iowa Department of Natural Resources Sink Creek Watershed Assessment /, June,2011 29 3.3. BMI Sampling (Written by Earthview Environmental personnel.) —� Although not part of the RASCAL Protocol, some potential benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) sampling4 locations were identified. The sampling method consisted of `Jab-Samples' with a BMI collection net, and physical inspection of substrate rocks, overhanging grass and other microhabitats. Chemical testing, both streamside and lab testing can be very expensive with limited results when only the chemical composition of the water is, at the time of the test, checked. Therefore, pulling multiple samples collected year round over several years is necessary to get a full understanding of a creek. BMI, or the bugs that live in the water, are well documented as to pollution tolerance, water chemistry and microhabitat requirements. Therefore BMI absence or presence is a long-term indicator of stream's health. 3.4. RASCAL Results Using the data obtained during the water assessment, the following maps were produced. Calculations are based on the actual areas that were assessed by the RASCAL, not on the entire watershed. 3.4.1• Assessment Points !. - - 000000�00=0 - 0 °0�0 80 00° 1 g � 0 0 0 pp4 c,{0000 0040 Q - O a 0 - O I Legend Q \,:.nn¢nl Pow'- \ na b 111' Lon Iclyd z.,:i SummHill, IL..... Cede Hill,Branch .r• - OlO Waterloo Cnc Limos Figure 2o:Watershed Assessment Points The watershed was assessed at 87 different locations throughout the basin. These assessment r. points were chosen in the field. 4 http://www.iowater.net/Publications/BenthicManual.pdf Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 3o June,2011 3.4.2• Land Use The observed land use on both banks of the creek is mostly row crop. The amount of mowed grass is largest on the left bank due to the proximity of South Hills Golf Course. About io% of the creek is adjacent to residential areas. (NOTE: Bank side is identified by looking downstream from given location.) r Legend pmsitsto,. RP Cow* R.S1dmn91 Row Crop se firesw Vo tla 1111 W perk,Cxy limn+ Figure 21:Land Use Right Bank Observed Land Use (Right Bank)Tabulation Land Use Stream Length Percent of Assessed (feet) Watershed CRP 1,181.8' 3.6% Grass 2,263.2' 6.9% Grass(Mowed) 2,787.3' 8.4% Pasture 4,250.5' 12.9% Residential 3,059.0' 9.3% Row Crop 17,357.7' 52.6% emsTrees 2,129.1' 6.4% Observed Land Use (Left Bank)Tabulation Land Use Stream Length Percent of Assessed (feet) Watershed Commercial 1,291.5' 4.0% CRP 2,180.3' 6.8% ^ Grass 1,122.1' 3.5% Grass(Mowed) 7,288.3' 22.6% Pasture 4,715.3' 14.6% /\ Residential 2,391.5' 7.4% Row Crop 12,786.2' 39.7% Trees 416.3' 1.3% Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 31 /\ June,2011 /1 11{ l - - - LC,end - Cmvmeroal CRP COWS R-si rE 11,4 Crop - ,M No Data iI IO N auMnr Cm-Land. Figure 22: Land Use Left Bank 3.4.3• Livestock Access Livestock have access to two portions of the creek,both on the Main Branch. No other domestic livestock access was noted during the assessment. (NOTE: Access to the creek means that livestock of any kind have direct contact with the creek water at the given location.) Irk T $� Lei•end I ,l v et ,.tiu 11.1.Ireai:T 1 j yn o q Lr r Wb Figure 23:Livestock Access Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 32 June,2011 A. .. 3.4.4• Canopy Cover .•. The amount of canopy cover, or degree of woody or herbaceous canopy, was noted along the creek during the assessment. The observations show that,for the most part,the creek either has a lot of cover(75%to i00%)or very little cover(o%to io%). Only 14.8%of the creek length falls between io%and 75% canopy cover. .,. .1111 Legend - III to 23'. - do- nmuxr,. D to Figure 24:Canopy Cover Canopy Cover Tabulation Category Length(feet) Percentage of Assessed Watershed o%to io% 16,950.7' 51.8% 10%to 25% 1,191.1' 3.6% 25%to 50% 932.6' 2.9% 50%to 75% 2,697.7' 8.3% 75%to i00% 10,922.8' 33.4% In general,it is recommended that tree cover along creeks be around 25%canopy. This will allow light to reach the creek water and provide some heating,as well as providing shaded areas for biodiversity. Trees should be kept away from the creek flows so that high water does not erode the soils around the tree roots. Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 33 ^ June,2o11 3.4.5• Bank Stability The stability of the streambank was assessed. Most of the streambank is currently rated as stable. According to the RASCAL assessment documentation, stable banks may have some bare spots but active erosion is not readily apparent. Some rills may be visible, but there is no overhanging vegetation. Some tree roots may be exposed from previous stages of erosion. — ! u t _ -� 0 Legend / - Staub Molar Frown Moderate Fromm -._ Se ce Emsan ,.. — So Data iUtO Ka teriw Limn. ` ' Figure 25:Bank Stability e.. Streambank Stability Tabulation Category Length Percent of Assessed (feet) Watershed Stable Slopes 21,714.4' 66.8% Minor Erosion 6,061.9' 18.6% Moderate Erosion 2,017.4' 6.2% Severe Erosion 2,729.2' 8.4% Bank Stability within the Sink Creek Watershed is impacted by land use and livestock access more than any other factors. Property owners who use their land for row crop production tend to maximize the amount of their land that can be used,which results in the removal of trees along creek banks and few buffer strips between their crops and the creek. Although bank •. stability is currently stable in most residential areas,care must be taken to ensure that additional developments do not impact bank stability in the future. L. � Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 34 June,2ou ^ 3.4.6. Storm Water Point Sources During the field assessment, a number of tile outlets were identified as outleting to Sink Creek. These locations are shown on Figure 25. Many of these observed outlets are located at locations of erosion. (NOTE: Storm water point sources that do not flow directly into Sink Creek were not identified as a part of this assessment.) A J4 ,a A �:: ♦ _ A A — A A A laA AA _Legend _ I'Ant Sources Nam®ranch -- ---__ I um Nrn Island ka SwnmerLlMf Nra [cdx gill=M ]n In NameGmGnn. `r= Figure 26:Point Sources 3.5. Summary of Stream Conditions (Written by Earthview Environmental personnel.) The creek headwaters begin as springs in the middle of agricultural fields. In one branch the creek is quickly routed underground via tiles. The other branch flows across a field and is enjoyed by a few cattle. Our walk began on the main branch at Hammond Avenue, at an unaltered creek that has been a dumping ground for several decades, with field stones shoved out of the way to clear the land. An old abandoned shopping cart is visible there, where someone might have forgotten--or was too lazy--to return it where it belonged. Poor buffer management and field practices have allowed the creation of six gullies. In fact, the second assessment on our walk is shown to be a major gully. But here, there is a wide riparian zone that,for the most part protects the creek from the land practices. The next section, full of cattle, serves as an example of poor land management practices, not because of the cattle on the land, but because of the lack of proper human-use-to-creek interface. There are io gullies here, three of which are severe or currently active, originating es from the Hawkeye Community College property. Downstream, a tributary coming from the East es Shaulis watershed joins the main branch. This tributary runs from East Shaulis road, crossing ^ under Hammond Ave, and joining the main branch near Water Sample Site T2-R. That watershed is a wide grassed waterway. The adjacent field runoff finds its way to the creek by flowing through the waterway. Although there are a number of broken tiles the waterway is doing its job,slowing and filtering the water. es Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 35 June,2011 ti. The stream segment between the Golf Course and the College property was very enjoyable. On e.. the Left bank the old practice of armoring the bank with cement rip-rap was visible. In today's practices this may not be a very good interface; however, a maintained riparian zone and existing landform has kept bank runoff to a minimum. For about half of this segment,the right bank was a gentle slope to the creek. The entire length had a wide riparian zone and then grass buffers. A beaver's presence turned the walk into an enjoyable time, watching the little guy at work, and possibly in part because of this beaver's activity,we actually saw more BMI life below the dam than above. As a note, beaver dams slow the water, causing the silt to drop out; with .. less silt below the dam,the microhabitats were less clogged with silt. The stream continues under Hess Road and on, to East Shaulis Road. This segment was NNW severely entrenched,with very little sign of any stream meandering. With the exception of a few root wads, a log jam, some beaver activity and 3 riffles, there were no BMI microhabitats. The riparian zone has been well maintained for many years. Over time the runoff from the fields collected by the riparian zone has created a natural berm that protects the creek bank from gully erosion. At East Shaulis Road the main branch is joined with the second of three major watersheds. This �. is known as the Lost Island Watershed from the North-West. Although the Lost Island Watershed is not natural, land practices and their interface with the creek have been well planned and maintained. The two creeks join in a wetland area, forming a braided creek. The .. waters slow and the filtering has made several hundred feet of microhabitats full of BMI life. After the wetlands at Shaulis Road the land use changes to crops. The right bank field slopes toward the creek, and there is a small buffer area and a few trees along the creek. The stream segment between Hwy. 218 and Texas Street had one point of concern. On the right bank there is a man made pond. Unfortunately this pond has become the local dump. Once past Texas Street,the adjacent land use changes drastically because of an industrial area to the left. The area consists of large warehouses and several very large cement parking lots. However, water from the parking lots and roof runoff drains to a large basin. The creek has ... been straightened; therefore the banks are constructed. Because of the proximity of the buildings and lots to the creek, the left bank has been heavily armored with cement rubble. Land use to the right consisted of row crops with a good berm to keep field runoff to the creek at `/ a minimum. ; Sink Creek then joined the Summerland Watershed drainage at Bertch-Terrace Pond. This pond is approximately 3 acres in size. Sink Creek entered the pond from the west and the Summerland Watershed from the south. Sink Creek exited the pond to the south-east. The banks of the creek were damaged by ATV's climbing and attempting to climb the banks in multiple locations. There was indication of some overnight camping on the left bank where the Summerland Watershed entered the pond. `I After Sink Creek exited the pond it formed a meander and went under a Railroad track then ‘Al under Cedar Terrace Drive. From the road, one could get a first-hand view of the volume of Sink Creek when in flash or flood conditions as evidenced by adjacent erosion. There are six 4-foot cement culverts that carry the creek's waters under the road. Unfortunately, the culverts don't carry all of the water as indicated by the erosion and silt deposition along the road. �. The next segment was a past-altered creek. The left-bank slope tapered to the backyards of the �..• residents along the creek. The right bank was an example of several different bank practices, " ..r Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 36 June,2o11 v I v I none of which were keeping the bank stabilized successfully. This segment was a series of run- .., riffle-pools. The naturalness of the creek through this section had many microhabitats and therefore a good BMI diversity and population. ^ Because of the lack of land owner permissions no assessment could be made on the next section of water. The creek went through a tree lined section before flowing across a crop field. A short section of the creek was assessed along the City Water Pumping Station located on Foulk Road. This small segment was very entrenched, flowing on the south side of the property. The creek then flowed through a section of crop land before entering a wetland/ marsh area at the top of Sink Lake. Lack of permissions kept us from assessing these sections of the creek. The bottom of the creek assessment was at the test site T7-U,which is from a crossway over Sink ,.� Lake. As a side note, the assessment included: • 256 Points of Interest • 6 Knick Points • 35 areas of Bank Erosion • 86 Reach Assessments • 83o Photographs rr r-� r1 i1 001 Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 37 June,2011 v Nol 110 `. v ti V '/ 1.0 4.0 tsid v Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 38 June,2011 \,/ 11./ 4. Chemical Assessment A chemical assessment of Sink Creek was completed to determine which, if any, chemical contaminants could be detected in the waters of Sink Creek throughout the year. This work was completed by Earthview Environmental in October and November of 2010 and Robinson Engineering in March of 2011. At the time of the publishing of this report, an additional round of sampling is planned for June of 2011. This work will be completed by Robinson Engineering. 4.1. Previous Water Testing —. There is a record of one NPDES permit for the Hawkeye Community College Campus within the watershed. This permit (number a7-oo-5-oi) is for the re-injection of cooling water into an aquifer through a well. It is assumed that no water testing has been completed on the cooling water. (NOTE: NPDES Permit No. 6 is for injunction wells. NPDES Permit No. 2 is for construction project. No. 2 Permits were not researched within the watershed, since no water testing is currently required for these permits.) There is a record of one IOWATER Volunteer test site (ID 907111) located within the watershed. However there has been no data entered for this location on the IOWATER site as of 4/26/11. 4.2. Water Testing Sites (Written by Earthview Environmental personnel.) A total of 13 water testing sites were identified by Robinson Engineering Company. Ten "urban" sites, adjacent to residential and commercial/industrial sources, and three"rural"sites, adjacent to agricultural land, were chosen. Urban sites were designated with at "U" and rural sites with an"R" in the site label. The following is a summary of field observations and has been provided to be used as a guide for future testing. n Legend Main C hsvn:: C Na Hilts(hautci tmt t,kznJ( rsd rt .. la .,,4 w„ . c tunnel N.ds6w(a.l-mitr Figure 27:Water Sampling Locations r_ Tl-R: Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 39 June,2011 /1 Site Ti-R is a rural site located on the downstream side of Hammond Avenue, approximately 84o feet South of Orange Road. Access to the stream is from the North-East corner of the bridge via a short walk down a sloping bank. Sampling is done directly from the stream. Vehicle parking is at a field access just south of the bridge on the East side. T2-R: • Site T2-R is a rural site located North of Hawkeye Community College. Take the service road °' north from the North Parking Lot. In about 35o feet, the road will intersect what appears to be .. an oval track/Hawkeye Airport. Turn west and follow the track to its North-West corner. Park �. along the field and walk directly north. Sample below the rip-rap at the head of the pool. Sample can be done from the creek or with a bucket from the bank. TR-U: Site T3-U is an urban site locate on the downstream side of a bridge on Hess Road. The bridge is o.94 miles north of Orange Road or o.15 miles north of the East entrance to Hawkeye Community College. Sampling needs to be done from the creek on the downside of the bridge as there is not significant water depth to bucket sample from the bridge. Access to the creek is down a steep bank from the North-East corner of the bridge. Vehicle parking can be done along .. the side of the road on wide shoulders. Li-U: Site T4-U is an urban site located on the downstream side of a bridge on East Shaulis Road approximately 34o feet east of the entrance to the Isle Casino. Because of permissions, sampling needs to be done on the downstream side. Bucket sample can be taken from the bridge or from the creek after a short walk down a sloping bank from the North-West corner of the bridge. Parking and walking along the road can be hazardous due to heavy traffic, but is fairly safe with very wide shoulders on both sides of the road. Ts-R: Site T5-R is a rural site located on Hess Road approximately o.25 miles North of East Shaulis Road. It is one of four sites that are not on the main stem of Sink Creek. Referred to as Lost Island Branch, the waterway flows from West to East under Hess Road through (5) 4 ft. culverts. The shoulders are wide for easy parking and walking. Sampling needs to be done on the downside or East side of the road. The challenge is to find a culvert that is not clogged with moss. Sample with a bucket,do not enter the water as could be over your boots! T6-U: v Site T6-U is an urban site. Turn North-East off of Cedar Terrace Dr. onto Southcrest Drive and park away from the intersection. Walk across Cedar Terrace Dr. to the Railroad. Walk South-East to the bridge. Down the bank, before the bridge and follow the creek to the lake. This is a lake sampling so must be able to wade into 3 or more feet of water. Fairly good bottom ..i but wade with care. Enjoy the walk through the woods. Site T7-U is an urban site located on East Shaulis Road 0.22 miles East of Foulk Road. The road is narrow with very little shoulder space. Park with care and walk on the road. The sample site is on the downstream side or south side of a box culvert. Banks are steep so bucket sample from the culvert. Watch your step; the water could be over 5 ft. deep. Ri-U: v N./Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 40 June,2011 Ntasi '"N Site Ri-U is an urban site located i5o ft. south of a privately owned pond outran. Access is made from site T2-R. Cross the creek via a field access road. Walk North-East over some concrete tiles, then walk north along the West side of the Golf Course. Turn east at the woods and then turn north again at the end of the woods. You can see the dam but had no permissions ^ for the pond at the time of sampling. Looking west you will see the fence line. Long walk, about 1,70o feet. Sample directly from the stream. The site is very boggy. R2-U: ^ Site R2-U is an urban site located on the Isle Casino. Park on the South side of the Casino, in the North-East corner. Parking is reserved for vendors. Then contact security and explain your purpose and number of people. Permission takes about 3o min. From the parking lot you can see a cement structure on the East side of the pond about 1/3 up the length. The structure is the sampling site that will allow a bucket sample from deep water. Do not attempt to wade the pond,banks are steep and drop off is very deep. Site R3-U is an urban site located on the main branch just downstream from the Texas St. Bridge. Recommend driving through the warehouse area to the most South-West corner of the parking lot. A short walk south from the parking lot,over a berm then down to a riffle area. Try to sample above the riffle. Access is very safe. Sampling is from the stream. Site R4-U is an urban site and one of the four sites not on the main stem of Sink Creek, this is the Summerland Branch. Go South on Dysart Road to the Summerland development or first road to the West from Hwy 218 intersection. Follow the road to the West. You will see a pond ^ on the North side. Park along the right side of the road. Very narrow shoulders, but very low traffic. Walk around the pond to the North-West corner. Look West and you will see a small creek. Pull your samples from the creek at the field access path. R5-U: Site R5-U is an urban site. Follow Hwy. 218 South; drive o.23 miles south of the Marigold ^ Dr. intersection. Look for the creek flowing across the field on the North-East side. Parking is along the Hwy. on narrow shoulders. The test site is on the South-West side of the road. Walk down the bank on the North-West side the box culvert. The creek substrate is silt, so it is recommend to collect samples with a bucket while kneeling on the bank. R6-U: Site R6-U is an urban site. Follow East Shaulis Road East to Foulk Road. Turn South and the turn East on Silver Lake Dr. Turn left on the circle drive and watch for an open area to the pond. Will look like an open lot. Parking is basically on the road but the traffic is very light. Walk down an easy bank to the lake. This is lake sampling so wadding is required. Be careful as the bottom is soft. rOneN ^ ^ Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 41 June,2011 /1 4.3• Water Testing Protocol All water testing was done using the IOWATER5 protocol and follows the sample collection, sample transport and streamside procedures as outlined in the IOWATER QAPP6 and the Johnson and Iowa County Watershed Coalition QAPP7. Sampling was completed by EarthView Environmental and Robinson Engineering staff. Chain of Custody for lab samples was the ... responsibility of the Watershed Planner (Dave Ratliff), for EarthView Environmental, and Monica Smith, for Robinson. Those in charge of sampling were also responsible for all samples and paperwork until relinquishment of the samples to the lab technician at Keystone Laboratories, Inc. in Waterloo, Iowa. Keystone staff then transported the samples to Keystone's main lab in Newton, Iowa. Analysis of all samples was completed at the main Keystone laboratory in Newton. The initial phase of Sink Creek water testing was conducted during a period in which there were several weeks of no rain, thereby limiting the detection of Non-Point Source pollution by our water sample analysis. A second round of testing was completed in early spring to determine if .. residual chemicals would be present from farming after the winter snow melt. Rainfall at this time was considered `normal'. A third phase of testing will be completed after farmers have planted and sprayed their crops. It is anticipated that this phase of the testing will be completed .. in late May or early June. Four types of testing were defined by Robinson Engineering and EarthView Environmental staff: • Basic Lab Analysis — Samples were collected for Total Phosphate, Chloride, Nitrate-N, Nitrite-N and E coli. .. • Trace Metals Lab Analysis — Samples were collected for Lab Analysis for Silver,Arsenic, %./ Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium*, Chromium*, Copper*, Mercury, Potassium, Nickel, Lead*,Antimony,Selenium,Thallium and Zinc*. `/ • Pesticide Analysis — Samples were collected for Lab Analysis for Acetochlor, Alachlor, .400 Atrazine, Butachlor, Butylate, Cyanazine, EPTC, Metolachlor, Metribuzin, Pendimethalin,Propachlor,Simazine,Terbufos,Trifluralin, • Herbicide Analysis — Samples were collected for Lab Analysis for Dalapon, Dicamba, Dichlorprop, 2,4-D, d,4,5-TP (Silvex), Chloramben, 2,4,5-T, Dinoseb, Picloram, Bentazon, 2,4-DB,DCPA,Acifluorfen, Pentachlorophenol,3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid (Additional information on these chemicals can be found in the Appendix—Section A.4.3a.) * Items tested for by the City of Waterloo during their tri-annual wet weather monitoring per their NPDES permit. On October 14, 2010,seven of the thirteen sites were sampled using the Stream Side Protocol for sampling and tested using the Basic Lab Analysis detailed above. On October 19, 2010, all 13 sites were sampled and tested using the Basic Lab Analysis on all sites and Trace Metals Lab analysis on only the urban sites. On March 24, 2011, 6 rural sites were sampled for Basic Lab %.I Analysis, Pesticide and Herbicide Analysis. The goal for this testing was to collect, at a minimum, one sample during high water and one v sample during low or normal water flow from each permanent testing location. Additional v 5 www.iowater.net 6 http://www.iowater.net/Publications/QAPP.htm v 'http://www.jaicwc.org/current_web_site/web_pages/qapp.html v v/ Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 42 June,Doti ti/ r. r, samples were to be collected if any of the above test results showed abnormal levels of pollutants. At this time, no samples have showed abnormal levels. Thus, no extra samples have been obtained. n 4.4• Test Results All samples were tested by Keystone Laboratories of Newton, Iowa. Testing results can be found in the Appendix. The concentration of many of the chemicals tested for were reported as being below the lowest level that can be detected with acceptable precision and accuracy. This level is noted as being the Method Reporting Limit or MRL. Tests with results above the MRL are ^ noted in the table below. Tests that show "<0.1", "<0.3", "<0.004", and "<i.o" had measured levels below the lowest concentration that can reliably be distinguished from a o concentration. This level of concentration is known the Method Detection Limit or MDL. .-• The maximum allowable levels for each chemical that was tested for is also noted for reference. ^ These levels, if established for the State of Iowa, are noted in the Iowa State code, Chapter 61, "Water Quality Standards". Test results above the allowable levels are noted in bold text. Notable Test Results d 8 CD a .y c4 CZ n o a H z z a o a m z a ^ Iowa Allowable Levels 10 mg/1 1 mg/1 25o mg/1 126 1 mg/1 4.5 mg/1 n Ti-R 10/14/2010 8.2 -- <0.30 21.8 579 -- -- -- 10/19/2010 7.7 <0.1 <0.30 -- 4 0.142 <0.004 <1.0 /N 03/24/2011 8.5 <0.1 <0.30 -- 39 -- -- -- T2-R 10/14/2010 8.4 -- 0.45 25.o 548 -- -- -- Ps 10/19/2010 7.7 <0.1 0.7 23.8 65 0.151 <0.004 1.0 n 03/24/2011 8.2 <0.1 0.41 -- 51 -- -- -- T3-U 10/14/2010 6.8 -- 0.32 25.3 649 -- -- -- 10/19/2010 6.2 <0.1 0.41 24.2 613 0.129 <0.004 <1.0 03/24/2011 7.4 <0.30 -- 36 -- -- -- /1 T4-U 10/14/2010 6.8 -- <0.30 25.2 770 -- -- -- 1o/19/2010 6.1 <0.1 0.50 23.6 12 0.120 <0.004 1.0 n 03/24/2011 7.4 <0.1 0.39 -- 150 -- -- -- T5-R 10/14/2010 4.6 -- <0.30 29.4 1 -- -- -- 10/19/2010 4.2 <0.1 0.5 28.0 219 0.110 <0.004 <1.0 03/24/2011 5.4 <0.1 <0.30 -- 4 -- -- -- T6-U 10/14/2010 6.o -- 0.33 25.6 41 -- -- -- /1 10/19/2010 5.1 0.2 0.55 23.3 3 0.134 <0.004 2.0 ^ T7-U 10/14/2010 1.0 -- 0.32 25.8 37 -- -- -- 10/19/2010 1.2 <0.1 0.58 23.5 461 0.0913 <0.004 2.3 01 Ri-U 10/19/2010 0.1 <0.1 0.49 22.4 649 0.0927 <0.004 1.8 R2-U 10/19/2010 0.4 <0.1 o.68 48.4 517 0.0839 0.0041 2.3 R3-U 10/19/2010 5.8 <0.1 1.2 2 6 4 3• 435 0.138 0.0040 1.3 ^ R4-U 10/19/2010 3.7 <0.1 1.28 20.0 8 0.170 0.0053 <1.0 03/24/2011 1.7 <0.1 <0.30 -- 44 -- -- -- R5-U 10/19/2010 0.3 <0.1 0.74 15.0 28 0.104 <0.004 2.5 R6-U 10/19/2010 8.9 <0.1 1.95 26.8 3o 0.0465 <0.004 2.3 n In looking at the data, basic analysis shows that only the E. Coli levels are above those allowable for water quality as stated in the Iowa code. Although the other noted chemicals and metals are ', present in the waters of Sink Creek, they are below those maximum levels allowed in the state. " Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 43 "4 June,2011 (Additional test result tabulations, and Keystone Labs test reports can be found in the Appendix — Section A.4.4a and Section A.4.4b.) 10, -V -V Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 44 June,2011 6. Data Analysis 6.1. GIS Assessment The GIS Assessment shows that the Sink Creek Watershed changed very little before 1.96o. After 1960 developments, including Hawkeye Community College and the South Hills Golf Course, changed the land use in the watershed from 75% agricultural to just over 50% agricultural use within the Waterloo city limits. (NOTE: The 2010 Waterloo City Limit location was used for this analysis.) This change has affected the creek as well, causing the creek to lengthen and become more channelized. Since 1990 the amount of agricultural land has continued to drop,to the current 48% agricultural land use area. In those same ten years (between 1990 and 2000) the population in the watershed has tripled. Additional analysis shows that the watershed consists of gently sloping grades (less than 5%) and loam soils. These types of slopes and soils types are consistent with agricultural ground. 6.2. Physical Assessment Land use observed during the physical assessment matches the GIS information that had been compiled. ^ Livestock access to the creek is very limited. There are currently two properties where livestock is allowed access, the Hawkeye Community College property and a private landowner on the Main Branch of the creek. (See Section 3.4.3 for details.) The canopy cover observed along the creek falls into the extremes of the cover range. For the ^ most part,the creek either has a lot of canopy cover(75 — i00%) or very little canopy cover(o to io%). Cover can keep the creek waters cool during the hot summer months. However, too much cover can create log jams which can block flows. These log jams can become dams, holding back large quantities of creek flow. Once these jams break-up, the logs themselves can do additional damage as they travel downstream. (See Section 3.4.4 for details.) For the most part, the banks along Sink Creek are in good condition. The banks through the pasture land owned by Hawkeye Community College are the only severely unstable sections of bank that were discovered. This could be due to the livestock access that occurs in that portion of the creek. Additional areas of minor and moderate erosion should be observed regularly to ensure that these sections of the creek do not deteriorate in the future. (See Section 3.4.5 for details.) 6.3. Chemical Assessment ^ 6.3.i. General Observations Snap shot testing was completed on three different dates within the watershed. However, additional testing needs to be completed to ensure that all results are reliable. Since analysis of ^ testing data is completed using statistical analysis, the accuracy of test results is calculated ,^ within a given percentage of accuracy. A quality control/quality assurance(QC/QA)plan should be developed to ensure all testing and sampling within the watershed is done in a consistent and proper manner. The data that was obtained shows that a number of compounds related to plant growth are currently being picked up by storm water and flowing into Sink Creek. These compounds Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 47 June,2011 include Nitrate,Nitrite, Phosphate and Potassium. All of these compounds provide nutrients for .. plant growth, and have been known to be used to fertilize row crop production in the Midwest. These compounds attach themselves to water molecules and flow through creeks and streams into our rivers, eventually making their way into the Mississippi River. Once in the river, these chemicals flow downstream and into the Gulf of Mexico, where they have been linked to the Hypoxia Zone in the Gulf. The current scientific belief is that the nutrients from the Mississippi River promote algal and attendant zooplankton growth. This organic matter than sinks to the bottom of the Gulf where it decomposes, consuming available oxygen that is needed by other aquatic life to survive. Due to the large quantity of organic matter, oxygen levels become decreased to a point where fish can no longer survive, creating a hypoxia zone. (For more information on the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone see the USGS website at •� http://toxics.usgs.gov/hypoxic zone.html) Chlorides levels were found to be fairly consistent throughout the sample testing. Chlorides can be directly linked to two main sources. First of all, chlorides can be linked to the use of water from a municipal water supply system, which has chloride added to it, and to the use of salt on roadways during the winter to aid in melting ice and snow. Since these tests were done before the first snowfall, it is assumed that most of the chloride found in these storm water samples ., came from the city water supply. For the most part, the watershed has very consistent levels of between 20 mg/1 and 25 mg/1 of Chloride in each sample. However,sample R2-U had twice that recorded level. This could be attributed to the location of the site. Testing site R2-U is located .. at the detention pond at The Isle Casino. Higher chloride levels in the water there could be associated with the additional watering that takes place for the landscaping around the casino. Additional research into this issue should take place in the future to see if these higher levels can be attributed to other sources. The analysis of the storm water samples for metals resulted in only Barium and Nickel being detectable. However, each of these metals was detected at levels that were well below their maximum allowable limit. These results could be attributed to naturally occurring levels of these metals. More data will be needed to confirm this. The E.Coli results show that animal and/or human fecal matter is reaching Sink Creek. High E. Coli levels can be attributed to animals that have contact with the creek or rural septic systems that outlet into the creek. Additional research will need to be completed within the watershed to determine locations of septic systems so that changes can be made to their outlets. 6.3.2. Statistical Analysis .. The results from the chemical analysis were analyzed to determine how accurately they represent what is really in the water of Sink Creek. Only those chemicals which had measurable results were looked at. This includes Nitrate, Phosphate, Chlorides, E. Coli, Barium and •� Potassium. For each set of test results,the mean and standard deviation were calculated. In general, a large .� standard deviation means that the measurement taken vary greatly. In looking at the calculations, shown below, the E. Coli count varies greatly and results in a very large standard deviation. More testing and analysis would be required to better determine an overall E. Coli level for the watershed. Additionally, more measurements at each individual site will allow a .. statistical analysis to be performed at each site, giving a better picture of the changes in concentrations throughout the watershed. Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 48 June,2011 n n n The following analysis also lists an upper limit and lower limit for each contaminate. This limit means that if ioo samples were taken at each site, 95 of the measurements would fall within the ^ upper and lower limits. Or, if too samples were taken then only 5 of the samples would fall outside of the given limit range. The range in the upper and lower limits is directly related to the " standard deviation number. A large standard deviation will result in a larger limit range. Basic Statistical Analysis of Contaminants " Contaminant Mean Standard Upper Lower ^ Dev. Limit Linlit Nitrate 4.96 2.92 9.77 0.15 ^ Phosphate o.69 0.19 1.42 0 Chlorides 25.07 6.29 35.42 14.72 " E.Coli 283.45 287.08 755.70 0 Barium o.1163 0.033 0.1705 0.0622 Potassium 1.8 0.59 2.81 0.86 r Additional analysis was completed to determine how many samples would be needed to find an average for the watershed within a given margin of error. In most cases the margin of error used /N in this analysis would be the laboratory's detection limit for each given test. In some cases, the ^ standard deviation is so high that using the detection limit as a margin of error would require thousands of test to be run. This would be unrealistic and very costly. For this reason, in some /, cases a margin of error is picked based on the current standard deviation of the measurements. For the six contaminants that were looked at,the following are the sample size determinations. eN Statistical Sample Size for Contaminants /'N Contaminant Standard Dev. Lab Detection Limit Margin of Sample Size Error _ " Nitrate 2.92 0.1 0.1 3275 I'1 1 35 Phosphate o.44 0.3 0.3 12 /1 Chlorides 6.29 1 1 152 3 20 E.Coli 287.08 1 1 316,614 ON too 35 Barium o.033 0.004 0.004 260 /\ 0.03 10 Potassium o.59 1 1 2 PS " This analysis shows that to determine the mean as "Mean K Margin of Error", a determined ^ number of samples will need to be obtained and analyzed. For example, if 35 samples were tested for Nitrate, then the mean 95% of the time the mean would be the calculated meanKi. If the mean was determined to be 4.35 mg/1,then 95%of the time the actual Nitrate concentration in Sink Creek would be between 3.35 mg/1 and 5.35 mg/1 6.4. WinSLAMM Analysis esTo aide in the analysis of nonpoint source pollutant loading, a computer program called WinSLAMM was created. This program was created based largely upon Dr. Robert Pitt's ^ research and studies conducted in the United States and Canada. WinSLAMM was developed to ,... evaluate nonpoint source pollutant loadings in urban areas using small storm hydrology. The model determines the runoff from a series of normal rainfall events and calculates the pollutant ^ loading from each individual source area created by these rainfall events. The user is able to - apply a series of stormwater control practices, such as infiltration/biofiltration, street sweeping, ^ Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 49 /1 June,2011 wet detention ponds, grass swales, porous pavement, catchbains, or various proprietary devices .. to determine how effectively these practices remove pollutants.8 WinSLAMM analysis was completed on the Sink Creek watershed to determine the impact of installing infiltration practices at Hawkeye Community College and at the Isle Casino. Although infiltration practices should be considered at all locations, these two properties present some of the largest impervious surfaces within the watershed. It should be noted that these calculations are provided to give a basic example of the benefits of infiltration practices. Complete designs .. should be completed before any practice is actually installed. The watershed land use information from the GIS Assessment was used for this analysis. In vftor general, a much more detailed assessment would need to be completed of the watershed to use the WinSLAMM program to its fullest potential. For example, residential areas were calculated as total acres of residential lots in the GIS assessment. WinSLAMM breaks residential areas down into a number of different categories. These would include: roof areas by roof type (i.e. sloped or flat), paved parking lots, unpaved parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, street areas, undeveloped areas, large landscaped areas, small landscaped areas, etc. Similar categories are available for institutional, commercial, and industrial land use types. */ For this analysis the following assumptions were made: Residential Land Use: 4o%roofs and driveways 6o%green space Commercial Land Use: 45%roofs 45%parking and drives i.o%green space Industrial Land Use: 5o%roofs 5o%parking and drives Institutional Land Use: 4o%roofs 4o%parking and drives zo%green space %./ Multi-family Residential Land Use: 4o%roofs 4o%parking and drives 2o%green space The existing watershed was modeled using these assumptions. The modeled watershed was then compared to the watershed when 5 acres of porous pavement and woo sq. feet of bioretention cells were installed on the Hawkeye Community College campus and at the Isle Casino property. N./ Potential Contaminant Loading from WinSLAMM Model Contaminant Current Watershed Watershed with Infiltration v Levels Practices Installed v Phosphorus 3226 lbs annually 76lbs annually Nitrate 17,536 lbs annually 383.5 lbs annually \./ Lead 1362 lbs annually 69 lbs annually 10/ *00 shttp://winslamm.com Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 5o %.r June,2011 1./ It can be noted from this basic analysis that contaminant loadings could be reduced by adding infiltration practices within the watershed. This same analysis can be completed on a property, subdivision, or watershed basis to help determine what types of infiltration practices should be included in construction designs to obtain the desired reduction of contaminants in that properties storm water runoff. r r Sink Creek Watershed Assessment June,2011 51 ele v Nange I Nt me " I " I "le " I " I I "Nme vl Novo Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 52 ~'' June,2011 `..." I 7. Conclusions 7.1. GIS Assessment Since the 196o's the Sink Creek Watershed has become more urbanized. The number of residents within the watershed has increased while agricultural land usage has decreased. It is anticipated that these trends will continue into the future as subdivisions currently under construction are finalized and new ones are developed. r1 7.2. Physical Assessment 7.2.1. Stream Assessment Site-Specific Recommendations (Written by Earthview Environmental personnel.) The following includes some specific recommendations based on the RASCAL assessment: • The Headwaters Hammond Ave to East Orange Road o Leave it alone. This is one of the only natural areas on the creek. ^ • East Shaulis Watershed—from the headwaters at East Shaulis Road to the Golf Course o Leave it alone. For the most part the creek is underground until it reaches the waterway. There may be a few too many broken tiles in the waterway, but good ^ land practices are in evidence. o From the Golf course to the main branch —Needs some work as the old tiles don't ^ carry the water due to erosion of the ground around them. • Meadow West of Hawkeye Community College o Fix the gullies. One Gully has been filled with broken cement sidewalk pieces, which only covers the problem and does not fix the erosion. All of the gullies are formed because of poor land management practices interfacing with the parking lot. Recommendation is to fix the interface, as well as the gullies. • The Golf Course o The Golf Course is in pretty good shape but recommend watching their recent tile to creek interfaces, as some of them are showing erosion. • Hess Road to East Shaulis Road r1 o This stretch is extremely straight and entrenched. o Continue to improve the riparian zone/buffer. The only economical fix for the creek is riffle-run pool implementation to slow down the ongoing scouring. • Lost Island Watershed o Although there are probably a lot of chemicals applied to the green grass, the r1 creek corridor is a good example of human-to-creek interface. • North of East Shaulis Road, main branch o The wetland north of the road alone is in great condition: a fantastic example of a working wetland cleaning the sediment from the land practices south of the road. o The row crop area below the wetland needs to increase the riparian zone (buffer) width and maintain a better berm. • Hwy. 218 to Texas St. o Clean out and stop the dumping of trash into the right-hand adjacent pond. • Texas St.to the pond. o The banks are so armored that there is not much that economically can be done. ^ o Some more riffle-run pools would help with a few of the substrate scouring areas. o The left bank warehouse area has implemented some good practices; by diverting the lot runoff into basins instead of using a straight pipe to the creek, the impact on the creek has been minimized. Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 53 /%n June,2011 • Summerland Watershed o Summerland Development. .. • At the south edge of the property where the creek flows through a wooded area, no practices are in place at all. Field tiles are exposed and two nick points,both over 12 inches. Although the creek fall is fast there needs to ... be practices in place to control the erosion. ■ The stretch through the development must have been boggy and wetland before the development was built, therefore the land is never going to .. infiltrate. This can be observed because of all of the standing water and rock-filled drainage areas between lots and along the street. In the development open area there is another nick point, over 3o inches in height, which could be prevented with better creek management practices. • The wetland at the bottom of the development is the only natural mechanism in place to control the sediment that is being delivered to the creek from the development. This wetland is most likely regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and its removal would be detrimental to downstream conditions and creek management practices. o The grassed waterway stretching from the development to Hwy 218 is well maintained but could use some field gully management. • Road Ditch along Hwy. 21.8. o Although this area was not part of the assessment the road ditch is contributing V directly to the flashy nature and poor quality of the creek: stormwater Best Management Practices need to be employed in this area. • Hwy. 218 to the Bertch-Terrace Pond o Water was not flowing at time of the walk and no indication of year around flow. This is definitely a flash creek, which needs further investigation. Because there is no personal observation history of one this long and wide, there is no recommendation. • The Bertch-Terrace Pond o Put some access controls on the ATV's that are damaging the banks, especially along the pond outlet channel. • From Bertch-Terrace Pond through end of assessment o The people at the bottom of the watershed get the impact of upstream practices. o Erosion and debris evidence shows this segment extremely flashy. o The right bank is a mix of practices from sloping bank to armored cut banks. o The left bank, or property owner side, consists of sloping banks or short cut banks. o There was no sign of inappropriate or illegal dumping in or along the creek. ... o There is evidence of past riffle-run pool implementations,but more are needed. " I 7.3. Chemical Assessment 7.3.i. Sample Site Location Observations &Recommendations (Written by Earthview Environmental personnel.) The following is a review of the sites based on the preliminary information collected during this study. Site R5-U(Summerland Watershed site)is necessary but needs to be moved upstream above the wetland. The wetland,by nature,is the cleaner or scrubber of the creek. We saw transparencies Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 54 June,2011 of less than 5 cm above the wetland but had 6o+ cm at the test site. As an observation, this sub- ^ watershed would benefit from some degree of monitoring, but the transect needs to be at a location that will give unfiltered samples or reading of the creek. The above is also true for T7-U. A long wetland above the test site now is compounded by the lake it creates. This site is similar to T6-U: another lake needs different sampling equipment and procedures. It is one thing to pull a sample from the surface or wrist deep,or from the creek using the IOWATER protocol, but some samples need to be pulled from depth when working with lakes. It should be noted in observance that Ri-U is never going to show a thing, unless the pond becomes extremely polluted. The pond acts as a sink for some chemical parameters, such as phosphate. You will seldom measure phosphate from the outfall of a pond. The outfall water flows across mowed grass then brome grass, but it is all a bog. Once again the grasses are a filter. For best results, sample from the pond. T5-R is a wetland with very high inputs of nutrients. Looking upstream, one can see the source of the nutrients: crop fields. There is little fall east of the test site; therefore a pond has been created. Standing water, high nutrients, some bird dropped seeds and you have a wetland. Looks ugly because of all the green moss but it is natural for the conditions. Testing any wetland r-• is unique because the watershed feeds the water during the daylight, while the water feeds the i• watershed at night. Water chemistry goes up and down with the sun. For more useful analysis, r• move the test site up into the watershed above Hess Road. Work with the stakeholder of the cropland and help with better nutrient management. r• ^ While discussing this site, one needs to consider downstream, through the Water Park. The designers and management staff have done a great job maintaining this sub-watershed throughout the park, maintaining a gentle 2 or 3 to i-sloping bank on both sides of the creek, •—• plus a very well maintained narrow riparian zone. The last outfall splash zone (southern-most) needs a little work at the bottom of the park. r• 7.3.2. Water Testing Recommendations (Written by Earthview Environmental personnel.) In order to gain a full understanding of the waters, testing and some observations must be made during several event and non-event days during all four seasons. The physical and chemical characteristics of the waters change with the input of point and non-point sources, seasons, p temperature, rain, snow, wind and length of day. Water quality cannot be adequately determined from sampling only during September and October, for example. Many watershed studies have collected data several times a year, often for several years,but still cannot conclude the health of a stream. Because testing was conducted for a very limited number of days, no definite conclusions can be made in this assessment as to the water quality of Sink Creek. �-. A long-term stream testing plan should be implemented for a better understanding of the creek and its watershed. To make certain that the data is accepted as credible, a Quality Assurance i• Procedure Plan(QAPP) should be written and approved by the Iowa DNR. This approved QAPP could become part of the now EPA-required Watershed Management Plan9. There is an ^ 9 http://www.iowadnr.gov/water/watershed/wmp.htmI Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 55 June,ant excellent DNR Guide Book10 online to explain the EPA requirements. Another excellent source of cross project information is available from the Dry Run Watershed Management Planll. y 7.4. Social Assessment (Written by Kathleen G. Scholl, Ph.D., CTRS.) Research shows that current land use practices affect the water quality of lake, rivers, and streams. Recommendations are for the City of Waterloo to develop strategic education conservation communication messages to educate landowners about development projects and �.•• to persuade landowners to behave in a way that will help to reduce storm water pollutants. This entails designing messages that influence landowner behavior, whether it be changing negative behaviors, reinforcing positive behaviors, or creating a new behavior that improve the improving water quality by the reduction of illicit discharges. Behaviors are based on values and attitudes. Since we were able to get the information on landowners general beliefs, more information is needed on actual conforming and non- conforming landowner behaviors and the presence of situational and internal factor that make the behavior easy or difficult for the landowner to perform or support the city in installing conservation practices that might improve water quality. r/ To influence landowner behavior, specific conservation practices and behaviors must be the focus of the educational and communication effort. For example, since landowners are more like to differ in their opinion on the effects of runoff from paved surfaces on the water quality, focused educational effort is focused solely on informing landowners on the effects of impervious surface water runoff cause to water quality. If a persuasive communication campaign is undertaken by the City of Waterloo, it will be important to first gather detailed information on three categories of beliefs landowner have specifically to the behavior that is desired from the landowner: behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs (Ham, et.al,2007).These three categories of beliefs are as follows: • Behavior beliefs: what landowners believe the likely outcome or consequence of the specific behavior and their positive or negative judgment about each of these outcomes. a Normative beliefs: how they believe other people of importance to them think about the \/ landowner complying with the specific behavior,including the landowner's motivation to comply wishes of these important others. ■ Control beliefs: the landowners belief about the presence of internal or situational factors that make the encouraged behavior easy or difficult to carry out, and how much each factor facilitates or inhibits performing the specific behavior. If the City of Waterloo chooses to developed an educational campaign for the improving the `I water quality of Sink Creek and similar watersheds within the city limits, it is recommended that they target their efforts on the following: (a) specific construction and development information and behaviors that decrease the amount of soil discharge and water quantity into the creek, (b) specific behaviors that decrease pollutants directly to storm sewers by the runoff of impervious services. 7.5. Overall Conclusions The Sink Creek Watershed has seen a lot of development in the last 20 years. As development continues in the watershed, care must be taken to ensure that Sink Creek does not deteriorate over time. The GIS Assessments shows that much of the watershed is still considered 10 http://www.iowadnr.gov/water/watershed/files/wmp_guide.pdf 11 http://www.iowadnr.gov/water/watershed/files/dryruncreekwmp.pdf Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 56 �.. June,2011 v ^ agricultural lands. These lands should be carefully followed as they are developed into more urban properties so that each development treats their storm water runoff properly. The Physical Assessment identified a number of areas with problems that should be addressed. - These include: • Bank Stability, and Land Management of Pasture west of Hawkeye Community College • Erosion from tile outlets throughout the watershed, especially around South Hills Golf Course • Additional riparian zones needed in agricultural areas along the creek at various locations • Areas in need of trash removal • Limiting ATV access to property, if at all possible • Need to slow down water coming off of US Highway 218 into the creek - These areas should be prioritized for improvements, and a Sink Creek Watershed Management Plan developed from this information. The Chemical Assessment shows that there is a definite need for additional water monitoring. However, the metal analysis shows that only a few metals need to be monitored within the watershed at this time. Fertilizers and their by-products are a problem in the watershed and will need to be addressed. Additional testing for farm chemicals should be completed in the Summer months, or shortly after planting has finished, to determine any impacts that they may have. Overall, water quality monitoring should continue to be completed on a quarterly basis throughout the watershed. As testing continues, additional analysis should be completed to identify any trends in chemicals so that these may be addressed in a timely manner. The Social Assessment provided an understanding of how the residents of the watershed view their creek. It showed that many are concerned about flooding, specifically east of US Highway - 218. However, many of the residents of the watershed are unaware of the water quality issues in the creek and how their activities can contribute to the problem. Additional education within the watershed is needed to show the residents that the health of their creek is influenced by "' many different factors, some of which they are in control of every day. a Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 57 ,,, June,2011 r r Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 58 June,zoii In „.„ I •. Appendix i .. 001 PIN owN Sink Creek Watershed Assessment lotJune,2011 59 ►/ I 6-1 i ►.e tams low IS ►s ki Ire ►S v was v IS Y 1d Ir hie Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 6o IS June,2mi v A.2.3a. Slope Tabulations Slope Coverage for Watershed: Slopes Percent of Area(Acres) Total Watershed o to 2% 1868.2 35.o% 2 to 5% 2483.2 46.6% 5 to 8% 796.7 14.9% 0", 8to15% 176.5 3.3% 15%and Over 9.o 0.2% /'1 ^ Slope Coverage for Watershed Divided into Subwatersheds: ^ Bertch I Cedar Cedar East Hawkeye I Hawkeye I Highway Hills I Terrace I Shaulis I North South /s CITY: 21 o to 2% 237.5 Acres 69.2 Acres 263.6 Acres ^ z to 5% 3• 49•4 Acres 106.E Acres 66.7 Acres 35.2 Acres 34.4 Acres 61.6 Acres 42.3 Acres 248.2 Acres 98.3 Acres 222.9 Acres 269.3 Acres ^ 5 to 8% 9.5 Acres 23.8 Acres 8.5 Acres 93.4 Acres 84.9 Acres 8 to 15% 56.6 Acres 63.70.9 Acres 5 0.1 Acres 1.4 Acres 11.2 Acres 6.9 Acres 13.3 Acres 17.9 Acres o.9 Acres " 15%and Over o 0 3.5 Acres o.5 Acres o.8 Acres 0.14.Acres o.6 Acres COUNTY: ^ otoz% 2 to % 0 307.9 Acres 41.6 Acres 4.5 Acres /'� 5 1.2 Acres 1.6 Acres 120.9 Acres 194.0 Acres 5 to /\ 5 to 8 % 0.7 Acres o 12.5 Acres o.4 Acres 5 0 0 25.8 Acres o 15%and Over o o.6 Acres ^ 0 o n ^ Lost Orange Orange Orange Island North Road g I Hills South I d Summerlan ^ CITY: South Park ^ o to 2% 117.6 Acres 30.1 Acres 56.9 Acres 60.6 Acres 2 to 5% 223.7 Acres 132.8 Acres 59.9 Acres 99.5 Acres 146.9 Acres i'1 5 to 8% 34.5 Acres 172.6 Acres 59.9 Acres 99.5 Acres 146.9 Acres 139.4 Acres 23.5 Acres 34.2 Acres 6.7 Acres 23.9 Acres 71.3 Acres 89.7 Acres 8 to 15% 24.6 Acres 9.7 Acres /'1 4.2 Acres 0.8 Acres 2.o Acres 44.4 Acres 12.7 Acres 15%and Over 1.o Acres o.8 Acres o o 1.o Acres o.1 Acres^ COUNTY: o o to 2% 107.1 Acres 31.7 Acres 2 to 5% 56.8 Acres 257.8 Acres 15.9 Acres 5 to 8% 51.7 Acres o.4 Acres 4.o Acres 8to1 % - ^ 15%and Over o.6 Acres 0 1.8 o Acres 0 0 0 -� Sink Creek Watershed Assessment June,zo11 61 e.. A.2.4a. Soil Types by Detailed Soil Units: Clay Loam: 391E—Clyde-Floyd Complex, 1 to 4%Slopes 585 —Spillville-Coland Complex, o to 2%Slopes, Occasionally Flooded .... 4391E—Clyde-Floyd-Urban Land Complex, 1 to 4% Slopes 4585 —Spillville-Coland-Urban Land Complex, o to 2% Slopes v Silty Clay Loam: `' 88 —Nevin Silty Clay Loam,o to 2% Slopes *awe —Maxfield Silty Clay Loam, o to 2% Slopes 933— Sawmill Silty Clay Loam,o to 2%Slopes, Occasionally Flooded s.. 4382 —Maxfield-Urban Land Complex, o to 2%Slopes y Silt Loam: 7—Wiota Silty Clay Loam, o to 2%Slopes 133—Colo Silty Clay Loam, o to 2%Slopes,Occasionally Flooded s... 178—Waukee Loam, o to 2%Slopes 178B—Waukee Loam, 2 to 5%Slopes 782B—Donnan Loam, 2 to 5%Slopes v 911B—Colo-Ely Complex, 2 to 5%Slopes 4178—Waukee-Urban Land Complex, o to 2%Slopes ... 4226—Lawler-Urban Land Complex, o to 2%Slopes s..., 4911B—Colo-Ely-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 5% Slopes " Loam: ,.' � 83B—Kenyon Loam, 2 to 5%Slopes 83C—Kenyon Loam, 5 to 9% Slopes s." 83C2— Kenyon Loam,5 to 9%Slopes,Moderately Eroded 175—Dickinson Fine Sandy Loam, 0 to 2%Slopes .� 175B — Dickinson Fine Sandy Loam, 2 to 5% Slopes 177E— Saude Loam, 2 to 5%Slopes `.. 391E—Clyde-Floyd Complex, 1 to 4% Slopes ',Me426B —Aredale Loam, 2 to 5% Slopes 426C—Aredale Loam,5 to 9% Slopes 426C2—Aredale Loam, 5 to 9%Slopes,Moderately Eroded 485 — Spillville Loam, o to 2%Slopes,Occasionally Flooded 585 — Spillville-Coland Complex, o to 2%Slopes,Occasionally Flooded .. 4o83B-Kenyon-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 5% Slopes 4083C—Kenyon-Urban Land Complex, 5 to 9%Slopes ... 4152—Marshan-Urban Land Complex,o to 2% Slopes 4175—Dickinson-Urban Land Complex, o to 2% Slopes s.. 4391B —Clyde-Floyd-Urban Land Complex, 1 to 4%Slopes 4426B —Aredale-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 5%Slopes 4585 — P 8 S illville-Coland-Urban Land Complex, o to 2%Slopes, Occasionally Flooded `, Nee ti 62 •" Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 1. June,2011 "" Loamy Sand: -- 159 — Finchford Loamy Sand, o to 2% Slopes 4159 — Finchford-Urban Land Complex, o to 2%Slopes 4159C —Finchford-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 9% Slopes Sandy Loam: 284 — Flagler Sandy Loam, o to 2%Slopes 284B — Flagler Sandy Loam, 2 to 5%Slopes 4284 — Flagler-Urban Land Complex, o to 2%Slopes 4284B — Flagler-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 5% Slopes ... Sand: .. 41 — Sparta Loamy Fine Sand, o to 2% Slopes 41B — Sparta Loamy Fine Sand, 2 to 5% Slopes 41C— Sparta Loamy Fine Sand, 5 to 9% Slopes ., 41D— Sparta Loamy Fine Sand, 9 to 14% Slopes 4041 —Sparta-Urban Land Complex, o to 2% Slopes 4o41B — Sparta-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 5% Slopes 4041C —Sparta-Urban Land Complex, 5 to 9% Slopes 4041D — Sparta-Urban Land Complex, 9 to 14% Slopes r—. 0 100-,.� 10 Pl AVAVI, 20 4 30 /� `N.rod 60 A/ AVA40 P� 0 cam .' -A '� 50 /'� o�c 50 °..• �c Silty ^i� 4 Aga. 60 40 a oa • 70 30- -40111111WAIEWAVINYANIIIWA lov�'� - 80 AVAVAWAYAVAVAVA 10 90 ..... 0 ATa ►�. , ti A, WAA loo , 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ^ Percentage of sand Figure 3.1 U.S. Department of Agriculture textural classification ... Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 63 ... June,2011 A.2.4b. Soil Types by Soil Series: .. Aredale—The Aredale series consists of gently and moderately sloping,well drained soils formed in loamy surficial sediments and loam glacial till. These soils are on uplands. Slopes are �.. convex. The native vegetation was prairie grasses. Clyde—The Clyde series consists of nearly level to gently sloping,poorly drained soils in drainageways and lower concave positions on uplands. These soils formed in 3o to 5o inches of moderately fine textured surficial sediment and the underlying glacial till. A pebble band .� generally separates the glacial till and the overlying material. The native vegetation was prairie grasses and sedges. Coland—The Coland series consists of nearly level,poorly drained soils on flood plains principally on Crane Creek above Dunkerton. These soils formed in moderately fine textured alluvial material 48 to 6o inches thick over coarse textured alluvial material. The native vegetation was prairie grasses, sedges, and other water-tolerant plants. Colo—The Colo series consists of nearly level,poorly drained soils in drainageways on flood plains and uplands. These soils formed in moderately fine textured alluvial sediment. The native vegetation was water-tolerant prairie grasses and sedges. Dickinson—The Dickinson series consists of nearly level to gently sloping,somewhat excessively drained soils on uplands and streams terraces. These soils formed in 24 to 36 inches of eolian sandy loam over loamy fine sand and sand. The native vegetation was prairie grasses. Dinsdale—The Dinsdale series consists of gently sloping to moderately sloping,well drained soils on convex slopes on uplands. These soils formed in 24 to 4o inches of loess and underlying glacial till. The native vegetation was prairie grasses. Donnan—The Donnan series consists of gently sloping to moderately sloping,moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained soils on convex side slopes and ridge crests on uplands. These soils formed in 20 to 4o inches of loamy surficial sediment and the underlying, extremely firm and firm fine textured weathered glacial till. —The Ely series consists of gently sloping,somewhat poorly drained soils on slightly concave foot slopes and fans at the base of loess-covered uplands. These soils formed in 4o to 60 inches of local alluvium. Finchford—The Finchford series consists of nearly level to moderately sloping,excessively rne drained soils on high alluvial terraces and adjacent escarpments. These soils formed in coarse textured water-deposited material under the influence of drought-tolerant grass vegetation. Flagler—The Flagler series consists of nearly level to gently sloping,somewhat excessively drained soils on alluvial terraces. These soils formed in 24 to 36 inches of stratified,moderately coarse textured alluvium and loamy sand and sand and some gravel. The native vegetation was mixed prairie grasses. %we Floyd—The Floyd series consists of gently sloping,somewhat poorly drained soils on the concave head slopes of upland waterways or on the side slopes along drainageways. These soils formed in 3o to 45 inches of loamy surficial sediment and coarse loamy or sandy sediment, as a stratified combination of both, and the underlying firm glacial till. The native vegetation was .. prairie grasses. Kenyon—The Kenyon series consists of gently sloping to strongly sloping,moderately well drained soils on uplands. These soils formed in 14 to 24 inches of loamy surficial sediment and the underlying firm glacial till. They are on ridgetops and side slopes. The native vegetation was prairie grasses. " I L � Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 64 June,2011 Klinger—The Klinger series consists of nearly level to gently sloping,somewhat poorly drained soils on broad ridges and side slopes on uplands. These soils formed in loess and the underlying firm glacial till. The loess ranges from about 24 to 4o inches in thickness. The native vegetation was mixed prairie grasses. Lawler—The Lawler series consists of nearly level,somewhat poorly drained soils on stream benches. These soils formed in loamy alluvial material 24 to 4o inches thick over coarse textured material. The native vegetation was mixed prairie grasses. Marshan—The Marshan series consists of nearly level,poorly drained soils on stream terraces. These soils formed in loamy alluvial sediment about 24 to 4o inches thick over coarse textured alluvial sediment. The native vegetation was prairie grasses,sedges, and other water- /1 tolerant plants. Maxfield—The Maxfield series consists of nearly level,poorly drained soils on upland divides or at the heads of broad,shallow drainageways on uplands. These soils formed in 24 to 4o inches of loess and the underlying glacial till. The native vegetation was prairie grasses and sedges. Nevin —The Nevin series consists of nearly level,somewhat poorly drained soils on terraces along the major tributaries of the Cedar River. The soils formed in silty clay loam alluvium. The ^ native vegetation was prairie grasses. Saude—The Saude series consists of nearly level and gently sloping,well drained soils on stream benches. These soils formed in 24 to 36 inches of loamy material over sand and gravel. The native vegetation was prairie grasses. Sawmill—The Sawmill series consists of nearly level,poorly drained soils on flood plains and in the lower part of upland drainageways. These soils formed in moderately fine textured alluvial deposits. The native vegetation was water-tolerant prairie grasses and sedges. Sparta—The Sparta series consists of nearly level to moderately steep,excessively drained soils on alluvial terraces and uplands. These soils formed in sand deposited mainly by wind,but in some places by water. The native vegetation was prairie grasses. Spillville—The Spillville series consists of nearly level, moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained soils on flood plains and along intermittent streams. These soils formed in medium textured loamy alluvium. The native vegetation was prairie grasses. Waukee—The Waukee series consists of nearly level to gently sloping,well drained soils on ^ alluvial terraces. These soils are underlain by sand and gravel at a depth of 32 to 4o inches. The native vegetation was prairie grasses. Wiota—The Wiota series consists of nearly level,well drained soils on alluvial terraces, along major streams in the county except the Wapsipinicon River. These soils formed in silty alluvium. The native vegetation was prairie grasses. ^ Sink Creek Watershed Assessment ^ 65 June,2ou A.2.4c. Soils Tabulations L Soils Coverage for Watershed: u Percent of Soil Type Area(Acres) Total III Watershed Clay Loam 529.4 9.7% Silty Clay Loam 346.3 6.3% Silt Loam 1729.7 31.6% °'., Loam 2000.8 37.5% 'gm./ Loamy Sand 237.9 4.5% Sandy Loam 202.9 3.8% Sand 121.7 2.3% Ponds 20.8 o.6% No Soil 134.2 2.5% i Soils Coverage for Watershed Divided into Subwatersheds: v Soil Types Bertch Cedar Cedar East Hawkeye Hawkeye Highway Hills Terrace Shaulis North South 21 CITY: Clay Loam 1.3 Acres o 4.4 Acres 82.4 Acres 32.6 Acres 126.o Acres 44.4 Acres `o Silty Clay Loam 9.7 Acres o 0 0 34.3 Acres o 62.1 Acres Silt Loam 143.6 Acres 90.3 Acres 31.9 Acres 72.2 Acres 102.9 Acres 36.5 Acres 27.5 Acres Loam 19.2 Acres 61.9 Acres 69.6 Acres 243.8 Acres 99.4 Acres 186.5 Acres 235.8 v Acres Loamy Sand 24.2 Acres o 73.5 Acres o 0 0 0 \/ Sandy Loam 34.7 Acres o 88.9 Acres o 0 0 0 Sand 11.7 Acres 3.8 Acres 48.o Acres o 0 0 0 No Soil 37.3 Acres o 12.8 Acres o 34.7 Acres 15.1 Acres o COUNTY: Clay Loam 0 43.6 Acres 35.o Acres 34.o Acres L Silty Clay Loam o 0 0 3.1 Acres Silt Loam o 0 110.3 Acres 70.2 Acres ♦/ Loam 1.8 Acres 32.o Acres 55.4 Acres 91.7 Acres Loamy Sand o 134.0 Acres o 0 Sandy Loam o 76.0 Acres o o Sand o 7.3 Acres o 0 No Soil 0 17.2 Acres o o eo Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 66 June,2011 \./ es Soil Types Lost Orange Orange Orange Randall South Summerlan PS Island North Road South Park Hills d ^ CITY: Clay Loam o 3.8 Acres o 29.9 Acres 1.1 Acres 38.8 Acres 16.4 Acres /1 Silty Clay Loam o 64.9 Acres 18.5 Acres 49.1 Acres o 7.0 Acres 26.9 Acres Silt Loam 214.E Acres 65.2 Acres 62.8 Acres 129.4 Acres 87.1 Acres 81.9 Acres 185.7 Acres Ps Loam 241.3 Acres 62.9 Acres 48.5 Acres 32.2 Acres 60.E Acres 137.1 Acres 150.9 Acres ^ Loamy Sand o 0 0 0 6.2 Acres o 0 Sandy Loam o 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 Acres ^ Sand 5.5 Acres o 0 0 11.4 Acres o.y Acres 29.2 Acres No Soil 44.8 Acres o 0 0 0.2 Acres o 2.9 Acres " COUNTY: Clay Loam o 35.8 Acres o " Silty Clay Loam 0.2 Acres 68.8 Acres 1.6 Acres Silt Loam _ 5 16 Acres 6 8 Acres ^ Loam �6 Acres 117.63 0.9 Acres Acres Acres /1 Loamy Sand 0 p .9 Sandy Loam p o 0 " Sand 0 4.0 Acrs 0 esNo Soil 0 0 0 es /'s /1 es /1 /'1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 es es /'1 es Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 67 ^ June,2011 A.2.8a. Current Land Use Tabulations `-' Current Land Use Coverage for Watershed: LAND USE Area(Acres) Percent of Total %./ Watershed .. Agricultural 3535.6 66.3% Commercial 86.5 1.6% Green Space 209.o 3.9% Industrial 99.6 1.9% .... Institutional 142.7 2.7% Residential 802.1 15.0% .r' Residential-Multi Family 80.1 1.5% 1.e Roads 378.3 7.1% Current Land Use Covers a for Watershed Divided into Subwatersheds: Land Use Bertch Cedar Cedar East Hawkeye Hawkeye Highway y Hills Terrace Shaulis North South 21 CITY: \./ Agricultural 129.2 Acres 74.2 Acres 139.8 Acres 284.7 Acres 161.7 Acres 283.o Acres 332.3 Acres Commercial 15.7 Acres o 0 o 0 0 o v Green Space o o 6.7 Acres 5.1 Acres 11.4 Acres o o `/ Industrial 99.6 Acres o o 0 o o 0 Institutional o o 0 0 ioo.6 Acres 42.1 Acres o %.,/ Residential 0.6 Acres 73.5 Acres 157.3 Acres 77.9 Acres 12.9 Acres 5.2 Acres 8.1 Acres Residential 0 0 0 0 4.1 Acres 18.0 Acres o -Multi v Family Roads 36.5 Acres 8.4 Acres 25.3 Acres 30.7 Acres 13.3 Acres 15.8 Acres 29.5 Acres v COUNTY: Agricultural 0.3 Acres 182.5 Acres 161.3 Acres 179.8 Acres \00 Green Space o 0 0 0 Residential 1.2 Acres 81.2 Acres 27.9 Acres 10.4 Acres v Roads o.3 Acres 23.2 Acres 11.5 Acres 8.7 Acres Land Use Lost Orange Orange Orange Randall South Summerlan Island North Road South Park Hills d CITY: Agricultural 325.4 Acres 136.1 Acres 129.8 Acres 171.2 Acres 96.3 Acres 65.7 Acres 209.1 Acres Commercial 70.8 Acres o 0 0 0 0 0 1/ Green Space o o o 1.1 Acres o 161.4 Acres osue Industrial o o o o 0 o 0 Institutional 0 3.1 Acres 0 20.8 Acres o o o - Residential 33.0 Acres 31.7 Acres o 33.2 Acres 31.1 Acres 24.1 Acres 150.0 Acres Residential 57.9 Acres o 0 0 0 0 0 ,.r -Multi L Family Roads 19.2 Acres 26.0 Acres o 14.4 Acres 9.3 Acres 14.2 Acres 56.2 Acres COUNTY: Agricultural 192.5 Acres 267.0 Acres 10.5 Acres \/ Green Space o o 0 Residential 13.4 Acres o.4 Acres 8.1 Acres Roads 10.3 Acres 22.5 Acres 3.2 Acres Sloe Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 68 •/ June,2011 '. 's, A.2.9a. Current Zoning Tabulations ^ Current Zoning Coverage for Watershed: Area(acres) Percent of Total ^ Watershed Agricultural 3856.6 72.3% _ r. Residential 418.0 7.8% Res.-Multi-Family 387.6 7.3% /ft. Commercial 164.5 3.1% Industrial 90.0 1.7% Roads 416.8 7.8% n /'i es esCurrent Zoning Coverage for Watershed Divided into Subwatersheds(In Acres): Zoning Bertch Cedar Cedar East Hawkeye Hawkeye Highway n Hills Terrace Shaulis North South 21 CITY: /'S A-1-Agricultural 160.8 68.6 110.6 302.8 294.0 3i6.3 338.0 C-1-Commercial o 1.0 0 0 0 o o C-1,C-Z-Cond.Zoning o 0 2.2 0 0 0.7 0 ^ Commercial C-2-Commercial 5.0 4.9 0 0 0 0 o e"1 C-P-Planned Commercial 21.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 M-1-Light Industrial 52.8 0 5.8 o o 0 0 /''s R-1-One&Two Family Res. 0 0 1.7 48.9 0 0 1.9 ^ R-1,C-Z-Cond.Zoning One o 0 0 0 0 0 o &Two Family Res. " R-2-One&Two Family Res. 0 14.1 141.5 14.8 o 0 o R-2,C-Z-Cond.Zoning One o 0 0 0 0 0 0 &Two Family Res. ^ R-3-Multiple Family Res. 0 15.1 0 0 0 1.5 0 R-3,R-P Planned Multiple o 0 22.9 0 0 0 0 ^ Res. R-4 Multiple Family Res. 0 0 0 0 4.3 2.5 0 /", R-4,R-P-Planned Multiple o 41.4 0 0 0 26.9 0 Res. P1 Roads 41.5 10.8 44.5 31.8 5.6 16.3 29.9 ^ COUNTY: Agricultural 1.6 271.4 188.9 190.3 es Residential 0 24.4 0 0 Roads 0.2 14.3 11.8 8.7 /'. /1 /1 /1 /'‘i Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 69 ,^ June,2ou Zoning Lost Orang Orang Orang Randal South Summerlan - Islan e e e 1 Park Hills d d North Road South - CITY: A-1-Agricultural 223.7 147.0 129.7 160.1 73.1 237.0 150.6 - C-1-Commercial 0 0 0 0 2.3 0 0 - C-1,C-Z-Cond.Zoning Commercial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C-2-Commercial o o 0 o 0.8 0 3.1 - C-P-Planned Commercial 123.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M-1-Light Industrial o o o 0 o 0 31.3 - R-1-One&Two Family Res. 0 24.3 0 65.4 0 9.7 4.7 R-1,C-Z-Cond.Zoning One&Two 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 0 - Family Res. - R-2-One&Two Family Res. 22.9 0 0.2 0 12.1 0 27.9 R-2,C-Z-Cond.Zoning One&Two 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 v Family Res. VR-3-Multiple Family Res. 0 0 0 0 5.9 0 29.9 R-3,R-P-Planned Multiple Res. 0 0 0 0 28.5 0 54.9 V R-4,C-Z-Cond.Zoning Multiple o 0 0 0 3.1 0 34.8 Res. V R-4,R-P-Planned Multiple Res. 102.3 0 0 0 0 0 13.6 Roads 34.5 25.6 0 15.2 10.4 15.7 64.5 `/ COUNTY: V Agricultural 205.4 268.2 18.5 Residential 0 0 0 V Roads 10.7 21.7 3.2 - v v v Ns ,00 4.0 .S '. .. .. .. .,, .. .. .. .. v.,..,Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 7o June,zo11 .► A.2.12a. Endangered and Threatened Species Habitat Common Name General Habitat Description Blue-spotted The blue-spotted salamander is a forest dweller.Moist soils with small ponds are important habitat Salamander elements.They are very secretive and take shelter under fallen,rotten logs,in leaf litter,moss,and other debris provided the soil is damp. Wood Turtle November-April wood turtles use rivers and streams with sandy or gravel bottoms while from May- October they use grassland,lightly wooded areas,and agricultural field edges within 800 yards of river habitat.During summer,frequent trips to water are common,prompting movement through wooded or grassy corridors. Blanding's Turtle Blanding's turtles most commonly inhabit areas with shallow,slow-moving water and abundant aquatic vegetation.Emergent vegetation is very important.Small juveniles primarily use emergent sedge(Carex)habitat,larger juveniles use sedge/water interfaces and the largest juveniles are found in open water. Therefore,diverse vegetation is necessary to support Blanding's turtle populations. Suitable nest sites for Blanding's turtles are upland areas with well drained,sandy loam or sandy soils. Woodland Horsetail Found in moist open woods,bogs,swamps,prairies,meadows and streambanks.Often used as an indicator of cool-temperate climates and very moist to wet,nitrogen-poor soils. Central Newt Well vegetated woodland ponds,roadside ditches and riverside pools. Cylindrical Small creeks and the headwaters of larger streams in mud and sand. Papershell Creek Heelsplitter Creeks and the headwaters of small to medium rivers in fine gravel or sand. Red-shouldered Requires at least 25o acres of medium-to-mature,even-aged floodplain forests dominated by maple Hawk or cottonwood trees that have not been logged in 45 to 55 years. Silky Prairie Clover Sunny,dry,sandy or sandy/gravely soil,prairies Northern Panicgrass Dry woods,thickets and openings. Yellow Sandshell Medium to large rivers in sand or fine gravel. Plains Pocket Mouse Ia e openprairie with r$ dry loess or sandy soils.Prefer loose sand for burrows and grooming habits r1 (sand bathers). Spotted Skunk Spotted skunks prefer savanna habitat;areas with a combination of trees and grassland.They need rocky areas with course soils.Spotted skunks use the rocky areas as den sites. Western Sand Darter Prefer large streams or rivers with slight to moderate current with a sandy bottom. Henslow's Sparrow Tall,dense grass with a well developed litter layer with no woody vegetation.Henslow's sparrows are found primarily in grasslands greater than too acres. 1'► Wooly Milkweed Requires Dry soils of Clay,Sand,Loam with partial shade. Kitten Tails Mesic to dry sand prairie,limestone bluffs and sandy cemeteries. Bog Birch Generally wet,neutral to calcareous soils in the shrubby margins of bogs and wooded swamps. ^ Leathery Grape Fern Found in open fields/prairies,sedge meadows,lake shores and forest margins with acidic,often sandy soils. Little Grape Fern Habitat can range from dry fields to marshes,bogs,swamps and roadside ditches.Can occur in open and closed canopy settings. In Iowa,specifically,it is found in prairie habitats. fr••. American Brook Small,high-qaulity streams and mid-sized rivers. Lamprey Narrowleaf Pinweed Occurs on dry,sterile,or sandy soils of hills and open woods. Prairie Bush Clover Well drained to moderately drained soils dominated by tall grass prairie species. Black Redhorse Require good water quality in mid-sized streams with clean,course substrates with minimal ^ disturbance of channel form or riparian vegetation. Mudpuppy Medium to large rivers and lakes.Found in permanent water bodies at least three feet deep.Prefer to live on the floor of its aquatic habitat under sunken logs or rocks. Western Prairie Mesic to wet tallgrass prairies and sedge meadows.Often found in prairies dominated by big /n, Fringed Orchid bluestema and northern dropseed. Pink Milkwort Found in a variety of habitat ranging from dry sand to wet peaty soils,prairie remnants,lake /'k margins,and meadows. Bog Willow Wet bogs,swamps,fens /'• Creeper Can be found in shallopw water in both small streams and large rivers.It inhabits a variety of ^ substrates,from silt to boulder fields.While they can be found in lakes,it does not appear to be able to reproduce in this habitat. ^ Ornate Box Turtle Sand habitat is very important for nesting and over wintering.Sand dunes need to be open,shifting and unstable.The rest of the year they will use tall grass prairie when available.If only short grass prairie is available they will prefer shrubs in order to keep cool from the sun.They eat fruits such as blackberries,wild strawberries,and wild plums. emk Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 71 June,2011 A.2.12b. Special Concerns Species Habitat .. Common Name General Habitat Description Toothcup Margins of streams,spring branches,sloughs,oxbows,ditches,moist ledges wet areas of prairies. Pipevine Swallowtail A wide variety of habitats,open woodland,and woodland edges. Hawksbeard Grows in moist soils,along streams,in low places.Often,but not always,found on alkaline soils. Pretty Dodder Floodplains of creeks and streams,sandy roadsides,streambanks and lakeshores. Bald Eagle Found near water such as rivers,reservoirs and lakes.Nest in large trees with open crowns;especially cottonwood and white pine trees along riparian areas. 'Noe Purplish Copper Disturbed areas such as road ditches,wetlands. Glade Mallow Riverbottom prairies,soggy thickets,openings in floodplain forests,riverbanks and partially shaded �► areas along lakes. Ragwort Found in wasteland,besides roads and in pastures. ar Violet wet;forests,bogs,streambanks,shallows,usually near cold water L Pearly Everlasting Dry woods,often with aspen or mixed conifer-hardwood,borders and trails,dunes,fields,roadsides, other open often disturbed sites. v Flat Top White Aster Moist woods and swamps,fens. Bent Milk-vetch Sand prairies,edges of bluffs,dry open woods `ow Water Shield Aquatic in ponds,lakes,sloughs and swamps.In still water. Hill's Thistle Found in dry,shady,gravely,soils in prairies,jack pine barrens,oak savanna,and open woods. Small White Lady's Damp areas with rich,highly calcareous soils;wet meadows and fens. Slipper Tall Cotton Grass Found in substrate wet meadows,pond margins,marshes,river terraces,poorly drained areas, seepage slopes.Suitable soils include:calcareous,sand,silt,moss,gravel,rubble and peat.Geological site characteristics are dumlin ridges and intervening swales,calcareous alluvial outwash plains, knolls of dolomitic boulders and sandstone plateaus. Dion Skipper Wetland and wet sedge meadows. Newe Green's Rush Moist or dry sandy open ground:shores,swales,fields,clearings,dunes and interdunal Silver Bladderpod Found in dry prairie habitat.Bedrock bluff prairies and sand-gravel prairies.Prefer exposed,sandy is soils derived from weathered limestones. Water Milfoil Occurs in semi-shallow ponds,lakes marshes,ditches and slow running streams of lowland districts. Northern Adder's- Found in open fens,bogs,damp sand,marsh edges,pastures,wet meadows,grassy swales,old fields, y tongue roadside ditches,and floodplain forests in seasonally wet,non-acidic soils. Cleft Phlox Well drained open areas.Often rocky glades and ledges. �r Bullsnake Open tracts of native grassland and sand prairies.They prefer loose sandy soil for burrowing. Bread-winged Found most fequently in the tall grasses near wetlands. ti Skipper NowSage Willow Calcareous wetlands;fens,sedge meadows,lakeshores,pools behind dunes. Ledge Spikemoss Occurs on cliffs and rock outcrops and on rocky,gravelly or sandy soils.Generally found in open areas such as grassy meadows and limestone/granite/sandstone outcrops. Earleaf Foxglove Dry prairies,fallow fields,thickets and the borders of upland forests. �.► Valerian Favors a moist,sunny,calcareous habitats including calcareous fens,wet meadows and moist prairies. Marsh-speedwell Typically found in marshes and swamps.Habitats include marshes,wet meadows,low areas along springs,low muddy areas along ponds,and swamps. v Nvie Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 72 June,2011 a.- A.3.1.a. RASCAL Protocol ;..TQ ^ dPa 09 R Rapid Assessment of Stream Conditions Along Length (RASCAL) Protocol Overview: The RASCAL procedure; Rapid Assessment of Stream Conditions Along Length, has been modified from the NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Procedure (SVAP) to assess in-stream and near-stream conditions of Iowa's streams and small rivers. The RASCAL procedure and its results are intended to assist watershed groups in identifying priority areas for targeted conservation practices. The RASCAL data collection procedure has been developed to function as an easy to use application for use with ESRI's ArcPad software and most GPS units running Windows Mobile operating system. Custom scripts were written and attached to toolbar buttons that simplify many tasks in ArcPad. The data entry forms associated with an assessment asks surveyors to visually evaluate in and near stream conditions. For example, surveyors are asked to note stream substrate, pool frequency, canopy cover, bank type, bank height, neighboring land cover, livestock access, and more. (See pages 3-5) Point features such as tile outlets, storm sewer outlets,stream crossings, severe bank erosion, and trash piles can also be GPS'ed and evaluated. Assessment Basics: Before the field survey is conducted project staff should contact landowners and request permission to access their land. (See page 6-7 for sample letter and return postcard) Once landowner permission has been granted or denied a planning map should be developed that outlines which stream segments will be assessed. Generally, surveyors should be able to assess 3 miles of stream per day. If volunteers will be assisting with the assessment they should be informed which days they will be needed and what to expect. The following equipment is recommended to conduct the survey: -GPS Unit&Stylus -Cell phone -Digital camera(optional) -Copy of letter sent to landowners -Blaze orange vest -Copy of this document -Waders (if needed) -Tape measure(optional) Sink Creek Watershed Assessment June,2011 73 Stream or river assessments should be conducted on foot, or if possible, in boat or canoe. Surveyors should assess streams and rivers walking downstream, usually starting at the highest point of perennial flow and ending at a confluence or watershed boundary. Collecting data points using the GPS and entering stream assessment information into data entry forms is the `'' basis of the survey. Stream assessment data is collected on a segment by segment basis, and responses should be answered accordingly. Stream assessment data points should be collected when any of the following observations occur as the surveyor is walking downstream: 1.Change in Livestock Access 2.Change in Substrate 3.Change in Bank Stability or every 500' (approximately 200 walking steps or every 2 minutes) -- v Starting/Conducting an Assessment: Turn GeoXM unit on by pressing green power button. To conserve power the unit is configured to enter sleep mode when it has been idle for 5 minutes, to awake from sleep mode press the .. green power button. .. Using the stylus tap "Start"then tap ArcPad 7.x. Arc Pad will open `'' with a blank screen. If you wish to load GIS data (i.e. watershed �,., rimble .. boundary,roads,streams,etc)use the Add Layer button. " \ .... At a point where data collection is necessary tap the Assessment OW .. Tool button, a screen will appear with both a Stream and Gully assessment tab. For streams three options are available, Stream Reach Assessment, Stream Point of Interest, and Bank Erosion A 0 Assessment. For gullies, three options are available, Gully Reach Assessment, Head Cut Assessment and Knick Point Assessment ©+ S 4 Q 0 `P 1 (instructions for gullies assessments are not included in this 1 Assessment T° %'' document) Tool Descriptions: a ; Assessment Tool Q Zoom Out © Exit ArcPad `.' Assessment Tools O GPS Preferences `''•:; NiMe Add Layer to Map , 2 km I _ Streams j Gullies I Streambank Erosion 1 ' �.. 614193.1 4787491.2m 1:1484, ° Stream Assessment Tools ArcPad Options y'" f 0 View Map Layers Stream reach data should be collected 0 0 ... every 500" Points of interest should GPS On/Off . 0 Q J' be collected where necessary. Bank Q Zoom In 1J `� erosion points should be collected only at severely eroding stream banks. - .. Stream Reach Assessment I Stream Reach Assessment: As stated before start the assessment by walking downstream from the first point of ... Stream Point of Interest I perennial flow, when you notice a change in stream v condition or you have walked 750' (see table on page 1)use Stream Nick Point ... 74 ..r OK Cancel the pen to tap the Assessment Tool button, then select the Stream Reach Assessment. The first time any of the buttons are pressed the system will automatically load the necessary data and activate the GPS; this may take a minute or two. When the GPS is first activated you will see a screen saying the GPS is being activated, please wait until the GPS is active and then press the requested button again. It is very important to only collect data when the GPS is receiving an active signal,the location marker on the screen will signify the GPS status. Receiving an active signal, okay to survey. This arrow may point in any direction. If it is flickering NO but has the arrow most of the time it is okay to survey. NO Not receiving an up-to-date signal, not okay to survey. In you are not receiving an active signal press the Activate/Deactivate GPS button twice to update GPS signal. Stream Points of Interest: To collect Points of Interest locations make sure the GPS is receiving an active signal then press the Assessment Tool then press Stream Point of Interest. This tool can be used at any location,even if not along a stream or river. Bank Erosion Assessment: For locations where extreme stream bank erosion is exhibited use the Bank Erosion Assessment tools to gather additional information about the site. These tools can be used at any point along the stream or river. To access these tools press w then selected the Streambank Erosion'tab. Finishing Survey: When finished surveying for the day or during a long break, exit ArcPad (using the Red circle with the X) and press the green power button to turn off the GPS unit. Place the GPS on the charger overnight to ensure that it is fully charged for the next days work. Troubleshooting: If the GPS unit is actingslow or ifyou encounter aproblem 99% of the time this can be solved by restarting the GPS unit. Press and hold the green power button down for 15 seconds until the screen fades to gray, they unit should restart, if not press the green power button. Please contact the following with any questions or problems: Jason Palmer Adam Mel 515-281-8143 515-242-6149 iason.nalmer(&dnr.iowa.2ov adam.kieldnr.iowa.gov oos Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 75 /, June,2011 A.3.1.b. RASCAL Stream Assessment Variables RASCAL Stream Assessment Variables: .. Channel Variables: Flow: The volume of water carried by a stream,relative to average, at the time of assessment. �► Low Flow Normal Flow High Flow No Flow Water levels are below normal, Water levels appear to be at Water levels are above normal, Stream bed is dry,could be a result ... dry or drought conditions are normal levels,no recent rains recent rain or melt-water has of extreme drought or karst occurring in the watershed. have significantly impacted raised water levels. geology causing streams to water levels. disappear or flow underground. Losing Flow: Primarily a function of karst geology, losing flow is characterized by stream segments losing flow to cracks in bedrock or stream sinks. `► Yes No Stream segment Stream segment .► loses some or all does not lose of flow. .► its flow to cracks in bedrock or stream sinks. Normally �► occurs only in karst �► regions. Channel Pattern: Straight Braided Meandering Channel Condition: Natural Channel Past Channel Alteration Recent Alteration Artificial No dikes or artificial structures Channel exhibits signs of dikes or Stream shows evident signs of are present limiting flow of structures but significant stream alteration,for example, floodwaters also stream has not recovery has taken places to allow for straitening,dikes,levees,etc. been straightened. some natural stream migration and flooding. �► Stream Type: Riffle Run Pool/Glide Pond Dry Channel Shallow,broken water, Shallow or deep moving Deeper water area, Section of stream that is Dry segment of stream fast moving,usually with water,surface is not surface is not broken, impounded by natural or with no flow of water. coarse substrate. broken,higher velocity velocity is slow,often unnatural causes. .► than Pool/Glide. times an area of deposition. �► In-Stream Habitat: Examples of in-stream habitat include logs, fallen trees,backwater pools, '► deep pools, overhanging vegetation, riffles, floating leaf matter, aquatic vegetation, root mats, undercut banks, etc. Excellent Average Poor Many examples of in-stream habitat Some examples of in-stream Very few to no examples of exist;aquatic species(insects and habitat are present. in-stream habitat exist in fish)are present. This type of stream segment. Few fish or segment appears significantly better aquatic insects are present. .. than other segments surveyed. This type of segment appears worse than other segments surveyed. Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -76- .. June,ant a a Number of 3'Pools: Pools are defined as areas of slow moving water with depths greater than three feet. Surveyors should enter the number of pools since previous assessment point. — Number of Riffles: Riffles are defined as areas exhibiting shallow,broken, fast moving water, usually with coarse substrate. Surveyors should enter the number of riffles since previous assessment point. _ Substrate: The dominant material that forms the bed of the stream segment. Bedrock Boulder Cobble Gravel Sand Clay/Hard Pan Silt/Mud Bedrock substrate Boulder substrate Cobble substrate is Gravel substrate Sand Hardened soil layer, Fine — occurs when streams is characterized by characterized by characterized by substrate is typically found particles flow directly on the presence of rock ranging in rock smaller than fine rocky where streambed of soil. —, bedrock;often large rocks larger than size from 1"in 2'in diameter and material erosion has exposed flat limestone slabs cobbles but do not diameter to to." larger than sand than does a compacted soil — indicate bedrock is form bedrock. Cobble can be particles. not include layer,often times present. picked up with one silt or soil clay. hand. particles. a Sediment Deposition (aka Embededness): Degree to which stream segment is covered by — silt or fine sediment. — 25-50%of 75-90%of — No Sediment o-25%of Segment Segment 50-75%of Segment Segment Entire Segment Rocky substrate is Of this entire segment Of this entire Of this entire segment Of this entire Rocky substrate is free of silt or fine less than 25%of the segment less than less than 50-75%of segment less than completely sediment. length is covered with 25-50%of the the length is covered 75-9o%of the surrounded by or sediment length is covered with sediment length is covered covered with silt with sediment with sediment or fine sediment. r Water Clarity: Clarity of the water at time of survey Clear Tea Colored Cloudy Turbid/Muddy Canopy Cover: Percent of stream channel area shaded or covered by vegetation during full leaf-on conditions. r-• 0-10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% /\ o-to%of stream segment to-25%of stream 25-50%of stream 50-75%of stream 75-t00%of stream is shaded or covered by segment is shaded or segment is shaded or segment is shaded or segment is shaded or /\ overhead vegetation covered by overhead covered by overhead covered by overhead covered by overhead growth. vegetation growth. vegetation growth. vegetation growth. vegetation growth. r1 a Riparian Variables Riparian Zone Width: The width of the transition zone between the water and the upland zone,typically the width of natural vegetation (trees or grass). If pasture select'<to Feet' <io Feet I io-3o Feet I 3o-6o Feet I >6o Feet I a Sink Creek Watershed Assessment .•. June,2011 -77- Riparian Zone Cover: Land cover in the transition zone between the water and the upland zone. CRP- CRP- Grass I Trees Pasture Trees Grass Residential Commercial Adjacent Land Use: Land cover in the upland areas outside the riparian zone. Row Crop Trees I Grass Pasture I CRP I Residential I Commercial Farmstead Cliff Other Livestock Access: Specifies livestock accessibility to stream segment. Yes No ... Livestock have unrestricted access to Livestock do not have access to the the stream segment being assessed. stream segment. ... ti Bank Variables — Bank Vegetation: Type of vegetation covering streambanks,if any. ,... Partially Well None Overhanging Only Dislodged Established Established .. Bank Erosion: If eroding streambanks are present,where are they located. None Both Banks Alternate Banks Random No streambank erosion Streambank erosion is Streambank erosion is No pattern to the location of is present present on both stream present on alternating eroding streambanks banks,often associated banks,often associated Nome with a down-cutting with a meandering stream stream ',I/ Stream Bank Height: The high bank distance in feet from the bottom of the stream channel `'' to the top of the stream bank(not necessarily the high water mark). .. Stream Bank Stability: This characterizes the stability of the banks and reflects the degree to — which the bank is laterally eroding. .. Stable Minor Erosion Moderate Erosion Severe Erosion Artificially Stable .► Banks are Banks are mostly protected Natural vegetation is not Some straight reaches Bank has been stabilized protected by by natural vegetation;the protecting major portions of and inside bends are by the placement of rip- natural vegetation bank is showing some signs the stream,outside banks are actively eroding as well rap or other stabilizing and are not of minor erosion. showing signs of erosion, as outside bends,trees material. `� showing signs of some signs of trees and/or and vegetation has lateral erosion. vegetation falling into stream fallen into stream,little "' segment. to no natural vegetation is protecting the bank. `� Stream Bank Material: This defines the dominant material that makes up both stream banks. `.. Rock/Rip Rap I Cobble/Gravel Sand I Soil/Silt I .... Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 78- v June,2011 ... Points of Interest: Points of Interest mark the location of potential point source pollution impacts to the waterbody as well as general points the surveyor wishes to inventory. The following list should be used as guidance; if a point of interest type is not in the list please use the "Other" category and the comments field to describe the location. Bank Erosion Nick Point Beaver Dam Odor-Chemical Boating Access Odor-Manure Bridge Other Concrete/Rock Waste Seep Confluence Sinkhole Construction Activity Spring Culvert Storm Sewer Dam/Barrier Stream Sink Dead Animal Stream Xing(Animal) Dead Fish Stream Xing(Mach.) Drainage Ditch Suspicious Activity Drums/Barrels Tile Outlet Fence Across Stream Trash-Other Gully Minor Unknown Gully Severe Wastewater In-Stream Debris/Log Jam Water Clarity-Algae /1 Water Clarity- Manure Chemical /" Water Clarity- Metal/Cars Stagnate Streambank/Gully Erosion Categories: Lateral Recession Erosion Description Rate(ft/yr) Category o.ot-0.05 Slight Some bare bank but active erosion not readily apparent. Some rills,but no vegetative overhang. Maybe some exposed tree roots from previous stage of erosion. (CEM stages I and V) ^ o.o6-0.2 Moderate Bank is predominantly bare with some rills and vegetative overhang. Few gullies may radiate off main channel;some exposed tree roots. May be stabilized slumps,but no ..� recent slumps and slips.(CEM stages II,III and IV) 0.3-0.5 Severe Bank is bare with rills and severe vegetative overhang. Many exposed tree roots,some fallen trees,and recent slumps and slips. Some changes in cultural features such as fence corners missing and realignment of roads and trails. Some gullies radiating off the main channel. Channel cross-section becomes more U-shaped rather than V-shaped.(CEM stage III) 0.5+ Very Severe Bank is bare with severe vegetative overhang. Gullies radiating off main channel are common. Many fallen trees,drains and culverts eroding out,and changes in cultural features as above. Massive slips or washouts common. Channel cross-section is U- shaped. (CEM stage III) Sink Creek Watershed Assessment ... -79 June,zoll - Assessment Definitions Types of Streambed Substratel2: Bedrock large sheets of stone Bolder stones larger than io inches in diameter Cobble stones,diameter between 2.5 and to inches Gravel o.i to 2.5 inches in diameter Sand smaller than o.i inches in diameter Mud/Silt dirt or soil deposited on bottom of the stream Other organic material like leaf litter,tree limbs,etc. Microhabitats13: ..• Algae Mats Sand Undercut Banks Logjams Junk(tires,garbage,etc.) Rip Rap Root Wads Leaf Packs Overhanging Fallen Trees Rocks Other(describe) Silt/Muck Weed Beds(Aquatic Veg) Point of Interest: Animal Crossing Beaver Dam Bridge/Crossing Concrete/Rock Waste Culvert ..i Debris Pile/Log Jam Fence Across Stream Gully Minor v j Gully Severe Knick Outfall/Tile Riffle Sediment Bar/Island Trash Other �.i 12 Taken from IOWATER Habitat Assessment Field Form found at http://www.iowater.net/CurrentVolunteers/FieldForms.htm — 13 Taken from IOWATER Habitat Assessment Field Form found at http://www.iowater.net/CurrentVolunteers/FieldForms.htm Sink Creek Watershed Assessment _80_ June,2011 A.3.3a. Assessment Field Data Abbreviations&Notes (5) count,number of 2x5 2 ft wide, 5 ft tall(for gullies) ag access stream crossing used by agricultural equipment ATV All Terrain Vehicle crossing, indicated by ruts or tracks. Not a bridge. box box culvert cp corrugated plastic pipe or tile crete concrete im "in meander"stream location reference point lft left bank V V-shaped gully rcg reed canary grass dominate vegetation rd road rt right bank U U-shaped gully Other Data Notes • All Longitude (X) and Latitude (Y) data are in coordinate system NAD 1983 UTM Zone 15N,decimal degrees units. • "Sequence"Field is the unique identifier for attribute data. • All physical assessment data collected, but not defined herein, was recorded with best professional judgment at location referenced. .1 Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -8i- r.. June,2011 ram. •41 se Neoe Nime Nape ive Ng me Nine `to me New Nome " I " I " I Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -$2- June,2011 r.. A.4.4a. Contaminant Descriptions Information listed found at http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/Glossary/definitions of parameters.htm#antimonv unless otherwise noted. BASIC CHEMICALS: E.Coli: Escherichia coil(E. coli) -A type of coliform bacteria present in the gastrointestinal tract of warm-blooded animals. The concentration of E. coli bacteria is an indicator of the probability of contamination of surface water by microbial pathogens. Reported in Colony Forming Units/ioo mL of sample (CFU/ioo mL). Nitrate&Nitrite: Oxidized, inorganic forms of nitrogen in water which result from the biochemical process of nitrification. Nitrite is an intermediate product which is typically present only in minute quantities in surface waters. Sources include fertilizer, sewage and animal wastes. Measured in mg/L or ppm. The MCL(Maximum Contaminant Level)is io mg/L for NO3-N. Phosphate: The total amount of phosphate, including dissolved and particulate forms, reported as phosphorus(P). Measured in mg/L or ppm. METALS: Ammonia: (NH4-N) - The concentration of ionized and un-ionized ammonia in water; Ionized (NH4+) and un-ionized (NH3) forms are products of the decomposition of organic matter. Reported as NH4- N or ammonia as nitrogen(mg/L). Measured in mg/L or ppm. Antimony: -- Occurs naturally in soils, groundwater and surface waters and is often used in the flame retardant industry, glass, batteries, fireworks, and explosives. Antimony may enter drinking water through natural weathering of rock, industrial production, municipal waste disposal, or manufacturing processes. Measured in mg/L or ppm. The MCL for antimony is o.006 mg/L or ppm. Arsenic: Sources include natural deposits, use as a pesticidal agent, and from phosphate fertilizers containing arsenic. Measured in mg/L or ppm. The MCL for arsenic is o.05 mg/L or ppm. Beryllium: Occurs naturally in soils, groundwater and surface waters and is often used in electrical equipment and electrical components. It generally enters water from runoff from mining operations, discharge from processing plants, and improper waste disposal. Measured in mg/L or ppm. The MCL for beryllium is o.004 mg/L or ppm. Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -83- �. June,2011 Cadmium: A naturally occurring trace metal that accumulates in the environment, causes corrosion of galvanized pipes, and can be toxic to humans and aquatic life. Phosphate fertilizers are a major source of cadmium input to agricultural soils. Measured in mg/L or ppm. The MCL for cadmium is o.005 mg/L or ppm. Chromium: A naturally occurring trace metal that can be toxic to humans and aquatic life. Sources of chromium in surface waters include wastewater from electroplating operations, leather tanning industries, and textile manufacturing. Measured in µg/L or ppb. The MCL for chromium is o.i mg/L or ppm. Copper: A naturally occurring trace metal. At low concentrations,copper is an essential nutrient for both r plants and animals, but at higher concentrations can be toxic to aquatic animals, aquatic plants v and humans. Measured in mg/L or ppm. The Action Level for copper is 1.3 mg/L or ppm. Lead: A naturally occurring trace metal that accumulates in the environment and can be toxic to humans and aquatic life. Important sources of lead in surface waters include steel and iron industries,lead production, and processing operations, and urban runoff. Measured in mg/L or ppm. The Action Level for lead is o.o15 mg/L or ppm. 64.01 Mercury: A naturally occurring trace metal that accumulates in the environment, and bioaccumulates and biomagnifies in the aquatic food chain. Mercury can be toxic to humans and aquatic life. Mercury usually enters water as a result of improper waste disposal. Measured in mg/L or ppm. The MCL for mercury is 0.002 mg/L or ppm. Nickel: Occurs naturally in soils, groundwater and surface waters and is often used in electroplating, stainless steel, and alloy products. It generally gets into water from mining and refining operations. Measured in µg/L or ppb. The MCL for nickel is o.i mg/L or ppm. The Health Advisory Level is 200 µg/L or ppb. Selenium: Occurs naturally in food and soils and is used in electronics, photocopy operations, the manufacture of glass, chemicals, drugs, and as a fungicide and a feed additive. Measured in mg/L or ppm. The MCL for selenium is o.05 mg/L or ppm. Silver: Measured in mg/L or ppm. Thallium: Found naturally in soils and is used in electronics, pharmaceuticals, and the manufacture of glass and alloys. The MCL for thallium is 0.002 mg/L or ppm. Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -84- v June,2011 �r Zinc: Measured in mg/L or ppm. PESTICIDES: Acetochlor(Harness): A selective pre-emergent soybean herbicide in the chloracetanilide family. Measured in µg/L or ppb. Alachlor(Lasso): A common herbicide that is an acetanilide. Measured in µg/L or ppb. The MCL for Alachlor is 2 µg/L or ppb. Atrazine (AAtrex): A common corn herbicide that is in the triazine family of herbicides. Measured in µg/L or ppb. The MCL for atrazine is 3 µg/L or ppb. Butachlor: A selective pre-emergent herbicide for rice and is used to control annual grasses and broadleaf weeds. �4 Butylate(Sutan): A selective herbicide used for grassy weeds. Measured in µg/L or ppb. Cyanazine (Bladex): A common corn herbicide that is in the triazine family of herbicides. Cyanazine is being phased out of production by 2001. Cyanazine has a Health Advisory Level of 1 µg/L or ppb. Measured in µg/L or ppb. EPTC: EPTC is a pre-emergence and early post-emergence thiocarbamate herbicide used to control the growth of germinating annual weeds, including broadleaves, grasses, and sedges.'5 Metolachlor(Dual): A common herbicide in the chloracetanilide family of herbicides. Measured in µg/L or ppb. Metolachlor has a Health Advisory Level of loo µg/L or ppb. Metribuzin(Sencor): A common herbicide in the triazinone family of herbicides. Used to control grasses and broadleaf weeds. Measured in µg/L or ppb. Pendimethalin: A herbicides used in premergence and postemergence application to control annual grasses and certain broadleaf weeds.i6 Propachlor(Ramrod): 14 http://www.ewg.org/tap- water/whatsinyou rwater/M N/CityofM inneapol isWaterDepartment/1270024/Butachlor/2076/ i-. is http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/REDS/factsheets/0064fact.pdf 16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendimethalin Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -85- June,2011 Propachlor(2-Chloro-N-isopropylacetanilide)is a herbicide first marketed by Monsanto. Monsanto voluntarily discontinued its manufacture in 1998.17 .. NMI Simazine(Princep): A herbicide in the triazine family that is used to control annual grasses and broadleaf weeds in corn,lawns, golf courses,tree farms, etc. Measured in µg/L or ppb. The MCL for simazine is 4 µg/L or ppb. Terbufos (Counter): An organophosphate that is a systemic insecticide and nematicide for corn root and soil insects. Measured in µg/L or ppb. — Trifluralin(Treflan): A common pre-emergent herbicide in the dinitroaniline family of herbicides. Measured in µg/L or ppb. HERBICIDES: Dalapon (2,2-Dichloropropionic Acid): Dalapon is an herbicide and plant growth regulator used to control specific annual and perennial grasses, such as quackgrass, Bermuda grass,Johnson grass, as well as cattails and — rushes.i8 Dicamba(Banvel): A benzoic acid herbicide that is used to control perennial broadleaf weeds. Measured in µg/L or ppb. Dichlorprop: — Dichlorprop is a chlorophenoxy herbicide similar in structure to 2,4-D that is used to kill annual and perennial broadleaf weeds.19 2,4-DB: 2.4-DB-based(2.4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)herbicides are selective for controlling wide-leaf underbrush in consociated pastures with leguminous, alfalfa, peanut and soybean species.20 DCPA: DCPA is a pre-emergent herbicide used to control annual grasses and broadleaf weeds on ornamental turf and plants, strawberries, seeded and transplanted vegetables, cotton, and field beans.21 17 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propachlor 19 http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/carbaryl-dicrotophos/dalapon-ext.html 19 http://medbib.com/Dichlorprop 20 http://www.atanor.com.ar/eng/domestic_business/agrochemicals/herbicides/24db.php 21 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/REDS/factsheets/0270fact.pdf Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -86- June,2011 ..r .�, Acifluorfen: Acifluorfen is a contact diphenolic ether herbicide used to control broadleaf weeds and grasses in soybeans,peanuts,peas, and rice22 Pentachlorophenol(PCP): A chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide and fungicide. It is primarily used to protect timber from fungal rot and wood-boring insects,but may also be used as a pre-harvest defoliant in cotton, a general pre-emergence herbicide, and as a biocide in industrial water systems. esk n n /1 ess n 22 http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/acifluorfen-ext.html Sink Creek Watershed Assessment - June,2011 -87 /IN L v A.4.4b. Testing Results N.'' Organic Test Results `. o co . x o el, go Uti kj Qp `/F Z Z a F V Allowable Levels 10 1 250 126 Ti-R 10/14/2010 8.2 -- <0.30 21.8 -- 579 55.4 7.8 8.4 ftot 10/19/2010 7.7 <0.1 <0.30 20.7 <1.0 4 52.3 7.82 7.9 03/24/2011 8.5 <0.1 <0.30 -- -- 39 T2-R 10/14/2010 8.4 -- 0.45 25.0 -- 548 54.4 7.8 8.85 `e 10/19/2010 7.7 <0.1 0.70 23.8 <1.0 65 52.5 7.95 8.9 03/24/2011 8.2 <0.1 0.41 -- -- 51 Nemo T3-U 10/14/2010 6.8 -- 0.32 25.3 -- 649 57.1 7.97 10.1 10/19/2010 6.2 <0.1 0.41 24.2 <1.0 613 52.5 8.06 8.3 °'' 03/24/2o1i 7.4 <0.1 <0.30 -- -- 36 v T4-U 10/14/2010 6.8 -- 25.2 - 770 57.4 8.03 10 10/19/2010 6.1 <0.1 0.50 23.6 <1.0 12 52.1 8.01 10 .10/ I 03/24/2011 7.4 <0.1 0.39 -- -- 150 T5-R 10/14/2010 4.6 -- 29.4 -- 1 58 7.16 7.3 j 10/19/2010 4.2 <0.1 0.50 28.0 <1.0 219 58.3 7.16 6 03/24/2011 5.4 <0.1 <0.30 -- -- 4 T6-U 10/14/2mo 6.o -- 0.33 25.6 -- 41 60.4 8.29 11.1 ,No 10/19/2010 5.1 0.2 0.55 23.3 <1.0 3 56.7 8.o8 8.7 T7-U 10/14/2010 1.0 -- 0.32 25.8 -- 37 55.5 8.57 8.38 `� 10/19/2010 1.2 <0.1 0.58 23.5 <1.0 461 61 8.23 8.25 Ri-U 10/19/2010 0.1 <0.1 0.49 22.4 <1.0 649 56.1 7.96 7.23 R2-U 10/19/2010 0.4 <0.1 o.68 48.4 <1.0 517 57 8.22 9.03 R3-U 10/19/2010 5.8 <0.1 1.24 23.6 <1.0 435 51 7.57 9.68 R4-U 10/19/2010 3.7 <0.1 1.28 20.0 <1.0 8 62.1 6.6 5.92 %. 03/24/20n 1.7 <0.1 <0.30 -- -- 44 R5-U 10/19/2010 0.3 <0.1 0.74 15.0 <1.0 28 59.5 7.75 6.53 R6-U 10/19/2010 8.9 <0.1 1.95 26.8 <1.0 30 60.3 8.15 8.22 `q woo `fe we Organic Test Averages by Testing Date " Test Date Nitrate Nitrite Phosphate Chlorides Ammonia E.Coli 10/14/2010 6.o DNT 0.4 25.4 DNT 375.0 10/19/2010 4.42 <01 0.802 24.87 <0.1 234154 V 03/24/2011 6.43 <0.1 013 DNT DNT 54 DNT=Did Not Test ♦. ♦. Overall Testing Averages Nitrate Phosphate Chlorides E.Coli Mean 5.3 o.66 25.2 230.5 \r` Variance 8.21 0.18 39.57 72851.54 ..r Standard Deviation 2.87 0.43 6.29 269.91 \. v L Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -88- June,2011 �. 1 �1 .. . O , 0 O O , 0 O , 0000000 aulZ C O ' 0 , O4 O ' O 1 O ' 0 0 0 O O O 6 ..., V V v v V V v v v V V v v ^ N 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 umIIIEyJ, 0 7 1 O l 0 ; o ; o l o l o l o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0000000CTO vm 7 7 7 Tr 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 I- CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SaAI1S 8O O 1 0o 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 to 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 ^ UIRIua a O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 I S o 0 o , o ; o 1 o 1 o 1 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 • v v v v v v v v v v v v v ^ nln!SMOd O O O 0 1 ° 0 M 00 M M? M M ' V ' .i ' V ' ,4 ' V ' N ' N .1 04 .i y N N .. .1 .�. Cr) O 0 0 0 0 0 O O a!F M O O 19113N O 1 o , o : o l o , o , o , o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V V V V V V v v Q 6 6 v v O O O O O 0 O 0000000 fClnaia O O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ YQ O i 0 1 0 i O . 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O v v v V v v v v v v v V v es co7 7 7 7 7 7 7 V 7 7 7 7 7 0 O O O O O 0000000 /.‘ peal o , o ; o l o ; o l O l o : o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 v v v v v v v VVVVVV /1 m C) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 /� Saddo3 o 1 o 1 o 1 o ; o l o , o 1 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 00000000 /st a) v v v v v v v v v v v v v n m nIIIIUIO3LI� O i o o o O , o o O o 0 0 0 o O y o 1 0 0 1 0 ' o o l o ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /'� v v v v v v v v v v v v v Ps, to o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 uIn!ulpE3 $ 1 O 1 o 1 o : o l o l o 1 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v v v v v v v v v v v v es 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 Aia ° O 1 0 : O O O 1 O O o 0 0 o O o /'� uIn?II g ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 v /1 /" Cl V! N 0 0 7 .MI NMC0Oa,D ulnuE$ ., 1 I. 1 .I 1 .I 1 .NI 1 VI 1 .MI : T D\00 .M+ .l`I 0 d' es O O O O O 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 ^ 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 aluas3� 8.0 ,1 ° I ° I o l o 1 q 0 q OOROO o O ' 0000000 v v v v v v v v v v v v v 0 e a o Cl N CI N N N N N Cl N N N N LO 0 O O co 0 O O O 0 0 O O 2 >CuOUII4uV C 10 i 1 0 i O 1 O o 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V v v v v V v V V V V V V a> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y N NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNV ' a EQ3 Z Sa > \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ r'1 ': ZrnZrn7rn7a. vrnZ °s7o. rnrn °` o. rnr .I .i .i M ,-I .i " ♦I " e-I rI -. .-1 rl r4 .4 ,-I .1a ti y \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ P ° ^ . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0cgs u N 31. o ". -^-�. :4 c4 as � � YYY ] co, v ti.. L M M M M M M ' vliapOttin3V 4 4 4 4 4 A os v V v V V V N N N N N 1/ Soppolaav OOo0o ,`r'j ✓ v v v V M M M M M M v ✓ VVVVV U) LU) U) U) U) L i autzeueA3 o 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ v v v v v I"- t" t\ t� ? t\ gasoutQ o 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ v v v v v u? aun '1? '9u? L ,ro[gnring o0000o ✓ VVVVV M M M M M M eao[a[d .I 4,:i 4 4 �ft.'m ✓ VVVVV UJ UJ U7 U) U7 9 L utjeq;augpuad o 0 0 0 0 0 . . M M M M M M L uoze}uag ,..i A 4 4 4 4 ✓ V V V V V U) U) U7 19 UJ U? \/ ao[gae[ola[n[ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ v v v v v co co M M co M 401.0 ✓ V V V V V u[zngu;ayn[ o 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ v v v v v t"- t� t': t� � y y-S`b`z o 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ v v v v v %/ Soppuyi 600000 ✓ V V V V Vcn M M M M M M L uaquieio[t[a vvvv 7-1 v 1.0 co al a) au[zeims o 0 0 0 0 0 vvvvvv C4 t- n t: t: t: t� v ., a (xan[Is)d r,-5`b`z o 0 0 0 0 0 a) v v v v v v aulze.Iv( 00o Ooo m a� v v v v v v .. ^d [ouagdoaolgae;uad o 0 0 0 0 0 1i ., v v v v v v `•• ai so;ngaay o 0 0 0 0 0 ct a v v v v v v Z SOsOsOSOSOS0 %, Q-tt N N N N N N ✓ VVVVV .a .a ,r .I ,I - `/ mammal 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ v v v v v doidio ai � d � t� t� [q .Q 00000o ✓ v v v v v ao[gaedoid 0 0 0 0 0 0 ✓ v v v v v ot\ nt\ t. N.N. 1/ equiea[Q 00000 ✓ V V V V V avg.Ing 00000ovvvvvv pia M M M M M M 1/ atuozuagozo[ga[Q ,4 ., ., ., 4 4 5`E VVVVVV Dyda O o 0 0 0 0 ✓ vvvvv uodEE sososososo� L [ Q v dvvvvv • N 0 0 0 0 0 0 y a}EQ;say d NNNN m IIIIII NN 000000sZ .g 'VI we d uo1;Eao7 -+ N Cr) 7 LI7 FFFFF 0Ippp4 d0 U011E301 �¢ C: N FFFFFa YC �.s F ,, I ►leystonQ ^ � 4 M E M B E R LABORATORIES, INC. f�i�IL ANALYTICAL REPORT October 19,2010 Work Order: 10J0740 Page 1 of 7 Report To Work Order Information - Monica Smith Date Received: 10/14/2010 10:45AM Robinson Engineering Co. Collector: 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Phone: (319)859-0293 Cedar Falls,IA 50613 PO Number: n Project: Surface Water n Project Number: Day 1 es /'N Analyte Result MRI. Batch Method Analyst Analyzed ys Qualifier 10J0740-01 Tl-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/13/10 09:45 Phosphate,total <0.30mg/I 0.30 1701812 HACH 8190 SAI 10/18/10 13:54 PN Chloride 21.8 mg/I 1.0 1.101521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:04 , Nitrogen,Nitrate 8.2 mg/1 0.1 1.101521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:04 /..., 10J0740-02 T2-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/13/10 10:10 ows , Phosphate,total 0.45 mg/1 0.30 1101812 HACH 8190 SAI 10/18/10 13:54 Chloride 25.0 mg/I 1.0 1701521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:18 /h Nitrogen,Nitrate 8.4 mg/I 0.1 1.101521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:18 n 10J0740-03 T3-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/13/10 11:10 " Phosphate,total 0.32 mg/1 030 1J01812 HACH 8190 SAI 10/18/10 13:54 e•.• Chloride 25.3 mg/1 1.0 1J01521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:33 Nitrogen,Nitrate 6.8 mg/1 0.1 1J01521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:33 /1 ^ 10J0740-04 T4-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/13/10 11:55 Phosphate,total <0.30 mg/I 0.30 1101812 HACH 8190 SAI 10/18/10 13:54 I1 Chloride 25.2 mg/1 1.0 1.101521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:47 " Nitrogen,Nitrate 6.8 mg/I 0.1 1701521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:47 10J0740-05 T5-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/13/10 11:30 /'l Phosphate,total <0.30mg/I 0.30 IJ01812 HACH 8190 SAI 10/18/10 13:54 , Chloride 29.4 mg/1 1.0 1.101521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 16:01 Nitrogen,Nitrate 4.6 mg/I 0.1 1.101521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 16:01 ^ 10J0740-06 T6-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/13/10 12:20 Phosphate,total 0.33 mg/1 030 1J01812 HACH 8190 SAI 10/18/10 13:54 Chloride 25.6 mg/1 1.0 1J01521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 16:15 /'� Nitrogen,Nitrate 6.0 mg/1 0.1 1701521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 16:15 10J0740-07 T7-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/13/10 12:50 /\ The results in this report a papply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in /01 its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. /'1 Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 1hQyStOflQ MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC. ACIL Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 October 19,2010 ,_, Work Order: 10J0740 Page 2 of 7 Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier - 10J0740-07 T7-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/13/1012:50 Phosphate,total 0.32 mgi 0.30 1 J01812 HACH 8190 SAl 10/18/10 13:54 Chloride 25.8 mg/1 1.0 I J0152 1 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 16:29 Nitrogen,Nitrate 1.0 mg/I 0.1 I J01 52 1 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 16:29 v v v v v 1 u soo The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. `/ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 v r. . I fQystone MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC, ' • ACIL Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 October 19,2010 — Work Order: 10J0740 Page 3 of 7 Determination of Conventional Chemistry Parameters-Quality Control Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD Analyze Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch 1J01812-Wet Chem Preparation Blank(1J01812-BLK1) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/18/10 Phosphate,total ND 0.30 mg/I LCS(1J01812-BSI) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/18/10 Phosphate,total 1.36 0.30 mg/1 1.20000 113 80-120 Matrix Spike(1J01812-MSI) Source:10J0740-04 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/18/10 Phosphate,total 1.54 0.30 mg/1 1.20000 0.27 105 70-130 Matrix Spike Dup(1J01812-MSD1) Source:10J0740-04 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/18/10 Phosphate,total 1.47 0.30 mg/I 1.20000 0.27 99.9 70-130 4.38 20 PN r"N /'N /N /'N /N �'N /N /1 '"N The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in ^ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 �p f.Cdtp IF 1 .....LfeYstone r� MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC. ACIL Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B _ Cedar Falls,IA 50613 October 19,2010 Work Order: 10J0740 Page 4 of 7 Determination of Inorganic Anions-Quality Control ,.." Keystone Laboratories, Inc.-Newton R..purting Spike Source %REC RPD Analvte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes ..,.. Batch lJ01521 -General Prep HPLC/IC -' Blank(1J01521-BLKI) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/14/10 Chloride ND 1.0 mg/I _ Nitrogen,Nitrate ND 0.1 " Blank(1J01521-BLK2) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/14/10 Chloride ND 1.0 mg/I Nitrogen,Nitrate ND 0.1 _ LCS(1J01521-BSI) Prepared&Analyzed:10/14/10 ,r„ Chloride 62.57 1.0 mg/I 59.8100 105 85-113 Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.53 0.1 " 4.98070 III 89-116 "'- LCS(1J01521-BS2) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/14/10 `.. Chloride 62.70 1.0 mg/I 59.8100 105 85-113 Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.54 0.1 4.98070 I 1 1 89-116 Matrix Spike(1J01521-MSI) Source:10J0726-02 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/14/10 Norif Chloride 68.08 1.0 mg/I 59.8100 5.29 105 74-122 Nitrogen,Nitrate 6.83 0.1 " 4.98070 1.39 109 83-122 `/ Matrix Spike(1J01521-MS2) Source:10J0506-03 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/14/10 \./ Chloride 66.86 1.0 mg/I 59.8100 4.80 104 74-122 %•/ Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.36 0.1 " 4.98070 ND 108 83-122 Matrix Spike Dup(1J01521-MSDI) Source:10J0726-02 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/14/10 Chloride 68.41 1.0 mg/I 59.8100 5.29 106 74.122 0.491 10 Nitrogen,Nitrate 6.60 0.1 4.98070 1.39 105 83-122 3.46 10 ry Matrix Spike Dup(1J01521-MSD2) Source:10,10506-03 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/14/10 %/ Chloride 67.18 1.0 mg/I 59.8100 4.80 104 74-122 0.482 10 Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.31 0.1 4.98070 ND 107 83-122 0.900 10 V ND=Non Detect;REC=Recovery;RPD= Relative Percent Difference 1r/ V `/ v The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for p6 adjustment unless otherwise noted MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 ./ Newton,IA 50208 UfystoneMEMBER ACI L LABORATORIES, INC. 'r Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 October 19,2010 - Work Order: 10J0740 Page 5 of 7 Certified Analyses included in this Report Method/Matrix Analyte Certifications EPA 9056 in Water Chloride KS-NT,NELAC Nitrogen,Nitrate NELAC,KS-NT SM 9223 QT in Water E.Coll SIA1X Code Description Number Expires KS-KC Kansas Department of Health and Environment-KC E-10110 04/30/2011 - KS-NT Kansas Department of Health and Environment E-10287 10/30/2010 - NELAC New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection IA001 06/30/2011 SIA1X Iowa Department of Natural Resources 95 10/31/2010 End of Report Keystone Laboratories, Inc. Sue Thompson Project Manager I\ The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must he reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 90 CFRJbr phi adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 Last 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 A , 1qystone e MEMBER �.LABORATORIES, INC. AIL Robinson Engineering Co. ... 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 October 19,2010 Work Order: 10J0740 Page 6 of 7 — ta 6 m I v � o Js $ -- in S Na pr $ 88 $ $.�O 4 m y yy i qy YM id1: q 1 aqq sq i l yI S i C 0 a $ Z I3 3 c.- m g m � a m es c O a c t z o O P m a N$ UUUCfY / 8x 3x 8Q 9E 9 & r �.. \ a $ sm., ..g I I i -4 -.1] 1 co w1II • cr t]to f G" o l` $ (yp- 1 1 o Om 1 ,�. � I.. E W TEe m w �E o Q M fs n. �`,7I G W c m ` �y `' • , 0� o 41▪gw / l/ \ 11 b 11 ls b • i'" \i 2 §Qgi I 0 3 3 3 3 g r`\ o re rc _I z T — G E m co \k 010 tJ m = .skll' fa CI `.., CO m l ,k n u; a 3 a M N NI EN, Ow a a m0 2 I� �r c � ! jj E J Q ..E t tSot 1— }� a \ L_ -- \ � m' rn E o m Z c rn m` Q $ o g Rz mod. $ ... \ il Q ( N LL l 1.p"�/ Z oY o 0 25 \m The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must he reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 90 CFR for pll adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-7y2A-1.5I 600 East 17th Strcel South Fax 641-79'-79S9 Newton.IA 5020E v Ucystone r * MEMBERPtC,iII — 1 L,LABORATORIES, INC. , Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 October 19,2010 Work Order: 10J0740 Page 7 of 7 2 N • ',.Si a <6 r0 �q Z -. O T Y .. m v Y a I uN 2 -3 ... o::� m` 8 (1 • a O Acs.Ig tmr@moo $ . '1 a r. W NV it c-gui >,cro2m 3 �J m 2 U — > S m` ( 884 z g¢N$ ni—ni-7 e s .; 3a @ — -a- 5 c e • • 2 U f co a 8 in E 1� g e s • r 0 0 a c t — 7 } • < a E Cb- 0 . a if, f.a.... • y� VEca m 'is' ` g ° �3m 12 m ol, p a � 5 U^5W � L t �J �� H co d> Pc 40 0 I g 3 3 �t a I a m i U OP ` C z = COc • o O m i - Ov p cmi o Obi _w F u ,�, 6.0 K " O Z ~ ro 1 Z a �m m N. a W _ u _ k Sim — O I E ° a to z cm m b Q a i� ~❑J z S. o The results in this report apply to the samples analysed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must he reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phonc 641-792-X451 600 East 17th Strout South has 6.41-792-7989 Newton.IA 50208 H vl %.10 � *4.0wtoo v vl L reso v ame 4,40 'oa se'owl I \seI N. I Jp nc Ufeystone ek- , MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC. ANALYTICAL REPORT November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 1 of 30 Report To Work Order Information Monica Smith Date Received: 10/19/2010 9:55AM Robinson Engineering Co. Collector: 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Phone: (319)859-0293 Cedar Falls,IA 50613 PO Number: Project : Surface Water ^ Project Number: Day 2 Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier 10J0955-01 TI-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 09:30 Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/I 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24 cs Phosphate,total <0.30 mg/I 0.30 1J02210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27 ,-. Chloride 20.7 mg/I 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 19:59 Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1.102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 19:59 Nitrogen,Nitrate 7.7 mg/I 0.1 1702031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 19:59 '` Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01 /1 Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01 ^ Barium,total 0.142 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01 Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01 " Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/1 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01 Cs, Chromium,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01 ^ Copper,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01 ^ Mercury,total <0.00050mg/I 0.00050 1.102739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:19 Potassium,total <1.0 mg/1 1.0 1J02612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:15 Nickel,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01 eS Lead,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01 ^ Antimony,total <0.0020mg/1 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01 ^ Selenium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01 Thallium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01 Zinc,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01 Cs E.Coli 4 MPN/100 ml 1 2J01812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10 i-. 10J0955-02 T2-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 10:10 PS Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0mg/1 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24 e., Phosphate,total 0.70 mg/I 0.30 1J02210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27 Chloride 23.8 mg/I 1.0 IJ02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:13 Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/I 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:13 /'bt The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in /'% its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East I7th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 hleystone = -z-- MEMBER M B E R ACIL LABORATORIES, INC. Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 ,.." November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Paget of 30 Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier .,.. 10J0955-02 T2-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 10:10 Nitrogen,Nitrate 7.7 mg/1 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:13 Silver,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1702720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 Barium,total 0.151 mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/I 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 Chromium,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 ...-- Copper,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 Mercury,total <0.00050 mg/I 0.00050 1J02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:24 Potassium,total 1.0 mg/I 1.0 1102612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:18 Nickel,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 Lead,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1702720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 Antimony,total <0.0020mg/I 0.0020 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 Selenium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 Thallium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 Zinc,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 E.Coli 65 MPN/100 ml 1 2J01812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10 10J0955-03 T5-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 14:20 v Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/1 1.0 1102004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24 Phosphate,total 0.50 mg/I 030 1J02210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27 \/ Chloride 28.0 mg/ 1.0 1.102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:28 \/ Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:28 \./ Nitrogen,Nitrate 4.2 mg/I 0.1 1.102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:28 Silver,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 \/ Arsenic,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 \/ Barium,total 0.110mgll 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 \/ Beryllium,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 \aI Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/I 0.0010 1J02720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 Chromium,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1J02720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 b/ Copper,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 .e Mercury,total <0.00050mg/1 0.00050 1J02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:26 v Potassium,total <1.0 mg/I 1.0 1102612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:28 \/ Nickel,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 Lead,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1702720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 v Antimony,total <0.0020 mg/1 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 \/ Selenium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 v Thallium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 %no The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in \./ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-t45I 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton.IA 50208 v 1 i `f": }, MEMBER M B E R UqystonqACI i LABORATORIES, INC. 9•.• . • Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 3 of 30 Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier 10J0955-03 T5-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 14:20 Zinc,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 r^ E.Col 219 MPN/100 ml 1 2101812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/I8/IO 15:10 eN 10J0955-04 T3-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 10:40 ems Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/I 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAl 10/21/10 10:24 Phosphate,total 0.41 mg/I 0.30 1J02210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27 ^ Chloride 24.2 mg/I 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:42 /''s Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/I 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:42 ^ Nitrogen,Nitrate 6.2 mg/I 0.1 1.102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:42 Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16 /1 Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16 n Barium,total 0.129 mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16 ^ Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16 eN. Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/I 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16 Chromium,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16 Co er,total <0.0040m PP 6/1 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16 enN Mercury,total <0.00050mg/I 0.00050 1J02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:28 tioN Potassium,total <1.0 mg/1 1.0 1J02612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:31 ^ Nickel,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16 Lead,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16 efts, Antimony,total <0.0020mg/1 0.0020 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16 /'N Selenium,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16 eN Thallium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16 ^ Zinc,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16 E.Coli 613 MPN/100 nil I 2J01812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10 /1 eN10J0955-05 T4-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 11:00 Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/1 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24 Phosphate,total 0.50 mg/I 0.30 1102210 HACH 8190 SAl 10/22/10 13:27 " Chloride 23.6 mg/I 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:56 ^ Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:56 Nitrogen,Nitrate 6.1 mg/I 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:56 /'s Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 PN Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 P,, Barium,total 0.120 mg/I 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 eN Cadmium,total <0.0010 mg/1 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 /"ii Chromium,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 IJ02720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 /1 Copper,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in ^ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 1leystone `" - MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC. AIL - Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 4 of30 Iwo Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier ... 10J0955-05 T4-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/1011:00 `." Mcmury,total <0.00050mg/I 0.00050 1.102739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:29 so.. Potassium,total 1.0 mg/I 1.0 1J02612 EPA 6010E SAA 10/27/10 11:41 Name Nickel,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 Lead,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 Antimony,total <0.0020 mg/I 0.0020 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 Selenium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 `,,. Thallium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 ...r Zinc,total <0.0100 mg/1 0.0100 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 E.Coli 12 MPN/100 ml 1 2101812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10 Nn 10J0955-06 T6-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 12:20 Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0mg/I 1.0 IJ02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAl 10/21/10 10:24 `.. Phosphate,total 0.55 mg/I 0.30 1J02210 HACH 8190 SA1 10/22/10 13:27 '1/ Chloride 23.3 mg/I 1.0 1J0203I EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:10 `/ Nitrogen,Nitrite 0.2 mg/1 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:10 Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.1 mg/1 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:10 Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 %11/ Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 t1./ Barium,total 0.134 mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 Beryllium,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 `/ Cadmium,total <0.0010 mg/1 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 `/ Chromium,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 `/ Copper,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV I I/01/10 17:25 `/ Mercury,total <0.00050 mg/1 0.00050 1102739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:35 Potassium,total 2.0 mg/1 1.0 1102612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:44 v Nickel,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 %/ Lead,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 v Antimony,total <0.0020mg/1 0.0020 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 v Selenium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 Thallium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 ka/ Zinc,total <0.0100 mg/I 0.0100 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 `e E.Coli 3 MPN/100 ml 1 2101812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10 v 10J0955-07 T7-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 12:45 y Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/I 1.0 1102004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24 v Phosphate,total 0.58 mg/1 0.30 1102210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27 Chloride 23.5 mg/1 1.0 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:24 Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:24 %we Nitrogen,Nitrate 1.2 mg/1 0.1 1.102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:24 ‘4./ The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in %%/ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted MRL=Method Reporting Limit. \/ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 v hQyStOflQ +qy MEMBER.4 LABORATORIES, INC. ACiL Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 5 of 30 Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier 10J0955-07 T7-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 12:45 -' Silver,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45 - Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45 ^ Barium,total 0.0913 mg/I 0.0040 1302720 EPA 6020A RW 11/01/10 17:45 Beryllium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45 Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/I 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45 Chromium,total <0.0100 mg/1 0.0100 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45 -. Copper,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45 ^ Mercury,total <0.00050mg/I 0.00050 1102739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:36 Potassium,total 2.8 mg/I 1.0 1102612 EPA 6010E SAA 10/27/10 11:46 Nickel,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45 ^ Lead,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1,102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45 , Antimony,total <0.0020mg/I 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45 ^ Selenium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45 Thallium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45 ^ Zinc,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45 - E.Coll 461 MPN/100 ml 1 2J01812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10 I0J0955-08 RI-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 09:50 /.o, Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/1 1.0 1102004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24 , ,, Phosphate,total 0.49 mg/I 0.30 1J02210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27 Chloride 22.4 mg/I 1.0 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:38 e". Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/I 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:38 /'s Nitrogen,Nitrate 0.1 mg/1 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:38 ^ Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50 Arsenic,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50 Barium,total 0.0927 mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50 e's Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50 ^ Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/1 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50 ^ Chromium,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50 Copper,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50 Poi. Mercury,total <0.00050mg/I 0.00050 1J02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:38 P' Potassium,total 1.8 mg/I 1.0 1102612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:49 , Nickel,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50 Lead,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50 Antimony,total <0.0020mg/1 0.0020 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50 IN Selenium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50 AI... Thallium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50 , Zinc,total <0.0100 mg/1 0.0100 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50 E.Coll 649 MPN/100 ml 1 2101812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10 /'N The results in this report a papply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in ^ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. INPhone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 1I 'QystoflQ �� MEMBER v LABORATORIES, INC. • ACI L. �- Robinson Engineering Co. ... 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 `. November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 6 of 30 NEI Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier ,... 10J0955-08 R1-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 09:50 ... I0J0955-09 R2-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 11:20 Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/I 1.0 1102004 SM4500-NH3F SAI 10/21/10 10:24 None Phosphate,total 0.68 mg/I 030 1J02210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27 N.., Chloride 48.4 mg/1 1.0 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:53 Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/I 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:53 Nitrogen,Nitrate 0.4 mg/I 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:53 ... Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 _. Arsenic,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 v Barium,total 0.0839 mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 von, Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/1 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 `..., Chromium,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 y Copper,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 v Mercury,total <0.00050mg/I 0.00050 1102739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:40 Potassium,total 2.3 mg/I 1.0 1J02612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:51 v Nickel,total 0.0041 mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 1./ Lead,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 v Antimony,total <0.0020mg/I 0.0020 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 `/ Selenium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 Thallium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 \r/ Zinc,total <0.0100 mg/I 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 \./ E.Coli 517 MPN/100 ml 1 2101812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10 V 10J0955-10 R3-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 11:50 \./ Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/1 I A 1.102004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24 v Phosphate,total 1.24 mg/1 030 1102210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27 Chloride 23.6 mg/1 1.0 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 22:07 V Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 22:07 %r/ Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.8 mg/1 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 22:07 v Silver,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 v Barium,total 0.138 mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 ‘/ Beryllium,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 v Cadmium,total <0.0010 mg/I 0.0010 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 Chromium,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 Copper,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 V Mercury,total <0.00050mg/1 0.00050 1.102739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:41 %I/ Potassium,total 13 mg/1 1.0 1102612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:54 `/ The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in Arl its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. v Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 v ,.. Ufeystone a MEMBER... ,... . _ .- f LABORATORIES, INC. 1'"iZ.IL ' Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B _ Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 7 of 30 Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier 10J0955-10 R3-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 11:50 Nickel,total 0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 - Lead,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 Antimony,total <0.0020 mg/1 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 Selenium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 Thallium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 • Zinc,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1J02720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 - E.Coli 435 MPN/100 ml 1 2J01812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10 - 10J0955-11 R4-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 13:50 - Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/I 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24 - Phosphate,total 1.28 mg/I 0.30 1 J02210 HACH 8190 SAl 10/22/10 13:27 Chloride 20.0 mg/1 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 22:49 Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/I 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 22:49 - Nitrogen,Nitrate 3.7 mg/I 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 22:49 Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05 Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05 Barium,total 0.170 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05 • Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05 ^ Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/I 0.0010 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05 Chromium,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05 Copper,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05 PN Mercury,total <0.00050mg/1 0.00050 1102739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:43 ek Potassium,total <1.0 mg/1 1.0 1102612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:56 ^ Nickel,total 0.0053 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05 Lead,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05 t� Antimony,total <0.0020 mg/I 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05 e% Selenium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05 ^ Thallium,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05 esZinc,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05 E.Coli 8 MPN/100 ml 1 2J01812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10 10J0955-12 R5-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 13:30 Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0mg/1 1.0 1J02004 SM4500-NH3F SAl 10/21/10 10:24 • Phosphate,total 0.74 mg/I 030 1 J02210 HACH 8190 SAL 10/22/10 13:27 " Chloride 15.0 mg/I 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 23:03 esNitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 23:03 Nitrogen,Nitrate 0.3 mg/I 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 23:03 n Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 Ps Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in ^ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. PIS Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 Lr UlQyStOflQ MEMBER.......,,,_ LABORATORIES, INC. e. AEI L �- Robinson Engineering Co. ... 5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 ..... Work Order: 10J0955 Page 8 of 30 Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier ..... 10J0955-12 R5-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/1013:30 Barium,total 0.104 mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 a Beryllium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 I102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 *s Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/I 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 Chromium,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1.102720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 Copper,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV I1/01/10 18:10 Mercury,total <0.00050mg/I 0.00050 1.102739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:45 \,/ Potassium,total 2.5 mg/I 1.0 1J02612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:59 V Nickel,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 Lead,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 `/ Antimony,total <0.0020mg/I 0.0020 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 \S Selenium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 v Thallium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 v Zinc,total <0.0100 mg/I 0.0100 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 E.Coli 28 MPN/100 ml 1 2J01812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10 ~ \silo 10J0955-13 R6-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 13:00 Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0mg/1 1.0 1J02004 SM4500-NH3F SAl 10/21/10 10:24 v Phosphate,total 1.95 mg/1 0.30 1J02210 HACH 8190 SAl 10/22/10 13:27 %el Chloride 26.8 mg/I 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 23:17 y Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 23:17 Nitrogen,Nitrate 8.9 mg/I 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 23:17 \we Silver,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 \d Arsenic,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 ...d Barium,total 0.0465 mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 Beryllium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RW 11/01/10 18:15 Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/I 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 Nia./ Chromium,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 as Copper,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 \/ Mercury,total <0.00050mg/I 0.00050 1J02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:46 lieloo Potassium,total 2.3 mg/I 1.0 1102612 EPA 6010E SAA 10/27/10 12:02 Nickel,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1.102720 EPA6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 Lead,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1,102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 \/ Antimony,total <0.0020mg/l 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 v Selenium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 Thallium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 v Zinc,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 \/ E.Coli 30 MPN/100 ml 1 2101812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10 v The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in �./ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. v Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 v Newton,IA 50208 CrAt - lQystonQ MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC. '•t 'i ACIL Robinson Engineering Co. - 5751 Westnlinister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 -. Work Order: 10J0955 Page 9 of 30 Determination of Conventional Chemistry Parameters-Quality Control Keystone Laboratories, Inc.-Newton Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD Analyse Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch 1J02004-Wet Chem Preparation Blank(1J02004-BLKI) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/21/10 ea, Nitrogen,Ammonia ND 1.0 mg/I /s, Blank(1J02004-BLK2) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/21/10 Nitrogen,Ammonia ND 1.0 mg/1 Blank(1J02004-BLK3) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/21/10 /\ Nitrogen,Ammonia ND 1.0 mg/I /1 Matrix Spike(1J02004-MS1) Source:10J0807-06 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/21/10 /1 Nitrogen,Ammonia 10.1 2.0 mg/I 10.0000 1.18 89.2 86-140 "IN Matrix Spike(1J02004-MS2) _ Source:10J0955-01 Prepared&Analyzed:10/21/10 Nitrogen,Ammonia 9.02 2.0 mg/I 10.0000 ND 90.2 86-140 es Matrix Spike(1302004-MS3) Source: I OJ 1088-10 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/21/10 Nitrogen,Ammonia 9. 6 2.0 mg/I 10.0000 ND 95.6 86-140 Matrix Spike Dup(1J02004-MSD1) Source: 10J0807-06 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/21/10 Nitrogen,Ammonia 10.0 2.0 mg/1 10.0000 1.18 88.6 86-140 0.596 10 Matrix Spike Dup(1J02004-rISD2) Source:10J0955-01 Prepared&Analyzed:10/21/10 P Nitrogen,Ammonia 9.20 2.0 mg/I 10.0000 ND 92.0 86-140 1.98 10 /1 Matrix Spike Dup(1J02004-MSD3) Source:10J1088-10 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/21/10 Nitrogen,Ammonia 9.38 2.0 mg/I 10.0000 ND 93.8 86-140 1.90 10 es Batch 1J02210-Wet Chem Preparation ^ Blank(1J02210-BLK1) Prepared&Analyzed:10/22/10 Phosphate,total ND 0.30 mg/I 01 The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain o custodydocument.This analytical report PPY P Y- f y must be reproduced in oaks its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 64I.792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 1lQystOnQPA _ e .�. MEMBER AA B E R LABORATORIES, INC. � A-EIL Robinson Engineering Co.5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 10 of 30 Determination of Conventional Chemistry Parameters-Quality Control Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD Analyze Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch 1J02210-Wet Chem Preparation LCS(1J02210-BSI) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/22/10 Phosphate,total 1.22 0.30 mg/I 1.20000 102 80-120 Matrix Spike(1J02210-MS1) Source:10J0955-01 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/22/10 Phosphate,total 2.66 0.60 mg/I 2.40000 0.24 101 70-130 Matrix Spike Dup(1J02210-MSD1) Source:10J0955-01 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/22/10 Phosphate,total 2.72 0.60 mg/I 2.40000 0.24 103 70-130 2.18 20 The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in ... its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. r.r Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 E ,feystone * ` MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC. r 1C,jL ^ Robinson Engineering Co. . , 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 ^ November 02,2010 .., Work Order: 10J0955 Page 11 of 30 Determination of Inorganic Anions-Quality Control Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch 1J02031-General Prep HPLC/IC Blank(1J02031-BLK1) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/19/10 ... Chloride ND 1.0 mg/1 Nitrogen.Nitrite ND 0.1 Nitrogen,Nitrate ND 0.1 " Blank(1J02031-BLK2) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/19/10 Chloride ND 1.0 mg/I Nitrogen,Nitrite ND 0.1 Nitrogen,Nitrate ND 0.1 " LCS(1J02031-BSI) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/19/10 "` Chloride 62.61 1.0 mg/I 59.8100 105 85-113 Nitrogen,Nitrite 4.52 0.1 4.42845 102 87-113 Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.13 0.1 " 4.98070 103 89-116 LCS(1J02031-BS2) Prepared&Analyzed:10/19/10 '1 Chloride 62.41 1.0 mg/I 59.8100 104 85-113 ^ Nitrogen,Nitrite 4.34 0.1 " 4.42845 97.9 87-113 Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.04 0.1 4.98070 101 89-116 n Matrix Spike(1J02031-MS1) Source:10J0934-01 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/19/10 n Chloride 76.45 1.0 mg'I 59.8100 11.50 109 74-122 /" Nitrogen,Nitrite 4.90 0.1 4.42845 ND I I 1 81-116 Nitrogen,Nitrate 9.96 0.1 4.98070 5.06 98.6 83-122 /1 Matrix Spike(1J02031-MS2) Source:10J0955-11 Prepared: 10/19/10 Analyzed: 10/20/10 " Chloride 82.64 1.0 mg/1 59.8100 20.03 105 74-122 /1 Nitrogen,Nitrite 4.89 0.1 " 4.42845 ND 110 81-116 Nitrogen,Nitrate 8.50 0.1 " 4.98070 3.67 97.1 83-122 .01 /1 /1 P1 /1 The results in this report applyto the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain o custodydocument.This analytical report must be reproduced in P P Y- f Y P P ^ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 estone MEMBER M B E R y LABORATORIES, INC. ARIL Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls, IA 50613 November 02,2010 * Work Order: 10J0955 Page 12 of 30 Determination of Inorganic Anions-Quality Control Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes ..� Batch 1J02031 -General Prep HPLC/1C ''" Matrix Spike Dup(1J02031-MSDI) Source:10J0934-01 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/19/10 ti./ Chloride 75.27 1.0 mg/I 59.8100 11.50 107 74-122 1.56 10 ossi Nitrogen,Nitrite 4.81 0.1 4.42845 ND 109 81-116 1.81 11 Nitrogen,Nitrate 9.86 0.1 4.98070 5.06 96.5 83-122 1.04 10 °E/ Matrix Spike Dup(1J02031-MSD2) Source:I0J0955-11 Prepared: 10/19/10 Analyzed: 10/20/10 `e Chloride 80.44 1.0 mg/I 59.8100 20.03 101 74-122 2.70 10 Nitrogen,Nitrite 4.74 0.1 4.42845 ND 107 81-116 3.10 11 Nitrogen,Nitrate 8.32 0.1 " 4.98070 3.67 93.3 83-122 2.22 10 1.I `/ v 11.50 110 v sad The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in ,d its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. v Phone 641-792-845I 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 N./ Newton,IA 50208 1 i'e Stone M � i �---" E M B E R LABORATORIES, INC. AC_.IL Robinson Engineering Co. ,. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 - Work Order: 10J0955 Page 13 of 30 Determination of Total Metals-Quality Control Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch 1J02612-EPA 3010A Total 1CP Blank(1J02612-BLK1) Prepared: 10/26/10 Analyzed: 10/27/10 Potassium,total ND 1.0 mg/I LCS(1J02612-BSI) Prepared: 10/26/10 Analyzed: 10/27/10 Potassium,total 3.1 1.0 mg/I 3.33333 92.4 80-120 Matrix Spike(1J02612-MS1) Source:10J0955-02 Prepared: 10/26/10 Analyzed: 10/27/10 Potassium,total 4.4 1.0 mg/1 3.33333 1.0 103 75-125 Matrix Spike Dup(1J02612-MSDI) Source:10J0955-02 Prepared: 10/26/10 Analyzed: 10/27/10 P1 Potassium,total 4.6 1.0 mg/I 3.33333 1.0 109 75-125 4.73 20 o's, Post Spike(1302612-PSI) Source:10J0955-02 Prepared: 10/26/10 Analyzed: 10/27/10 Potassium,total 3.0 mg/I 2.00000 0.9 102 80-120 /1 Batch 1J02720-EPA 3010A Total ICP Blank(1J02720-BLKI) _... Prepared: 10/27/10 Analyzed: 11/01/10 Antimony,total ND 0.0020 mg9 /'4k Arsenic,total ND 0.0040 " • Barium,total ND 0.0040 " Beryllium,total ND 0.0040 " Cadmium,total ND 0.0010 " /k Chromium,total ND 0.0100 " Copper,total ND 0.0040 " • Lead,total ND 0.0040 " /1 Nickel,total ND 0.0040 " Selenium,total ND 0.0040 " Silver,total ND 0.0040 " P\ Thallium,total ND 0.0040 " Zinc,total ND 0.0100 " 1'"tk The results in this report a papply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in ^ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 I :tone MEMBER.. LABORATORIES, INC. -- Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B ..- Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 14 of 30 Determination of Total Metals-Quality Control Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD Analyse Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RED Limit Notes Batch 1J02720-EPA 3010A Total ICP LCS(1J02720-BSI) Prepared: 10/27/10 Analyzed: 11/01/10 ...- Antimony,total 0.0519 0.0020 mg/I 0.0500000 104 80-120 Arsenic,total 0.0502 0.0040 0.050(1000 100 80-120 Barium,total 0.0516 0.0040 " 0.0500000 103 80-120 Beryllium,total 0.0479 0.0040 0.0500000 95.8 80-120 Cadmium,total 0.0501 0.0010 s0.0500000 100 80-120 Chromium,total 0.0545 0.0100 " 0.0500000 109 80-120 .� Copper,total 0.0517 0.0040 " 0.0500000 103 80-120 Lead,total 0.0542 0.0040 • 0.0500000 108 80-120 Nickel,total 0.0518 0.0040 • 0.0500000 104 80-120 `I Selenium,total 0.0466 0.0040 " 0.0500000 93.1 80-120 v Silver,total 0.0510 0.0040 " 0.0500000 102 80-120 Thallium,total 0.0455 0.0040 " 0.050)000 91.0 80-120 \/ Zinc,total 0.0723 0.0100 " 0.0500000 145 80-120 QS-0lV Matrix Spike(1J02720-MS1) Source: 10.11002-01 Prepared: 10/27/10 Analyzed: 11/01/10 v Antimony,total 0.0498 0.0020 mg/I 0.0500001) ND 99.5 75-125 Arsenic,total 0.0471 0.0040 " 0.0500000 ND 94.2 75-125 \r/ Barium,total 0.133 0.0040 " 0.0500000 0.0885 89.8 75-125 v Beryllium,total 0.0478 0.0040 " 0.0500000 ND 95.5 75-125 Cadmium,total 0.0481 0.0010 " 0,0500000 ND 96.1 75-125 \i/ Chromium,total 0.0459 0.0100 " 0.0500000 ND 91.7 75-125 v Copper,total 0.0447 0.0040 " 0.0500000 0.0018 85.9 75-125 Lead,total 0.0537 0.0040 • 0.0500000 ND 107 75-125 v Nickel,total 0.0504 0.0040 " 0.0500000 0.0063 88.2 75-125 `/ Selenium,total 0.0439 0.0040 0.0500000 NI) 87.9 75-125 Silver,total 0.0470 0.0040 • 0.0500000 ND 94.1 75-125 lanil Thallium,total 0.0468 0.0040 • 0.0500000 ND 93.6 75-125 Zinc,total 0.0414 0.0100 • 0.0500000 0.0011 80.6 75-125 \I \/ The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in \/ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 v 1 ►�Q stonQ °K ME MOB E R AC LABORATORIES, INC. IL Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 _ Work Order: 10J0955 Page 15 of 30 Determination of Total Metals-Quality Control Keystone Laboratories, Inc.-Newton Reporting Spike Source %RFC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch 1J02720-EPA 3010A Total ICP Matrix Spike Dup(1J02720-MSDI) Source:10J1002-01 Prepared: 10/27/10 Analyzed: 11/01/10 Antimony,total 0.0473 0.0020 mg/I 0.0500000 ND 94.6 75-125 5.02 20 Arsenic,total 0.0433 0.0040 0.0500000 ND 86.6 75-125 8.38 20 Barium,total 0.125 0,0040 " 0.0500000 0.0885 72.3 75-125 6.78 20 QM-07 ^ Beryllium,total 0.0443 0.0040 0.0500000 ND 88.5 75-125 7.60 20 Cadmium,total 0.0469 0.0010 • 0.0500000 ND 93.8 75-125 2.46 20 /".` Chromium,total 0.0470 0.0100 " 0.0500000 ND 94.0 75-125 2.50 20 ^ Copper,total 0.0441 0.0040 • 0.0500000 0.0018 84.7 75-125 1.36 20 Lead,total 0.0539 0.0040 • 0.0500000 ND 108 75-125 0.234 20 P.‘ Nickel,total 0.0515 0.0040 " 0.0500000 0.0063 90.4 75-125 2.24 20 ^ Selenium,total 0.0414 0.0040 0.0500000 ND 82.7 75-125 6.05 20 Silver,total 0.0472 0.0040 0.0500000 ND 94.5 75-125 0.411 20 /'N Thallium,total 0.0498 0.0040 " 0.0500000 ND 99.7 75-125 6.28 20 ^ Zinc,total 0.0431 0.0100 " 0.0500000 0.0011 84.1 75-125 4.12 20 /'' Batch 1J02739-EPA 7470A Hg Water e's Blank(1J02739-BLK1) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/27/10 n Mercury,total ND 0.00050 mgA. .. _ _.... n LCS(1J02739-BS1) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/27/10 Mercury,total 0.00294 0.00050 mg/I 0.00250000 118 73-125 Matrix Spike(1J02739-MS1) Source:1030955-01 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/27/10 Mercury,total 0.00310 0.00050 mg/I 0.00250000 0.0000520 122 60-138 n Matrix Spike Dup(1J02739-MSD1) Source:10J0955-01 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/27/10 , Mercury,total 0.00261 0.00050 mg/1 0.00250000 0.0000520 102 60-138 17.2 21 eN ND=Non Detect;REC=Recovery;RPD= Relative Percent Difference /1 001 /'� The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in ^ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 LIQyStOflQ A''`Sr .. MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC, ` ACIL Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 16 of 30 Certified Analyses included in this Report Method/Matrix Analyte Certifications EPA 6010E in Water r/ Potassium,total IA-NT,KS-NT,NELAC v EPA 6020A in Water Antimony,total SIA1X Arsenic,total SIA1X Barium,total SIA1X Beryllium,total SIA1X Cadmium,total SIA1X Chromium,total SIA1X Copper,total SIA1X �r Lead,total SIA1X Nv/ Nickel,total SIA1X Selenium,total SIA1X Silver,total SIA1X Thallium,total SIA1X Zinc,total SIA1X EPA 7470A in Water Mercury,total IA-NT,KS-NT,NELAC - EPA 9056 in Water �..i Chloride KS-NT,NELAC Now Nitrogen,Nitrate NELAC,KS-NT Nitrogen,Nitrate NELAC,KS-NT SM 4500-NH3 Fin Water Nitrogen,Ammonia SIAIX SM 9223 QT in Water v E.Coli SIA1X �r Code Description Number Expires IA-WL Iowa Department of Natural Resources 051 09/01/2010 v KS-KC Kansas Department of Health and Environment-KC E-10110 04/30/2011 KS-NT Kansas Department of Health and Environment E-10287 10/30/2010 NELAC New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection IA001 06/30/2011 SIA1X Iowa Department of Natural Resources 95 10/31/2010 \/ �.d The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 �./ stone p*C_ ' kfe r MEMBER y �� r LABORATORIES, INC. AC_.IL ^• Robinson Engineering Co. es 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 " November 02,2010 es Work Order: 10J0955 Page 17 of 30 Notes and Definitions QM-07 The spike recovery and/or RPD was outside acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD. The batch was accepted based on acceptable LCS recovery. ^ QS-Ol The blank spike recovery was outside acceptance limits. Batch accepted based on acceptable MS/MSD/RPD results. End of Report esoN ^ Keystone Laboratories, Inc. Sue Thompson Project Manager I n The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 I nQ M E M B E R ,.feysto AIL LABORATORIES, INC. " .. Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westnlinister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 18 of 30 E U �" 173 0.O Ncii JI COIF s di �.r a o � Y to 25Z �� S N a ��, E s ti h gle:g, - N0•'D w 111 'E6411i 8._ 12. a d pGi J 1111 I �xl iil s1 .1l ih 40/ 1 1 y ❑ Z I +�/'a 0 fit`.O w CO 0 Er a re 1 rill E I ❑ gt5r2 ❑ ..I., I- O — _ 2 80 Z c LL iiiljn1; Z zr W o .. I o _ q U Z o o C g ° T c viia C a 4 ay E �� U r tIleal N ° o m a ; g Fd O F E o 6 `fn a3 2 I to tWn 1 co F❑ $ \ }KKdd4 `o �� Q \ /I\ J Z 1 ow.— The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in bor/ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. M/ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 N./ `�rq W,CRf%.. 1 ►fQ stone MEMBER TS11 - IL LABORATORIES, INC. `9ep000 Qr AC Robinson Engineering Co. _ 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 _ Work Order: 10J0955 Page 19 of 30 E V E a / \ I 1 v 1 a. .- CV A 0 m E �J m i — a6 4 40 = z O D. _ Y m 3 a a 8� o s g'$ d€ s , 1 iii _cycg m Ri $ `'�, i8 $ $ O "oi:a rn 2,00 S $ji9jUii4 a E. 2 6'._3 e 1' 2 V a 2 B93m > Q iiIiatilliZI I /N ° 1 IY Z 0 0 to 0 3 0-) p di 8 2:2-80 to 6 � � �o o ° q ^ U W Oc� En c _c¢ o Jy > U. I- E W E .n w e .. CO E0 Q. o K .q pcp 'Sj.- N N m ^ Z � � 2 „,C� - . a L p N K Oi�a a E m Q A VS. 10 r' ` --le,- I 3 H f , p a r_ ` ` Et mW�y �' n la Ao M. g c ., I I ° 1 a r a .0 U /'•••, $ — m E E_ = g /\ C O j a $ p 0 a"It)i P ayye s N lime Mc ! "� e, �a FO &i o F. m t o E a o W o <9 m Ito. m m i a y z E`a . $ E 8g /\ ~ / z o r-., r The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in ^ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ONPhone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 fystone -_ ». t LABORATORIES, INC. ' ` \ �� Robinson Engineering Co. "" 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 20 of 30 E AID SW m `V m y § V Fit M O .-1 Z a o 0 m 3 o v a f 8m € a 8 s...► (1 G f•g2< Tm2 W-g v W Na oyc� n -=-r� Z@@ UI o S`3 -F21 0000. zC i 11111141111 _ re o m E `/ j a)N ce Z U W ~ o m � E ac. O `/ re cr g F C , Q l � ',quoO E �— ' g ‘. g c5 o - �. m as 30a .0?O re G m e C - : gGQ a. p a `' Eoo g E 3 ae N./ u ea co V Cm x 1 —) \ne Q m< z ei z m I *... J _. o a U_ g g CD € 5 s ,.. 1 Q y fa0 C Z TO C OtCi, 0 g m AWN g mC W 14. NoeEoaH S z `mto l�� LL . O = a.. a O `N ^ vOF i_ j c c° u) a 0 z g� lk` I 1./ N.e The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 hfeystone sf-.. ` ` M E M BiEr R LABORATORIES, INC. AIL Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 21 of 30 E o — z 0 N C O � ° 3zc a o >. - Y2 Q `� - S 00 3 501 1 �M T € s 8 o. sg< m=ySE. ; : ii ; alIti 0 S'Cc-- mt8 o''pop a $T� 9xno9aa — h Ew Yl ag N ? O N w b rn � a 2 gg c = n .* i it• i•Z ii01 s ° d 2F " a 33p 2 o �$O ET cl1 o $�1p Po o to�'. VO O D. = . 19- gcICQ O faiCO ~ E wNwELL ocgT. _le- O t au23LL ' e 8 c co m m r NPO $ QQ Ag ceK,... Eaa s a-- S s g /� toZm 1 2 a \I 1 o a E g s` 5 U H 1 m Z li s C W H diC o N Q VIr of o a a co ta—Q Z a ° \ - dic w m u c \/, mNamf' a i � i a y (.. , , _ g. ^ • I -- I n eS The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in ^ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 r ixvii- Stone MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC. AIL — Nose Robinson Engineering Co. — 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls, IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 22 of 30 Nose E 0 g40 m e.2 m •t" o Pz Q. 0 i. "M' coy V PEI 8'N .E cdcq dID R`c< �i €Xma �. wetoEo Tcm , m m .. y e, z �i,74 ci00atr ,....r §cc rei(3 IIIIII sm '° 1 . '41 ; - W cc — oE 1. Ci a 2 5-1 a Nose • ce a Ca ... cc i >- 8 0) r- l" o �[� O 0� 0 Q S. p _cc . G LL m+ E 1pLg�jA�n W m o ,� 0 1 p g u- '.m xf i. 8 o m ybj w 2aNA m0 icy -._' _ gam frrn� L3 J N s tj m� ; U J 4 m Nose Wes§; 5 d0 — g g �,� ix .... 1 g 0 `" T. m m `o_ v \� i D 3u0 3 o ioli O a m g J c E m `'' l tilQ Z ❑ Q G a II m_ ' co m d I 3 E q$ a v The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in \e its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. \/ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 v UQyStOflQ ..... MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC. 1 1 - Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 - Work Order: 10J0955 Page 23 of 30 E cm A to m O m La G m m O I Z a co o m p U 3 E O L' m w � Bu � c — � X F TI aa 2m c 1_ s1Iiidtr4 nO WEQiImmwWE 4S_ ?O O9LL Ogq Zca-aU Uam ZIXnO 1 I I I 1 I RR ogg — iiziltiiiii — I I g O Efl O zCS m /'N p €fir' 1..., $ � 3 U) 6 r 1 0 A " U oo O2 s E, .¢ 0 Z m �> v, _ cc t . Li. ~ E W P- W 1- 3 S ` e N e eN O °� O g OLL m ' S 1c 8 Q (N u' .o o-a < O Y O r �I 1 1 0 a 2 g E Cz i o co o 0 - 0 3 w F ft o €� n ��ttN c < 5 - o 1 1 a= E t a0 C m N r- a — �c m ' c> 1 a _ m W W m ' covi w a z 1 $ 1 3 \ l v, '� _ p " The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in ^ its entirety.Sampleswere preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 hleystone ; `:: / MAzI!iE1: LABORATORIES, INC. Robinson Engineering Co. " 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 .. Work Order: 10J0955 Page 24 of 30 c 0 o a co •n• m ii bo ..... PP h. o Wiz' C a o a 3 Nco U = € gp `� co y PEP, m U em9«ip mooa o Ago uy ea � 1ip liZsiii �,. Swig2 ' co N h LL m C g- d, U > ... `m OOQas H i.t U; b v Yg 3 i E '%./ t2 U m C_ c E 9c m O x [Y Z U a O U ea at m m `/ re I m 0 e �,1 > c4 t'n F I.II �/ t7 O d(+f I 6 fa O rq $$ I,75 O i C, 2 7 1 c 11 z o QI E m o LL, 1 rc co c m vi m` , m a . r O �/ -. 8 a _ $fi t m O! u1 !_ _ `/ §1 5 _I z se/ I o v T U E E? CO Z o E 'fie .. O vj Q i i O ) g.,O ce in SZ LL „ r cW m m U m e m = mill p XIp m ff m `/ s �� < J z m 4 The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.Thu analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 N., Ufeystoney� MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC. !L — RobinsonEn =Aac. _ 5751 »etrninimrn Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November o 2010 Work Or&r 10J0955 Pagea«# - ) z : / § § ; /) k ) a) (§ |7 t ® Ell -)7a! ;k| §$$■ ■ § ` a ■ai5. 2221 , [ l 1 ,l ; ; tll 5 �/3� \,§5e ( !&§�, - � � � � � 4)1.¥ ;|; i/ ; 4 l!! &ill:jii $ �- , c �� /0 /0 k . $ (f ul \ - f 2 \ . ® �f ) \§Q / _ 2 § § e !! �� ° @ u a _ |/)/ $ • in \ t. n.s � §+� CO 0 ■ � , \� : ! k () 5 UJ re \�� �22 ! gn !/ ! ee 7 _$ r z - > z w ! I ... N §!3 Si ! \ B wes . ! 7 / §$ % OP co Cf � ! § \ _ es 0 JI lia \ knIL ` 1r\ / / / z ! - k � 5 ; � � �o ) 2 < \2 z - J n ^ The results_this report apply e the samples analyzed>_d,with the chain of custodyd ument.This ana a report must be reproducedin its_r Samples were preserved maccordance with«c for pH adjustment unless otherwise_d. MRL=Method Reporting Lim Phone m--, 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 IA 50208 . CNE k. _,...... .... .....1 ► stone MEMBER ' LABORATORIES, INC. ^' IL Robinson Engineering Co. -- 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls, IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 26 of 30 o I 0 U el 2U !O aco, 4 o o m ' coZ p �/ 3 57S u(0 € a o `_< mm llfflfflH .. 1- EW j Ndnaa _a o 2 - 88o 2 c0a NU 000o`a ...i o n mill Yv41111i �, iIfiiiaiary n ..... O CC 0 `5 a E w E c x 1 '2 0 2 U nE ./ O s ix 10 co „ 1 �. iJjhL O o f mE man� C _w • �/ z 2 13LL moo g .„ 6 fli ce- t„ a g E 1 litl 3 . V.w § z _I Q a V 0PU N E ts trpZ ❑ J ` — = I �.i ilmill EE g E i .52 LL E C m U U N VI O a a oa a m ♦N z En 12co a H The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in \I its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 v 1 ^ I Arr. I klQystOnQ \ \ _ ■ B ■ R � ! 1_ LABORATORIES, INC. Robinson En gineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 — Work Or&r 10J0955 Page 27 of 30 § " P N ! \ - { \ ƒ\ 173 05 2 eL § \§ !k 7 ! . . _ ! !&® , |« ! ir4 - l23! J\ƒ72J4 ) - [ @.-- �)k§� - !!i ;l ;l2; ; - / I t �E0E2 » uooa! _ ` !ƒ(! \ 1 IIIII i !) %)9 |§77 - iIili ;, ;, 1 6 r ) ! - 0- }q 0 l §Ue..;* | p - )- ak !k c /.§ z . a/ 2 [ kef} ■ / �\ k § Ei\/ 5 EZ -k§ q § 1 ■+5! 2 )„ \) § £- ! #& ^ §} � ~ ~ ` ~ � ! } . / / I Qv 6 * f r ■ OP U . 2 ` 2 / es C z a k ; .- _ 2 \ kN\ D ii / 1 � : !` 11.% alai $ ) ) §i 2 t\ } \ { i >( -� 2 ƒ 2 J ! n " ^ The resultsw this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custodyd_«_ al report must be reproduced in " its entirety.Samples were preserved.accordance with«c for pH adjustment ss othe_._d. __Method Reportingc* . � Phonem——1 600 ,*s,s h Fax m—Gm Newton,IA 50208 01 \ \ . m e e R 1lQystOflQ LABORATORIES, INC. ` PtCIL _ Robinson En eering Co. 5751 West m Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page»«k o ;co & ) I. . {� @ — 22 ,) — Z § k 5 ) ca _ — k 7 ! �$§ !)/)� §i )$ 7q a. a a#7+ !)!!} \ l;; iI 'g;l;| k _.. UQQQ. - !ƒkk \\ \ I \ ® li%t!|!§ §§t k , ! $ / \\ml $ _ \ ak f V § |° f \§ , / ! G 2 § aƒ/j ° a / - . a ._ tn . | � \ � § jE!\� � § � 9t. — ` 3 2 § ( a£»0, �! k ) I.8. � f■ co $ ! � i � z > z , ! ! #� — §■ i / ! � | i ° / Ikai 0 I 76 Jo OP \ \ k ks C / ! § S « v 0 e ! \ ; 41110 � ( g /( c � < / k� eV - 3 ! I & v �Ill / )\ ! k k \ E ` i\ x ! The results»this report apply to the samples ana d in accordance with the chain of custodyd document.This analytical reportmust¥reproducedm its entirety.Samples were pres_J.accrdce with#c for pH adjustment unless othe e noted. MRL=Method Rep orting Limit. Phone w!——1 600 East 17th Street Sout h Fax mGz w Newton,IA 50208 1 ,feystone MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC. 1L Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 29 of 30 E v o U ui a� N in coii1 C V O s ts - to a U4.1 N 4 E S 8 o`m m E zi 7 .ii g t0 C y C C?81 N Y r.' $. 1 T 4• P 0 T C 4 I?CL oSQ y2-.00o 2, Sl1iE31. 34a 0 it w ELL1 J s� 2S 11E1 lull co en lied am! o z g y O va, U co 0 ccl r $P �" uy o £ cEQ 0 .9 �1 , EW�yq�- W 8V w �r De w c 2 t 2 .2 3 2 S /1 Z Sao a y c?v_ m O m a o tL y N K p o'n& IJ g c m /, tL Cn � � \ , = a ., "...N. I j 9 E T 9 a . _g E? g eN C - $ o U) S 8 O V6 C Id dal c f j cE `n. Eau—a z .. .. r a m 0 O 0 .-c •'$ . w Q 0 w g Q S H m m ° Id a` 0 Z 9❑ t S, 1 ►tea lw I d J ./ / Z ¢ IN " The results in this report a papply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analyticul report must he reproduced in ^ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ON Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 Uleystone M E M B E R ...•LABORATORIES, INC. AIL .. Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 November 02,2010 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 30 of 30 E 1 a 15 so so1 l i �..+ n ^ a m FYI k � 8 ^z 0. pop >, Y co m a € 8 cym m 8 _ _ �. i gqp Qom_ 141111411T - y G Ec_'c4 1*Agg L Ul 86 a6i W Ag.cti o.4' � do o 4p Up m _. _. I dt. g 0 o Ec CC z'8 64. .. Cr. o W �A O o co 1 gpo �' Q r o goy 0I, IE a M v o _ `ri co o - m %./ LL 1— EWYi,= W E m s m �/ Q • cc co V LL 7 9 A Op _ Z y Eta 3 ..3 ;, .tQa0 ay _ — s L Q tY rd8Pace-3 .J o E E ng o, m 3 pit- 1::!,., ii0 t. t.2) v E_ `.c o o s irs es Cv z 3 t~i is g O O •� m v viac6.0 Kit u a N f-E, w t LL § . ? i m m vv 9 T C W - ud W c 6 y _ o — ' m u~—i E H z° E E I g �� ¢ to d ~ Zl.��i t It CC — ll The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in `' its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. \.r Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 u �4 i ecrde • 11eystone^ = .N-^ MEMBER ACI L LABORATORIES, INC. ANALYTICAL REPORT April 11,2011 Work Order: 11C1206 Page 1 of 17 Report To Work Order Information '1 Monica Smith Date Received: 03/24/2011 11:40AM Robinson Engineering Co. Collector: '1 5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B Phone: (319)859-0293 Cedar Falls,IA 50613 PO Number: Project: Surface Water Project Number: Day 2 Analyse Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier n 11C1206-01 T4 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/11 14:15 EPIC <0.1ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 t^ Butylate <0.1 ugh 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 ^ Propachlor <0.1 ug/l 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 n Trifluralin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 Terbufos <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 /''s Atrazine <0.1 ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 PIN Simazinc <0.1 ug/I 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 ems Alachlor <0.1 ug/I 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 t1 Metribuzin <0.1 ug/I 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 Metolachlor <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 Pcndimcthalin <0.5ug/I 0.5 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 ' Butachlor <0.5 ug/I 0.5 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 es Cyanazinc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 ^ Acctochlor <0.2ug/I 0.2 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 86.9% 60-129 EPP 04/02/11 10:33 /"s Dalapon <2.6ug/1 2.6 1C13001 EPA815IA EPP 03/31/11 19:17 3,5-Dichlorobcnzoic acid <1.3ug/I 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 n Dicamba <0.7ug/l 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 ^ Dichlorprop <0.7ug/I 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 2,4-D <2.6ug/1 2.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 " Pcntachlorophcnol <0.3ug/I 0.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 /'t 2,4,5-TP(Silvex) <0.7ug/I 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 n Chloramben <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 ^ 2,4,5-T <0.7ug/I 0.7 ICI3001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 2,4-DB <1.3ug/1 1.3 IC13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 " Bentazon <1.3ug/I 1.3 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 /'s The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 I stone i ,` ` M E M Bii i E N..,R AC LABORATORIES, INC. 1L .... Robinson Engineering Co. flnf 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls, IA 50613 April 11,2011 �./ Work Order: 11 C 1206 Page 2 of 17 Sago Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier 4.. 11C1206-01 T4 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1114:15 v Picloram <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 Dinoseb <0.7ug/1 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 DCPA <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 Acifluorfen <I.3ug/1 1.3 1C1300I EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 Surrogate:2.5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid 65.6% 28-114 EPP 03/31/11 19:17 "' Phosphate,total 0.39 mg/1 0.30 1C12515 HACH 8190 DRB 03/25/11 9:04 Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 14:55 v Nitrogen,Nitrate 7.4 mg/I 0.i IC12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/1I 14:55 E.Coli 150 MPNi100 ml 1 1C12428 SM 9223 QT 1RP 03/24/11 13:34 1-05 V 11C1206-02 R4 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/11 14:30 EPTC <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 V Butylatc <0.1 ug/l 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 `/ Propachlor <0.1ug/I 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/I1 11:12 V Trifluralin <0.1ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 Terbufos <0.1ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 V Atrazinc <0.1ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 V Simazinc <0.1 ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 V Alachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/I1 11:12 V Mctribuzin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EN' 04/02/11 11:12 Metolachlor <0.5ug/l 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 V Pendimethalin <0.5ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 V Butachlor <0.5ug/l 0.5 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 V Cyanazinc <0.1 ugll 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 V Acetochlor 1.5 ug/I 0.2 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 86.4% 60-129 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 V Dalapon <2.7ug/I 2.7 1CI3001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/I1 20:04 V 3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid <1.3 ug/I 1.3 1C13001 EPA 815IA EPP 03/31/11 20:04 V Dicamba <0.7ug/1 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04 Dichlorprop <0.7ug/1 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EN' 03/31/I1 20:04 2,4-D <2.7ug/1 2.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04 V Pentachlorophenol <0.3ug/1 0.3 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04 `/ 2,4,5-TP(Silvcx) <0.7 ug/1 0.7 IC13001 EPA 815IA EPP 03/31/11 20:04 V Chlorambcn <I.3ug/1 1.3 IC13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/3I/11 20:04 2,4,5-T <0.7ug/l 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04 2,4-DB <1.3ug/I 1.3 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04 V Bcntazon <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EN' 03/31/11 20:04 V Picloram <1.3ug/I 1.3 1C13001 EPA 815IA EPP 03/31/1I 20:04 V The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in `/ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 V 15QystQnQ ," ` MEMBER n LABORATORIES, INC, '45,.: .i. ACIL /'" Robinson Engineering Co. • 5751 Westnunister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 " April 11,2011 n Work Order: 11C1206 Page of 17 /e's Analyte Result MR I., Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier • 11C1206-02 R4 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/11 14:30 PN Dinoscb <0.7ug/1 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04 , DCPA <1.3ug/1 1.3 IC13001 EPA8I5IA EPP 03/31/I1 20:04 n Acifluorfen <1.3ug/I 1.3 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04 Surrogate:2,5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid 70.4% 28-114 EPP 03/31/I1 20:04 /'s Phosphate,total <0.30 mg/I 0.30 IC12515 HACH 8190 DRB 03/25/I1 9:04 PnbA Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/I 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 15:13 es Nitrogen,Nitrate 1.7 mg/I 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 15:13 E.Coll 44 MPN/100 ml 1 IC12428 SM 9223 QT JRP 03/24/11 13:34 1-05 I1 ^ 11C1206-03 T5 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/11 14:00 EPTC <0.1 ug/I 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51 PN Butylate <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51 e." Propachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51 ems Trifluralin <0.1 ug/I 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51 ^ Terbufos <0.1 ug/I 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51 Atrazine <0.1 ugh 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51 /**4 Simazinc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51 P1 Alachlor <0.1 ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51 /1 Metribuzin <0.1 ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51 ^ Mctolachlor <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51 Pcndimethalin <0.5 ug/1 0.5 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51 Butachlor <0.5ug/I 0.5 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51 ' ' Cyanazine <0.1 ug/I 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/I1 11:51 /'s Acctochlor <0.2ugfl 0.2 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51 n Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 86.4% 60-129 EPP 04/02/I1 11:51 Dalapon <2.6ug/I 2.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52 n 3,5-Dichlorobcnzoic acid <1.3 ug/l 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52 n Dicamba <0.6ug/I 0.6 IC1300I EPA 815IA EPP 03/31/Il 20:52 es Dichlorprop <0.6ug/I 0.6 IC13001 EPA815IA EPP 03/31/11 20:52 " 2,4-D <2.6ug/1 2.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/II 20:52 Pcntachlorophenol <0.3ug/1 0.3 1C13001 EPA815IA EPP 03/31/11 20:52 n 2,4,5-TP(Silvcx) <0.6ug/I 0.6 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52 /'N Chloramben <1.3ug/1 1.3 IC13001 EPA8I51A EPP 03/31/11 20:52 2,4,5-T <0.6ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52 ^ 2,4-DB <I.3ug/1 1.3 1CI3001 EPA 815IA EPP 03/31/11 20:52 Bcntazon <1.3 ug/I 1.3 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52 /1 Piclomm <1.3ug11 1.3 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52 Pki Dinoscb <0.6ug/I 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52 ,••si, The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain o custodydocument. This analytical report PPY P Y' fy must be reproduced in ^ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 ~►fQySt011Q ' MEMBER M B E R -LABORATORIES, INC. A-CIL _ Robinson Engineering Co. _ 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B _ Cedar Falls,IA 50613 April 11,2011 Work Order: 11 C 1206 Page 4 of 17 Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier .. 11C1206-03 T5 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1 I 14:00 '`'' DCPA <1.3ug/l 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52 tv. Acifluorfen <1.3ug/I 1.3 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/I1 20:52 Surrogate:1,5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid 56.4% 28-114 EPP 03/31/11 20:52 Phosphate,total <0.30mg/1 0.30 1C12515 HACH 8190 DRB 03/25/11 9:04 �.. Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/I 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 16:07 Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.4 mg/1 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 16:07 E.Coli 4 MPN/100 ml I IC12428 SM 9223 QT JRP 03/24/11 13:34 1-05 1.. 11C1206-04 T3 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/11 13:47 EPTC <0.1 ug/l 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 V Butylatc <0.1 ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/1I 12:30 Propachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 V Trifluralin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 L/ Tcrbufos <0.1 ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 V Atrazine <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/I1 12:30 V Simazine <0.1 ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 Alachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/1I 12:30 V Mctribuzin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 V Metolachlor <0.5ug/I 0.5 1C12944 EPA8141 EPP 04/02/Il 12:30 V Pendimcthalin <0.5 ug/I 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 V Butachlor <0.5 ug/1 0.5 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 Cyanazinc <0.1 ugh 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/I1 12:30 V Acetochlor <0.2ug/l 0.2 1C12944 EPA8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 V Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 87.0% 60-129 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 V Dalapon <2.5ug/1 2.5 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/I1 21:39 3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid <1.3ug/I 1.3 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 V Dicamba <0.6ug/1 0.6 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 V Dichlorprop <0.6ug/1 0.6 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/1I 21:39 `/ 2,4-D <2.5ug/I 2.5 1CI3001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 V Pentachlorophenol <0.3ug/I 0.3 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 2,4,5-TP(Silvcx) <0.6 ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 Chloramben <1.3ug/I 1.3 1C13001 EPA 815IA EPP 03/31/II 21:39 V 2,4,5-T <0.6ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA815IA EPP 03/31/Il 21:39 V 2,4-DB <1.3ug/l 1.3 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 V Bentazon <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/Il 21:39 Picloram <1.3ug/I 1.3 ICI300I EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 Dinoseb <0.6ug/l 0.6 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 V DCPA <1.3ug/l 1.3 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 V The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in V its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. V Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 V /'. e. . .., i ce stone } .„.,. y - - MEMBER n LABORATORIES, INC. AEI L n Robinson Engineering Co. n 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 April 11,2011 n Work Order: 11C1206 Page 5 of 17 " I Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier n 11C1206-04 T3 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1113:47 n Acifluorfen <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 I", Surrogate:2,5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid 58.6% 28-114 EPP 03/31/Il 21:39 n Phosphate,total <0.30 mg/I 0.30 1 C 12515 HACH 8190 DRB 03/25/11 9:04 Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 16:25 n Nitrogen,Nitrate 7.4 mg/I 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 16:25 0". E.Coli 36 MPN/100 ml 1 1C12428 SM 9223 QT JRP 03/24/11 13:34 1-05 n 11C1206-05 TZ Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1113:25 " EPTC <0.1 ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09 n Butylate <0.1 ug/1 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09 Propachlor <0.1 ug/I 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09 n Tritluralin <0.1 ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/I1 13:09 n Tcrbufos <0.l ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09 pes Atrazinc <0.1 ug/I 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09 n Simazinc <0.1 ug/I 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09 Alachlor <0.1 ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09 n Metribuzin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09 n Metolachlor <0.5 ug/I 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/I1 13:09 p Pendimethalin <0.5ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09 ^ Butachlor <0.5 41 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09 Cyanazinc <0.1 ug/l 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09 Acetochlor <0.2ug/I 0.2 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09 n Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 87.7% 60-129 EPP 04/02/11 13:09 , Dalapon <2.0ug/1 2.0 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26 n 3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid <1.0ug/1 1.0 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26 Dicamba <0.5ug/I 0.5 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26 • Dichlorprop <0.5ug4 0.5 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26 n 2,4-D <2.0ug/l 2.0 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26 ^ Pentachlorophenol <0.2ug/1 0.2 ICI3001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26 ^ 2,4,5-TP(Silvex) <0.5ug/I 0.5 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/II 22:26 Chloramben <1.0ug/1 1.0 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26 n 2,4,5-T <0.5ug/1 0.5 IC1300I EPA815IA EPP 03/31/11 22:26 n 2,4-DR <1.0ug/1 1.0 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26 /N Bentazon <1.0ug/I 1.0 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26 ^ Picloram <1.0ug/l 1.0 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26 Dinoscb <0.5ug/1 0.5 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/I1 22:26 DCPA <1.Oug/1 1.0 1C13001 EPA815IA EPP 03/31/11 22:26 eN Acifluorfen <1.0ug/1 1.0 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26 n The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in P,, its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. n Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 � I ►, Stolle _S ,.Yip. MEMBER ..... LABORATORIES, INC. AC I I_ Robinson Engineering Co. `ee 5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 April 11,2011 Work Order: 11C1206 Page 6 of 17 Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier ... 11C1206-05 TZ Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1113:25 ..i Surrogate:2.5-Dkhlorobenzoic Acid 54.6% 28-114 EPP 03/31/11 22:26 */ Phosphate,total 0.41 mg/1 0.30 1C12515 HACH 8190 DRB 03/25/11 9:04 v Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 16:43 Nitrogen,Nitrate 8.2 mg/I 11.1 IC12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/I1 16:43 Nall E.Coli 51 MPM1/100 ml 1 1C12428 SM 9223 QT JRP 03/24/11 13:34 1-05 \./ 11C1206-06 T1 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1113:38 %N/ EPIC <0.1 ug/1 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 'y Butylatc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 Nall Propachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 Trifluralin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 v Terbufos <0.1 ug/1 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 `/ Atrazinc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 \/ Simazinc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 V Alachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 L Metribuzin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 g/1 Metolachlor <0.5 u 0.5 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 Pendimethalin <0.5 ug/1 0.5 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 `/ Butachlor <0.5ug/I 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 V Cyanazinc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 Acctochlor <0.2ug/I 0.2 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 `/ Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 86.3% 60-129 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 `0 Dalapon <2.5 ug/1 2.5 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 V 3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid <1.3ug/1 1.3 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 Nfte Dicamba <0.6ug/I 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/I1 23:14 Dichlorprop <0.6ug/1 0.6 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 ..' 2,4-D <2.5 ug/1 2.5 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 ... Pentachlorophenol <0.3ug/1 0.3 1C13001 EPA 815IA EPP 03/31/I1 23:14 2,4,5-TP(Silvex) <0.6ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/I1 23:14 Chlorambcn <1.3 ug/l 1.3 1C13001 EPA 815IA EPP 03/31/11 23:14 2,4,5-T <0.6ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA8I5IA EPP 03/31/I1 23:14 `. 2,4-DB <1.3ug/I 1.3 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 Bentazon <1.3ug1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 Picloram <1.3ug/l 1.3 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 _ Dinoscb <0.6ug/I 0.6 IC13001 EPA 8I5IA EPP 03/31/11 23:14 DCPA <I.3ug/1 1.3 IC13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 Acifluorfen <1.3ug/I 1.3 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 \el Surrogate:2,5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid 58.3% 28-114 EPP 03/31/11 23:14 `/ The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in \./ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL---Method Reporting Limit. v Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 1./ 1fQystonQ M E M BTErR LABORATORIES, INC. ACIL ^ Robinson Engineering Co. t^ 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 ^ April 11,2011 Work Order: 11C1206 Page 7 of 17 Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier • 11C1206-06 T1 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1113:38 n Phosphate,total <0.30mg/1 0.30 1C12515 HACH 8190 DAB 03/25/I1 9:04 /'., Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/l 0.1 IC12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 17:02 ^ Nitrogen,Nitrate 8.5 mg/1 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 17:02 E.Coil 39 MPN/100 ml 1 1C12428 SM 9223 QT JRP 03/24/11 13:34 1-05 n /1 es n es n IV es, I1 /es /'1 /" The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain o custody document.This analytical rep ort PPY P Y' f odyy must be reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 .. ,, , tj i. I stone • MEMBER rr LABORATORIES, INC. ACIL Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 ~ April 11,2011 I Work Order: 11C1206 Page 8 of 17 Nir i Determination of Nitrogen/Phosphorus Herbicides&Insecticides-Quality Control Nw' Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton *.r Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD Analyse Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes `/ Batch 1C12944-3510C NP/OC Sep Fnl v Blank(1C12944-BLKI) Prepared:03/29/I l Analyzed:04/01/11 Nt./ Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 8.62 ugh 9.83200 87.7 60-129 -\In4 EPIC ND 0.1 Butylate ND 0.1 " v Propachlor ND 0.1 " `/ Tritluralin ND 0.1 " Terbufos ND 0.1 " V Atrazine ND 0.1 " N./ Simazine ND 0.1 " Alachlor ND 0.1 " v Metribuzin ND 0.1 a `/ Metolachlor ND 0.5 " Pendimethalin ND 0.5 " *IS Butachlor ND 0.5 " %1/ Cyanazine ND 0.1 v. Acetochlor ND 0.2 V LCS(IC12944-BSI) Prepared:03/29/11 Analyzed:04/01/11 Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-x_vlene 8.24 ug/I 9.83200 83.8 60-129 Nad EPIC 2.60 0.1 2.50000 104 60-123 y Butylate 2.54 0.1 2.50000 101 60-119 Propachlor 2.98 0.1 2.50000 119 60-135 v Trifluralin 2.30 0.1 2.50000 91.8 60-123 \/ Terbufos 3.01 0.1 " 2.50000 120 60-140 Atrazine 2.87 0.1 ^ 2.50000 115 60-129 `/ Simazine 2.66 0.1 " 2.50000 106 60-133 `/ Alachlor 2.78 0.1 a2.50000 111 60-126 v Metribuzin 2.76 0.1 2.50000 110 60-121 Metolachlor 2.60 0.5 a2.50000 104 60-131 `/ Pendimethalin 2.70 0.5 2.50000 108 60-127 v Butachlor 2.65 0.5 " 2.50000 106 60-140 Cyanazine 3.02 0.1 " 2.50000 121 60-129 `/ Acetochlor 2.70 0.2 2.50000 108 60-130 v 41101 soo The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in %d its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. v Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 v Newton,IA 50208 I ►f stonQ g ^ �=-+ M/ECM B jEjR LABORATORIES, INC. r ��--.jL r1 • Robinson Engineering Co. es5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 n April 11,2011 1 eN Work Order: 11C1206 Page 9 of 17 I ^ Determination of Nitrogen/Phosphorus Herbicides&Insecticides-Quality Control In Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton n Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD /1 Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes enN Batch 1C12944-3510C NP/OC Sep Fnl n LCS Dup(1C12944-BSDI) Prepared:03/29/1 I Analyzed:04/01/11 /1 Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 8.78 ugh 9.83200 89.4 60-129 EPIC 2.75 0.1 2.50000 110 60-123 5.80 30 ^ Butylate 2.70 0.1 2.50000 108 60-119 6.30 30 /s., Propachlor 3.23 0.1 " 2.50000 129 60-135 7.88 30 Tritluralin 2.40 0.1 " 2.50000 96.0 60-123 4.47 30 /1 Terbufos 2.79 0.1 " 2.50000 112 60-140 7.59 30 /1 Atrazine 3.00 0.1 " 2.50000 120 60-129 4.60 30 Simazine 2.82 0.1 " 2.50000 113 60-133 5.84 30 . 1 Alachlor 2.87 0.1 " 2.50000 115 60-126 3.19 24 /1 Metribuzin 2.84 0.1 2.50000 113 60-121 2.86 30 Metolachlor 2.69 0.5 " 2.50000 108 60-131 3.60 30 Pendimethalin 2.68 0.5 " 2.50000 107 60-127 0.372 30 /'1 Butachlor 2.50 0.5 " 2.50000 99.8 60-140 6.03 30 ^ Cyanazine 2.90 0.1 2.50000 116 60-129 4.23 30 Acetochlor 2.74 0.2 " 2.50000 110 60-130 1.29 30 n Reference(1C12944-SRMI) Prepared:03/29/11 Analyzed:04/01/11 Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 7.19 ugh! 9.83200 73.1 60-129 /ok EPTC 2.38 0.1 2.50000 95.4 70-130 n Butylate 2.42 0.1 " 2.50000 97.0 70-130 Propachlor 3.08 0.1 " 2.50000 123 70-130 /\ Trifluralin 2.43 0.1 " 2.50000 97.2 70-130 Terbufos 3.27 0.1 " 2.50000 131 70-130 QR-05 n Atrezine 3.05 0.1 " 2.50000 122 70-130 n Simazine 2.86 0.1 " 2.50000 114 70-130 n Alachlor 2.86 0.1 " 2.50000 114 70-130 Metribuzin 2.96 0.1 " 2.50000 118 70-130 " Metolachlor 2.79 0.5 " 2.50000 112 70-130 ^ Pendimethalin 2.84 0.5 " 2.50000 114 70-130 Butachlor 2.70 0.5 " 2.50000 108 70-130 Cyanazine 3.28 0.1 " 2.50000 131 70-130 QR-05 ^ Acetochlor 2.85 0.2 2.50000 114 70-130 emN eN The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in ^ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 I ,fe stO11Q 2�J�� MEMBER y _. AIL - LABORATORIES, INC. Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 .." April 11,2011 ,"" Work Order: 11C1206 Page 10 of 17 Determination of Chlorinated Phenoxy Herbicides-Quality Control Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD Analyze Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch IC13001-EPA 8151A Blank(IC13001-BLKI) Prepared:03/29/01 Analyzed:03/31/11 .. Surrogate:2,5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid 1.18 ug/l 2.28000 51.5 28-114 Dalapon ND 2.0 " 3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid ND 1.0 °"- Dicamba ND 0.5 %N/ Dichlorprop ND 0.5 " 2,4-D ND 2.0 v Pentachlorophenol ND 0.2 " `/ 2,4.5-TP(Silvex) NI) 0.5 " Chloramben ND 1.0 " 2,4,5-T ND 0.5 v 2.4-DB ND 1.0 " Bentazon ND 1.0 " v Picloram ND 1.0 " `/ Dinoseb ND 0.5 DCPA ND 1.0 " `/ Acifluorten ND 1.0 " `/ LCS(1C13001-BSI) Prepared:03/29/01 Analyzed:04/01/I I \/ Surrogate:2,5-Dichlorobemoic Acid 1.27 ug/1 2.28000 55.7 28-114 v. Dalapon 3.62 2.0 11.4400 31.6 10-126 3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid 0.78 1.0 0.880000 88.1 46.4-155 Dicamba 0.44 0.5 " 0.880000 50.0 22.6-161 v Dichlorprop 1.19 0.5 " 2.64000 45.1 33.4-140 2,4-D 0.72 2.0 " 1.76000 41.2 25.8-154 v Pentachlorophenol 0.56 0.2 " 0.880000 63.6 23.8-163 v 2,4,5-TP(Silvex) 0.40 0.5 0.880000 44.9 41.6150 Chloramben 0.46 1.0 0.880000 51.7 10-138 v 2,4,5-T 0.38 0.5 0.880000 42.6 18.9-158 \/ 2,4-DB 5.07 1.0 " 7.04000 72.0 38.9-132 Bentazon 1.34 1.0 1.76000 76.1 42.4-160 v Picloram 0.66 1.0 " 0.880000 75.6 21-117 1111/ . Dinoseb 1.88 0.5 " 1.76000 107 18.1-167 v DCPA 0.27 1.0 " 0.880000 30.7 11-112 Acitluorfen 0.39 1.0 " 0.880000 44.3 16-116 iiii 410 The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in \./ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. v Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 v n r. I I e. kfeystone .z, ...3 MEMBER n LABORATORIES, INC. AC IL , Robinson Engineering Co. ^ 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 /1 April 11,2011 ^ Work Order: 11C1206 Page 11 of 17 Determination of Chlorinated Phenoxy Herbicides-Quality Control rs • Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton n Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD e"1 Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes /1 Batch 1C13001-EPA 8151A n LCSDup(IC13001-BSDI) Prepared:03/29/01 Analyzed:04/01/1 I /1 Surrogate.'2.5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid 1.12 ugh 2.28000 49.1 28-114 Dalapon 3.48 2.0 " 11.4400 30.5 10-126 3.80 30 ^ 3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid 0.60 1.0 0.880000 67.6 46.4-155 26.3 30 /1 Dicamba 0.62 0.5 0.880000 70.5 22.6-161 34.0 30 QR-02 Dichlorprop 1.08 0.5 " 2.64000 40.9 33.4-140 9.69 30 /1 2,4-D 0.59 2.0 " 1.76000 33.5 25.8-154 20.5 30 /1 Pentachlorophenol 0.46 0.2 " 0.880000 52.8 23.8-163 18.5 30 ^ 2,4,5-TP(Silvez) 0.40 0.5 " 0.880000 45.5 41.6-150 1.26 30 Chloramben 0.28 1.0 " 0.880000 31.8 10-138 47.6 30 QR-02 /1 2,4,5-T 0.35 0.5 " 0.880000 39.8 18.9-158 6.90 30 ^ 2,4-DB 3.90 1.0 " 7.04000 55.4 38.9-132 26.1 30 Bentazon 1.25 1.0 1.76000 71.0 42.4-160 6.95 30 /1 Picloram 0.90 1.0 " 0.880000 102 21-117 29.5 30 ^ Dinoseb 1.78 0.5 1.76000 101 18.1-167 5.45 30 DCPA 0.14 1.0 0.880000 16.5 11-112 60.2 30 QR-02 ^ Acitluorten 0.42 1.0 " 0.880000 47.7 16-116 7.41 30 /'.", Reference(1C13001-SRMI) Prepared:03/29/01 Analyzed:04/01/11 /'\ Surrogate..2,5-Dichhuobe"r--tic Acid 1.85 ug/1 2.28000 81.1 28-114 Dalapon 9.82 2.0 " 11.4400 85.8 70-130 ^ 3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid 0.89 1.0 " 0.880000 101 70-130 /\ Dicamba 0.80 0.5 " 0.880000 90.9 70-130 ^ Dichlorprop 2.06 0.5 " 2.64000 78.2 70-130 2,4-D 1.25 2.0 " 1.76000 71.0 70-130 /1 Pentachlorophenol 0.62 0.2 " 0.880000 70.5 70-130 ^ 2,4,5-TP(Silvez) 0.73 0.5 " 0.880000 83.0 70-130 Chloramben 0.72 1.0 " 0.880000 81.2 70-130 /1 2,4,5-1 0.82 0.5 " 0.880000 93.8 70-130 ^ 2,4-DB 6.01 1.0 " 7.04000 85.4 70-130 Bentazon 1.72 1.0 " 1.76000 97.4 70-130 Picloram 0.75 1.0 " 0.880000 85.2 70-130 ^ Dinoseb 2.36 0.5 1.76000 134 70-130 QR-05 DCPA 0.86 1.0 " 0.880000 97.2 70-130 eS Aciluorfen 0.74 1.0 " 0.880000 83.5 70-130 n " The results in this report p apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in ^ its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East l7th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 1 1feyStClne MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC. IL Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westnlinister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 April 11,2011 Work Order: 11C1206 Page 12 of 17 Determination of Conventional Chemistry Parameters-Quality Control Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch 1C12515-Wet Chem Preparation Blank(1C12515-BLKI) Prepared&Analyzed:03/25/11 Phosphate,total - ND 0.30 mg/1 LCS(1C12515-BSI) Prepared&Analyzed:03/25/I1 Phosphate,total 1.15 0.30 mg/I 1.20000 95.5 80-120 LCS(1C12515-BS2) Prepared&Analyzed:03/25/11 Phosphate,total 1.52 0.30 mg/I 1.50000 102 80-120 LCS(1C12515-BS3) Prepared&Analyzed:03/25/11 Phosphate,total 1.51 0.30 mg/1 1.50000 101 80-120 LCS(IC12515-BS4) Prepared&Analyzed:03/25/11 Phosphate,total 1.43 0.30 mg/1 1.50000 95.2 80-120 tir/ Matrix Spike(1C12515-MSI) Source:11C1206-01 Prepared&Analyzed:03/25/I I Phosphate,total 6.13 1.50 mg/I 6.00000 0.39 95.6 70-130 Matrix Spike Dup(1C12515-MSD1) Source:11C1206-OI Prepared&Analyzed:03/25/11 Phosphate,total 6.75 1.50 mg/I 6.00000 0.39 106 70-130 9.67 20 u time The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in �..y its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 �'' �p fkccittit ►'e stone y =! MEMBER AC LABORATORIES, INC. '`r.". IL - Robinson Engineering Co. - 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 April 11,2011 r^ Work Order: 11C1206 Page 13 of 17 rm% Determination of Inorganic Anions-Quality Control Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton n Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD ' Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes Batch 1C12518-General Prep HPLC/IC • Blank(1C12518-BLKI) Prepared&Analyzed:03/24/11 n Nitrogen,Nitrite ND 0.1 mg/1 Nitrogen,Nitrate ND 0.1 " LCS(1C12518-BSI) Prepared&Analyzed:03/24/11 • Nitrogen,Nitrite 4.86 0.1 mg/1 4.41545 110 87-113 Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.53 0.1 " 4.98865 11l 89-116 " Matrix Spike(1C12518-MS1) Source:11C1197-01 Prepared&Analyzed:03/24/11 Nitrogen,Nitrite 5.10 0.1 mg/1 4.41545 ND 116 81-116 /1 Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.50 0.1 " 4.98865 ND 110 83-122 Matrix Spike Dup(1C12518-MSDI) Source:11C1197-01 Prepared&Analyzed:03/24/11 • Nitrogen,Nitrite 5.09 0.1 mg/1 4.41545 ND 115 81-116 0.118 II Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.46 0.1 " 4.98865 ND 109 83-122 0.730 10 /s ND=Non Detect;REC=Recovery;RPD= Relative Percent Difference n n r1 n n r-� /'IN The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must he reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 Jp lQystOnQ =w _ MEMBER LABORATORIES, INC. ARIL Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 April 11,2011 Work Order: 11C1206 Page 14 of 17 Certified Analyses included in this Report Method/Matrix Analyte Certifications EPA 8141 in Water Trifluralin SIA1X Terbufos SIA1X Atrazine IA-NT,KS-NT "" Simazine KS-NT Alachlor SIA1X Metribuzin SIA1X Metolachlor SIA1X rr Cyanazine SIA1X Acetochlor SIA1X EPA 8151A in Water Dalapon KS-NT,NELAC Dicamba KS-NT,NELAC 2,4-D KS-NT,NELAC 2,4,5-TP(Silvex) KS-NT,NELAC 2,4,5-T KS-NT,NELAC Picloram KS-NT,NELAC Dinoseb KS-NT,NELAC r Acifluorfen SIA1X EPA 9056 in Water Nitrogen,Nitrite NELAC,KS-NT Nitrogen,Nitrate NELAC,KS-NT v SM 9223 QT in Water kid E.Coli SIA1X Code Description Number Expires KS-KC Kansas Department of Health and Environment-KC E-10110 04/30/2011 KS-NT Kansas Department of Health and Environment E-10287 10/30/2011 NELAC New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection IA001 06/30/2011 \/ SIA1X Iowa Department of Natural Resources 95 02/01/2012 V \,/ bar . The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 ,lystone MEMBER• LABORATORIES, INC. AIL Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 April 11,2011 Work Order: 11C1206 Page Is of 17 Notes and Definitions 1-05 Sample received at laboratory past hold time for this analyte. QR-02 The RPD result exceeded the QC control limits;however,both percent recoveries were acceptable.Sample results for the QC batch were accepted based on percent recoveries and completeness of QC data. QR-05 The reference standard was outside of established control limits. The batch was accepted based on acceptable LCS,MS/MSD and RPD results. End of Report Keystone Laboratories,Inc. Sue Thompson /'s Project Manager 1 I'1 P'1 The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 0'1 Newton,IA 50208 1QystOnQ MEMBER ,_- LABORATORIES, INC. ACI L NNW Robinson Engineering Co. .. 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 April 11,2011 Work Order: 11C1206 Page 16 of 17 t NI 0 D a d a a) CVN an E \r sr o az O a r` 0 Y m — Cp {t of C O t+ dIi - „'-e m ..r 'GI " 8Vi =0 yaogin-EUUU C .... tl v>U 1 I I I I I 3AA . r8 oA,.: $$_ l mBS �`� 'Y SS o `' zzlE ow m In - .... — E V ` V U FO t' cc¢ O g �+77 ,�r� > LL E w E" WCO fb : `m o Q id: b I t , ... z b $ 0- 2 c 3 V 8 CD Q Eo 0 ., PO ell rn rt 1 (° g W C D in N 5 -E G C m m �� 4 U � � f�vriU I F f E � �a aq i 1� v s6 \ to~ 0 0 0 a0G Z =m 1gg� ° . t \ i -, 5 t t c > 2 \/ �i z m I 3 3 3 ce z ° \/ _ iil I o v T m .0 U I ° v C z m Z c a `/ O z u ° ; re m K = T 2 . m 7 ,../� V Q m %lgi1I1PE0'1.ii.E°0 m m m ryg ° i= _ _ _ 3 t .... m N 9 5 Q N / I- j Z o 0 0 m ¢m �..` �� t' V v The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. Sr' Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 "...., - 11eystonMEMBER LABORATORIES, INC. A-EIL Robinson Engineering Co. 5751 Westnvnister Dr; Suite B Cedar Falls,IA 50613 April 11,2011 Work Order: 11C1206 Page 17 of 17 E I VI N I.- '''',. W E �`—{{ Q P V CD h a a ' R z _ '- d m V 2 co m I $ I C Ti p Y$ _ _ s ffiaig gQU c8 4- j . - 5c �a ci L 2 a m g.C � �EwE� >.mt0$ To � U `n `il 010 �.'4 m� gy Q � 3 LL M c24 C U °1i, m i 2 cz Lo(...) rse, p i. .c.. .' z g I E �° to ' I �` O U � "J �6 W m do e. > 3 to e N O com F _ — c./.'O E W.. W . .L° m 'Y 'Y 0 di/t _z , h m co as •Y 3� � _. f a NN W o'm'o8i L. g E d on es 2 m `,, f..0 f m m c a'a a' g m 00 C ea% coz , I 3 m g a ` z z eN /- `I o c7 >. m a U =g g i ,•. 01 u _ _P co 8 3 o C � o cc c Antsvi = 8 u o _ = ❑ Q0 O J i A °) m' c w � xb' w 1 il _ � era' r The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. ^ Phone 641-792-845 I 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989 Newton,IA 50208 a.i New V V Aw �.a V V 1/ V 1.A fin/ v.' V ^' Sink Creek Watershed Survey As part of an assessment requirement of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, the — City of Waterloo is conducting a landowner survey. The purpose of this survey is to identify the concerns and attitudes ,� that landowners like yourself hold regarding the quality of the Sink Creek Watershed, in which your property is located. In addition, the City of Waterloo would like to determine which conservation practices you think are important to support. Your response to this survey will assist the City of Waterloo in their efforts to obtain funding resources to for watershed improvements. Even if you know little about the Sink Creek Watershed, your participation is needed. For each question,please answer from your point of view. Your answers are confidential. Section A Different people will have different levels of knowledge about the Sink Creek Watershed.Please indicate(`')your level of awareness with the following statement. Not Aware Sure Unaware -`., Are you aware of the current water quality issues regarding the Sink Creek watershed today? ❑ U ❑ Different people will have different concerns and attitudes about various non-point source pollutants. Please indicate('I ) your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements. Strongly Not Strongly Agree Agree Sure Disagree Disagree Do you believe that the water quality of Sink Creek is ,� declining? � � ❑ ❑ Water contamination is an important environmental issue in Sink Creek ❑ ❑ ❑ A Agriculture fertilizers have significantly impacted the water quality in Sink Creek ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I Lawn fertilizers have significantly impacted the water in Sink Creek ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ...., Poor water quality in Sink Creek affects economic development in this area of Iowa U 0 0 •-.„ New construction and development have increased = the amount of soil loss in this area L'' ❑ ❑ U ❑ Septic systems can affect the water quality of Sink Creek U U ❑ 0 ❑ Livestock production contributes to the reduction of .� water quality of Sink Creek U ❑ U 0 0 Run off from paved surfaces, including parking lots, • affect the water quality of Sink Creek ❑ ❑ ❑ • ❑ L .0% We are approaching the limits of how much • contamination Sink Creek can handle ❑ ID U U ❑ Regulations protecting Dry Sink watershed limit my " choices and personal freedom L ❑ ❑ I- I- " I would be willing to spend a few hours a month of my own time helping to reduce any Sink Creek ❑ ❑ 0 L L pollution problems " Landowners should bear the cost of improving the r watershed ❑ ❑ ❑ r ❑ Taxpayers should bear the cost of improving the watershed ❑ ❑ � L ❑ - I1 Sink Creek Watershed Survey-- Fall 2010 Please indicate('')if you are interested in implementing or learning more about the following conservation practices for the Sink Creek watershed: Interested but No Not Already ,...., need more interest Applicable Adopted information to my property Practice .s Wetland restoration — ❑ 0 0 ❑ Private septic system upgrades —❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation cover ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ _ Native landscaping/Wildflower gardens/Rain gardens ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Permeable Paving(Alternatives to traditional paved surfaces ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ that provide the support but allow water to infiltrate) — Backyard conservation/Wildlife habitat improvement ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ — Filter strips along the creek ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ _ Waterways ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ — Inlet protection for storm sewers — ❑ CI ❑ Urban construction control —Terraces ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ — Minimal use of lawn and garden fertilizers &pesticides. Rock check dams ❑ ❑ I ❑ ❑ — Assistance in disposal of household hazardous waste Contour strips 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ — Windbreaks around dwellings ❑ ❑ ; ❑ ❑ Attitudes:Please place a check('.')along the line that best fits your point of view between the two extremes. When thinking about the natural environment,I view myself as: Place negatives on one side,positives on other — Wanting to utilize the watershed I I I I I Wanting to preserve the watershed Disinterested in the watershed ... I I I I I An advocate of the watershed In cooperation with the _ watershed I I I I I In competition with the watershed Detached from the watershed I 1 I 1 I Connected to the watershed _ Very concerned about the watershed I I 1 I I Indifferent about the watershed _ Very protective of the watershed ... I I I I I Not at all protective of the watershed — Superior to the watershed ... I I 1 I I Inferior to the watershed Very passionate towards the Not at all passionate towards the — watershed I I I I 1 watershed Not respectful of the watershed 1 1 I I I Very respectful of the watershed ".? .e Independent of the watershed ... I I I I I Dependent of the watershed Sentimental thinking about the Emotionless thinking about the watershed I I I I 1 watershed "✓ Sink Creek Watershed Survey-- Fall 2010 Section IB: The following information is requested in to better understand the characteristics of our survey participants. All of the information will be kept completely confidential and will only be reported at the group level. Which category best represents you? ❑ Urban resident in Sink Creek Watershed ❑ Farmer in Sink Creek Watershed LI Rural Resident in Sink Creek Watershed U Absentee land owner ❑ Industrial/Commercial Business Owner U Developer who is/has worked on projects within/around Cedar Falls ❑ Other: Sex: U Male U Female Age:_ How long have you owned, operated, or resided at your present location? 0-5 years 6-15 years >15 years At what level would you be willing to participate in conservation practices to help improve the stream water quality of Sink Creek? ❑ Minimum(e.g., learn more about conservation practices by newsletters or attending a meeting) ❑ Moderate(e.g.,participate a few hours each month by becoming a member of a watershed committee or task force) U Maximum(e.g., commit to making a change in my conservation practices on my land/property) ❑ None Do you have any other comments about Sink Creek related to potential conservation practices or environmental improvements that will enhance water quality? �` Thank you for completing this questionnaire. The success of improving the water quality of Sink Creek depends on the amount of support received from the residents and land users within the Sink Creek watershed. Your response by Nov 19, 2010 is greatly appreciated.Please use the enclosed envelope and be returned to: es Kathleen G. Scholl,Ph.D.,CTRS 203 WRC. University of Northern Iowa. Cedar Falls,Iowa 50614-0241 Ps /4, Sink Creek Watershed Survey--Fall 2010 /'1 Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness Survey Waterloo, Iowa — Prepared for Robinson Engineering Company 5751 Westerminster Drive, Suite B Cedar Falls, IA 50613 (319) 859-0293 December 2010 by Kathleen G. Scholl, Ph.D., CTRS ., R2S Recreation Research & Service Wellness Recreation Center-University of Northern Iowa Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0241 319-273-6316 .� kathleen.scholl@uni.edu 1.. %so 1s a. ••.. 1. ti. ` / v 1.0 1.0 v I Ss v ti �s �r v ® Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures 2 Report Summary- Selected Findings 3 Landowner Characteristics Landowner Water Quality Beliefs and Awareness Landowner Interest in Conservation Practices Landowner Environmental Perception Scores Open-ended Landowner Comments Introduction 5 Storm Water Runoff Pollution Watershed Management Purpose and Objectives of the Study 6 Methodology 6 Findings 10 Landowner Characteristics Sink Creek Survey Questions Water Quality Awareness and Environmental Concerns Landowner Interest in Conservation Practices Environmental Perception Scale Landowners' Environmental Perception Score Landowner Final Thoughts Watershed Development Concerns Deteriorating Conditions within the Watershed Conservation Practice Suggestions Conclusions and Recommendations 17 References 18 ra Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R`S UNI Fall 2010 /1 r List of Tables _ Table 1 Recent Studies on Citizen Perceptions, Concerns and Awareness of 7 Storm Water Issues Table 2 Recent Studies on Resident Behavior Related to Car washing, Vehicle 8 Care, and Pet Waste Table 3 Studies of Resident Behavior Related to Yard Waste Disposal and 9 Lawn Fertilizer Application Table 4 Landowner Awareness of Sink Creek Water Quality Issues 11 Table 5 Environmental Concerns 12 Table 6 Interest in Conservation Practices 13 - - Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R`S UNI Fall 2010 3 Report Summary Landowner Characteristics • Males = 62.1% • Females = 37.9% • Average age of landowner = 62 years -- • Age ranged = 24 to 88 • Length of property ownership: a 0-5 yrs = 22.6% ■ 6-15yrs = 20% a Over 15 yrs = 57.4% • Property categories al Urban Resident - 70.4% • Rural Resident - 16.9% ■ Rural Farmer- 5.9% a Industrial/Commercial Business Owner - 1.7% ■ Absentee Landowner - 1.7% a Developer who is/has worked on projects in the watershed - 0.9% Landowner Water Quality Beliefs and Awareness • Landowner awareness about water quality issues in Sink Creek 1 Unaware = 72% -I Not Sure = 16.9% Aware = 11% • Sink Creek landowners specific pollution concerns and general environment opinions: Run off from paved surfaces affect water quality of Sink Creek = 59% 2 Water contamination is an important environmental issues = 55.5% LI New construction Et development have increased the amount of soil loss in this area = 49.1% oft. Landowner Interest in Conservation Practices • Adopted practices ems` • Minimum use of lawn and garden fertilizers Et pesticides = 22.5% ^ • Disposal of household hazardous waste = 21.4% oft II Windbreaks around dwellings = 10.6% ^ ■ Landowner interested and need more information oft ' Urban construction control = 41.1% 't Native landscaping/wildflower garden/rain gardens = 38.4% • Inlet protection for storm sewers = 37.5% eft, ■ Permeable paving = 35.4% eft, • Assistance in disposal of household hazardous waste = 21.4% Landowners were specific on their concern regarding new construction as the primary cause of r1 flooding the watershed. Their interest in construction control and inlet protection for storm sewers may indicate a need of the City of Waterloo to inform citizens of the function of these ^ practices are and how they are funded, either by taxpayer or developer. Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010 4 Report Summary (cont.) Landowner Environmental Perception Score • Possible score 5.5 to 60.5 E Mean score of Sink Creek Landowners = 35.1 E Scores ranged from 8 to 58 R- E Landowners with lower environmental perception scores: Indicated "no interest" in all 16 conservation watershed protection practices "Disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" that taxpayers should bear the cost of improving the watershed Less willing to spend their own time helping reduce Sink Creek pollution problems Landowners who had "already adopted" or "were interested in more information about �- conservation practices" held higher environmental perception scores Open-ended Landowner Comments • Watershed Development Concerns • Deteriorating Conditions within the watershed • Conservation Practice Suggestions \1•1I Nu.?Niro �r 1 .. I Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010 �, ^ Introduction The State of Iowa has 72,000 thousand miles of rivers and streams. These waters have several designated uses for more than three million Iowans, such as urban and agricultural purposes sustaining environmental resources, power plant cooling, and providing tourism and recreation. All of these uses spur economic development opportunities. Of serious concern is the amount of pollution found in many of these waters (Beeman 2006; Water Tech online 2005). Storm water runoff pollution: Storm water runoff pollution, the untreated water of rain or snow melt that picks up pollutants en route to area Iowa's streams, rivers, and water bodies, has been cited as a great threat to water quality (Iowa DNR, n.d). Understanding storm water runoff as a source of non-point pollution is a relatively new focus. Twenty years ago, business, industry, and large public facilities across the United States represented the largest water quality threats. However, years of regulation applied to point source water pollution discharges has substantially reduced the contaminants these entities produce (Bartlett, 2006). The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) research now shows that individual landowner behavior creates a serious threat to water quality. Today, attempts must be made to educate and engage residents, landowners, and developers about their role and responsibilities with regard to water quality. Yet, not enough has been done to measure the layperson's awareness of the causes and effects of this problem, and assess their willingness to institute good environmental practices. Literature that identifies citizens' knowledge and awareness of storm water issues is minimal. Yet, the few previous surveys conducted around the country indicated minimal citizen awareness that storm water has a direct effect on local water quality (Scholl 2006; University of South Carolina, 2002; Wagner and Thompson, 2006; ZumBrunnen, 1998). Studies done prior to 2003 indicate that residents considered industry as the greatest threat to local water quality (University of South Carolina, 2002; Wayne County, 1994). After 2003, residents began to consider individual behavior and cite concerns such as automotive fluids, construction and parking lot runoff, septic systems and pesticides as threats to local water quality (Bartlett, 2006; Gant & Daughetry, 2003 Et 2005; Hoope, 2004 Et 2005; South Lake County, Utah, 2003). Even though residents are beginning to associate pollution from the behaviors of individuals with water quality, a large percentage of residents "don't know" or are "unsure" of the local water quality problems (see Table 1). Behaviors such as car washing, disposal of vehicle fluids, pet waste, yard waste, and use of lawn fertilizer have been measured in five studies since 2002 (see Tables 2 Et 3). These studies illustrate that efforts are needed to change citizen behaviors that directly affect storm water quality. Watershed Management. Watershed management is problematic in a number of ways. First, diverse groups of land uses are usually present within and along these waterways. Second, government Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010 6 organizations such as the Farm Bureau, conservation districts, municipalities and other entities are generally charged with monitoring water quality, managing for diverse functions, and educating the public about issues related to these waterways. This effort is becoming increasingly complex with mounting development demands on the ecosystem's long-term carrying capacity. Dunlap, Michelson and Stalker (2002) categorize the environment as serving three distinct functions for human purposes: (1) a living space for human activity, (2) a resource storehouse to maintain human living, and (3) a repository or "sink" for the by-products of modern industrial societies (p. 10). Increasingly, competing demands on U.S. watersheds have created conflict as to which of the above human functions will take precedence for this limited resource. In the U.S., 45.12% of rivers and streams are listed as impaired (National Water Quality Inventory to Congress n.d.) and about 23% of streams and rivers have urban development and agriculture along a narrow 100-foot strip of their edges (Heinz Center 2002). In Iowa, 55.44% of the assessed rivers, stream and creeks are listed as impaired (National Water Quality Inventory to Congress n.d.). Resource managers and policy makers need public cooperation and participation. To accomplish this, governmental officials must understand the knowledge levels, the values and issues citizens and taxpayers consider of environmental importance, such as what constitutes environmental degradation and what conservation measures are required to improve surface water quality. Natural — resource managers must integrate and balance multiple viewpoints to advance the common interest towards collaborative conservation. — Purpose and Objective of the Survey This study's purpose was to measure Sink Creek watershed landowners' awareness and opinions regarding water quality and possible pollutants that can negatively affect storm water runoff. Landowner interest in modern storm water management practices was also examined including any r. association between landowners' environmental perspectives and their potential conservation — behavior in context with this small stream. Out of 1029 individual landowners owning property within the Sink Creek watershed, a survey was mailed in fall of 2010 to 280 randomly selected property owners within Sink Creek watershed to identify their awareness, concerns, and attitudes of the water quality issues to this specific watershed. One hundred and twenty-nine (129) surveys were returned. Three surveys were returned as undeliverable and six landowners did not complete their survey indicating that they did not have enough knowledge about the watershed. Ultimately, there was a 45.8% response with 120 usable surveys. The margin of error was '- 6.77%. Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010 as ro .' L -° O c p +-' N u a, 0 3roN a) a, E .. a) Y - v o Q01 c o LL N L MI N N a) .L' 3 _ Z /. L a) y •� R ^ L ro 3 Y "0 D O N oa3 ;o c ,T 3 o a0) .v' cn .... N R a) c E ? (0 17, O Y • v N Q' N L C L CA 41 C Q In y a, ; V .' -w L ro C .... Q N c f0 0 •ns N N L L o y6 3 L in .L' ° 3 O U L On ° '-' aE ro (o (6 .. L3GE a° °' roEo � u N L v ro ro a! C E Q '-• �O aE U aE 0 a� _c T N co aa., V) '•�. en M o. 0 n H in ro 0 3 J .w aJ CU (D .. 7 V1 a) C L .. V1 to (o u C L ' ro +_ 0.1 C C U . L E �' ro >. ° a) a) 7 ,..� ' on " L .' a) <C 0 —' ro U V1 ^ c ro ro E 0• 7_in ro OL 0 _a .' O ro Y 4-4 ° ° '° ro � o ° IL' o v v 3 ro °c as a1 L L L 'p N U O C N J E Y 0 r N L IV L c 3 v N C 0 L v C Y O O ., ro (#1 a) ro 0 �' �' 7 ° 3 V N ro C •C N L N Ks /�/ a°i ,.' v 3 on- a m .0 on o a o rn v -, O i0 d Y !‘ O H V co U V O u •> ro i_ fa O C L E CO oo N O ^ ro a) N 0 •' C N L ro0 a v N . To- L ° v c C c ; c L L ° u) c0) N -0 rL � v > C. an c ° o cE a' cv Lo 4-1 '� C O ro 3 O a a'c L ° m o 3 nM � '71a co L -° a) a) .. (LC V E N N -. c Lo `� E =^ 0 0 o Ono y OL 0 ° (C0 > C o N O 'p a) 0 O O 01)^ y C n 3 O T H E L U O Q a a) ° ro 0 �0 .' L ro N R 0w ^ v Lw aJ O C L ro N a) VI 612 ro M o f cpc a) a) u O- a) '' ro un col ,� ea .. CO 0 3 0.. u L E ro _U a) 0 ro L H C T 0 .+ Vf a' Y u w C '- L 0 _o ae c 7 .o u. NO ° 3 t, +0' (�'i( • t0 7 '� (6 N 'V N (� U •' o_ .0 W ..00 0 3 N ,... u .' 0 -o v 0N u /'� U m m w a) on ° a E N v J L w ro u rcsL co N v V1 (0 w p N ro T O voi ro LO ID 7 O .0 L as .' ril eN C j O C on U T c on Y on N C Q-o �' L L �` 3 O O , >, ° c on c u C (#j ro ro L 5 L a) +4 .' a y U LO CO C H p }, O. N 0 '^ N ro C U b C 'O U •C . L ro N N 0 Y .. ° a) 3 ro ro - • P� i w OnoE v ? oto s_ °) oro c � nod w #tp ° C > u E ro „ Q Si /1 CLL. f0 al v 0 p > N U J ,, j .., N O a) c O L ,� O ._ /7_� > .0 on a N 0- y '-y° 0 E CO . .°' w �^ 7 OD v OD.'i > 1` C .d' 0 u r `/ '� .' (� L L it L o E E N 0 n 0 ro 16 7 1, o ro c ro E L on E on on u w ro a .0 p ro v ; .N o. ^ N 41 W N O c i y0 O ro 0 ro T +N, N 3 N .N' H Q ro \ 011 N O E .' ro Y Ld a afri IA . 0 .N' .- .N' U -, N V > 0 ro ro a) w ea C a) a) ra /'1 U N v ''^N oo acio aci � � C a Ea)E o � c � > -ov v « u �i oc as •oc -° +moo -oa vE w4- E 'c v ° m v C L O 0 N C T C � C N T >, O j O N L L 0 L L a) 7 N O /a O a > . Ly o..' ^ ao o a.' � a= s L ' o. o E ° a • w a, ° co VI a) a) • � O N to es N N N CO (� ro a) U N O /\ a) V L 0 (0 a) a) -c Q L 3 a) L .L' Q E -U U N C C U u ro +C y 1' .N.' C • N al N Y 10 O (O Y' Q N L �•-• C (O L U E L L N w a/ L H .' a) •V ° ^ O N O ^ ae L " aE ro U aE `J rq on c L N OU .� O_ L N C N •- N c aJ 2 N •> ro �\ so 7 O.co U .D ro 3 V) y C Ifl ro 3 a H C E f— u o:Li U i co re irj a) u C 7 a) C 0 0 ro [C L O C /� u ro '- U /'1 Ce >1 0 C 3 as O> 3 N 00 >' (cc C L13 c > o •E O E c a) o ° ~ L O 'E (0 O C U a) 70 a) R 0 V #0\ N C d U a) 0 N U o U ro a) O o ro on E a; o (n ro vy v c re) c .0 Lo anc /N Cj p 3 ro o ro p L o 3 0 L .' 3 0 ••- o C o 3 os . a U m !— No o31- NONz No - �z° 0 32 ONE No1- oN (o rl °� U cr..— /\ 0 CO ,., 191 >, y- ... .J _ a a, a) a) 0 a) O � D n -. > N O. N � a0.+ m C L y N �..• O. o � � .oN 3 � � a) a) U- Y Lcia ° 0 3 :° a 3 000. — ... U i a m .' N nv TE o .a Y a) " " U O N Y O ,_ <ijH .... a+ 7 �6 m 4-1 a>) 3 0. 'moo - � n v. H 3 ° `,_ ci • CC in C a+ C in Y C a+ V O L C v, Al -0 ' v ° o 0 c ° a) u) .► c c vO N /� ,1 = 7 0 in C i 0 C 0 0 04 E a) v 0 C ...- LL R L VI 7 . N .0 O N - L -0 L E L N l o n 2 = aE 3E 3E "O "O_ 5 ID 0 v O m r\ on .AQ ,n d L. i d V 12 H a) a0., O m a) a) m W ,, Q) w N L) '9 N " ? E L y • • • 3 m L 0 a0., O a., L- 0 H Y C +.., v O wi 3 ".+ ' O O. 00 n fm RS cc3 3ain0ov30 2 . 0 anr3 a) a) �4 ae u, C N 3 In d N C 0 — C ••v 0 o ;,; 3 v 'c ." y�'- N m vi a) v a) y C J O O I_ w y .0 .rt C ..„ C aa)) ...- m w- ,. 3 � 2 U c o oaono E 0 E U .. L C:. L Y u V U a1 i ° N o C o y u m h L 0 ...- N L O Tnc +' 65 N u 0 O .0 0j 0 0 > L b c ^ 0 Ra m u �. E 'v .o co a) rES y + s L E Lv vQ, cm tA f6 0U a) O C) m m On fV O = u •- co a) U -► Ca L �O f0 O 0. �` N aE U no n\ o E .. nbe E O N. ^ M 'CD -0 N N� OU ... ID a) n T a) ... b o N 3 as E F C m D i a) L L o .... Ce 9 V � .` ,,, " a) r L wv as a) U -. • w in a so 0., 3 o L N y L .;03 O O m C 0 " u C 0.) ... L On aETaa, L C vv c v, C U o n ,_ ; v a) > 3 c L m 7 v, _U _ 4-0 H a) o 9 0 3 L a) a) >, a 4-4 -10 • C U On 72 b FA 3 00 "" v R o vv o ,., 7 3 3 � d' V > -g) 0 N j i C. v, C C Lt, C R O � � � � T `0 v -oa v3 ,�. vs N H C Y f`O '_ 03 L) OO 71 OA 10 '- > .. U " m co c, p 3 p 3 O 0 0 3 U a) a) L a) ") ,in o a) "ae ]Eo O L in .> ufi 4- 'C 000 L ,.., N I', V > . E - N -0 N 0 V .O a., L., .n. C N 0 C. m U C c R V 0 E O _1 c o 47 4 .O a) J C N O uL ru u vs � � vVc) O ) o )N O y r-) C ML .... ME ^ U i 0 7 a CO 0 0 a) c) +-' O 0 a) V 0 m 0 0 NZ NF NDV NJ . CO 04 v1 .. a• a2 v o c DIO auk+ o y 0.-to to .c w N 7 L ''' L p O C '''' co.. c, R O O . On 1 c O p _ on T N 4- L I L T (d V1 1 VI ^ .0 X N vs p ce N N LO ++ M ^ O N i C _, ,_ o N C .1=1 CO N on O v (0 L U 7 CC • N .. c •- a+ � _ y N N E v i ,E a :: : :N o E +� i U U (LO NVN1 .. +•' � po ' c 3 L co Ln 0 y mu ` v v v ra cu 03 ay y � y oQ t].L1.. .O 3 Tp -p NM 4 CU1UL co Q c . N v ` E a ` Nto v v 3 aa) _ Cl) c,. c o U o m J �.- H N ony `1 •o L C L p c v, a 0 • . y0 o_ -o a1 i in a1 Jv'i o11 0 a aJ L L CU E CU N cu C I` aE U p •.- 0.) c . a., C .. LL (O C r c a1 N C _ y L 7 u o • 'ti .N j N N +p' ,_ v a) N 0 COa N TW L r a ) C O O O • s� U U N O ' __IJ C C v Cl) NEN ME a° C ((0 "Cl0 cr Q) a1 E C C a1 al c .p N O Cl v c a) o � : aEoHvvu w � u � 0 o ar ar v 0 ,,, .., H ai L +.I a2 E OD O _� 3 i- M 3 an C dM I. �w .0 .a i:I .CO UU n J U .-- � J U) p w N = on L c +� C a.+ c 'al v o .c >, c E -oc c o ^ -0 L a U C C C O 0. L y ._ on ..+a (c a., u t� R N C U m �� v, a tn 0 0 .t.J c. c a on t6 a L. �, N if ,t U O E E •O C y , /y R Tv E H o a ro a) �, i L y0 - L OO' on L /1 Ti@ N�O - LO L us a > O a) L (0 L v, Nr,en 2 O. "w .p a! Ix ftiLC L L a a a On i o c L lO -c ,ea c E a 0.) '^ c a oE _ a, ,, : ', � o CCUo IA -C c E C` ar" N c o v o pm iL A N •o L LAC R w 4- w N vi P1 "0 a2 O '12 g O aP 34 3 O U a o. >,s- > c N. oU .MOB° .NO =o a) cc /1; O (w —' a) C 1:1m _O o �t a.., i, L a) tri fa L/ V a /1 O O o c �\ tJ >+ a.I on c 3 c y �•j O E a) w (a --N • 3 17 o Vf (o N Y +' In a) (O /\ L N J N N N L U .o a+ M C C vI W L M (0 N C C y N s+ /1 a OO p 0 C O t6 (p O _C 0 E R 0 7 NZ Ni-O N = �NN2 ~aCSNNVO, �. „.. 10 Findings Landowner Characteristics: Respondents were asked questions regarding their "sex," "age," "property ownership characteristics," "how long they owned, operated, or resided at their present location," and their "willingness to participate in conservation practices to improve the water quality of sink creek." Out of 116 respondents, 37.9% (256) were female and 62.1% (72) were male. Landowner age ranged from 24 to 88 years and the average age was 62 years. Twenty-five percent of the landowners were over the age of 71. There were no statistically significant difference between male and female respondents in relation to any of the questions asked in the survey. Respondents fell in one of the following property categories: .. • Urban Residents - 81 (70.4%) • Rural Residents - 20 (16.9%) • Rural Farmer - 7 (5.9%) • Industrial/Commercial Business Owner - 2 (1.7%) • Absentee Landowner - 2 (1.7%) .. • Developer who is/has worked on projects in the watershed - 1 (0.9%) Most landowners indicated that they owned, operated, or resided at their present location for over 15 years (57.4%), while 20% had been property owners for 6-15 years, and 22.6% were new landowners within the Sink Creek watershed. Landowners who have owned property for 15 or more years were more likely to agree that lawn fertilizers and run off from paved surfaces impact and affect the water quality of Sink Creek. Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences between the length of time a landowner has held property in Sink Creek and the other survey questions. Respondents were asked at what level would they be willing to participate in conservation practices to help improve the stream water quality of DRC: (a) none (16; 14.4%); (b) minimum - learn more about practices by newsletters or attend a meeting (n=67; 60.4%); (c) moderate - participate a few hours a week each month by becoming a member of a watershed committee or task force (n=18; 16.2%) ; or (d) maximum - commit to making a conservation change on my land (n=10; 9%). Sink Creek Survey Questions: First, respondents were asked the degree of awareness (aware, not sure, unaware) to the following statement: "Different people will have different levels of knowledge about the Sink Creek Watershed. Please indicate your level of awareness of the water quality issues regarding the Sink Creek watershed today." As indicated in previous studies, the majority of Sink Creek respondents (72%) indicated that they were "unaware" of the issues (See Table - 4). Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R`S UNI Fall 2010 - - 11 Table 4: Landowner Awareness of Sink Creek Water Quality Issues Aware Not Sure Unaware Are you aware of the current water quality issues regarding the Sink Creek watershed today? (n=118) 13(11%) 20 (16.9%) 85(72%) Directly following this global awareness question were a series of statements that requested the respondent to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement on a 5-point Likert scale as to the effect of water pollutants on the water quality of Sink Creek. The pollutants listed were agriculture fertilizers, lawn fertilizers, soil loss from new construction, septic tanks, livestock production, and paved surface run off. In the same series of questions, respondents were queried on their level of environmental concern as to whether they agreed or disagreed that "the water quality of Sink Creek was declining," if "Sink Creek water contamination was an important environmental issue," if "poor water quality in Sink Creek affects local economic development," if "we are approaching the limits of how much contamination Sink Creek can handle," "regulations protecting Sink Creek watershed limit my choices and personal freedom," and "I would be willing to spend a few hours a month of my own time helping to reduce Sink Creek pollution problems" (See Table 5). The primary environmental concerns for Sink Creek residents were as follows: • Run off from paved surfaces - (59%) -� ■ Water contamination is an important environmental concern - (55.5%) ■ New construction and development have increased the amount of soil loss in this area - (49.1%) These environmental concerns were also the primary concerns of landowners in Scholl study (2006). Water Quality Awareness and Environmental Concerns: Landowners who indicated that they were "aware" of the water quality issues in the Sink Creek Watershed were statistically more likely to agree that the runoff from paved surfaces were affecting the water quality of Sink Creek than landowners were "unaware" or "unsure" of the local water quality issues (F(2,112) = 8.581, p<.001; Scheffe, p = .001). In addition, landowners who indicated that they were "unaware" of the Sink Creek water quality issues were less likely to agree that the water quality of Sink Creek is declining (F(2,112) = 8.517, p<.001; Scheffe, p = .019) and more likely to have a lower environmental perspective score that those respondents that indicated that they were "aware" or "unsure" of the local watershed ^ water quality issues. (F(2,105) = 6.005, p<.003; Scheffe, p = .030). Although 31.6% of the landowners "agreed" or "strongly agree" that taxpayers should bear the cost of improving the watershed, individuals with a lower environmental perspective score (anthropocentric) were more likely to disagree about taxpayers bearing this expense compared to individuals who with a higher environmental perspective score (ecocentric) (F(2,107 = 6.575, p<.003). Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010 12 b. AVM Table 5: Environmental Concerns Strongly Not Strongly Agree Agree Sure Disagree Disagree ... Run off from paved surfaces including parking lots 16 53 40 8 affect the water quality of Sink Creek(n=117) (13.7%) (45.3%) (34.2%) (6.8%) .. New construction and development have increased the 23 34 48 10 1 amount of soil loss in this area (n=116) (19.8%) (29.3%) (41.4%) (8.6%) (0.9%) Septic systems can affect the water quality of Sink 9 43 54 1 10 1 Creek(n= 117) (7.7%) (36.8%) (46.2%) : (8.5%) (0.9%) .. Agriculture fertilizers have significantly impacted the 9 37 61 9 1 water quality in Sink Creek(n=117) (7.7%) (31.6%) (52.1%) (7.7%) (0.9%) Livestock production contributes to the reduction of 8 37 57 14 1(6.8%) (31.6%) (48.7%) (12%) (0.8%) water quality of Sink Creek(n=117) `.. Lawn fertilizers have significantly impacted the water 6 29 68 12 2 in Sink Creek(n=117) (5.1%) (24.8%) (58.1%) (10.3%) (1.7%) `we v 2 44 Water contamination is an important environmental 1 9/° 44 7 1 N.,...issue in Sink Creek (n=117) ( ° ) (37 4/°° ) (37.6%) (6%) (0.9%) Do you believe that the water quality of Sink Creek is 11 15 83 5 : 3 `'.. declining? (n=117) (9.4%) (12.8%) (70.9%) (4.3%) (2.6%) We are approaching the limits how much 9 13 90 4 1 contamination Sink Creek can handle (n=117) (7.7%) (11.1%) (76.9%) (3.4%) (0.9%) `... Poor water quality in Sink Creek affects economic 8 19 62 23 5 ...., development in this area of Iowa(n=117) (6•8%) i (16.2%) (53%) (19.7%) (4.3%) ... Tax payers should bear the cost of improving the 11 26 48 22 10 watershed(n=117) (9.4%) (22.2%) : (41%) ; (18.8%) (8.5%) Regulations protecting Sink Creek watershed limit my 7 11 84 14 1 choices and personal freedom (N=117) (6.9%) (9.4%) (71.8%) (12%) (0.9%) I would be willing to spend a few hours a month of my ..., own time helping to reduce Sink Creek pollution 5 25 50 25 11 (4.3%) (4.3%) (43.1%) (21.6%) (9.5%) ... problems (N=116) Landowners should bear the cost of improving the 1 8 49 34 25 watershed(n=117) (0.9%) (6.8%) (41.9%) (29.1%) (21.4%) 1 .,. Landowner Interest in Conservation Practices: Respondents were asked their degree of interest to learn about or if they had already adopted the following modern soil and water conservation practices: wetland restoration, septic system upgrades, conservation cover, native .. landscaping, wildflower and rain gardens, wildlife habitat improvements, filter strips, waterways, terraces, contour strips, windbreaks, storm sewer inlet protection, urban construction control, permeable pavers, reduction in lawn and garden fertilizers and pesticides, rock check dams, household hazardous waste assistance, and community sewage treatment (See Table 6). A number of landowners have already adopted the conservation practice of "minimal use of ..., lawn and garden fertilizers a pesticides" (22.5%); "disposal of household hazardous waste" (21.4%); .. and use of "windbreaks around dwellings" (10.6%). The foremost conservation practices that landowners indicated that they were interested in but need more information included: "urban Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010 .. 01.25 „,4 13 construction control" (41.1%); "native landscaping/wildflower gardens/rain gardens" (38.4%); assistance in disposal of household hazardous waste" (21.4%); "inlet protection for storm sewers" (37.5%); and "permeable paving" (35.4%). Table 6: Interest in Conservation Practices Interested but No Not Already - need more interest Applicable Adopted information to my property Practice '� Urban construction control(n=112) 46 i 34 i 29 3 (41.1%) ' (30.4%) : (25.9%) (2.7%) Native landscaping/Wildflower gardens/Rain gardens 43 29 35 5 (n=112) (38.4%) (25.9%) (31.3%) (4.5%) Assistance in disposal of household hazardous waste 42 29 17 24 (n=112) (21.4%) (25.9%) (15.2%) (21.4%) Inlet protection for storm sewers (n=112) 42 35 i 32 3 (37.5%) ; (31.3%) : (28.6%) (2.7%) Permeable Paving(Alternatives to traditional paved surfaces 40 41 29 3 - that provide the support but allow water to infiltrate)(n=113) (35.4%) (33.3%) (25.7%) (2.7%) Backyard conservation/Wildlife habitat improvement 39 32 33 9 (n=113) (34.5%) (28.3%) (29.2%) (8%) '.. Minimal use of lawn and garden fertilizers &pesticides. 36 33 17 25 (n=111) (32.4%) (29.7%) (15.3%) (22.5%) Windbreaks around dwellings (n=113) 36 33 32 12 - (31.9%) ; (29.2%) : (28.3%) (10.6%) Waterways (n=111) 36 32 39 4 (32.4%) (28.8%) ; (35.1%) (3.6%) - Wetland restoration (n=113) 35 38 38 2 (31%) ' (33.6%) : (33.6%) (1.8%) Filter strips along the creek(n=112) 33 33 42 4 (29.5%) ; (29.5%) ; (37.5%) (3.6%) Filter strips along the creek(n=112) 33 33 42 4 (29.5%) : (29.5%) : (37.5%) (3.6%) Conservation cover(n=110) 32 33 36 9 (29.1%) ; (30%) j (32.7%) (8.2%) Terraces (n=109) 29 32 43 5 (26.6%) : (29.4%) : (39.4%) (4.6%) - Rock check dams (n=109) 29 36 38 6 (26.6%) (33%) ; (34.9%) (5.5%) Contour strips (n=112) 24 36 50 2 (21.4%) (32.1) (44.6%) (1.8%) Private septic system upgrades (n= 113) 9 41 54 9 r (8%) (33.6%) (47.8%) (8%) Environmental Perspective Scale: This scale was adapted from the work of Stets and Biga (2003) to examine the role of environmental perspective, or how one sees oneself in relation to the environment (Weigert 1997). Researchers who have studied pro-environmental behavior often investigate environmental attitudes towards the environment and environmental behavior. Adapting �--, the wording from "the natural environment" to " the watershed" of Stets and Biga's (2003) eleven ,-. contrasting statements to measure how an individual views him/herself in relationship to the - environment, landowners were asked to identify which point along each of the following bipolar - statements best represented their environmental sentiments toward the Sink Creek watershed: Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R`S UNI Fall 2010 14 • Wanting to utilize the watershed... Wanting to preserve the watershed • Disinterested in the watershed... An advocate of the watershed • In cooperation with the watershed... In competition with the watershed • Detached from the watershed... Connected to the watershed _ • Very concerned about the watershed... Indifferent about the watershed• Very protective of the watershed... Not at all protective of the watershed _ • Superior to the watershed... Inferior to the watershed • Very passionate towards the watershed... Not at all passionate towards the watershed • Not respectful of the watershed... Very respectful of the watershed• Independent of the watershed. Dependent of the watershed — • Sentimental thinking about the watershed... Emotionless thinking about the watershed — Landowners' Environmental Perception Score: The sum of the eleven environmental perception questions was calculated to give an indication of landowner human-environmental perspective towards — preserving the overall environmental health of the watershed. The scale was found to be reliable (11 items; a = .7649). Possible environmental scores be as low as 5.5 to as high as 60.5. The higher the total score, the more environmental sense of self the landowner holds. Sink Creek landowner scores ranged from 8 to 58 with the mean score of 35.1 and a standard deviation of 9.29. In order to relate a landowner's environmental perception score with the other nominal or ordinal survey questions, environmental perception scores were categorized in the following manner: landowners with a score of 31.5 or less were categorized as anthropocentric; landowners with a identity score between 31.51 and 39.6 were categorized as centrist; and landowners who scored higher than 39.61 were categorized — as ecocentric. As a result, there was a statistically significant difference between individuals with lower environmental perception scores were "less willing to spend their own time helping to reduce Sink Creek pollution problems", "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" that taxpayers should bear the cost of improving the water quality in Sink Creek, and indicated "no interested" in all 16 conservation practices that could improve watershed stream protection. Landowners who had already adopted the conservation practice or were interested in obtaining more information about the practice held higher environmental perception scores. Landowners Final Thoughts: Respondents were given the opportunity to express any other comments they may posses about Sink Creek "related to potential conservation practices or environmental improvements that will enhance water quality." Nineteen (19) landowners indicted that Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010 15 they had no idea where Sink Creek was located and doubted their ability to provide adequate information. One respondent wonder if Sink Creek was the same as Miller Creek. For the other landowners the specific areas of flooding concern included Cedar Terrace and E. Shaulis Road. Changes to the natural flow of water due to the construction of Bertch Cabinet, Casino, the Water Park, Hawkeye College, parking lots and new roads, and additional homes were considered the primary cause of these flooding events. The proposed campground and other new development is also a concern by landowners for future flooding. Many Landowners indicated that they have lived in the watershed for over 40 years and were concerned since they have recently observed and experienced water problems in their backyards and basements where there had been no problems in previous years. Primary suggestion to reduce flooding in on landowner property is to regularly clean out the debris in the waterways and dredge out the Bertch Cabinet holding pond. One rural farmer indicated that he has done all that he can do to help reduce flooding by installing filter strips along the creek that meanders through his property. Listed below are the actual phrases provided by landowners. Watershed Development Concerns ❖ I see ALOT of construction in my subdivision without any soil/erosion/water run off control. I think that lack of oversight by the City of Waterloo and/or the DNR is contributing to these problems. ❖ Development by private developers will at best/worst only mildly improve water quality. • Stop development-eliminate flooding in Cedar Terrace. ❖ I'm concerned about the development of more homes, business, and campground in the Sink Creek watershed area in the very near future. Also with taking more farmland out of production and zoning it into residential. The loss of animal habitat. With this new development planned what effect will it have with the already problems with flooding south of town in the smaller community effected with rain and run off. Home owners that now have wet basements where before were dry before all of the new development. ~� ❖ Not sure when or where we would have heard about this but we do have a concern about watershed from Casino Area and Bertch Manufacturing! ^ ❖ We use to have water good enough to sell, what happened?You are protecting downtown and the railroad bridge, what about us? Do you really care, a lot of money for downtown. Our taxes go up, you build and it causes more runoff. Older people have a hard time keeping up with taxes. ❖ The obvious biggest concern is the flooding in the Cedar Terrace area. I believe with all of Bertch Cabinet-the rs Casino and Water Park paving has had a big impact on this now. Bertch is going to have a 150-acre camping RV park. This will not help down stream flooding. This crick and waters rising very quickly has gotten much ^ worse over the years. I have lived her 25 years. ❖ Stop building parking lots and roads. Stop tiling farm ground. People are changing the natural flow of the water; they are creating a funnel that causes flash/floods. ❖ You have a large flow area coming into a small route of little streams to make it to the river. There are not many holding areas to allow the water to sit and filter itself. There are not many buffer strips. You have a large amount of parking lots and streets(soon to be more) in the Casino area that allow quick and polluted runoff to Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010 16 enter waterways quickly and unfiltered. You have 3 major areas: cattle farms, Hawkeye and Casino using small waterways. Deteriorating Conditions within the Watershed ❖ I have lived at the present location for 43 years and during those years I have watched runoff water from development make flooding condition worse. d• We lived at this residence for 40 years and we have never had water problems until they started building above us. We never even had water in our back yard until this year when our house was completely surrounded due to the water runoff above us. Most of us in this area are not repairing our finished basements because we know we are just going to get more water because of all the buildup. We have enclosed a picture taken this summer of our backyard where we have never had water until this summer. • Other than my concern for quality drinking water, my biggest concern is flooding at the lower end of the creek. My neighbors often have water in their backyards and the water level in the ground rises high enough that many of us have water coming in through our foundation tile. At the low end outside the city boundary, the water is not able to get into the Cedar River. ❖ We seem to have more water(flooding) problems since the Casino was built with all the parking hard surface .. run off. I'm not sure they have a holding area. "' ❖ Flooding of E. Shaulis east of the bridge has been more severe the last 10 years. ❖ I do believe agriculture fertilizers, lawn fertilizers, and field tiling is leading to the contamination of all water ways at an alarming rate. And add to that the black topping of roads. - ❖ I am concerned about my neighbor putting yard waste, dirt, and old potted plants in the dry run. This is `, happening at the South west corner of the park that is South of E. Shaulis and East of Cedar Terrace Drive. Conservation Practice Suggestions ❖ Improve drainage and place for rain from 3-5" rainstorms to drain besides creek and our yards and streets. •:• I believe I have done all I can do-by installing filter strips along the creek on all my land it goes through. + The area on E. Shaulis Rd, South Side, between La Porte Road to Cedar Terrace Road is one large sand hill. Summer rain water soaks in the ground. The only run off is from a few driveways. No storm sewers. Farm NNWground across Shaulis Rd. is lower and flat and floods. In hard rains South Shaulis Road flood near the Casino and drains into Cedar River at Cedar Terrace Addition. ❖ If the resources and equipment we have would concentrate on and cleaning out and maintaining the natural way there would be no need for more. Let's embrace it and maintain what we have. We are part of the watershed and we'd like our ditch cleaned out. It overflows and floods our parking lot. ❖ Maintain Sink Creek by cleaning debris out of waterway so excess runoff from above the interstate will not be ... dammed up and as a result flood homes in our area. The holding pond by Bertch Cabinet is silted in and needs to be dredged out so it will at least hold back more water and help control excess water runoff. ❖ Some channels should be cleaned out to prevent water backup in our area of Cedar Terrace and more holding ponds should be built. r.. Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R`S UNI Fall 2010 17 ❖ Recent flooding issues due to poor drainage and blocked waterways with debris which must be cleaned out on a regular basis. Sink Creek in Section 13 tends to fill in over time. If it is dug out every few years it handles more water which reduces flooding which in turn reduces erosion of soil that could affect the quality of water. Probably the last time it was dug out was around 1997 or 1998. Contour farming practices anywhere along the creek could reduce some runoff. d• We all need to be good stewards of the Earth and our natural resources. I support efforts and initiatives that move us in the direction. Even if it means change and effort. ❖ I do strongly believe and practice in environmental friendly measures. ❖ We do need to do what we can to protect against runoff and contamination. ❖ Living at Landmark Commons. Have little control on practices, but feel they are responsible and environmentally conscious. S• I think that although we are on higher ground the people of Cedar Terrace need to know that something is done before the project begins to assure them there will be no further flooding to their properties. ❖ I live in a condo, so feel that I have little or no control of the Sink Creek Watershed one way or the other. But I do have a concern for the water quality of this area and all of Black Hawk County. _ ❖ Yes-we can apprise you of the cause for flooding down stream in Cedar Terrace-we are residents and farmers etc over 40 years. ❖ New homeowners, landowners, developers should bear the costs of improving the watershed. Conclusion and Recommendations Research shows that current land use practices affect the water quality of lake, rivers, and streams. Recommendations for the City of Waterloo is to develop strategic education conservation communication messages to educate landowners about development projects and to persuade landowners to behave in a way that will help to reduce storm water pollutants. This entails designing messages that influence landowner behavior, whether it be changing negative behaviors, reinforcing positive behaviors, or creating a new behavior that improve the improving water quality by the reduction of illicit discharges. Behaviors are based on values and attitudes. Since we were able to get the information on landowners general beliefs, more information is needed on actual conforming and non-conforming landowner behaviors and the presence of situational and internal factor that make the behavior easy or difficult for the landowner to perform or support the city in installing conservation practices that might improve water quality. To influence landowner behavior, specific conservation practices and behaviors must be the focus of the educational and communication effort. For example, since landowners are more like to differ in their opinion on the effects of runoff from paved surfaces on the water quality, focused educational effort is focused solely on informing landowners on the effects of impervious surface Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010 a «;; 18 water runoff cause to water quality. If a persuasive communication campaign is undertaken by the .. City of Waterloo, it will be important to first gather detailed information on three categories of ✓- beliefs landowner have specifically to the behavior that is desired from the landowner: behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs (Ham, et.al, 2007). These three categories of beliefs are as follows: 3 Behavior beliefs: what landowners believe the likely outcome or consequence of the specific behavior and their positive or negative judgment about each of these outcomes. Normative beliefs: how they believe other people of importance to them think about the landowner complying with the specific behavior, including the landowner's motivation to comply wishes of these important others. Control beliefs: the landowners belief about the presence of internal or situational factors that .. make the encouraged behavior easy or difficult to carry out, and how much each factor facilitates or inhibits performing the specific behavior. .. If the City of Waterloo chooses to developed an educational campaign for the improving the water quality of Sink Creek and similar watersheds within the city limits, it is recommended that they target .. their efforts on the following: (a) specific construction and development information and behaviors �. that decrease the amount of soil discharge and water quantity into the creek, (b) specific behaviors ..� that decrease pollutants directly to storm sewers by the runoff of impervious services. References Bartlett, C. (2006). Storm water Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors: A 2005 Survey of North Carolina Residents. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Online: http://www.ncstormwater,org':d:s r e, '25C6 :c Retrieved May 23, 2008. Beeman, P. (2006, March 24). Rivers in Iowa among the nation's most highly polluted. Des Moines y Register. City of Cedar Falls (2006). Storm Water Management Program. Currents! 16(2), 8. Online: http://www.cedarfalis.com/archives/73/Currents V16-2.aa- Retrieved June 1, 2008 ... (CF Ordinance 2569). (2006). Storm Water Management Program. http:,/www.cedarfalls.com/DocumentView.asp?DID=18 Retrieved June 1, 2008 Dunlap, R., Michelson, W., Et Stalker, G. (2002). Environmental sociology: An introduction. In R.E. Dunlap Et W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Sociology (pp. 1-32). -' Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Gant, M., Et Daugherty, L. (2005). Waterworks! Survey Summary. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Available online: http://frank.mtsu.edu/-waterwks/2005%20Survey.htm .. Gant, M., Et Daugherty, L. (2003). Waterworks! Survey Summary. University of Tennessee, .. Knoxville. Available online: http://frank.mtsu.edu/-waterwks/Survey2.htm Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010 19 �v 1 Ham, S., Brown, T., Curtis, J., Weiler, B., Hughes, M., Et Poll, M. Promoting Persuasion in Protected Areas: A guide for Managers. Sustainable Tourism Coopertive Research Center. -, H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. (2002). The state of the nation's ecosystems: Measuring the lands, waters, and living resources of the United States. New York: Cambridge Press. Online: http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems; Hoope, K. (2005). Assessment of Maine's Storm water Phase II and NPS Outreach Campaign 2003/2004 or Who is willing to protect Maine's Water Quality?Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Available online: http://www.maine.g,ov/depiblwq/doceducation/nps/jul08.pdf Hoope, K. (2004). The General Public: Who are they and what do they think?Maine Department of Environmental Protection: Presque Isle. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/nps/toolbox/surveys/mainegeneral.pdf Iowa DNR. (n.d). Improving Stormwater. Iowa DNR Watershed Improvement. Online: http://www.iowadnr.goviwater/watershedistorrnwater.htm. Retrieved May 23, 2008. Salt Lake County, Utah. (2003). Salt Lake County Storm Water Study. Online: http://www.epa.govinps/toolbox/surveys/SL Watershed Report.pdf Retrieved May 23, 2008. Scholl, K. (2005). Dry Run Creek Watershed Development Grant Survey Results. Scholl, K. Inui, Y, 8 Lankford, S. (2006). Watershed management and landowner's environmental perspectives. Proceedings of the 2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (190-196), Bolton Landing, NY: U.S. Forest Service: Northern Research Station. Stets, J., Ft Biga, C. (2003). Bringing Identity Theory into Environmental Sociology. Sociological Theory, 21(4), pp. 398-423. University of South Carolina Institute for Public Policy and Policy Research. (2002). Public Perceptions and Concern about Runoff Pollution: Summary of Findings for South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental: Columbia, S.C. Available online: http://www.statehbrary.sc.gov/scedocs/H3496i000146.pdf Wagner M., a Thompson, J. (2006). Social Dynamics Assessment of Iowa Urban Stormwater Issues. Iowa DNR Watershed Improvement. Online: ry ",,,. � acn~ ,�:�s��at� watershed/stormwater.html Retrieved May 23, 2008. Water Tech Online. (June 6, 2005) Pollution in Iowa drinking water raises concern. Online: e.com/News.asp?mode=4EtN ID=55313. Retrieved August 7, 2005. Wayne County Department of Environment (1994). A Strategy for Public Involvement. Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. Available online: http://www.rougeriver.com/pdfs/education/RPO-PI-SR02.pdf Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010 w> _ 20 Weigert, A. (1997). Self, interaction, and natural environment: Refocusing our eyesight. Albany, New York: State of New York University Press. ZumBrunnen, J., (1998). Survey of Colorado Residents' Awareness and Understanding of — Household-Generated Polluted Runoff. Colorado State University of Colorado Water — Protection Project: Boulder, Colorado. v Imo Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010 —