HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROJECT PLAN _....
.....
Sink Creek Watershed
......
.......
.......
As s essment
,,._,..., 44. ...„-.... K---- ''' '
—: _ �
► -
g itt z
= _
z
44
.'_ `_ `c - z, a �" ate` _
-- - - s _ _ _ -� - �,
47,z _ _ _
"41
ems -- - -x-�
i PAN
I
Aus
-
f _`Y �
' _' - _
Ley
amil
-_
''� f __
! rats
June, 2011
, ANBy: Robinson Engineering Company
"1
oars
"'1
I eats
'1
i —
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
6.3.1. 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.i. Stream Assessment— Site Specific 53
Recommendations
7.3. Chemical Assessment 54
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 3
- . June,2011
7.3.1. 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
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
� I
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 4
June,2011
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. 070802050804) 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 io 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.
—
C3
Elk Ain-,soar W<<er
5 281
Waterloo / P,yner Creek
7k
I
_ - Ream ale Raymapd, t�
Elk Run Hek. • �„�"J
Greet-MiCCie Cea
Glitiarty
— i
)(5' (17:1
380
—, Lower Muller:reek
`.eCar 4,yp..Mnier Creek
Figure 1: Sink Creek Watershed-DNR Watershed Atlas—HUC12 No.
070802050804
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 7
June,2011
..,
n = "-*
P— u.ka 'S.
F
_ __
_ _ T
k
' 71:a s Cw:E x 74- - _ \I
Leuend
,0,f 11 I,[.3n 1 —= i.
=
e s L.II,I ,d , ;
Figure 2:Sink Creek Watershed
Of the total area, 77% of the watershed is located within the Waterloo city limits. The
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
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.E ,......-
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
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 8
June,2011
Lost Island,
Subv,atershed Bench
Subs atcrshcd Cvdar Tcrracc-,
Subs}atershed
East Shaulb
— l Subatershcd''w
South Hill. N^w�tC
a Subwatershed umnlerland
-- Subwatershe•.
Hiuhw-aN, '_I N\'
Sub\ atershcd Hatitkcvc North CL�aS�`t_r�
Subuatersheii Orange
Road
Orantte Nort` -' Subwatershed
Sub atershed
Ha„keve South t z
Subs�atershed � tltl
Oranee South —-
Sum jtershed c
t.ck 1I 1 sc r.,nck
3.cnt1 aniCkene:
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
--r Branch Stream Length
Main Branch 5.79 miles
Summerland Branch 1.33 miles
Lost Island Branch 1.27 miles
Cedar Hills Branch 1.04 miles
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 9
,.� June,2011
..
`/
Lakes and Ponds Tabulation 1..
Water Body Name Creek Branch Subwatershed Water Area(acres)
Bertch Pond Main Bertch i.o .'
Bertch-Terrace Pond Main Cedar Terrace 3.2
Brustkern Pond Cedar Hills Cedar Hills o.5
Cedar Hills Pond Cedar Hills Cedar Hills 2.1 „.—
Fork Estates Pond Main East 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 o.65 .�
Silver Estates Lake Main Cedar Terrace 7.4
Sink Lake Main Cedar Terrace 18.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
Summerland South Pond Summerland Summerland o.6
Weiden Road Pond Main Cedar Terrace o.5 `,
Log',L.—id e,; -
_ Suhuatkr,hcd ,,,, Et,ten - �,,..
it''.....t• ,rd ?snu3
j C' duTerrace 11 s �unu..,_nnca -v a ,...t
tv s
• I i t 1 tih t':i a, . -, ,i,i., \..
St_wth Htll r,1 ;c'
' Subwater ho i \ b
Sysnms.rtand c-
a,6]lsli.• c ,I..iil Supt>=ai r hia
tit Pamf; # ,l'• 1 _NI-C•-
IIt h. t _( ,#,. S\\ = ' t`nnd t a: '
Subxatcr:Ii,tis IS
.t*y: u.,...s.
Uranee A••Ltr H,3is
Ruac1 1.
3,,,, .�
P,.i �uhtcaterahl , r4
grange\i,nh - `
s Sitne.ate.',tr. j..,_ - _
North
Subs+ater.hed — -
lta,tk 'r uth Le elld
••1msvtrchcd -
3uon,tte,;heel l#ain t'unnrt .
c:eJar HAI,t'
,,n 3,4
Figure 4:Watershed Ponds and Lakes _
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment to
June,zou _
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.)
1 _ 4'`
Legend
r.I}caul rtttat
Nato
't atott...o it.I=n:il; Z
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 o.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,2011
-
i.
A =_ t
•
Jo, ,. „ ,/)..,_------ -
ith. _
t . /- 0.4ft -,E ,.y >
' Z , Legend
.V r j-Ake a � • \lupc and U,cr
L -`F �k .:I Waterloo C0v lona,
Figure 6:Topography(Slopes)
\ 9 S _
W;
1111:1114r114—— Pkill errittuNi, ...... ,
.. ...,,,Ai 1&._...4„.10,0„..„......
-\.. .,,---.4k,„,)
, . ...... „,,,,,,„,,,. \i,r,
.:i. '*** -41)::„ -liriii/.16.41:4•- - ----iri4it
4t,
z... ...„,. .{.-i•Thf., 111 -.
`'r �
, ,....„: ..,_,
ir-
, -,,,... r/ ram. ..i
t'�-t- q-� z-,�1� ti Y_; _`: Legend
ll �� o .__ --2OIU Waterloo Clip Limns
`,
Figure 7:Watershed Contours
\.-
\.,
`►
`.,
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 12
June,2011
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,
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
1, 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%
Sandy Loam Flagler 126.9 2.4%
Sand Sparta 110.4 _ 2.1%
No Soil 147.8 2.8%
County:
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.o%
Klinger,Dinsdale,Ely
Loam Kenyon,Saude,Aredale,Spillville, 351.o 6.6%
Marshan,Dickinson,Clyde
Loamy Sand Finchford 134.0 2.5%
Sandy Loam Flagler 76.o 1.4%
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
-NN by glacial activity, deposited by water, or deposited by the wind. Glacial deposits include soils in
the Aredale, Clyde, Donnan, Floyd, and Kenyon soil classes. Soils deposited by water fall into
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.
1
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment
-1 June,2011 13
i_et,end
Lwm
--.. Loan
-_ looms Sans
- - el Sandy Lam
...t _ •Sand
.,A
, - - 1 cu!An,Sod.
-2010 Wamrl.nrt:mlun,I
Figure 8:Soils
2.5. Population
Census data from 1990 and 2000 was used to determine the density of people living within the
watershed. As shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10, 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
people. The approximate population in 2000 was 2463, nearly a 300%increase over 10 years.
1990 Watershed Population Statistics
Population Density Area Percentage of Estimated
(People per Square Mile) (acres) Watershed Population for Area
City:
o to 5o 2694.4 50.5% 69
51 to 100 660.6 12.4% 66
ioi to 35o 369.6 6.9% ioi
351 to moo 274.9 5.2% 238
toot to 2500 102.9 1.9% 266
2501 to 3000 8.o 0.2% 35
County:
o to 5o 1096.4 20.6% 23
51 to 100 13.5 0.3% 1
101 to 35o 100.3 1.9% 3o
351 to woo 13.0 0.2% 12
Total watershed population=842 (City=T76,County=66)
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 14
June,2011
fr
f
'1
N ...,_ 7
''1
Legend
1 .0 10`I1 I' Plc per Sy.stile
' T 51 to ISO Peopk per Sy.Nile
Mi iul I..91 P<opie per Sy,%III(
1 - -- '-. M(cl to IOW iPopie r,r Sy %Is,
�.:... -- 1rn11 a SO(P up1 Mr Sy V1dc
w 'r:I i 4010 People per Sy.stile
1 - i in .,I-11 al ry,pie per by MLl.
,___ Irlii t4(u7ianCm Limit,
1
1
-1 Figure 9:Population Density from 1990 Census
1
-1
N
vo
1_,
1‘) II.1t,
.,.,
,./e_.
_ a
.....„
jf ,,._,_.. \
I c rend
Pe
}? - r 1--.- People Sy
101X1 People per,
AMIN
2.44001 People
per`eop P
„� -. .. .� ;�- = .r yUUO People per Sy t•
....
Figure io:Population Density from 2O00 Census
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 15
,.1 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
51 to too too7.o 18.9 117 ,..--
tot to 35o 923.1 17.3 253
351 to moo 337.0 6.3 277 _ "
toot to 250o 199.6 3.7 437
2501 to 4000 111.7 2.1 523
4000 to 6000 41.2 o.8 325 a..
Over 60oo 29.7 0.6 279
County:
oto5o 769.0 14.4 19
51 to too 181.o 3.4 18
tot to 35o 187.2 3.5 51
351 to t000 40.3 0.8 45
toot to 250o 15.1 o.3 35
25ot to 400o 1o.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
well.
\ '4‘,4111] ,•, —
_i , , , _ _ __ ail `
1
gg I c_ ,
9 R `-
\ 1 i
gill
{ Legcnd
P .+ Pr r
C nr:un -.tlrgc .
IIU 3
,,,,,,....„..-),...; ..'',---Lrr-
._ i♦Huh Hark,('ty ..-
2010 WatulW C'Its Emma
4�
.._
,.._
Figure i1:Property Ownership
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 16 —June,2011
t
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%
-1 Roads—No Ownership 399.5 7.5%
"1
1 Property Ownership
"1 0 102.2,
20.5,0.004/0
1.916% 77.6,1.455%
23.9,0.448% Black Hawk County
3.782%_
\ 399.5
14.7,0.276% 7.490% 428.4, ■Black Hawk Co. Landfill
8.032%
El City of Waterloo
Hawkeye Comm.College
Private
■State of Iowa
Waterloo Parks and Rec.
4.65.2,76.217%
Waterloo Community
Schools
Roads
2.7. Historical Land Use
Aerial photographs taken in 193o, 1960, and 1990 were analyzed to determine how land use had
changed in the watershed.
The watershed changed slightly between 193o and 196o, 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 93.0%
Cemetery 1.6 0.03%
Residential 234.1 4.4%
Roads 106.5 2.o%
Subdivision 26.3 0.5%
Institutional 4.3 0.1%
196o Land Use Tabulation
Land Use Area(Acres) Percent of Total
Watershed
Agricultural 4863.8 91.2%
Cemetery 1.6 0.03%
Residential 263.9 4.9%
Roads 123.0 2.3%
Subdivision 77.3 1.4%
Institutional 18.2 0.3%
1990 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%
Institutional 236.6 4.4%
Parks 197.9 3.7%
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 18
June,zott
Legend
_, f 4=,�t-,H{i !:ma,..
Figure 12: 19343 Aerial Photo of Watershed
Alleplailki4111 16141111111111111
IN Ilk
Legend
RcsiJcnnal
'lli,l N;,rt•,I„u l„i 1,m,,. Su6J,1,.�..n
Sanwa
Mi Rudd,
re.A
Figure 13:1930 Land Use
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment i9
-► June,2011
Lc2cnd
Figure 14: 196o Aerial Photo of Watershed
ILL
11,
fir 1
411/\
Leucnd
:,trrt.iiurc
C emeten
Re.kNml
-_UIU Walcrloo Cleo Lunn. Ei Sulxln*ion
INI Seb;ol
MI Road%
11.1 Sink Cr eck
Wk+
ler
Figure 15:1960 Land Use
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 20
June,2011
Legend . H,.
arena+c on.I tr
Figure 16: 1990 Aerial Photo of Watershed
11111111
k \ ,
111
40:11F1, 16
t
\111:11.44,
40
_ - Leoend
Agriculture
�Ccmeten
Sir On
-'+lilt Indust,
Space Barks
Waterloo( LVm�. ON Ixdut,trl in Insntutwnal
Residettlial
ItU Su6 iicmwn
Srh of
_ 1.1 Rands
11. Sink Creek
MIFF
Figure 17: 1990 Land Use
oats
onsk
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 21
June,2011
i
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.
1.
k 1116:*"
4111111141.
‘cr
Legend
Agriculture In Commercial
ill Green Space-Parks
r Indumnal
IIII Institutional
Ell Residential
Qom. >♦ Rc,ndential-Mulli-Family
`r
�.r
Figure 11:2010 Land Use
Watershed Land Use
o Agricultural
3.9% 14.3/0
1.9% :Roads
4. Commercial
II Green Space
1.6%
Industrial
65.5% Institutional
Residential
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 22
June,2011
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
industrial areas, Hawkeye Community College, and the South Hills Golf Course. The "Green
Space"land use category includes cemeteries within the watershed.
2010 Land Use Tabulation
Land Use Area(Acres) Percent of Total
Watershed
City:
Agricultural 2499.0 46.9%
-. Commercial 86.5 1.6%
Green Space 185.7 3.5%
"'� 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%
County
-�. Agricultural 993.9 18.6%
.-. Green Space 23.2 0.44%
Residential 142.6 2.7%
Roads 79.6 1.5%
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 193o and 196o. The
-. watershed added industrial,institutional, commercial, and park areas between 196o and 1990.
Additional developments continued between 1990 and the present.
Comparison 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 65.5%
"` 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% 699.9.1
13.1% 861.4 16.1%
Roads 106.5 2.o% 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%
Parks 197.9 3.7% 209.0 3.9%
Commercial 86.5 1.6%
,. 2.9. 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
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%.
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 23
-t June,2011
_-_ - ."
a.. } „-...s r r
b.
may : �•
i
sa _
_ __ i
=- Legend
MN ,cilia,. ...
li 00'""7 ,Ln Spa":-Pub
nuracmnng `r
ma lta.itlntm!
MI a,t.id,
J I l0 W aterbo C"it%limits
Lme
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 o.o6
C-1,C-Z Cod.Zoning Commercial 2.9 0.05
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 o.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 L
Roads 70.6 1.3
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 24
June,2011
..a
..a
a
2.1o. 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 i5o,o0o 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 350 feet thick in
northern Iowa.
2.11. Climate
The climate within the watershed varies dramatically from season to season. The average lowest
a 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.)
,.a
a
-.a
a
a
a
..a
a
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 25
June,2011
�a
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 Lr
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
Little Grape Fern Botrychium simplex Plants Threatened Low
American Brook Lampetra appendix Fish Threatened Low c
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
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 26
June,2011
1
',
1
"1 Species Under Special Consideration
Common Name Scientific Name Class Potential to be
"1 Found in Sink Creek
Toothcup Rotala ramosior Plants Moderate
Pipevine Swallowtail Battus philenor Insects Moderate
"s 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
=a 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
"N 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 Valeriana edulis Plants Low
Marsh-speedwell Veronica scutellata Plants Low
AiNil
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 27
"� June,2011
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.la 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
saved 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.
A 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
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 29
June,2011
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 L.
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
r
r O orP
lce) Q* +j6g
4 -'
Letend **No'
UM Wand fin.
S..e.iiYlami it
-Saiar Ndls lit h
* ,_ 2n16 Kmrh, l.awls
Figure 20:Watershed Assessment Points
The watershed was assessed at 87 different locations throughout the basin. These assessment
points were chosen in the field.
4 http://www.iowater.net/Publications/BenthicManual.pdf
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 3o
June,2011
f
'"N 3.4.2• Land Use
11 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
r'1 downstream from given location.)
{
A
LeiTend
(RP
G
asture
._-: RCiJ_oti�I
_ - - R i'-.P
Tro
-..._. No Uata
I. Lar
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%
Trees 2,129.1' 6.4%
Observed Land Use (Left Bank)Tabulation
ANN 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%
a
..o
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 31
�. June,zon
l:
r
Lctien{
('RP ,...
- - - - _ Pa,ture
-_
- - e.nienl{at ..:..
_ - Rz„y rrg!
7r-,-, ..11
,...eI
s
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 `.. 1
livestock of any kind have direct contact with the creek water at the given location.)
I
sr u 1
t
N.
Legend — —
Lt.e,tak Acte,
_7, _, darn Bratkh
_ -- L.A.Wand Brandt
- __ Su nmerk nd Brame
( frt 44�;t l5r3 Bec
- - nlmC n.-
i nit. —,
Figure 23:Livestock Access
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 32 '
June,2011
..- 1
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.
Letzend --
tt „u:,; tom ;,
Figure 24:Canopy Cover
Canopy Cover Tabulation
Category Length(feet) Percentage of
Assessed Watershed
o%tolo% 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 l00% 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,2011
-a
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.
Lev.end
gar
\..-iYaSs
Figure 25:Bank Stability
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,oi7.4' 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.
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 34
June,2011
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.)
Lecend
_ - h Punt Sources
-. Bain Branch
-. - lua Island Hrarnh.:
iuw,nerlan.l Hhana-
-.- t`dar lleHs Hram —.
[74,ltialerl. Li uri•
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
from the Hawkeye Community College property. Downstream, a tributary coming from the East
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.
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 35
--.. June,2011
The stream segment between the Golf Course and the College property was very enjoyable. On
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
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.
After Sink Creek exited the pond it formed a meander and went under a Railroad track then
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,
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 36
June,2011
a
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
"'1
fr
^1
"'1
'11
Aono
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 37
,/', June,2011
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 o7-00-5-01) 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.)
rus
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.
H .t
Leeend
'i3 49 CbEnn t
_ ut:¢rkYlmtt#t#ki0tM6_.
R;dciAxx Crt5 .v.
Figure 27:Water Sampling Locations
a
T1-R:
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 39
June,2011
a
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.
T3-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 0.15 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.
T4-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.
T5-R:
Site T5-R is a rural site located on Hess Road approximately 0.25 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:
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
but wade with care. Enjoy the walk through the woods.
T7-U:
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:
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 40 ..
June,2011
a
a
Site Ri-U is an urban site located 15o ft. south of a privately owned pond outfall. 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
1,700 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.
R4-U:
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.
^ 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.
a
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 41
"� June,2011
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,
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
Analysis, Pesticide and Herbicide Analysis.
The goal for this testing was to collect, at a minimum, one sample during high water and one
sample during low or normal water flow from each permanent testing location. Additional
s www.iowater.net
6 http://www.iowater.net/Publications/QAPP.htm
http://www.jaicwc.org/current_web_site/web_pages/gapp.html
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 42
June,2011 �.
-
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.
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 "<o.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
-. 0 .. 0 cu =
o 0 .0 -0 .- E
ct
-7 ZZ O-• u •cJ 4-,0 aF� U pa Z a
Iowa Allowable Levels 10 mg/1 1 mg/1 25o mg/1 126 1 mg/1 m5g/l
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
-, 03/24/2011 8.5 <0.1 <0.30 -- 39 -- -- --
T2-R 10/14/2010 8.4 -- 0.45 25.0 548 -- -- --
-1 10/19/2010 7.7 <0.1 0.7 23.8 65 0.151 <0.004 1.0
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 -- -- --
T4-U 10/14/2010 6.8 -- <0.30 25.2 77o -- -- --
10/19/2010 6.1 <0.1 0.50 23.6 12 0.120 <0.004 1.0
-1 03/24/2011 7.4 <0.1 0.39 -- 15o -- -- --
T5-R 1o/14/2010 4.6 -- <0.3o 29.4 1 -- -- --
- 10/19/2010 4.2 <0.1 0.5 28.o 219 0.110 <0.004 <1.o
03/24/2011 5.4 <0.1 <0.30 -- 4 -- -- --
T6-U 10/14/2010 6.o -- 0.33 25.6 41 -- -- --
- 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
0,., 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
/y R3-U 10/19/2010 5.8 <0.1 1.24 23.6 435 0.138 0.0040 1.3
R4-U 10/19/2010 3.7 <0.1 1.28 20.0 8 0.17o 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
,,,, 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.
I
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 43
r"` June,2011
5. Social Assessment
A social assessment was completed by Kathleen G. Scholl, Ph.D., CTRS of Recreation Research
&Service (R2S)based at the University of Northern Iowa in November and December of 2010.
5.1. Purpose and Objective of the Survey
The purpose of this study was to measure the awareness and opinions of the Sink Creek
watershed landowners. Landowners were asked about their opinions regarding water quality
and possible pollutants that may come from storm water runoff. Landowners were asked to
note their interest in modern storm water management practices.
5.2. Methodology
It was determined from Black Hawk County property records that there are 1029 individual
landowners within the limits of the Sink Creek watershed. A survey was sent to 28o randomly
selected property owners to determine their awareness, concerns, and attitudes towards water
quality issues related to the watershed they live in. Of those surveys mailed out, 129 surveys
were completed and returned, 3 surveys were returned as undeliverable, and 6 surveys were
returned with a notation that the landowners did not have enough knowledge of the watershed
to complete the survey. This resulted in a 45.8% response with 120 usable surveys. The margin
of error was±6.77%.
5.3. Results
The following information details the results that were compiled from the social assessment.
These results show that a large majority of the surveys were completed by males in their early
6o's that have lived in the watershed for most of their lives. Most of these respondents live in
urban areas of the watershed and have very little knowledge of water quality issues within the
Sink Creek Watershed. (A copy of the Social Assessment report from Kathleen Scholl can be
found in the Appendix of this document.)
'1
Landowner Characteristics
■ Males = 62.1%
■ Females = 37.9%
■ Average age of landowner= 62 years
■ Age range = 24 to 88
• Length of property ownership:
• 0-5 yrs = 22.6%
• 6-15 yrs = 2o%
• Over 15Yrs = 57.4%
• Property categories
• Urban Resident— 70.4%
• Rural Resident— 16.9%
• Rural Farmer-5.9%
• Industrial/Commercial Business Owner— 1.7%
• Absentee Landowner— 1.7%
• Developer who is/has worked on projects in the watershed— 0.9%
'1
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment
/'` June,2011 45
Landowner Water Quality Beliefs and Awareness
• Landowner awareness about water quality issues in Sink Creek
Unaware = 72%
Not Sure = 16.9%
Aware = ii%
• Sink Creek landowners specific pollution concerns and general environment opinions:
Run off from paved surfaces affect water quality of Sink Creek= 59%
Water contamination is an important environmental issues = 55.5%
New construction & development have increased the amount of soil loss in this area
=49.1%
Landowner Interest in Conservation Practices
• Adopted practices
Minimum use of lawn and garden fertilizers &pesticides = 22.5%
Disposal of household hazardous waste = 21.4%
Windbreaks around dwellings = io.6%
• Landowner interested and need more information ... N
Urban construction control = 41.1%
Native landscaping/wildflower garden/rain gardens = 38.4% P
Inlet protection for storm sewers = 37.5%
- Permeable paving= 35.4%
Assistance in disposal of household hazardous waste = 21.4%
Landowners were specific on their concern regarding new construction as the primary cause of
flooding within 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 and how they are funded, either by taxpayers or developers. %ftr
Landowner Environmental Perception Score
• Possible score 5.5 to 60.5 N
Mean score of Sink Creek Landowners = 35.1
• Scores ranged from 8 to 58
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
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment
46 `.
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
196o developments, including Hawkeye Community College and the South Hills Golf Course,
changed the land use in the watershed from 75% agricultural to just over 5o% 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 1.990 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/hvpoxic 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 t�
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,ton
The following analysis also lists an upper limit and lower limit for each contaminate. This limit
means that if too samples were taken at each site, 95 of the measurements would fall within the
upper and lower limits. Or, if ioo 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 Limit
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 0.1163 0.033 0.1705 0.0622
Potassium 1.8 0.59 2.81 0.86
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
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.
Statistical Sample Size for Contaminants
Contaminant Standard Dev. ' Lab Detection Limit Margin of Sample Size
Error
Nitrate 2.92 0.1 0.1 3275
1 35
Phosphate 0.44 0.3 0.3 12
Chlorides 6.29 1 1 152
3 20
E.Coli 287.08 1 1 316,614
l00 35
Barium o.033 0.004 0.004 260
0.03 10
Potassium o.59 1 1 2
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
To 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
June,2011
1
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
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:
40%roofs and driveways 60%green space
Commercial Land Use:
45%roofs 45%parking and drives io%green space
Industrial Land Use:
5o% roofs 5o%parking and drives
Institutional Land Use:
4o% roofs 40%parking and drives 2o%green space
Multi-family Residential Land Use:
4o% roofs 40%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.
Potential Contaminant Loading from WinSLAMM Model
Contaminant Current Watershed Watershed with Infiltration
Levels Practices Installed
Phosphorus 3226 lbs annually 76 lbs annually
Nitrate 17,536 lbs annually 383.5 lbs annually
Lead 1362 lbs annually 69 lbs annually
ti..
8http://winslamm.com
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 5o
June,2011
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.
''1
/'1
r'1
fr
^1
r1
.,
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment
51
'1 June,2011
7. Conclusions
7.1. GIS Assessment
Since the 1960'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.
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.
1 • 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
o This stretch is extremely straight and entrenched.
o Continue to improve the riparian zone/buffer. The only economical fix for the
fr 1 creek is riffle-run pool implementation to slow down the ongoing scouring.
• Lost Island Watershed
'1 o Although there are probably a lot of chemicals applied to the green grass, the
0"1 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.
''1 • Hwy. 218 to Texas St.
"1 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,
'1 the impact on the creek has been minimized.
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 53
June,2011
.-1
• 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. 218.
o Although this area was not part of the assessment the road ditch is contributing
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.
7.3. Chemical Assessment
7.3.1. 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
is unique because the watershed feeds the water during the daylight, while the water feeds the
watershed at night. Water chemistry goes up and down with the sun. For more useful analysis,
move the test site up into the watershed above Hess Road. Work with the stakeholder of the
cropland and help with better nutrient management.
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.
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,
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
Idefinite 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.html
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 55
June,2oii
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 Planh1.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"11 The Physical Assessment identified a number of areas with problems that should be addressed.
e1 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
,.1 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
'1 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.
'1
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.
I
I �
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 57
June,2011
Appendix
a
a
a
a
r
a
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 59
'� June,2011
r1
fr
'-,.. A.2.3a. Slope Tabulations
p.
Slope Coverage for Watershed:
Percent of
Slopes Area(Acres) Total
Watershed
i o to 2% 1868.2 35.o%
2 to 5% 2483.2 46.6%
5 to 8% 796.7 14.9%
I eqs 8 to 15% 176.5 3.3%
15%and Over 9.0 0.2%
a
'Th Slope Covera&e for Watershed Divided into Subwatersheds:
-. Bertch Cedar Cedar East Hawkeye Hawkeye Highway
Hills Terrace Shaulis North South 21
CITY:
o to 2% 237.5 Acres 69.2 Acres 26 6 Acres
9• 3• 49.4 Acres 106.E Acres 66.7 Acres 35.2 Acres
2 to 5% 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 56.6 Acres 63.7 Acres
8 to 15% 0.1 Acres 1.4 Acres 11.2 Acres 6.9 Acres 13.3 Acres 17.9 Acres o.9 Acres
a 15%and Over o 0 3.5 Acres o.5 Acres o.8 Acres 0.14 Acres o.6 Acres
COUNTY:
'Th o to 2% 0 307.9 Acres 41.6 Acres 4.5 Acres
........ 2 to 5% 1.2 Acres 1.6 Acres 120.9 Acres 194.o Acres
5 to 8% 0.7 Acres o 12.5 Acres o.4 Acres
8 to 15% 0 0 25.8 Acres o
15%and Over o o.6 Acres o 0
a
a
Lost Orange Orange Orange Randall South Summerlan
Island North Road South Park Hills d
CITY:
Pli o to 2% 117.6 Acres 30.1 Acres 56.9 Acres 60.6 Acres 49.9 Acres 50.2 Acres 166.o Acres
2 to 5% 223.7 Acres 132.8 Acres 34.5 Acres 172.6 Acres 59.9 Acres 99.5 Acres 146.9 Acres
P1 5 to 8% 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 4.2 Acres o.8 Acres 2.0 Acres 44.4 Acres 12.7 Acres
15%and Over i.o Acres o.8 Acres o 0 1.o Acres o.1 Acres o
COUNTY:
o to 2% 107.1 Acres 31.7 Acres
"'1 2 to 5% 56.8 Acres 257.8 Acres
57• Acres
4.0 Acres
5 to 8% 51.7 Acres 0.4 Acres _ 1.8 Acres
8 to 15% o.6 Acres o 0
15%and Over 0 0 - 0
a
a
00'1
''1
a
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 61
a. June,2011
,...,
A.2.4a. Soil Types by Detailed Soil Units:
Clay Loam:
391B — Clyde-Floyd Complex, 1 to 4% Slopes
585 — Spillville-Coland Complex, o to 2% Slopes, Occasionally Flooded
4391B — Clyde-Floyd-Urban Land Complex, 1 to 4% Slopes
4585 — Spillville-Coland-Urban Land Complex, o to 2% Slopes
Silty Clay Loam:
88 —Nevin Silty Clay Loam, o to 2% Slopes
382 —Maxfield Silty Clay Loam, o to 2% Slopes
933 — Sawmill Silty Clay Loam, o to 2% Slopes, Occasionally Flooded
4382 —Maxfield-Urban Land Complex, o to 2% Slopes
Silt Loam: �..
7—Wiota Silty Clay Loam, o to 2% Slopes
133 — Colo Silty Clay Loam, o to 2% Slopes, Occasionally Flooded
178 —Waukee Loam, o to 2% Slopes
178B —Waukee Loam, 2 to 5% Slopes
782B —Donnan Loam, 2 to 5% Slopes
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
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
83C2 —Kenyon Loam, 5 to 9% Slopes,Moderately Eroded
175 — Dickinson Fine Sandy Loam, o to 2%Slopes
175B —Dickinson Fine Sandy Loam, 2 to 5% Slopes
177B—Saude Loam, 2 to 5%Slopes
391E —Clyde-Floyd Complex, 1 to 4% Slopes
426B —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
4o83C—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
4391B — Clyde-Floyd-Urban Land Complex, 1 to 4% Slopes
4426B—Aredale-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 5% Slopes
4585 — Spillville-Coland-Urban Land Complex, 0 to 2%Slopes, Occasionally Flooded
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 62
June,2011
a
Loamy Sand:
159 -Finchford Loamy Sand, o to 2% Slopes
4159 - Finchford-Urban Land Complex, 0 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, 0 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
4041B-Sparta-Urban Land Complex, 2 to 5% Slopes
4041C- Sparta-Urban Land Complex, 5 to 9% Slopes
4o41D- Sparta-Urban Land Complex, 9 to 14% Slopes
a
a
100
10
90
pl 20
"`` 80----A 30
7NAVAFAF 40
n
cra
co
50 419
00� Silt s:
4� -,-��I�1 •la.
60
40
im�AS oa
70
30
Soil .. _
A.
Satyr
l �-� 80
20AYMAVAYAAVAVAVA9O
10 w-
0
-`►W ` ►_,.�. . par. WAFA 100
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 40 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 40 inches of loamy surficial sediment and the underlying,
extremely firm and firm fine textured weathered glacial till.
Ely—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
6o inches of local alluvium.
Finchford—The Finchford series consists of nearly level to moderately sloping, excessively
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.
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 30 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.
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-
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 40 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.
a
a
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 65
"� June,2011
A.2.4c. Soils Tabulations
Soils Coverage for Watershed: .'
Percent of '..
Soil Type Area(Acres) Total
Watershed
Clay Loam 529.4 9.7% \..
Silty Clay Loam 346.3 6.3%
Silt Loam 1729.7 31.6% L.
Loam 2000.8 37.5%
Loamy Sand 237.9 4.5% L.
Sandy Loam 202.9 3.8%
Sand 121.7 2.3%
Ponds 20.8 o.6% `,
No Soil 134.2 2.5%
\.
Lr
Soils Coverage for Watershed Divided into Subwatersheds:
Soil Types Bertch Cedar Cedar East Hawkeye Hawkeye Highway L'
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
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 `s
Loam 19.2 Acres 61.9 Acres 69.6 Acres 243.8 Acres 99.4 Acres 186.5 Acres 235.8
Acres
Loamy Sand 24.2 Acres o 73.5 Acres o o o 0 `,.
Sandy Loam 34.7 Acres o 88.9 Acres o 0 o 0
Sand 11.7 Acres 3.8 Acres 48.o Acres o o 0 o \r
No Soil 37.3 Acres o 12.8 Acres o 34.7 Acres 15.1 Acres o
COUNTY: L'
Clay Loam o 43.6 Acres 35.0 Acres 34.13 Acres L.
Silty Clay Loam o 0 0 3.1 Acres
Silt Loam o 0 110.3 Acres 70.2 Acres \r
Loam 1.8 Acres 32.o Acres 55.4 Acres 91.7 Acres
Loamy Sand o 134.o Acres o o L.
Sandy Loam o 76.o Acres o o
L.
Sand o 7.3 Acres o o
No Soil 0 17.2 Acres o o Le
Li
\s
L.
\i
\.•
\..
\..
\,,
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 66 L.
June,2011
\►
'"1
,'1
P1
r'1
eiN
Soil Types Lost Orange Orange Orange Randall South Summerlan
/1 Island North Road South Park Hills d
,,s, CITY:
Clay Loam o 3.8 Acres o 29.9 Acres 1.1 Acres 38.8 Acres 16.4 Acres
"41 Silty Clay Loam o 64.9 Acres 18.5 Acres 49.1 Acres o 7.o Acres 26.9 Acres
Silt Loam 214.7 Acres 65.2 Acres 62.8 Acres 129.4 Acres 57.1 Acres 81.9 Acres 185.7 Acres
e1 Loam 241.3 Acres 62.9 Acres 48.5 Acres 32.2 Acres 60.7 Acres 137.1 Acres i5o.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 o 11.4 Acres o.7 Acres 29.2 Acres
No Soil 44.8 Acres o o •
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
,11 Silt Loam 164.4 Acres 63.8 Acres 19.2 Acres
_ Loam _ 51.6 Acres 117.6 Acres o.9 Acres
Loamy Sand o 0 0
Sandy Loam _ o _ o o
Sand o 4.0 Acrs o
No Soil o o 0
^r
r'1
�'1
..`1
ems
fr
,'1
i`i
r'1
JON
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 209.0 3.9%
Industrial 99.6 1.9%
Institutional 142.7 2.7%
Residential 802.1 15.0%
Residential-Multi Family 80.i 1.5% `..
Roads 378.3 7.1%
Current Land Use Covers e for Watershed Divided into Subwatersheds: --
Land Use Bertch 1 Cedar Cedar East Hawkeye Hawkeye Highway
Hills Terrace Shaulis North South 21
CITY:
Agricultural 129.2 Acres 74.2 Acres 189.8 Acres 284.7 Acres 161.7 Acres 283.o Acres 332.3 Acres
Commercial 15.7 Acres o 0 0 0 0 o
Green Space o 0 6.7 Acres 5.1 Acres 11.4 Acres o o `,.
Industrial 99.6 Acres o 0 0 0 o 0
Institutional 0 0 0 o ioo.6 Acres 42.1 Acres o t+r
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.o Acres o
-Multi
Family \."'
Roads 36.5 Acres 8.4 Acres 25.3 Acres 30.7 Acres 13.3 Acres 15.8 Acres 29.5 Acres `...
COUNTY:
Agricultural 0.3 Acres 182.5 Acres 161.3 Acres 179.8 Acres 4,.'' 1
Green Space o o o o
Residential 1.2 Acres 81.2 Acres 27.9 Acres io.4 Acres
Roads o.3 Acres 23.2 Acres 11.5 Acres 8.7 Acres
L
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 o 0 0 0 0
Green Space o o 0 1.1 Acres o 161.4 Acres o
Industrial o 0 o o 0 0 0
Institutional o 3.1 Acres o 20.8 Acres o 0 0 `..
Residential 33.o Acres 31.7 Acres o 33.2 Acres 31.1 Acres 24.1 Acres 150.o Acres
Residential 57.9 Acres o o 0 o 0 0
-Multi
Family `
Roads 19.2 Acres 26.o Acres o 14.4 Acres 9.3 Acres 14.2 Acres 56.2 Acres
COUNTY:
Agricultural 192.5 Acres 267.o Acres io.5 Acres \.
Green Space o 0 0
Residential _ 13.4 Acres o.4 Acres 8.1 Acres
Roads 10.3 Acres 22.5 Acres 3.2 Acres .„
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 68 "'
June,2011
"Th1
''1
r1
'1 A.2.9a. Current Zoning Tabulations
..-1
Current Zoning Coverage for Watershed:
Area(acres) Percent of Total
Watershed
Agricultural 3856.6 72.3%
,1 Residential 418.0 7.8%
Res.-Multi-Family 387.6 7.3%
Commercial 164.5 3.1%
Industrial 90.0 1.7%
'1 Roads 416.8 7.8%
.^1
'°1
Current Zoning Coverage for Watershed Divided into Subwatersheds(In Acres):
Zoning Bertch Cedar Cedar East Hawkeye Hawkeye Highway
.1 Hills Terrace Shaulis North South 21
CITY:
' ' A-1-Agricultural i6o.8 68.6 no.6 302.8 294.0 316.3 338.0
C-1-Commercial o 1.0 0 0 0 0 o
,,
C-1,C-Z-Cond.Zoning o 0 2.2 0 0 0.7 0
"1 Commercial
C-2-Commercial 5.0 4.9 0 0 0 0 0
'1 C-P-Planned Commercial 21.4 0 0 0 0 0 0
M-1-Light Industrial 52.8 0 5.8 0 0 0 0
R-1-One&Two Family Res. 0 0 1.7 48.9 0 0 1.9
,1 R-1,C-Z-Cond.Zoning One o 0 0 0 0 0 0
&Two Family Res.
''1 R-2-One&Two Family Res. 0 14.1 141.5 14.8 0 0 0
R-2,C-Z-Cond.Zoning One o 0 0 0 0 0 0
'1 &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
.1 Res.
R-4 Multiple Family Res. 0 0 0 0 4.3 2.5 0
''"N R-4,R-P-Planned Multiple o 41.4 0 0 0 26.9 0
Res.
"1 Roads 41.5 io.8 44.5 31.8 5.6 16.3 29.9
,� COUNTY:
Agricultural 1.6 271.4 188.9 190.3
Residential 0 24.4 0 0
Roads 0.2 14.3 11.8 8.7
"A")
''1
ANN
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 69
June,2011
..
...
Zoning Lost Orang Orang Orang Randal South Summerlan
Islan e e e 1 Park Hills d
d North Road South s..
CITY:
A-1-Agricultural 223.7 147.0 129.7 i6o.i 73.1 237.o i5o.6 L-'
C-1-Commercial o o 0 0 2.3 0 0
C-1,C-Z-Cond.Zoning Commercial o 0 0 0 0 0 0
C-2-Commercial 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 3.1 Ns.,
C-P-Planned Commercial 123.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M-1-Light Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 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 `.,
Family Res.
R-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 L..
R-4,C-Z-Cond.Zoning Multiple o 0 0 0 3.1 0 34.8
Res.
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 L
COUNTY:
Agricultural 205.4 268.2 18.5 \"
Residential o o o ti.
Roads 10.7 21.7 3.2
\.
`..
\.
..
,,.
\.
\.
`.
.
`.
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 70 `'
June,2011
\.
'"1
f
A.'1
r'1 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 80o yards of
river habitat.During summer,frequent trips to water are common,prompting movement through
wooded or grassy corridors.
,r, 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.
/'1 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.
/1 Central Newt Well vegetated woodland ponds,roadside ditches and riverside pools.
Cylindrical Small creeks and the headwaters of larger streams in mud and sand.
A'1 Papershell
Creek Heelsplitter Creeks and the headwaters of small to medium rivers in fine gravel or sand.
"IN 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
e'1 Northern Panicgrass Dry woods,thickets and openings.
Yellow Sandshell Medium to large rivers in sand or fine gravel.
Plains Pocket Mouse Large open prairie with dry loess or sandy soils.Prefer loose sand for burrows and grooming habits
(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 10o 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.
/'iN 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.
ANRN 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
/'\ 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
/1 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
onos
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.
r1
e'1
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 71
/, June,2011
1
tr
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.
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.
Violet wet;forests,bogs,streambanks,shallows,usually near cold water
ftoe
Pearly Everlasting Dry woods,often with aspen or mixed conifer-hardwood,borders and trails,dunes,fields,roadsides,
other open often disturbed sites.
Flat Top White Aster Moist woods and swamps,fens.
Bent Milk-vetch Sand prairies,edges of bluffs,dry open woods \,
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.
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
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,
tongue roadside ditches,and floodplain forests in seasonally wet,non-acidic soils.
Cleft Phlox Well drained open areas.Often rocky glades and ledges.
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.
Skipper
Sage 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.
L �
� I
i
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 72
June,2011
`1
A.3.1.a. RASCAL Protocol
D N: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:
a
-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)
a
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 73
June,2011
a
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) —•
a..
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.
w,
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 ,
boundary, roads, streams, etc) use the Add Layer button. ( - ice-
At a point where data collection is necessary tap the Assessment coo YR.
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 44 --
Assessment. For gullies, three options are available, Gully Reach n._
Assessment, Head Cut Assessment and Knick Point Assessment 0+. ` 0 '
(instructions for gullies assessments are not included in this 1 ,assessment Tool: ...
document)
Tool Descriptions:
r
W Assessment Tool `"4 Zoom Out
•0 Exit ArcPad , 1
f:. ...,.
Assessment Tools X `g= GPS Preferences `-°.,,
Streams I Gales 1 Streambank Erosion + Add Layer to Map 2 km , _
J 6141,3.1 4'8-491.2 m 1:148466 . I
IStream Assessment Tools ArcPad Options i
I 0 View Map Layers
Stream reach data should be collected 1 �� 1
every 500'. Points of interest should 1' GPS On/Off
be collected where necessary Bank Zoom In .`
erosion points should be collected only
at severely eroding stream banks.
Stream Reach Assessment Stream Reach Assessment: As stated before start the
assessment by walking downstream from the first point of
Stream Point of Interest perennial flow, when you notice a change in stream s....
condition or you have walked 750' (see table on page i)use
Stream Nick Point
74
OK Cancel i
a
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 '`n- 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
m 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.
-1 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 - 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 acting slow or if you encounter a problem 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.
a
Please contact the following with any questions or problems:
Jason Palmer Adam Kiel
515-281-8143 515-242-6149
jason.palmer@ dnr.iowa.gov adam.kiel(&dnr.iowa.gov
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment 75
June,zoll
a
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
pf 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,2011
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 10." 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.
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 25-5o%of the the length is covered 75-90%of the surrounded by or
sediment length is covered with sediment length is covered covered with silt
with sediment with sediment or fine sediment.
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.
o-io% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
-► 0-10%of stream segment io-25%of stream 25-5o%of stream 50-75%of stream 75-100%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.
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`<io Feet'
<to Feet io-3o Feet 3o-6o Feet >6o Feet
a
a
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -77-
.+� June,2011
a
Riparian Zone Cover: Land cover in the transition zone between the water and the upland
zone.
CRP- CRP-
Grass Trees Pasture Trees Grass Residential Commercial
Adjacent Land Use: Land cover in the upland areas outside the riparian zone.
Row
Crop Trees Grass Pasture CRP Residential 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.
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
with a down-cutting with a meandering
stream stream
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.
L./
Stream Bank Material: This defines the dominant material that makes up both stream
banks. 1✓
Rock Rip Rap Cobble Gravel Sand Soil Silt
� i
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -78-
June,2011
a
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
1 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
Water Clarity-
Manure Chemical
Water Clarity-
Metal/Cars Stagnate
Streambank/Gully Erosion Categories:
Lateral Recession Erosion Description
Rate(ft/yr) Category
",. 0.01-0.05 Slight Some bare bank but active erosion not readily apparent. Some rills,but no vegetative
overhang. May be some exposed tree roots from previous stage of erosion. (CEM stages I
and V)
0.06-0.2 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)
a
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-
a June,2011
a
Assessment Definitions
Types of Streambed Substrate12:
Bedrock large sheets of stone
Bolder stones larger than io inches in diameter
Cobble stones,diameter between 2.5 and io 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
Debris Pile/Log Jam
Fence Across Stream
Gully Minor
Gully Severe
Knick
Outfall/Tile L,
Riffle
Sediment Bar/Island
Trash
Other
12 Taken from IOWATER Habitat Assessment Field Form found at No-
http://www.iowater.net/CurrentVolunteers/FieldForms.htm
13 Taken from IOWATER Habitat Assessment Field Form found at
http://www.iowater.net/Cu rrentVolunteers/Field Forms.htm
i
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -8o-
June,2011
A.3.3a. Assessment Field Data Abbreviations&Notes
a
(5) count,number of
a 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
a
lft left bank
a
V V-shaped gully
rcg reed canary grass dominate vegetation
rd road
rt right bank
U U-shaped gully
a
Other Data Notes
a
• 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.
a
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -81-
�. June,2011
a
'11
'11
"'1
A.4.4a. Contaminant Descriptions
Information listed found at
http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/wqm/Glossary/definitions of parameters.htm#antimony
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. coil bacteria is an indicator of the probability of
contamination of surface water by microbial pathogens. Reported in Colony Forming Units/too
mL of sample(CFU/too 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 10 mg/L for NO3-N.
Phosphate:
"1 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
a
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 0.006 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 0.05 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
a operations, discharge from processing plants, and improper waste disposal. Measured in mg/L
or ppm. The MCL for beryllium is 0.004 mg/L or ppm.
a
a
a
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 0.005 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
plants and animals, but at higher concentrations can be toxic to aquatic animals, aquatic plants
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 0.o15 mg/L or ppm.
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 o.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:
L
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-
June,zou
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.*
Metolachlor(Dual):
A common herbicide in the chloracetanilide family of herbicides. Measured in µg/L or ppb.
Metolachlor has a Health Advisory Level of 10o µg/L or ppb.
Metribuzin(Sencor):
''1 A common herbicide in the triazinone family of herbicides. Used to control grasses and
broadleaf weeds. Measured in µg/L or ppb.
r1 Pendimethalin:
A herbicides used in premergence and postemergence application to control annual grasses and
certain broadleaf weeds.16
f'1
Propachlor(Ramrod):
"1
14 http://www.ewg.org/tap-
water/whatsinyourwater/MN/CityofM inneapolisWaterDepartment/1270024/Butachlor/2076/
,.1 is http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0064fact.pdf
/IN 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
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.18
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.2O
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
18 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
a
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.
/''1
i'1
"'1
.."'1
r'1
i'1
eNN
J'1
22 http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/acifluorfen-ext.html
a
Imo.
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -87-
June,2011
A.4.4b. Testing Results
Organic Test Results
03 En
a Z Z - U fzl F P. p
Allowable Levels io 1 250 126
Ti-R io/14/2010 8.2 -- <0.30 21.8 -- 579 55.4 7.8 8.4 �-
10/19/2010 7.7 <0.1 <0.30 20.7 <1.0 4 52.3 7.82 7.9
03/24/201i 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
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 `0 1
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 I
03/24/2011 7.4 <0.1 <0.30 -- -- 36
T4-U l0/14/2010 6.8 -- 25.2 -- 770 57.4 8.03 10
l0/19/2010 6.1 <0.1 0.50 23.6 <1.0 12 52.1 8.01 10
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 \..
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 10/14/2010 6.o -- 0.33 25.6 -- 41 60.4 8.29 11.1
10/19/2010 5.1 0.2 0.55 23.3 <1.0 3 56.7 8.08 8.7
T7-U l0/14/2010 1.0 -- 0.32 25.8 -- 37 55.5 8.57 8.38
10J19/2010 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 l0/19/2010 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
03/24/2011 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 l0/19/2010 8.9 <0.1 1.95 26.8 <1.0 30 60.3 8.15 8.22
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 <0.1 0.802 24.87 <0.1 234.154
03/24/2011 6.43 <0.1 0.13 DNT DNT 54
DNT=Did Not Test
Overall Testing Averages
Nitrate Phosphate Chlorides E.Coli
Mean 5.3 o.66 _ 25.2 230.5
Variance 8.21 0.18 39.57 72851.54
Standard Deviation 2.87 0.43 6.29 269.91
\..
Sink Creek Watershed Assessment -88-
June,2011
autZ .• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0
✓ v v v v v v v v v v v v
N t7 - - 7 V 7 7 7 I- 7 I-
'^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CIN
uintiiutu, o v , o o o O o o 0 0 0 0 0 o co
✓ , 0 , 0 , cc:),. , 0 , 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0
a o v v v v v v v VVVVVV
a co 7 7 7 'ct 1- 7 7 7 V 7 I- I- I-
m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
aanj!S o O , ° , o , o , O , o , 0 0 00 0 0 0
-. ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O v v v v v v v VVVVVV
r
in 0 0 V' 0 000000
d-
0 0 0 0 0 0 O
... tuntuaias o , o , 0 , 0 , o , o , o , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000
✓ v v v v v v VVVVVV
a ItIriISSu�Od , 0 O o O o O M 00 M M- M M
v v ti v N cir+ N4v N N
a
O M
- , ppIN o 1 0 1• °0 1 °0 1 °o ; °0 1 °o, 1 00 0o O o 0°o 0
O O o 0 0 0 071-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
✓ v v v v v v VVV
a
In in I In in In
r in In In IC) C) IC) Vn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�ftnaaa ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Y�I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
° 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O v v v v v v v v v v v v v
M 7 V' .:1- 7 .1- - 7 77 7 7
O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O
pearl o , o , o , o , o , o , o , o 0 0 0 0 0 0
cn ° v v v v v v v v v v v v v
rn
y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
aaddop o , o , O , o , O , o , O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
, 0 000000
a)
✓ v v v v v v v v v v v v
E-+
a co
utntutoaq� o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_ .c 0 : 0101010101010000000
v v v v v v v VVVVVV
in o 0 0 0 0 o O 0 O o 0 0 0
uintuipuj o , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000
✓ v v v v v v v v v v v v
a
° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a utn!IIAtag o 1 0 ; 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
✓ v v v v v v v v v v v v
a
CV ,-I O, O O I. N M cc 1-,,0
-.a uznuug ., 1 H 1 ,N-i 1 ,N-i : 1 i .Mi , GN C�00 11 H 1-1 c
O O O O O O 00
0
0 0 0 p
a
- I- 1- 1- 1- m- m-
0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
amas IV o co , o , o , o , o , o , o , o,o o 0 0 0 0
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000
O v v v v v v v VVVVVV
G
ci N N ci ci N N Nolcsicloloi
O O O O O o
.. fuoutt}ttF7 0 °0 1 °o I °0 1 °o °o ; 0 1 °o 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 O 0 d 0 d 000000
0 v v v v v v VVVVVVV
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 1 0 0 0 0 0 O i„
—' 0 0 .0c 0 0 co 0 0 Quo 0 0' O O O O O O CI
N NNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNN
al-ea'sal �Q Q\O rn v rn�rn rt a'rn rn C'C'�rn
0 ������\������������� CU 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ice. N
a
O c4 c4 a: D � y y .,
uogeoori a
44 EMS F F 4 F C4 C4 a f
a
u a O n i3. y i s M M M M M M
3a ,; ,; ,; ,; .; ,; o
v v v v v v
✓ N N N N
iomoiaay O O O ,;O O �
V V V V V
Cv) CO CO CO CO co
tn 10 V) in U? U? V V V V V V
aulzuuuicp O O O O O O
vvvvvv �'
gasoutQ 6• 66000
in I I vvvvvv
V) If?
aop puing 0 0 0 0 0 0
vvvvvv
uTu.IOIOId CO CO CO CO CO CO
ri ..i ,-i ri . N
in LoinILL V v V V V v
utiutp.auzipuad o 0 0 0 0 0
v v v v v v
uozuua MMMMMM
v v v v v v
IOlgauiOI.ayAI O o 0 0 0 0 \.,.
vvvvvv
co co co co co co
HQ-17`z ,; ,; ,- ,4 ,; .; ti,.
.i ti N N N 1-1V V V V V V
utznquTal,& 600000
t, N t, t, t, t�
Z-C"VZ 600006 Z.
✓ vvvvv
aoigaulV o 0 0 0 0 0 ....„
✓ vvvvv
MCoMMMM
,-' -, uaqumoitp ,; --; ,; ,;
a) auFuultS 666606 a)
r:4 vvvvvv P4
t\ t\ t\ t` t\ t\
a
v (xanitS)d L 5`�`z o 0 0 0 0 0
I E.1
vvvvvv
v) auIzua;y 660000 v) `.
'C vvvvvv a)
co co co co co co
•-, b Iouagdoaoiilauluad o 0 0 0 0 0 `-
� � � .I � � vv V V V V
a sojngaaZ 600006 y `-.
x ,o \C, �0 qo qo
Q-V Z N N N N N N —
ti ti V V V V V V
uilEani3u1, 000000
✓ v v v v v
doadao a N. N.
Iq .i Q OOOOoo .....
✓ vvvvv
aoillaudoad O O O O o o •-
v v v v v v
uguzuatQ p p p p 0 0 —
� r, � .i � .1 vvvvvv
awl ng 666000 `..
✓ vvvvv pia
M M M M M M
atuozuagoaolgapa - ,- ,4
ti ti .i .i -5'£ v v v v v v
D.Ldd O00000 `-
✓ v v v v v
uoduluQ NNNNNN C
✓ VVVVV
ti ti ti ti N
N N N N N N ti
aluQ isas, > \\\\\\ C C C
N N N N N N m 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' `-
y \\\\\\ N N N N N N
M M M M M M \\\\\\ 'O
000000 a�uQ�saZ N NNNNNN
p C\7 M M M M a i
Ci c=4 1:4 � O O O O O O e ....
u0I}u00'I . ' . . ' '
Fes- CV
E�F�= O R4C4 DC4 D x
E- EC-1E- "., as.U N
qv
—
1
► eystone
j
LABORATORIES, INC. �r� I1__,
-,, 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:
Project: Surface Water
Project Number: Day 1
Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier
10J0740-01 T 1-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/13/10 09:45
Phosphate,total =0.30 mg/1 0.30 1701812 HACH 8190 SAI 10/18/10 13:54
Chloride 21.8 mg/I 1.0 1J01521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:04
Nitrogen,Nitrate 8.2 mg/1 0.1 1J01521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:04
10J0740-02 T2-R Matrix:Water Collected: I 0/13/10 10:10
Phosphate,total 0.45 mg/1 0.30 1J01812 HACH 8190 SAI 10/18/10 13:54
Chloride 25.0 mg/I 1.0 1J01521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:18
"1 Nitrogen,Nitrate 8.4 mg/I 0.1 1J01521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:18
10J0740-03 T3-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/13/10 11:10
eN Phosphate,total 0.32 mg/1 0.30 1J01812 HACH 8190 SAl 10/18/10 13:54
oas Chloride 25.3 mg/1 1.0 1301521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:33
Nitrogen,Nitrate 6.8 mg/1 0.1 IJ01521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:33
''R
10J0740-04 T4-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/13/10 11:55
Phosphate,total <0.30mg/1 0.30 IJ01812 HACH 8190 SAl 10/18/10 13:54
^ Chloride 25.2 mg/I 1.0 1J01521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:47
"S Nitrogen,Nitrate 6.8 mg/I 0.1 1J01521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 15:47
10J0740-05 T5-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/13/10 11:30
"' Phosphate,total <0.30mg/I 0.30 1J01812 HACH 8190 SAI 10/18/10 13:54
rts Chloride 29.4 mg/1 1.0 1J01521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 16:01
Nitrogen,Nitrate 4.6 mg/1 0.1 1J01521 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 0.30 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/I 0.1 IJ01521 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 apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in
efts 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
els
Newton,IA 50208
Ueystone �'�-- MEMBER
MEMBi
LABORATORIES, INC. A 1L
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: 10/13/10 12:50
Phosphate,total 0.32 mg/1 0.30 1J01812 HACH 8190 SA1 10/18/10 13:54
Chloride 25.8 mg/1 1.0 1J01521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 16:29
Nitrogen,Nitrate 1.0 mg/1 0.1 I J01521 EPA 9056 KRM 10/14/10 16:29
`r
� I
`/
`/
kkire
fte
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 1.ax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208 �''
r
►fleystoflQ MEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC. -7 AC,IL
r1 Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister 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
.� Analyte 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/1
LCS(1J01812-BS1) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/18/10
Phosphate,total 1.36 0.30 mg.! 1.20000 113 80-120
Matrix Spike(1J01812-MS1) Source: 10J0740-04 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/18/10
Phosphate,total 1.54 0.30 mg I 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
Th
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.
pois
Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208
eystone MEMBER
ACI L ..
LABORATORIES, INC.
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
Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD
Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
Batch 1J01521-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-BS1) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/14/10
iiipe
Chloride 62.57 1.0 mg/I 59.8100 105 85-113
Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.53 0.1 4.98070 III 89-116 L/
LCS(1J01521-13S2) 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 111 89-116
ime
Matrix Spike(1.101521-MS1) Source:10J0726-02 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/14/10
Chloride 68.08 1.0 mg/1 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/1 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
Matrix Spike Dup(1J01521-MSD2) Source:1030506-03 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/14/10
Chloride 67.18 1.0 mg/1 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 ...
ND=Non Detect;REC=Recovery;RPD= Relative Percent Difference
fin.
`..
\..
`.
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 \w'
_�►, � M E M B E R
► e stonQ
y
LABORATORIES, INC. A IL
- 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
-o Method/Matrix Analyte Certifications
EPA 9056 in Water
Chloride KS-NT,NELAC
Nitrogen,Nitrate NELAC,KS-NT
SM 9223 QT in Water
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 10/30/2010
NELAC New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection IA001 06/30/2011
SIA1X Iowa Department of Natural Resources 95 10/31/2010
End of Report
—• lAt
Keystone Laboratories, Inc.
,., Sue Thompson
Project Manager I
Ink
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
Newton,IA 50208
....
hceystone
-` ; MEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC. P .......
CIL
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B ..
Cedar Falls, IA 50613 ...
October 19,2010
Work Order: 10J0740 Page 6 of 7
I i 1:1-L I \ L rs
. •• . .
..) . .
s d I r, ,6-
o >, a j
mom m P.
� sk.)1a i ` �gmo Q� g a a
0" c m� m c cw _ #O 6 ¢ in N.° c a 4' n S8 1
�.
EwEao >.ma my c" Tc $ a
m93u- NCU8 < `..
C7
C 7 0 O P.
Z °c o�v UUUG.cr
�a�c3 1-r1T� 3 .tea e s `„
\ ... U'J $sI "_ 1E 4
S s; is e1 2 t .
0
/ 1 E
"6 la �•
m
. I I.1g ..a`• -"ari -.1.'•
IPHNk
GO
A o \� 0 C E E n
rn E �' O try et CO a
_
6 C0m .� m m m
m O �;;. . ...,.. . E _
`.r
... ,
'" F EW n=� W m o j
o �r K H GO j .D 7 ` C
:o O ma?�u o a0. C c.-- IE mmQ O m C) �` �� tl
tO N O Ap J ti ` m g ; V a
r
$w gLCu�iU ° o ° E a g \. 3 �'
1-a� _J l t- F- J �~ C� C7 O C7 m\11 E.
m C� 8 o
o
si
.. V
2 m a
OP m
c
U C otg m
di
C m w o p
iIIJLi
14>
a] of m a 4. Z c U) s m o 0 Ic0 o g
M � I
�.
f h
The results in this report apply to the samples analy_ed 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 p11 adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit.
�..
Phone 64I-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208 ...
`"1 ,1QystOflQ _ M E M B E R
AIL
LABORATORIES, INC.
-..s Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
October 19,2010
Work Order: 10J0740 Page 7 of 7
2 N • u
m 0 N g
a o Y1 a tj
m
O
o dN m 3
o E 8 S
..^ gym. com Vmc v 0
a ....7-At mcycc m 11. ii )
p q_c 4 `moo m
W E W i co- T C J g C
.�..� V h e m m 8-m m— Q
> ��m oO E a
z aQu7-° UUUatr
2m"° L 1 1 1 1 1 ...„ "I.
1; * Y
17. ti
E—' / - -- $
o L"
m`
c E
1.� . ��
E w
z e c
a
CO
—
a p.7 I
_nE-- 1 c
4-7 07
--. • c p tj co
c
3
�p Yo.g. p
}
N WeI- E •2 le ` v.! .m dMm —
p" aoc�m a, 'm _ I
m O LU
NI w u ,-15 _. m
Zm °i °1m m T L
CO I
+• �O' OJ � � Ea
�s � ea 2 g
W 5 . / 1/ \ c _: `!
8 1 i ! °
II
a I O
c
›. m 1
.0 U
m
O a o
U "� I. ' '° U
C z p CO c..
Z s c0i W 0
O p ❑
w i= . . m 302
p o WZ I= ro I 1
t "............. 41,0E" Q p m [] J '
W . m V c 0 E m m
Q t c w ° Q
\� '� F❑ j o c .2
,I\ —� i z _
r.
/"., The results in this report apply to the samples analy_ed 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 641-79t2- 4.51 600 East 17th Street South Pax 641-792-7989
�.. Newton,IA 50208
INN
�` MEMBER
M B E R
Ifeystone
i '1 LABORATORIES, INC. 1L IL
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
o„s Cedar Falls,IA 50613 PO Number:
'"1
Project : Surf'ace Water
Project Number: Day 2
.
''1
^f Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier
10J0955-01 TI-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 09:30
."1 Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/1 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24
Phosphate,total <0.30mg/1 0.30 1J02210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27
Chloride 20.7 mg/1 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 19:59
Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 19:59
PIN Nitrogen,Nitrate 7.7 mg/1 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 19:59
efts Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01
Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1302720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01
Barium,total 0.142 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01
Beryllium,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01
Cadmium,total <0.0010 mg/1 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01
Chromium,total <0.0100 mg/I 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/1 0.00050 1J02739 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
/'1 Nickel,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1702720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01
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 <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01
Thallium,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01
/1 Zinc,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:01
E.Coli 4 MPN/100 mI 1 2J01812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10
/1 10J0955-02 T2-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 10:10
Pli Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0mg/1 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24
Phosphate,total 0.70 mg/1 0.30 1J02210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27
Chloride 23.8 mg/1 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:13
' Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/I 0.1 1.102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:13
J, 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
lQystOnQ MEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC. AC IL -
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613 -
November 02,2010
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 2 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/I 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:13
Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06
Arsenic,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1 J02720 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 <0.0040 mg/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/1 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06
Copper,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06
Mercury,total <0.00050 mg/I 0.00050 1 J02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:24 ..
Potassium,total 1.0 mg/I 1.0 1J02612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:18
Nickel,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06
Lead,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06
Antimony,total <0.0020 mg/l 0.0020 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 `'
Selenium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06 `,..
Thallium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06
Zinc,total <0.0100 mg/1 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:06
E.Coli 65 MPN/100 ml 1 2101812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10
I0J0955-03 T5-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 14:20
\.
Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0mg/l 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SA1 10/21/10 10:24
Phosphate,total 0.50 mg/I 0.30 1102210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27
Chloride 28.0 mg/1 1.0 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:28
Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:28
Nitrogen,Nitrate 4.2 mg/I 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:28
Silver,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11
Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11
Barium,total 0.110 mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11
Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11
Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/1 0.0010 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 N."
Chromium,total <0.0100 mg/1 0.0100 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 `.
Copper,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11
Mercury,total <0.00050mg/1 0.00050 1J02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:26
Potassium,total <1.0 mg/1 1.0 1 J02612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:28
Nickel,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11 4.'
Lead,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 11.02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11
Antimony,total <0.0020 mg/1 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11
Selenium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11
Thallium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11
L.
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.
L
Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208
f
1eystone s--' MEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC. `_ AC IL
Robinson Engineering Co.
,.1 5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
/'t November 02,2010
,•1 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 3 of 30
Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier
oafs
10J0955-03 T5-R Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 14:20
eIN Zinc,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:11
/'1 E.Cob 219 MPN/100 ml 1 2J01812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10
eN 10J0955-04 T3-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 10:40
/• Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0mg/1 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24
Phosphate,total 0.41 mg/I 0.30 IJ02210 HACH 8190 SAl 10/22/10 13:27
Chloride 24.2 mg/I 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:42
ell Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:42
.' Nitrogen,Nitrate 6.2 mg/1 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:42
Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16
Arsenic,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16
eN
Barium,total 0.129 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16
e1 Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16
,0.1 Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/1 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16
Chromium,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16
Copper,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16
Mercury,total <0.00050 mg/1 0.00050 1J02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:28
/'1 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
Antimony,total <0.0020mg/1 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16
Selenium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16
"' Thallium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16
Zinc,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:16
F.Coll 613 MPN/100 ml 1 2701812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10
10J0955-05 T4-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 11:00
Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0mg/1 1.0 IJ02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24
Phosphate,total 0.50 mg/1 0.30 1J02210 HACH 8190 SAl 10/22/10 13:27
Chloride 23.6 mg/I 1.0 1.102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:56
eiN Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:56
Nitrogen,Nitrate 6.1 mg/1 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 20:56
Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20
Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20
,o'1 Barium,total 0.120 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20
Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20
Pos
Cadmium,total <0.0010 mg/1 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20
Chromium,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20
Copper,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA6020A 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
ANN 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
► e stun+¢ �-��P- M E M B E R �,
LABORATORIES, INC. ACIL ..
ti.
Robinson Engineering Co. _
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613 -
November 02,2010 _
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 4 of 30
Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier `..
10J0955-05 T4-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 11:00
Mercury,total <0.00050mg/I 0.00050 1J02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:29
Potassium,total 1.0 mg/1 1.0 1102612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:41
Nickel,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20
Lead,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 `"e"
Antimony,total <0.0020 mg/I 0.0020 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 N..
Selenium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20 `,
Thallium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20
Zinc,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:20
E.Coli 12 MPN/100 ml 1 2J01812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10 `./
iiv
10J0955-06 T6-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 12:20
Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0mg/1 I.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAl 10/21/10 10:24
Phosphate,total 0.55 mg/I 0.30 1J02210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27 `mo
Chloride 23.3 mg/I 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:10
Nitrogen,Nitrite 0.2 mg/I 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:10
Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.1 mg/I 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:10 I
Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 rn., i
Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25
Barium,total 0.134 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25
Beryllium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25
Cadmium,total <0.0010 mg/1 0.0010 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 `.
Chromium,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25
Copper,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25
Mercury,total <0.00050 mg/1 0.00050 1 J02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:35
Potassium,total 2.0 mg/I 1.0 1J02612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:44 `''
Nickel,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25 `,
Lead,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25
Antimony,total <0.0020 mg/1 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25
Selenium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25
Thallium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25
Zinc,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:25
E.Coli 3 MPN/100 ml 1 2J01812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10
10J0955-07 T7-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 12:45 be
Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/1 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24 `.
Phosphate,total 0.58 mg/1 0.30 1.102210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27
Chloride 23.5 mg/1 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:24
Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/l 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:24 *,..
Nitrogen,Nitrate 1.2 mg/I 0.1 1.102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:24
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 ) +,, 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208
-r
Ufeystone
M E M B E R
1 IL
LABORATORIES, INC.
'1 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 <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45
--N Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45
Barium,total 0.0913 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45
Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45
1. 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 <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45
Mercury,total <0.00050mg/1 0.00050 1J02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:36
Potassium,total 2.8 mg/I 1.0 1J02612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:46
'1 Nickel,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45
-1 Lead,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45
Antimony,total <0.0020 mg/I 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45
Selenium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45
Thallium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:45
1 Zinc,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1J02720 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
10.10955-08 RI-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 09:50
- Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/1 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24
Phosphate,total 0.49 mg/I 0.30 1J02210 HACH 8190 SA1 10/22/10 13:27
Chloride 22.4 mg/1 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:38
Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/I 0.1 1 J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:38
Nitrogen,Nitrate 0.1 mg/1 0.1 1102031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:38
Silver,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50
Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50
Barium,total 0.0927 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50
/, Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50
Cadmium,total <0.0010 mg/I 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50
Chromium,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50
Copper,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50
#"1 Mercury,total <0.00050 mg/1 0.00050 IJ02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:38
Potassium,total 1.8 mg/1 1.0 1J02612 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/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50
Antimony,total <0.0020 mg/1 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50
Selenium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50
s+0 Thallium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50
Zinc,total <0.0100 mg/I 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:50
E.Coli 649 MPN/100 ml 1 2J01812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10
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.
rois
Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
omes
Newton.IA 50208
.�"- *.:
,,,
Q � ��Q 4i MEMBER _
LABORATORIES, INC. A IL --
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613 -
November 02,2010
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 6 of 30
Analyte Result VIRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier
,...-
I 0J0955-08 R I-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 09:50 ,
10J0955-09 R2-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 11:20
Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/I 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24 4.• 1
Phosphate,total 0.68 mg/1 0.30 1702210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27 `r 1
Chloride 48.4 mg/I 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:53
Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/I 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:53
Nitrogen,Nitrate 0.4 mg/I 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 21:53
Silver,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1702720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 ispf
Arsenic,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55
Barium,total 0.0839 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55
Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55fte
Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/1 0.0010 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55
Chromium,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 1.i
Copper,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55
iiii
Mercury,total <0.00050 mg/1 0.00050 1702739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:40
Potassium,total 2.3 mg/I 1.0 1J02612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:51rase
Nickel,total 0.0041 mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55
Lead,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55
ail
Antimony,total <0.0020 mg/1 0.0020 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55
Selenium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55
Thallium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55 `/
Zinc,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 17:55
E.Coli 517 MPN/100 mI 1 2701812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10
10J0955-10 R3-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 11:50
Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/1 1.0 1.102004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24
Phosphate,total 1.24 mg/1 0.30 1702210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27
Chloride 23.6 mg/I 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 22:07 1.0
Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/I 0.1 1702031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 22:07
Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.8 mg/1 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 22:07
Li
Silver,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00
Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00
Barium,total 0.138 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 `..
Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00
Cadmium,total <0.0010 mg/I 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00
Chromium,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00
Copper,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00 N."'
Mercury,total <0.00050 mg/1 0.00050 1702739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:41 `.
Potassium,total 1.3 mg/1 1.0 1702612 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 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 `.►
� ,
.1 M E M B E R
1IlQystofle
LABORATORIES, INC, 1IL
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminster 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/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00
Lead,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 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
'1 Thallium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00
. Zinc,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:00
,, E.Coli 435 MPN/100 ml 1 2J01812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10
.-1 10J0955-11 R4-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 13:50
,. Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0 mg/1 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24
Phosphate,total 1.28 mg/I 0.30 1102210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27
Chloride 20.0 mg/I 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 22:49
'"1 Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 22:49
Nitrogen,Nitrate 3.7 mg/I 0.1 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 22:49
Silver,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05
Arsenic,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05
''1 Barium,total 0.170 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05
Beryllium,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05
Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/1 0.0010 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05
M
Chromium,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05
Copper,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RW 11/01/10 18:05
"N Mercury,total <0.00050 mg/1 0.00050 IJ02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:43
Potassium,total <1.0mg/1 1.0 1J02612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 11:56
Nickel,total 0.0053 mg/I 0.0040 1102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05
Lead,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05
Antimony,total <0.0020mg/1 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05
Selenium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05
_ Thallium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:05
_ Zinc.total <0.0100 mg/1 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 <1.0 mg/I 1.0 1J02004 SM 4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24
Phosphate,total 0.74 mg/1 030 1J02210 HACH 8190 SAI 10/22/10 13:27
Chloride 15.0 mg/1 1.0 1J02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 23:03
Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 IJ02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 23:03
Nitrogen,Nitrate 0.3 mg/I 0.1 IJ02031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 23:03
" Silver,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10
Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 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.
Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208
1
o.-
�k {` }'"
� ��� -�°# MEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC.
AC IL .-
`..
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister 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 _
I0J0955-12 R5-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 13:30
Barium,total 0.104 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10
Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1.102720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10
ime
Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/1 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10
Chromium,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 %le
Copper,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 `.r
Mercury,total <0.00050 mg/I 0.00050 1J02739 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
Nickel,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10
Lead,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10
Antimony,total <0.0020mg/1 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10 I
Selenium,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10
ame
Thallium,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:10
ille
Zinc,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1J02720 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 `e
10J0955-13 R6-U Matrix:Water Collected: 10/18/10 13:00 1.0
Nitrogen,Ammonia <1.0mg/1 1.0 1J02004 SM4500-NH3 F SAI 10/21/10 10:24 `/
Phosphate,total 1.95 mg/1 0.30 1J02210 HACH 8190 SAL 10/22/10 13:27 ty
Chloride 26.8 mg/1 1.0 1302031 EPA 9056 KRM 10/19/10 23:17
rnire
Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 1J02031 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 `/
Silver,total <0.0040mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 1
Arsenic,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15
Barium,total 0.0465 mg/I 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15
Beryllium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15
Cadmium,total <0.0010mg/I 0.0010 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15 L
Chromium,total <0.0100mg/I 0.0100 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15
Copper,total <0.0040 mg/I 0.0040 IJ02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15
Mercury,total <0.00050mg/1 0.00050 1J02739 EPA 7470A RVV 10/27/10 16:46
Potassium,total 2.3 mg/1 1.0 1J02612 EPA 6010B SAA 10/27/10 12:02
Nickel,total <0.0040 mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15
Lead,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15
Antimony,total <0.0020mg/1 0.0020 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15
Selenium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15
Thallium,total <0.0040mg/1 0.0040 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15
Zinc,total <0.0100mg/1 0.0100 1J02720 EPA 6020A RVV 11/01/10 18:15
E.Coli 30 MPN/100 ml 1 2701812 SM 9223 QT CLW 10/18/10 15:10
Le
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 Le
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
��- `"- � MEMBER
1ieystone
LABORATORIES, INC. ACIL
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B
'1 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
,.1 Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
'"1 Batch 1J02004-Wet Chem Preparation
., Blank(1J02004-BLKI) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/21/10
Nitrogen,Ammonia ND 1.0 mg/I
',
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/1
''1 Matrix Spike(1J02004-MS1) Source:10,10807-06 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/21/10
Nitrogen,Ammonia 10.1 2.0 mg I 10.0000 1.18 89.2 86-140
,.1 Matrix Spike(1J02004-MS2) Source: 10J0955-01 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/21/10
Nitrogen,Ammonia 9.02 2.0 mg1 10.0000 ND 90.2 86-140
Matrix Spike(1J02004-MS3) Source: 10J 1088-10 Prepared&Analyzed:10/21/10
Nitrogen,Ammonia 9.56 2.0 mg/I 10.0000 ND 95.6 86-140
1 Matrix Spike Dup(1J02004-MSD1) Source: 10,10807-06 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/21/10
Nitrogen,Ammonia 10.0 2.0 mg'I 10.0000 1.18 88.6 86-140 0.596 10
1 Matrix Spike Dup(1J02004-MSD2) Source: 10.10955-01 Prepared&Analyzed:10/21/10
Nitrogen,Ammonia 9.20 2.0 mg/1 10.0000 ND 92.0 86-140 1.98 10
Matrix Spike Dup(1J02004-MSD3) Source:10.11088-10 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/21/10
Nitrogen,Ammonia 9.38 2.0 mg 1 10.0000 ND 93.8 86-140 1.90 10
Batch 1J02210-Wet Chem Preparation
Blank(1J02210-BLK1) Prepared&Analyzed: I0,22;10
Phosphate,total ND 0.30 mg'l
^
1
e•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 641-702-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208
MEMBER1feystone
LABORATORIES, INC. �. `; AIL �.
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminster 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
Anal yte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
Batch 1J02210-Wet Chem Preparation
L
LCS(1J02210-BS1) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/22/10
Phosphate,total 1?3 0.30 mg/I 1.20000 102 80-120
Matrix Spike(1J02210-MS1) Source:1030955-01 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 L
Phosphate,total 2.72 0.60 mg/I 2.40000 0.24 103 70-130 2.18 20imme
L
L
L
Le
Leo
L �
L
1
L
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 Last 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208
.^ ear=: MEMBER
M B E R
►ceystoner
LABORATORIES, INC. 1�,IL
e) Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
ITh November 02,2010
01 Work Order: 10J0955 Page 11 of 30
Determination of Inorganic Anions-Quality Control
''1 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
'.Th Blank(1J02031-BLK1) Prepared&Analyzed: 10/19/10
Chloride ND 1.0 mg/I
Nitrogen,Nitrite ND 0.1
Nitrogen,Nitrate ND 0.1 "
Blank(1J02031-BLK2) Prepared&Analyzed:10/19/10
Chloride ND 1.0 mg/1
Nitrogen,Nitrite ND 0.1
Nitrogen,Nitrate ND 0.1 "
LCS(1J02031-BS1) Prepared&Analyzed: (0/19/10
,.....) 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
Chloride 62.41 1.0 mg/1 59.8100 104 85-113
Nitrogen,Nitrite 4.34 0.1 " 4.42845 97.9 87-113
Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.04 0.14.98070 101 89-116
Matrix Spike(1J02031-MSI) Source:10J0934-01 Prepared&Analyzed:10/19/10
Chloride 76.45 1.0 mg/I 59.8100 11.50 109 74-122
Nitrogen,Nitrite 4.90 0.1 " 4.42845 ND Ill 81-116
Nitrogen,Nitrate 9.96 0.14.98070 5.06 98.6 83-122
Matrix Spike(1J02031-MS2) Source:10.10955-11 Prepared: 10/19/10 Analyzed: 10/20/10
Chloride 82.64 1.0 mg/1 59.8100 20.03 105 74-122
els 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
eil
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
efti 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
1lQystone MEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC. PC_.I L
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminster 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 IJ02031-General Prep HPLC/IC
Matrix Spike Dup(1J02031-MSD1) Source:10J0934-01 Prepared&Analyzed: 10/19/10
Chloride 75.27 1.0 mg/1 59.8100 11.50 107 74-122 1.56 10
Nitrogen,Nitrite 4.81 0.1 4.42845 ND 109 81-116 1.81 11
Nitrogen,Nitrate 9.86 0.1 It
4.98070 5.06 96.5 83-122 1.04 10
Matrix Spike Dup(1J02031-MSD2) Source:1030955-11 Prepared: 10/19/10 Analyzed: 10/20/10 �..
Chloride 80.44 1.0 mg/1 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 It
4.98070 3.67 93.3 83-122 2.22 10 `►
kta/
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
0••• heystone MEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC. 1� IL
,'1
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
November 02,2010
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 13 of 30
/'1
en) Determination of Total Metals-Quality Control
Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton
e1 Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD
,� Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
Batch 1J02612-EPA 3010A Total ICP
Blank(1J02612-BLK1) Prepared: 10/26/10 Analyzed: 10/27/10
Potassium,total ND 1.0 mg/1
LCS(1J02612-BS1) 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-MSD1) Source:10J0955-02 Prepared: 10/26/10 Analyzed: 10/27/10
• Potassium,total 4.6 1.0 mg I 3.33333 1.0 109 75-125 4.73 20
Post Spike(1J02612-PS1) Source: 10.10955-02 Prepared: 10/26/10 Analyzed: 10/27/10
Potassium,total 3.0 mg I 2.00000 0.9 102 80-120
Batch 1J02720-EPA 3010A Total ICP
eN
Blank(1J02720-BLKI) Prepared:10/27/10 Analyzed: 11/01/10
Antimony,total ND 0.0020 mg/1
Arsenic,total ND 0.0040 "
Barium,total ND 0.0040 "
Beryllium,total ND 0.0040 "
Cadmium,total ND 0.0010 "
Chromium,total ND 0.0100 "
Copper,total ND 0.0040 "
Lead,total ND 0.0040 "
00.
1 Nickel,total ND 0.0040 n
Selenium,total ND 0.0040
AlsIli Silver,total ND 0.0040 "
• Thallium,total ND 0.0040 "
Zinc,total ND 0.0100 "
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
1cqystonq
MEMBER .►
LABORATORIES, INC. 1G� I L �-
Robinson Engineering Co.
`..
5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613 \...
November 02,2010 L..
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 14 of 30
Determination of Total Metals-Quality Control `.
Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton '..,,.
Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD `me
Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes `.
Batch 1J02720-EPA 3010A Total ICP `.r
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 " 0.0500000 100 80-120 %ta''
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 0.0500000 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 fte
Nickel,total 0.0518 0.0040 " 0.0500000 104 80-120
Selenium,total 0.0466 0.0040 " 0.0500000 93.1 80-120
Silver,total 0.0510 0.0040 " 0.0500000 102 80-120
Thallium,total 0.0455 0.0040 " 0.0500000 91.0 80-120
Zinc,total 0.0723 0.0100 " 0.0500000 145 80-120 QS-01 4.0
Matrix Spike(1302720-MS1) Source:10J1002-01 Prepared:10/27/10 Analyzed:11/01/10
Antimony,total 0.0498 0.0020 mg/1 0.0500000 ND 99.5 75-125
Arsenic,total 0.0471 0.0040 " 0.05(10000 ND 94.2 75-125
Barium,total 0.133 0.0040 " 0.0500000 0.0885 89.8 75-125
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 \..
Chromium,total 0.0459 0.0100 " 0.0500000 ND 91.7 75-125
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 `.
Nickel,total 0.0504 0.0040 " 0.0500000 0.0063 88.2 75-125
Selenium,total 0.0439 0.0040 " 0.0500000 ND 87.9 75-125
Silver,total 0.0470 0.0040 " 0.0500000 ND 94.1 75-125 `.
Thallium,total 0.0468 0.0040 " 0.0500000 ND 93.6 75-125
liwe
Zinc,total 0.0414 0.0100 " 0.0500000 0.0011 80.6 75-125
`.e
`..
`,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 `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 `..
`` ,cQyStOnQ
M E M B E R
�`T T
LABORATORIES, INC. `` 1r 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 %REC RPD
, . Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
'1 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
oefts
Arsenic,total 0.0433 0.0040 " 0.0500000 ND 86.6 75-125 8.38 20
''N 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
/'1 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
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
• 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
''1 Batch 1J02739-EPA 7470A Hg Water
^ Blank(1J02739-BLK1) Prepared&Analyzed:10/27/10
Mercury,total ND 0.00050 mg/I
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:10J0955-01 Prepared&Analyzed:10/27/10
Mercury,total 0.00310 0.00050 mg/I 0.00250000 0.0000520 122 60-138
r1 Matrix Spike Dup(1J02739-MSDI) Source:10J0955-01 Prepared&Analyzed:10/27/10
Mercury,total 0.00261 0.00050 mg/I 0.00250000 0.0000520 102 60-138 17.2 21
/"1
• ND=Non Detect;REC=Recovery;RPD= Relative Percent Difference
o1
..'N
^1
'"1
e1
'"1
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
1
N ,qT'F `
1ceystone MEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC. • . IL
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 6010B in Water
Potassium,total IA-NT,KS-NT,NELAC
EPA 6020A in Water
Antimony,total SIA1X ...
Arsenic,total SIA1X
Barium,total SIA1X
Beryllium,total SIA1X
ti.
Cadmium,total SIA1X
Chromium,total SIA1X
Copper,total SIA1X
Lead,total SIA1X
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
Chloride KS-NT,NELAC
Nitrogen,Nitrite NELAC,KS-NT
Nitrogen,Nitrate NELAC,KS-NT
SM 4500-NH3 Fin Water
Nitrogen,Ammonia SIA1X
SM 9223 QT in Water
E.Coli SIA1X
Code Description Number Expires
IA-WL Iowa Department of Natural Resources 051 09/01/2010
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 `—
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 0-41-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208
7
^� = M E M B E R
Ueystone
LABORATORIES, INC. . IL
Robinson Engineering Co.
,.� 5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
^'1 November 02.2010
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-0l The blank spike recovery was outside acceptance limits. Batch accepted based on acceptable MS/MSD/RPD results.
End of Report
Keystone Laboratories, Inc.
,-1 Sue Thompson
Project Manager I
.,
^'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
,,.t 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" � wMf
eyston y¢ MEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC. - IL
`.
Robinson Engineering Co. ..
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613 `-
November 02,2010 ...
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 18 of 30
E
I
g ui .."
O co CL
a) i) E yIJIv
C 7
m
0 o 3z
a c >. ,......
Y to
O = m
�j(0E H 8
T `.aiM m=
_ m U
"Cl.! I � 0p
�N � N CC m § i itiiIii$ �I
o r �sa w 2 ° cc,),„T � o
U dl C O• to O 5 m ¢gy �,
> c O000ti tr `,.
Z O O
E
s
U
O
d
C m `-
E c 00
cc O ZU , G
U co I�a
cc • Q E akiiia "-'
pp.� E M E �E U
��'
cs— 0 O ca�J
t7I-
o Z 2
O 5 mac¢ Q m �.
U fA £W £ N W e U CO ". `
LL• d ce co c Cj i0 N 3 f] 1 ��, `.
0 N LL 7 'O W O fl _ _ � c
a v m O vas
Q N ' ar c a,� o g 't` ° m m m -
03
W.5 t; / \/ \ t G —
�p m
t3z� I 1, a
~ ti
1 rilt
d `..
LI U d m
o �� IS
C Z p Z m w \r �/
0 c
NI
(X�'
r'
lb. c E
inO � i — , v
r
h..,a
c U
O FW E ° a aua _ . m I
111110.- e ce a 0) Z F❑ E -g
�� Q ni J Jz el To' euL
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 N......-
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 ........
^'t a stone M E M B E R
y e
LABORATORIES, INC. AIL
-- Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
November 02,2010
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 19 of 30
E
0
cr o / -. l 1 .
vi
's co cu E.2 1
IN a� h E
al o Az
RI
.a
o >.
Q 1
""� tLV cop 7 N
C7�M NLp g ri g d1!
a. T
U a)
o 3 i 2= °o d
'...,,N, ur Z ca ,yqc°� UUUaCC
I CY '�U LLIA_LI o g e e ,g. E
f/1
liziiinizi
1 w U
O ;n
y a
'1 ycir E
O
E ms"`
-� .
cc Z U I.
O
^� Ar
w o O E E 8.
re 8 e • E Q m U
CI
¢ a
co
-� $ I—�Ep p�p.144 y @ N d Qm - o
Q o R w Cp a 2 S i1 O. N m A
$ r °r-� ° E Eag >
2 g �n U m
-. U ,g $tt a-ea / l 1•- 1- , fir. 0 a
m-a_.0._
win / � i 1 _ �°
Tp
8S z I �'
o
r.
T 2
U
OP
— c .
o
2
m To
Pi •C
. p u5 o �o
' ❑
-77
ille
EU
i.d Q YS= N'' F m-� IApX J) z t
'� 1-- O
< LI- -.ICZ .� W mm hi) 2 Q n
m NEO NZt( dg
m
.� A a I _� E CD
aN
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.
�1
Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Pax ad i. ,, v
Newton,IA 50208
I cQystone
.. MEMBER
OftLABORATORIES, INC. PC IL
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B —
Cedar Falls, IA 50613
November 02,2010 .—
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 20 of 30
E
S I ` r 1
$ m E.2
m c in , ...
a o az
Y m
a
aa
0w E g 8
L N C
d C._ y C C y T } T.4. T ��„
p C.4a � �Q.0 T .P'aaIb$$-sa
C T
W nW.$ ui -Q ..--1. > c
u to C t O )'cvi Q �'
> 5.- 0 U 0 c.)a_ r
2 o C K2 m
,,
zw-0 1 I 1 I I l 1 21Ii2n$SQRg f, N `.,T TTp iizi
J 1 t (J ,'
Q 41 v
z.
R N •�
0 1 E c
`^ Z U LSDS
O �+I 1t�
m �.
1u.i , a- a E E $ ...
>- u tq E z d E.
a
F... 'x1 r7 �c,3
C 2 2 0 i ..
0 p O ce.5— p d — Q
LL N ~ �E C �' 6/ COa3 1
to c m .....
O• m 0IC7 A o v E °o o 8
W c a u� m J a c °�0. O m
U pbT , $mu u I i C H , lEE g l m
�g ` v m
t —;
1 . To ....,
§ mom 3To .E To
�
zm CC .p.
1 o ``
>, N
a U E E ...
a' C ' m
CD
OP 3
C z z z 4
Z . p
a) L
O vi p 3 v n a
M R C, I- `!0 N O J 0, o V' \m LL m a
till m U U e o` c ~�' m
Q o
O 12 a .O d C `V) al $ �.
' Q N N a N Z z E . c m
The results in this report apply to the samples analy_ed in accordance with the chain ofcustody 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-?9n
Newton,IA 50208 ...
2 , •i
� ► e sto n e
ry
'-- �- MEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC. 1/ IL
n
e1 Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
November 02,2010
^ Work Order: 10J0955 Page 21 of 30
E
0
a. co
al'
n CD Ng
C
eL c a).
o
co,..,. 8 cg E S g
rn'�M Nw 4
a C 0 y 12 g 4' . n«o e e o
any 1i $ x s
7 Y T
d O ..'rnc4 12ZS o >. 3 0� bY88i
.-, w EWgm r2 mm �a
U to cp 8j m o.5-8 5}, Q
i ^ > ca `t UV dm
1 e
? oo��i
m P.
/ N w 1C y a
a 1 n
o zc> �''
'1 m 01 - is'al'
o e E �-j m
'-� 0 0oM � o 0 0��
tot I.0 0 Q
/, .._ Z Z a T
U OF 4c.ca O
LL 1- EW ui W V. m —
O 0 9,LL 2 p E. °o g
Z NS a tic m m0 m Y .v
CZ
U t$ b \ '�tY� .J 1 H l �H W aG a ,2
n \
a V kl. E E
8 ,
2 O d Q)
U rn ai Q ' s
C — >v o
O Z 3 U rr o
o
W d0
ANN*
— yp R y F 1
Np re of ;2 �, `
�`vUW m ® W
_ = Q:°
f a a_ z Eto d —
' co om a o r] Eg
�I to ._,I\ ~
i z�._ �' 0,
• 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 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit.
Phone 641-792-8451 600 Gast 17th Street South Fax 64 -" --,,;
Newton,IA 50208
►feystcp n e = 1.., .
MEMBER ,....
LABORATORIES, INC.
PC I L
Robinson Engineering Co. ..
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
November 02,2010
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 22 of 30
E
0
o
cl2 ( " f 1 a) I ....
co l4 ^�y°,' ��
COr C ?n g CZ)
co
(,)• 2 R z
a oo › v...
�V Y
a 5
co
a
V e m € s s _
w• EwLE rri Tcl Z m 2.
03
I
�• 3 3" moo " d
1011 J y `.
8 ZikEai941 a
r o ` cc 8 ..
o I
cr .0 Ga y
W 03 0 mQ`
re V pp a E \$2 mN_v\ E �iE o ...
>- � dTa
0 c L�5M 'l ~ O ��' ....
�� z z°
c y
O W-- O
LL G hwL m la ffi L' m co o co Q o
Z L W V c N m 0 m 6 _.
tea, .0in•$ 5 : . "'
2 a� MXtoU . m 3 E a �� 3
W O go N
§2 5 I ' I 1L s
--
_I o
a IOF 6gm z O CO o
o
W Q V N m❑ O.
ilia —CEl I.- 0 'V-0 in tV1..Q Z .. .. Q O `r 9
L.' W `m m V c Q .cm, IIIr .�.
`,
V/ Q u3 .1 j z .‘„i i
r
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 b.
its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit.
Phone 641-792-845I 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208 ..-
/ .
.� ' M E M B E R
► Q stOflQ
y
LABORATORIES, INC. PIL
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
November 02,2010
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 23 of 30
E
0
U / /
-. 2 vi
.- a
O co coA a
— C y 7
a MCIS O J z d
N
Y CO
3 N a
8v0._-❑ a.) m e CI) 7 q - q
~
CU 3.
pc i� co ii bag a I--. 0. 0 Q a
w eW 5 a $T C J j G
vh . 0� '�U- . r, a
77 ie � .
°QN
)vv IX
aa�32c44'
IIII ! I R $41 §$vgg4$ iri
1aP11$ 1ek E
C.)I O - �
a.0 E
+ ❑ 7 p fx
c
T
W coE E $
c4 ,re a- £ s 1,1 C
a
❑0 =o B- �7 ~ N o ' �J
t m2 >
> ; z 2 0 0r"
c) 2 o € c a 0 °' , �.
d
O , CC 01C0Ti 2a 5 o Olo ao0.
..... Z rj CO a g 2 m 0 d V _ ` a
3 OQ h� a '°a�7 Z E E ma~
= � is ���ni �) g l J oe
'' `5
z e Pr
t � •�
m I m1 CC CC
I
> N
a
1 d U E E
2 C �a� o
U l- = u �
gm z 2 j c
1c
O Cl O m C m❑ a
11.10 lc • ; N E 5E
--.. 642- 8 . n.J• O co 1
o C
T
LL 343
d
m'� m dU 0 Eo a ° a - .z
....-.4 QJ JL Z o
cc I
— r
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 out)1 ust 17th Street Sotoh Ia 6-11 9- `,-.�+
....
Nevk ton.IA 5020k
...._
,....
h4ystone ,„
M E M B E R
}
��IL
LABORATORIES, INC.
..
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613 ...
November 02,2010
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 24 of 30
o
a. a E.,.
a _. ;,
Q Y `•
UN $ g
q
co()� t ' o m 77Q E eg. Qo .e Ho
C 8 120 m Q U U 4 � q q$! F e$T
tL O Sc9a N� 6.90 i 3.iifabi ii \..
W E W I i �c 2 Z d c
V 0ctLL o� NZ. . `..
C ci c ES" a m
> 0-2 • UUUdCY
2 x"° Li. I LJ ^$ e Q" rs
J
s-1sle a3i
ca
cc
o _
m I `m
ce ZVLr
O , .r
U co
�T
W
EISco 1k ...
O {� �o 2 ~ 11
o o
0.
J 2 2 `� ....
U 0 C Q
o N
lL F E W y W
LP. m Q co eJ Ak
0 co ,1 .` Ls 8 o r .4: �.
Z a o8 too ou _Q Ce ,n a . E
d 4, m
U rs e ,n U 1 3 F F- E a qa Z :iI
es 0 alb
� ....._
I Q , t
C
T d
U \ E a., ......
E
a
0 c C
U u� i - - m
C Z & o co "° o
A % ...
Oo) 0 3
w v m� m ..
Am. 0 >re N E
N o o I h O g °�
Q Z .. .. R h
T
O wL. 2 W 2
m c .z �..-
co111100. E . co Z `� H
'
J J cc
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
P1
-"" �' -�"""' M E M B E R
► eystone
LABORATORIES, INC. 1�� c,IL
•-, Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
,--, November 02,2010
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 25 of 30
>_
0
7 N / ♦ 1
�
O) rsi C h 3
a o
N CO
O >+
U7
Y CO
r�
r
3 �A E 8 8
C tjM m c 4�To o ore 00
C O O a)
U ♦ g
a g 5c< in`m o po Ili uI8i4
C T m . m N l0
~ U H o i4 =U vmi d 4
o N m
Z 0-8ti3
at in I I I LI I u3 $1421 y�
i Z y i's i$a i 1� 6
E n
�. . 8
ct
a ro
.......N. m'c E
� io cQ .
Ce
(j Z c
O 1 a
U m E .,.
--. le-)1 Pou mcJ .} 0cn
a3o - w.g - c °
{ n �Z o q 0
U N O P O < O m O^ LL - yN Gt a 20 m Q co C co O9 O
• CO 51 _O
O m ..- 6J
-
Z jo WV Cy O m C.)_ 'O ` oo�1 i'd E .0.°P m
- p y
m U
I 11
E E
c o Q d d
Z Z u=i a = o
pro 3 0 o p .
W i- . w m m
C f t cr E
N Tm E
-'� O o to o z 1-o a \\
Q Z . «« < p a L
F_ a 0 w e < �° - , m
m m E o` N Z :Ti] g c m
m a 3 Q
1
NI
"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.
Ph«n;64I-792-1451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7'irry
Newton,IA 50208
1eystone
MEMBER
..
LABORATORIES, INC, AIL
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls, IA 50613 `-
November 02,2010
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 26 of 30
0 I
U _
NCO
E 2
o' Z
°- o E - �-
Y m
?3
a � _ d
ti �o m s s
gd0 1g 4l' iagqt
O fsa.ca in .d 0mu' cc H
WE W N Ul �>p,C Z > C
O c/O s u._- `; oO d §,
> .1- . UUUatr `,
m`'" U .e e e e
} I I I I I 1 , giI e4V4V4U01 N ...
iisiiB $4iY9
\ aco
£) o �..
of ce c�
d ,
CI E o, I m
z U (
0 ...
U �-
w
0 Z`
Y co
d E E $
0 o ==o pp-p ___lll o oyy\�s'hm
O N§ } ` g
iA J O C
• 7 O rn._Q 2 2 $ ..-
U Q F c O ar o
LL Q++ - E W tri w d _ �= •
o 0/
z % a ut> .- im O 0 °o = o $ .�
Q 01�P X o a;. I ` o. E m i
_ ,-$ i L m��°J 13 I- � I- 0 CO m
U
b �**,k fl... "...,
�
V PrC� J I ..�
IES 76. Sa
-.. t
1 o
>. N -......-
_fa V d N
N C
C -- $ z `-
vi Z v CC °c 1
O — 22
❑
.INr & I E c
N o H o = P ter^
Q z .. a o
O2 W C
mLIE e QW a I ��..
1 �e co w �..
NEa yz ` E m�� Q �' L r-� z
cc
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 p11 adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit.
L.
Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208 ..-
M E M B E R
eiN
e stone
.1 ► y
LABORATORIES, INC. INC,'
.1
e1 Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
November 02,2010
, . Work Order: 10J0955 Page 27 of 30
E I
o
r 's co m s 1 ti
o r o Wiz'
o e'
a o m
A pp� Y m
ES a
UN E g g
Q4 co
m
co
da O5 c.g.Q ael E
ise "az
I-w EW. v anm23 c
v h0rrn g:°'-- 0d Q
>F. e o.- i9 UUUatY
2�'u I I 1 1 I I ... t o 000 3
/'^ E o
c a
m. I E
0 H
p,.� U m 4n,
W I g.);,t
O c tj - o m
o�. r
9999000Q �o
Z U c
lLri Q.
.
L o _
O X re h c v ' d o a.
m•
m ag ? ammo iv; o/�. Z NI la m 5 a Y N Q Y pein
5$ � 2ti u
..
3 H Hg, g mom`
Z r
1 1.k...L
, . _....r i t ._
8S z I CC CL
o
d
U N d
d - E E
o
d: m
c
U cn = m ;-
1 C d zo o
P
Z
Cp I-
1.1110 v E ro
p ino v a rn
.. .. Q
Q U. = m
/1 ay U C Q@ j a
m
/, ' U ~co ro E a z co, • i g
�— Q m a coI--O
/� J z
Me 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 pll adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit.
.., Phouc 641-792-5451 600 Etst 17th Strcct South 1 FX 641--')_' -,-'t
tic at.,n. 1\ 02f
Qystone MEMBER
}
LABORATORIES, INC.
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613 `-
November 02,2010
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 28 of 30
t
0
U r \
N coI i a2 (0(
c cn § �
w i� o Z .
E, 3 co
U co E g
. 03 13 1111B �asnio § ,E5_ d@av
W EWy v c l >
S j cO m m
i ocoo,n/ Uc�Ua� ...-
ztruv J HMI i I r, 3=' 828 :` P.m•"
`° L.
e
a) I
a) c E .r
a m A
p E () m
ce
o \n Z O ��++ �.
o p;
U Li, m
re , d E E n i
} 8 to ` £ cf.) m d c'
o m M i= to i ;,p.J
o cps o o-..,
v 4 o 6'a.e_a o m — }
O m K h c N To0 = -
(a s
Q gn g d' O a0 P. N 4 1Y C -._..__. 4
.. .v
Q _._
p N
W
` r' I @ yof c
'N r \ •L' hs fo G)F
Z m , jN U
X
I
a U $TE
m
o
ul
C
OCZp o OPU
I 0 co wc \
O LU _ U ❑ a
u re `.
N . E,o N F � ....O au
W . •
Q,' a`i a ,.an^ 1 a.111110, E � 8
h.--all liCI g
J J Z 1
r
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must be reproduced in L
its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit.
Phone 641-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641 792-7989
Newton,IA 50208 s."
► eystone hN
MEMBER
AC,IL
LABORATORIES, INC,
'1 Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
,, November 02,2010
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 29 of 30
1
0
0
el l 6 r / y
"am a. ca 81r1
poo
ii CO3
O5 N o
U a) E o
com� m ,
t
fig
-� c § �Q o� 1g g §§1,.12 ,92 0$
m �4t11 U q p. .� li E N c c $ ii i i t i 4 d
a. O .p C Q N.n O O T
.�
V 0carN o@aim Q
U m
''� 43
> 2a� `m U VUU O.X
g Z �;
S u i b8$ 6 a 2 :l
,.
f , C2 8
O ` 1.
`m E E
m I
p c
,1 re Z V +/p!
0
W m 0 — d _
re Q" E Q E
0 8� Q r MO
O c0- L
', S t S § Z z0
U 00 ° g a,`a ° a) 1
r- E W 5 N w E `° m .p
0 vl Cs'
s cc H c �8 2 C7 ? N A
Q 01 O>U- 7 'E ` O 0
Za. Qc mO, m OQ pa�� J c o m �
0
�g cn
,., � e `2 -
W1� / 11 \ �{ F ._
§zI I 2 3$
1 2 )A•
a U m m
3 E E
"1 a) c �� 2
c o �d d
OF U co = �o 0
.1 C -- M O ? w
,yR.
c
Pik CC' 7
4110 c it v cs F E n
7.N E
H 0 J
7
/� 1QLi W d U c Q N A
m
QfIL O N Z `CO o az.� % cm{ cn mo 3 E8c�`' Q I y I` I— — 0
rz
1100"--
' The results in this report apply to the samples analy:ed in accordance with the chain of custody document.This analytical report must he reproduced in
its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFRfor pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit.
Phone 641-792-8 I 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
—. Newton,IA 50208
hQystonq� �
f ' MEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC. �a. .I 1L
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613 —
November 02,2010
Work Order: 10J0955 Page 30 of 30
E
U
el 2 vi ',. ( '''‘ 0 P .,--
h '1" ,d,
N as N g
a �'
�+1 Y m
E 0
..y.2
C N C C y
a o 5p0a tt),Eii§_ 3 lilii zii
>,m m
V )c c W Z c
LL U 2.c G
O u �3 2 o02rm
Z o o.-4, o U o a ct
^a i
fir" � Illlll q;21T/4/$ &lP y
E o
o
O n
N C
ix z `° w
O o C1:a
U m
w N
cc d E d
p CS ��' ~ p �pD2 `.
1-- .7) $ }
co 6 O N 2 O
7 c._ z z d
Op O gr p 5 a O m
LL Y EWEm W .`m ; - O
O 6pmp 0 m 2�'L ° E ° o _
Q t9 N LU OL p a ,071 J Y a 47, C p m
to yq
U I 2 11 U I F Fes- n - c
/ ` O CO
L Ixo ,...
rC9
N�
Z m re 'C o
I 1
0
C
T _d
V U E E ...•
ai o \ t t
N t=n c . m g
C z
O CA r
pu5o 3 u
�If cLi -4 f `'' r E a `—
EO a E j \
o '� z 9 0)
w J C
Q Z .. ..
CJ U G a ,v >.
wOu C aN. w cui \ D
QcoaN L h
�I iq � 1- --1j z c \ m g
r
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain o/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.
Fh v. I-)2-B451 (00last I'th Sweet South Pax 641 '92-"',,'i
'Nc«tun.1A 6ci2n ',,,,
1 [ eystonq � . MEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC. : AIL
ANALYTICAL REPORT
April 11,2011
_ Work Order: 11C1206
Page 1 of 17
,, Report To Work Order Information
Monica Smith Date Received: 03/24/2011 11:40AM
Robinson Engineering Co.
Collector:
^„, 5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B Phone: (319)859-0293
'• Cedar Falls,IA 50613
PO Number:
Project : Surface Water
Project Number: Day 2
''1
I Analyte Result MR!, Batch Method
Analyst Analyzed Qualifier
11C1206-01 T4
Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1 1 14:15
'1 EPTC <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141
EPP 04/02/11 10:33
--"N Butylatc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141
EPP 04/02/11 10:33
,-� Propachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141
EPP 04/02/11 10:33
Trifluralin <0.1 ug/1
"10.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/1I 10:33
Terbutos <0.1 ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141
''1 EPP 04/02/11 10:33
Atrazmc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141
EPP 04/02/11 10:33
""N Simazinc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 ICI2944 EPA 8141
EPP 04/02/11 10:33
,..1 Alachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141
EPP 04/02/11 10:33
Metribuzin <0.1 u 1
g/ 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 10:33
Mctolachlor <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141
''1 EPP 04/02/11 10:33
Pcndimcthalin <0.5 ug/I 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141
EPP 04/02/11 10:33
"\ Butachlor <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141
EPP 04/02/11 10:33
,.s Cyanazinc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141
EPP 04/02/11 10:33
Acetochlor <0.2 ug/I 0.2 1C12944 EPA 8141
EPP 04/02/11 10:33
Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 86.9% 60-129
''1 EPP 04/02/11 10:33
Dalapon <2.6 ug/1 2.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A
EPP 03/31/11 19:17
3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid <1.3 ug/1 1.3 ICI3001 EPA 8151A
EPP 03/31/11 19:17
Dicamba <0.7ug/1 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A
EPP 03/31/11 19:17
Dichlo ro
p <0.7ug/1 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17
2,4-D <2.6 ug/1 2.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A
EPP 03/31/11 19:17
Pcntachlorophenol <0.3ug/1 0.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A
EPP 03/31/11 19:17
"s 2,4,5-TP(Silvex) <0.7ug/1 0.7 1C13001 EPA8151A
EPP 03/31/11 19:17
Chlorambcn <1.3 ug/1 1.3 IC13001 EPA 8151A
EPP 03/31/11 19:17
2,4,5-T <0.7ug/1 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A
EPP 03/31/11 19:17
2,4-DB <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA8151A
� EPP 03/31/11 19:17
Bentazon <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A
EPP 03/31/11 19:17
"'� 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. A L=Method Reporting Limit.
..� Phone 641-792-8451 600 1{ast 17th Street South lax 641-?92-'ri i�1
Ncnaton.IA 502t0
L
hfQystone
M
LABORATORIES, INC. isotCIL
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr;Suite B �'
Cedar Falls,IA 50613 April 11,2011 �,
Page 2 of 17
Work Order: 11C 1206
I Analyte
Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier
IIC1206-01 T4
Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1114:15 `'
Picloram <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17
Dinoseb <0.7ug/l 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17 ,
DCPA <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1CI3001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17
Acifluorfcn
<1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 19:17
�.
Surrogate:2,5-DichlorobenmicAcid 65.6%
28-114 EPP 03/31/11 19:17
Phosphate,total 0.39 mg/I 0.30 1C12515 HACH 8190 DRB 03/25/11 9:04
�
Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 m 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 14:55
I 0.1 IC12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 14:55
"'"
Nitrogen,Nitrate 7.4 mg/
E.Coli 150 MPN/100 ml I 1C12428 SM 9223 QT JRP 03/24/11 13:34 1-05
11C1206-02 R4 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1114:30
EPIC <0.1 ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12
Butylatc
<0.l ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 ,
<0.1 ug/l 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12lowe Propachlor !
Trifluralin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12
<0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12
Terbufos +�„
Atrazinc
<0.1 ug/1 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12
Simazine
<0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 1..
Alachlor
<0.1 ug/1 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12
Metribuzin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12
Mctolachlor
<0.5ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12
<0.5 u 1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141
EPP 04/02/11 11:12 `'
Pendimethalin �
Butachlor
<0.5 ug/1 0.5 1 C 12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 `,
Cyanazine
<0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12
Acetochlor 1.5 ugh 0.2 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:12 �..
Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 86.4
% 60-129 EPP 04/02/11 11:12
Dalapon <2.7ug/1 2.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04<1.3 u 1..
3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid I 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04� 1...,
Dicamba
<0.7 ug/1 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04
�-
Dichlorprop <0.7 ug/1 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04
2,4-D
<2.7ug/1 2.7 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04
Pentachlorophenol <0.3ug/1 0.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04 1.,
2,4,5-TP(Silvex) <0.7ug/1 0.7 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04 1..-
Cliloramben
<1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04
‘."
<0.7ug/1 0.7 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04
2,4,5-T 2,4-DB <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04 1..
Bentazon
<1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04 `..
Picloram
<1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:04
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 St'cct Souih Pat 641-792-7989
Newton.IA c020
► QStOQ
�.. .
_: MEMBER
'' ���IL
LABORATORIES, INC. .,, ,.
' Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
.� Work Order: 11C1206 April lt,2011
Page 3 of 17
.....N I Analyse Result
MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed I
., Y Qualifier
11C1206-02 R4 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1114:30
"1 Dinoseb <0.7ug/1 0.7 1C13001 EPA 815IA
EPP 03/31/11 20:04
^1 DCPA <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A
EPP 03/31/11 20:04
„., Acifluorfen <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA8151A
EPP 03/31/11 20:04
Surrogate:2,5-DichlorobenzoicAcid 70.4% 28-114
"1 EPP 03/31/11 20:04
Phosphate,total <0.30mg/1 0.30 1C12515 HACH 8190 DRB 03/25/11 9:04
'1 Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 mg/1 0.1 IC 12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 15:13
., Nitrogen,Nitrate 1.7 mg/1 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 15:13
E.Coli 44 MPN/100 ml 1 1C12428 SM 9223 QT JRP 03/24/11 13:34 1-05
,, 11C1206-03 T5 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1114:00
EPTC <0.1 ug/l 0.1 1CI2944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51
Butylate <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51
"1 Propachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51
--N Trifluralin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51
Tcrbufos <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141
EPP 04/02/11 11:51
Atrazine <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51
Simazine <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51
Alachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 IC12944 EPA 8141
-"N Metribuzin EPP 04/02/11 11:51
<0.1 ug/1 0.1 1CI2944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51
Mctolachlor <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51
Pendimethalin <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141
INN
EPP 04/02/11 11:51
Butachlor <0.5ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51
Cyanazine <0.1 ugh 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141
EPP 04/02/11 11:51
" Acetochlor <0.2 ug/1 0.2 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 11:51
,� Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 86.4% 60-129 EPP 04/02/11 11:51
Dalapon <2.6ug/1 2.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52
3,5-Dichlorobcnzoic acid <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52
"-"" Dicamba <0.6ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52
.1 Dichiorprop <0.6ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52
2,4-D <2.6ug/1 2.6 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52
Pentachlorophenol <0.3 ug/1 0.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52
2,4,5-TP(Silvex) <0.6ug/I 0.6 IC13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52
''''' Chloramben <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52
� 2,4,5-T <0.6 ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A
EPP 03/31/1l 20:52
1 2,4-DB <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52
Bentazon <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52
Picloram <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A
EPP 03/31/11 20:52
''''S Dinoscb <0.6ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A
EPP 03/31/I1 20:52
''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
,...,k 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
� i�%_ NI E M B E R _
I ► Q st+o
nQ
LABORATORIES, INC.
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B -
Cedar Falls,IA 50613 April 11,2011 _
Page 4 of 17
Work Order: 11C1206
Analyse Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier I -
11C1206-03 T5 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1114.00 -
DCPA <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52 -
Acifluorfen <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 20:52 -
Surrogate:2,5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid 56.4% 28-114
EPP 03/31/11 20:52
Phosphate,total <0.30 mg/1 0.30 1 C 12515 HACH 8190 DRB 03/25/11 9:04
�
Nitrogen,Nitrite <0.1 m I 0.1 IC12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 16:07
Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.4 mg/I 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 16:07
E.Coli 4 MPN/100 ml 1 1C12428 SM 9223 QT JRP 03/24/11 13:34 1-05 -
11C1206-04 T3 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1113:47
EPTC <0.I ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30
Butylate <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 Propachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 -
Trifluralin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30
Terbufos <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/I1 12:30 !/
Atrazine <0.1 ug/I 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30
Simazine <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30
Alachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 a
Metribuzin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30
Metolachlor <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30
Pendimethalin <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30
Butachlor <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30
Cyanazine <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 ‘..,
Acetochlor <0.2ug/1 0.2 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 12:30
Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 87.0% 60-129 EPP 04/02/11 12:30 L
Dalapon <2.5ug/1 2.5 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39
3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 815IA EPP 03/31/11 21:39
Dicamba <0.6ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 \""'
Dichlorprop <0.6ug/I 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 `.
2,4-D <2.5 ug/1 2.5 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 ..
Pentachlorophenol <0.3ug/1 0.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39
2,4,5-TP(Silvex) <0.6ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39
Chloramben <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 `''
2,4,5-T <0.6ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 •..
2,4-DB <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 a...
Bentazon <1.3ug/1 1.3 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39
r..r
Picloram <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39
Dinoseb <0.6ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 \-'
DCPA <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39 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 CFRfor pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit. .►
I'Ihor:(1I N2-5-15.1 600 1`axt 17ih Strcct South l=ax 641 -92 -`169
Nrt.nkt0n.I;\ ',020R
MEMBER
M B E R
1eystone
T
LABORATORIES, INC. "`` ' 1L� i�
'"1 Robinson Engineering Co.
,.. 5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
00'1 April 11,2011
,.` Work Order: 11C1206 Page 5 of 17
" Analyte Result MRL Batch Method Analyst Analyzed Qualifier
11C1206-04 T3 Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/11 13:47
e.. Acifluorfen <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 21:39
, Surrogate:2,5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid 58.6% 28-114 EPP 03/31/11 21:39
Phosphate,total <0.30mg/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 16:25
Nitrogen,Nitrate 7.4 mg/1 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 16:25
,r'1 E.Coli 36 MPN/l00 ml 1 1C12428 SM 9223 QT JRP 03/24/11 13:34 1-05
/, 11C1206-05 TZ Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/11 13:25
EPIC <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
Butylate <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
Propachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
Trifluralin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
Terbufos <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
Atrazinc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
Simazinc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
Alachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
Mctribuzin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
'''.1 Mctolachlor <0.5ug/1 0.5 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
oils Pendimethalin <0.5ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
Butachlor <0.5 ug/1 0.5 IC12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
Cyanazinc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
Acctochlor <0.2ug/1 0.2 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 87.7% 60-129 EPP 04/02/11 13:09
• Dalapon <2.0ug/1 2.0 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid <1.0ug/1 1.0 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
Dicamba <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
Dichlorprop <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
"+ 2,4-D <2.0ug/l 2.0 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
Pentachlorophenol <0.2ug/1 0.2 ICI 3001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
2,4,5-TP(Silvex) <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
Chlorambcn <1.0ug/I 1.0 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
2,4,5-T <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1 C 13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
• 2,4-DB <1.0ug/1 1.0 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
Bcntazon <1.0 ug/1 1.0 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
Picloram <1.0ug/1 1.0 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
Dinoseb <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
DCPA <1.0ug/1 1.0 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
Th Acifluorfen <1.0ug/1 1.0 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 22:26
el 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,[A 50208
1qystone �T MEMBER`�i r
LABORATORIES, INC. p AC.1L -
�
Robinson Engineering Co. _
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: 03/23/11 13:25 --
Surrogate:2,5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid 54.6% 28-114 EPP 03/31/11 22:26
Phosphate,total 0.41 mg/I 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 16:43
Nitrogen,Nitrate 8.2 mg/1 0.1 1C12518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 16:43
E.Coll 51 MPN/100 ml 1 1C12428 SM 9223 QT JRP 03/24/11 13:34 1-05 -
11C1206-06 Ti Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/1113:38 L
EPTC <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48
Butylatc <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48
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
Terbufos <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 `e•
Atrazine <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48 `e
Simazinc <0.1 ug/l 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48
Alachlor <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48
Metribuzin <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48
Metolachlor <0.5 ug/1 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48
Pendimethalin <0.5ug/I 0.5 1C12944 EPA8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48
Butachlor <0.5 ug/I 0.5 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48
Cyanazine <0.1 ug/1 0.1 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48
Acctochlor <0.2ug/1 0.2 1C12944 EPA 8141 EPP 04/02/11 13:48
Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xvlene 86.3% 60-129 EPP 04/02/11 13:48
Dalapon <2.5ug/1 2.5 1C13001 EPA8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14
3,5-Dichlorobenzoic acid <1.3ug/l 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14
Dicamba <0.6ug/I 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 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 ..r
Pentachlorophenol <0.3ug/1 0.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/Il 23:14 `,
2,4,5-TP(Silvex) <0.6ug/1 0.6 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14
Chloramben <1.3ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14
2,4,5-T <0.6ug/1 0.6 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 �'
2,4-DB <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 '�.
Bentazon <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 `,
Picloram <1.3 ug/1 1.3 1C13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14
Dinoseb <0.6ug/1 0.6 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14
DCPA <1.3ug/l 1.3 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 �'"
Acifluorfen <1.3 ug/1 1.3 IC13001 EPA 8151A EPP 03/31/11 23:14 ,.....-
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 L.
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 Last 17th Street South I ax 6-,,
Newton,IA 50208 `"
".. ► eystone
M E M B E R
LABORATORIES, INC. AC,IL
"1 Robinson Engineering Co.
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 TI Matrix:Water Collected: 03/23/11 13:38
'Th Phosphate,total <0.30mg/I 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 17:02
Nitrogen,Nitrate 8.5 mg/I 0.1 1CI2518 EPA 9056 SMG 03/24/11 17:02
E.Coli 39 MPN/100 ml 1 1C12428 SM 9223 QT JRP 03/24/11 13:34 1-05
ANN
The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain ofcustodydocument.This analytical report must be reproduced in
P PP Y P Y" Y P P
its entirety.Samples were preserved in accordance with 40 CFR for pH adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit.
Phone 641-792-845I 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208
1feystone � 4� .
MEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC.
.AC I L,
Robinson Engineering Co. -
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
April 11,2011
Work Order: 11C1206 Page 8 of 17
Determination of Nitrogen/Phosphorus Herbicides&Insecticides-Quality Control _
Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton
Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD
Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
Batch 1C12944-3510C NP/OC Sep Fill
Blank(1C12944-BLK1) Prepared:03/29/11 Analyzed:04/01/11
Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 8.62 ugh 9.83200 87.7 60-129 _
EPTC ND 0.1
Butylate ND 0.1 "
Propachlor ND 0.1 " _
Trifluralin ND 0.1 "
Terbufos ND 0.1 n `-
Atrazine ND 0.1 "
kiMe
Simazine ND 0.1 "
Alachlor ND 0.1 " `'
Metribuzin ND 0.1 " lime
Metolachlor ND 0.5 "
Pendimethalin ND 0.5 "
Butachlor ND 0.5 "
Cyanazine ND 0.1 "
Acetochlor ND 0.2 "
LCS(1C12944-BSI) Prepared:03/29/11 Analyzed:04/01/1 I
Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xvlene 8.24 ughl 9.83200 83.8 60-129 `'
EPIC 2.60 0.1 " 2.50000 104 60-123 `„
Butylate 2.54 0.1 " 2.50000 101 60-119
Propachlor 2.98 0.1 " 2.50000 119 60-135
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 " 2.50000 111 60-126
Saw
Metribuzin 2.76 0.1 " 2.50000 110 60-121
Metolachlor 2.60 0.5 " 2.50000 104 60-131 `,
Pendimethalin 2.70 0.5 n2.50000 108 60-127
Iiise
Butachlor 2.65 0.5 " 2.50000 106 60-140
Cyanazine 3.02 0.1 " 2.50000 121 60-129 fti
Acetochlor 2.70 0.2 " 2.50000 108 60-130
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
E
/►lQystoflQ ^ � r
LABORATORIES, INC. �� �.IL
'1 Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
1 April 11,2011
- Work Order: 11C1206 Page 9 of 17
Determination of Nitrogen/Phosphorus Herbicides&Insecticides-Quality Control
Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton
Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD
Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
- Batch 1C12944-3510C NP/OC Sep Fnl
LCS Dup(1C12944-BSDI) Prepared:03/29/11 Analyzed:04/01/11
/1 Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 8J8 ugh 9.83200 89.4 60-129
EPTC 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
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
Terbufos 2.79 0.1 " 2.50000 112 60-140 7.59 30
''•••s 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
Alachlor 2.87 0.1 " 2.50000 115 60-126 3.19 24
'"', 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
' 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
Reference(1C12944-SRM1) Prepared:03/29/1 l Analyzed:04/01/11
Surrogate:2-Nitro-m-xylene 7.19 ug/1 9.83200 73.1 60-129
�, EPTC 2.38 0.1 2.50000 95.4 70-130
Butylate 2.42 0.1 2.50000 97.0 70-130
�1
Propachlor 3.08 0.1 2.50000 123 70-130
^1 Trifluralin 2.43 0.1 " 2.50000 97.2 70-130
Terbufos 3.27 0.1 " 2.50000 131 70-130 QR-05
Atrazine 3.05 0.1 " 2.50000 122 70-130
• Simazine 2.86 0.1 2.50000 114 70-130
Alachlor 2.86 0.1 2.50000 114 70-130
Metribuzin 2.96 0.1 " 2.50000 118 70-130
' s Metolachlor 2.79 0.5 " 2.50000 112 70-130
Pendimethalin 2.84 0.5 " 2.50000 114 70-130
I 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
.,
'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
''1 Newton.IA 50208
i
Q stone h--i M E M B E Fi
y ,...._
/� r
LABORATORIES, INC. ACIL -
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
Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
Batch IC13001-EPA 8151A
Blank(1C13001-BLKI) Prepared:03/29/01 Analyzed:03/31/11
Surrogate:2,5-DichlorobenzoicAcid 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 "
Dichlorprop ND 0.5 "
2,4-D ND 2.0 " �.
Pentachlorophenol ND 0.2 "
2,4,5-TP(Silvex) ND 0.5 "
Chloramben ND 1.0 " .�
2,4,5-T ND 0.5 "
2,4-DB ND 1.0 "
Bentazon ND 1.0 "
Picloram ND 1.0 "
Dinoseb ND 0.5 "
DCPA ND 1.0 "
Acifluorfen ND 1.0 "
LCS(1C13001-BS1) Prepared:03/29/01 Analyzed:04/01/11 `.
Surrogate:2,5-DiehloroberzoicArid 1.27 ug/1 2.28000 55.7 28-114
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
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 •,.'
Pentachlorophenol 0.56 0.2 " 0.880000 63.6 23.8-163
2,4,5-TP(Silvex) 0.40 0.5 " 0.880000 44.9 41.6-150
Chloramben 0.46 1.0 " 0.880000 51.7 10-138 .`..
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 `'
Picloram 0.66 1.0 " 0.880000 75.6 21-117
Dinoseb 1.88 0.5 " 1.76000 107 18.1-167
DCPA 027 1.0 " 0.880000 30.7 11-112
Acifluorfen 0.39 1.0 " 0.880000 44.3 16-116 .`,
L
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 ♦►
"� heystone
MEMBER
M B E R
r
LABORATORIES, INC, '' 1L' IL
''1 Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
-"N April 11,2011
_ Work Order: 11C1206 Page 11 of 17
Determination of Chlorinated Phenoxy Herbicides-Quality Control
Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton
Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD
, Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
'Th Batch 1C13001-EPA 8151A
LCS Dup(1C13001-BSDI) Prepared:03/29/01 Analyzed:04/01/11
/, Surrogate:2,5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid 1.12 ug9 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
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
2,4-D 0.59 2.0 II 1.76000 33.5 25.8-154 20.5 30
.".N Pentachlorophenol 0.46 0.2 " 0.880000 52.8 23.8-163 18.5 30
2,4,5-TP(Silvex) 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
2,4,5-1 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
' 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
"y
DCPA 0.14 1.0 0.880000 16.5 11-112 60.2 30 QR-02
"\ Acifluorfen 0.42 1.0 " 0.880000 47.7 16-116 7.41 30
' \ Reference(1C13001-SRMI) Prepared:03/29/01 Analyzed:04/01/11
""1 Surrogate:2,5-Dichlorobenzoic Acid 1.85 ug/ 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
"R Pentachlorophenol 0.62 0.2 " 0.880000 70.5 70-130
2,4,5-TP(Silvex) 0.73 0.5 " 0.880000 83.0 70-130
Chloramben 0.72 1.0 " 0.880000 81.2 70-130
"� 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
''s Acifluorfen 0.74 1.0 " 0.880000 83.5 70-130
-.
"'1
'''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
Newton,IA 50208
1
1leystoneMEMBER
LABORATORIES, INC. AC IL
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister 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-BS1) Prepared&Analyzed:03/25/11
Phosphate,total 1.15 0.30 mg/1 1.20000 95.5 80-120
LCS(1C12515-BS2) Prepared&Analyzed:03/25/11
Phosphate,total 1.52 0.30 mg/1 1.50000 102 80-120
LCS(1C12515-BS3) Prepared&Analyzed:03/25/11
Phosphate,total 1.51 0.30 mg/1 1.50000 101 S0-120
LCS(IC12515-BS4) Prepared&Analyzed:03/25/11
Phosphate,total 1.43 0.30 mg/1 1.50000 95.2 80-120
Matrix Spike(1C12515-MSI) Source:11C1206-01 Prepared&Analyzed:03/25/11
Phosphate,total 6.13 1.50 mg/I 6.00000 0.39 95.6 70-130
Matrix Spike Dup(1C12515-MSDI) Source:11C1206-01 Prepared&Analyzed:03/25/11
Phosphate,total 6.75 1.50 mg/1 6.00000 0.39 106 70-130 9.67 20
SIN"
kkai
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 Last 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208
M E M B E R
1cQystonQ
LABORATORIES, INC. 1LIL
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
April 11,2011
Work Order: 11C1206 Page 13 of 17
Determination of Inorganic Anions-Quality Control
Keystone Laboratories,Inc.-Newton
r1
Reportin Spike Source %REC RPD
Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Notes
T Batch 1C12518-General Prep HPLC/IC
""N Blank(1C12518-BLK1) Prepared&Analyzed:03/24,11
Nitrogen,Nitrite ND 0.1 mg I
Nitrogen,Nitrate ND 0.1
LCS(1C12518-BS1) Prepared&Analyzed:03/24/11
Nitrogen,Nitrite 4.86 0.1 mg/I 4.41545 110 87-113
romei Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.53 0.1 4.98865 111 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
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 I I
Nitrogen,Nitrate 5.46 0.1 " 4.98865 ND 109 83-122 0.730 10
ND=Non Detect;REC=Recovery;RPD= Relative Percent Difference
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 64I-792-8451 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-7989
Newton,IA 50208
e stone MEMBER
y
LABORATORIES, INC. ' - ._PC IL �-
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
Naar
EPA 8141 in Water
Trifluralin SIA1X
Terbufos SIA1X `"
Atrazine IA-NT,KS-NT ..,
Simazine KS-NT �.-
Alachlor SIA1X
Metribuzin S IA1 X
Metolachlor SIA1X
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
Acifluorfen SIA1X
EPA 9056 in Water
Nitrogen,Nitrite NELAC,KS-NT
Nitrogen,Nitrate NELAC,KS-NT
SM 9223 QT in Water
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
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.
"• ,: 600 Last 17th Street South Pax 641 92 'i `J
Ne ton.I;A 502(X �.
AIN
Lystone MEMBER
ACIL
LABORATORIES, INC. `
1 Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
April 11,2011
_ Work Order: 11C1206 Page 15 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.
r1
Sue Thompson
Project Manager 1
emos
onN
/1
!'1
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
MEMBER1cceystone
LABORATORIES, INC. • '.,- .P IL
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminster Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
April 11,2011
Work Order: 11C1206 Page 16 of 17
0 1
o a .0 = , �'.
cn
CV (9 t�
a. N N a z
a `...
N . CO
$ jh
%>,� R Z , i 'amr
O 0 c� g 00 2 m
Z .o or.,a UUUatr
fiXuniU ill
I I I (iii
v R 'R.4_ o^ siv
l mS _ S" " a a
: ii v..
8r a a aa . -e
r \ m `.
a ` tY c3
p E E. �u • N
Z
..-O
'\
U m 'YI U E a �'
Ce g Ca E E
>• Uto '
t ..3
a f N 8 o oZZO r'aw.=_a_ Z ,_ Ti,
N O d
U 1 FI=urui W an d O cl * $b
z 7 Oa OS c LL m 2 cc 8 al fn QM .7 4,
Q N N ni K o o avi 1Y F E� an
. R C ...1
1 ; "...-
2 IS2 �d�U II ° m 7 d o
U ¢ `3 ~ r c� c7 c7 c7 a C
u =N
mC(0 x 1
a,
m 2 m I CC CC ....,
0
'° U E_
o ~
Z r=n wgh
o,' cc aa,
IN 0
i- O uJ �-co 7- n/ �' .'' �.
Q Z .. .. a ov C.
`�' >
0
•
c to m m V = .1E- _ L m ...
O ° o a °
' CO E Z .=.N a 4 8 0 o ti" m
�� Q H a N ~ Z o 0 0 0 .• tY �..
l
r
The results in this report apply to the samples analy:ed 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 pfl adjustment unless otherwise noted. M1?L=Method Reporting Limit.
Phone 641-792-845I 600 East 17th Street South Fax 641-792-,`,^ '
Newton,IA 50208 `"
..
,� I ►�QYstone M E M B E R
1 IL
LABORATORIES, INC. ' '
Robinson Engineering Co.
5751 Westminister Dr; Suite B
Cedar Falls,IA 50613
April 11,2011
Work Order: 11C1206 Page 17 of 17
0
E
o
N g `' / / 1 �,
-. CA N I.
15 Cl- Oa 0 E- q Q 1
n.. c .''Z
N
o �
N
d
..... N -. CO
g ro
Uto E - -
mco 2 15 ro`c - -
d li c.�f m N c c
O yo5¢ tn ;n—oo a
.� I 'E W£ N T C 0 m N a)
W N c m O o.t d.>_ Q
--` > ca7,.0 <jU0dtY
-. ? �anci J I I I I 1 gee - gee"
,RR " :Rit of
" •S S e "&S E 03
e o
"'., N c % A
E c - c,
O
U m
LV U^^
LI E
r oo EN ml m
-` } i- — (�o
O c0
-� .-
UC O0 5 c E a 00� Q M-- (���
,1 F.. E W N Vl W ro •
•• Q 'Y� "i
a m o . N,LL = 12 o d1 !n S
Q� a. c 0 O -
cc
Q N `, tY O pr 01 40- J •� a C lea m co ca 3
E a
\ 0 It
a) o Ce
y N N
�� W Pr7- 7 L N Y C 1
CO Z 40 CC CC
�ItOs
o
0)
T ro
175
.i E E
v
o c t
OP c C o
co ro
U co = v 0 0
Z ZO j
O co F a)c
wZ1U � 1 1
o d = n,
Q N N in E d)V
Hog � o = Nr r
< Z .. .. Q ' • ) T
c w CDW a ro
O t. a 'o n. z Ec `m o >
... ' O] m i E. U' _❑ E �` u
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 40 CFR for pll adjustment unless otherwise noted. MRL=Method Reporting Limit.
I'hnnc 6;'1-79'. -I;I 600 Fast I 7th Street South I as 6-41--92-?'i
Newton.IA 502t)t
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
"1 of awareness with the following statement.
Not
Aware Sure Unaware
'1 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 (0)
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? ❑ U 0 ❑ ❑
Water contamination is an important environmental
issue in Sink Creek L ❑ L L L
Agriculture fertilizers have significantly impacted the
water quality in Sink Creek �'
Lawn fertilizers have significantly impacted the water •
in Sink Creek L L L L' L
Poor water quality in Sink Creek affects economic
development in this area of Iowa L L L ❑ L
New construction and development have increased
the amount of soil loss in this area L 0 L I L
Septic systems can affect the water quality of Sink
Creek L L L L L
Livestock production contributes to the reduction of
—. water quality of Sink Creek L u L L ❑
Run off from paved surfaces, including parking lots,
affect the water quality of Sink Creek L L L L Li
We are approaching the limits of how much
contamination Sink Creek can handle ❑ - L L L
Regulations protecting Dry Sink watershed limit my
choices and personal freedom L L L L L
I would be willing to spend a few hours a month of
my own time helping to reduce any Sink Creek L L L' L' L
pollution problems
"'` Landowners should bear the cost of improving the
watershed L L L L L
Taxpayers should bear the cost of improving the
watershed
L ❑ L L L
r
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 1 Already `—
need more interest Applicable Adopted
information to my property Practice
Wetland restoration
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
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) ❑ ❑ CI CI ..--
Backyard conservation/Wildlife habitat improvement ❑ U ❑ ❑ `,
Filter strips along the creek
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Waterways `.
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Inlet protection for storm sewers ....
CI ❑ ❑ ❑
Urban construction control `'
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Terraces `"
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ .r
Minimal use of lawn and garden fertilizers &pesticides.
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ...
Rock check dams
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ...
Assistance in disposal of household hazardous waste
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Contour strips
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ `"
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 ► ► ► ► ► Wanting to preserve the watershed
Disinterested in the watershed ► ► ► ► ► An advocate of the watershed ..—
In cooperation with the
watershed ► ► i ► ► 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 Not at all passionate towards the
watershed ► ► ► ► ► watershed
Not respectful of the watershed ► ► ► ► ► Very respectful of the watershed ....-
..,-
Independent of the watershed ► ► i ► ► Dependent of the watershed
Sentimental thinking about the Emotionless thinking about the
watershed ► ► ► ► ► watershed
Sink Creek Watershed Survey--Fall 2010
Section B: 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
in Rural Resident in Sink Creek Watershed CI Absentee land owner
❑ Industrial/Commercial Business Owner U Developer who is/has worked on projects
within/around Cedar Falls
U Other:
Sex:
U Male
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)
U Moderate(e.g.,participate a few hours each month by becoming a member of a watershed committee or task force)
UMaximum(e.g., commit to making a change in my conservation practices on my land/property)
U 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:
^ Kathleen G. Scholl,Ph.D.,CTRS
203 WRC.
University of Northern Iowa.
" Cedar Falls,Iowa 50614-0241
Sink Creek Watershed Survey--Fall 2010
Sink Creek Landowner Watershed
Awareness Survey
Waterloo, Iowa
"' r .,_
f
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
ofts
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
a
Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010
2
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 -- R2S UNI Fall 2010
"'1
3
Report Summary
•, Landowner Characteristics
• Males = 62.1%
• Females = 37.9%
• Average age of landowner = 62 years
•1 • Age ranged = 24 to 88
• Length of property ownership:
0-5 yrs = 22.6%
= 6-15 yrs = 20%
Over 15 yrs = 57.4%
• Property categories
■ Urban Resident - 70.4%
• Rural Resident - 16.9%
■ Rural Farmer- 5.9%
• Industrial/Commercial Business Owner - 1.7%
■ Absentee Landowner - 1.7%
• 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
Unaware = 72%
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%
Water contamination is an important environmental issues = 55.5%
New construction Et development have increased the amount of soil loss in this area = 49.1%
Landowner Interest in Conservation Practices
■ Adopted practices
Minimum use of lawn and garden fertilizers Et pesticides = 22.5%
Disposal of household hazardous waste = 21.4%
- Windbreaks around dwellings = 10.6%
■ Landowner interested and need more information
Urban construction control = 41.1%
Native landscaping/wildflower garden/rain gardens = 38.4%
Inlet protection for storm sewers = 37.5%
Permeable paving = 35.4%
' Assistance in disposal of household hazardous waste = 21.4%
Landowners were specific on their concern regarding new construction as the primary cause of
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
Mean score of Sink Creek Landowners = 35.1
Scores ranged from 8 to 58
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
Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R`S UNI Fall 2010
..1
5
,*.N 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
--r 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 Et Daughetry, 2003 Et 2005; Hoope, 2004 &t 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 -- RZS UNI Fall 2010
a
- ,X ,..1, ,"'; .a,'.; 71 , hs :.• ., rt--'.r '.' +ca4t'.;,a..t "5° ,�Y, ,yks�.s `45 =L+i,. �:`' _ - 6 'y-
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 y--
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
association between landowners' environmental perspectives and their potential conservation
behavior in context with this small stream.
Methodotc y 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 NNW
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
C
- o N N
v a, L ,,,, 4, L v —
CU
a, N a) o U. It C 4_
O L R 3 v
a3c • j— Ifl a, E —co co - ,v
3 a, E � - , = o � � 4- � o
a.)" Q U U N
'� a) E .O o ° +N+ d a, 0
° a,
....� rC L N is ° a a a, a�i `��° . +� a�'i
3 j0, U N jaw) C ,O a., +� o " L (U C
QN a' � co -0ia CUe,, L 4' 4-
'"` •° -C O 3 C U L L p +' a0 to (p
v3 -- n E � o
.� E o
ra a, c E Q
° E 4- 0 � . �_ . roc a)
"'1 a' O 0 p e L �+ N C L
• O lam./ L L T 4-, y (U 40.+ i.1).
--� N (�4 (NI N v, o 0 3 _1 � aa)
4- a-, C CU
cD CU C
0
Q) N > N 0 L L C 0 O 0 4U, L a4.+ N (U
E .4-' it > ° v a, 7 4., 0'H o a, 3 +-
+-, 00 as V N C t6 (tea E 7 (a LO p +.+ 0 (a , C
oofEa � � � 3o aL, — � a, -o (�a v3, -pp ca
i1 L L �J N
r s_ 0 >+ CO a, � N Lils (a C _ m
L
v/ It M o „y 'v 3 a°nv v (0 o �o o v orn 4- o U c
7 U C U U) N > on L U C
--� o cdU � � a .. N � n LovcNcE MS a) o �
N O W (0 a, E i a, o onu uo � � I u E U xo a' o
..,, C^,, C rr . 3 o a aL v ° 3 ate *• G � a, � v a,
L O 3 0 _ �, ( O N ^ -0 •a) N p o LA' c o = > °
_ 3U � EoN > aiaciv� E Lc v°, con'' Lo (aE (° � °
° -p c ) � 0 p v ,, C o O N aJ •� O
a, +�., O 7"� L fa a, L 4- L a d
.... sn a L U di n-• � a, al - N Q, d Q) z's t6
v a, _ N a, N N N C L •C X y ^ C L L 7 C (a 4-, (a
(U a, L co on a, ir,a, a) U Q a,
rCS 03aa, 'v (Vaa, (Eaa, � co c(.,:s U 0 ovLI— CTL U) .
(^ Y u c o O a' c 7 p o ; (e, rp o vim,
.� C O ej U 4- 7 �, p O O N O J L W 0 O O O p a, > R
L.- CO — it 0 . 2 vs '0 N I. u .g a. . w .o 0 0 3 L o-w ct o- 3
u E 4..,
c 1° L U a, >.
V J o 4 o +. (a
n E J ° a+ L
4-
4- fa U Oa L (a N 0
-••, is C 3- 0 C on V C on.., on in O Q L .0
p O �, 0 c � ° c U c � fa ra L j L a, +�
— Q H U L to C O O O n o 4 .° L N ON v t6 C (, ^ 10 U
N tip ,F>'+ ' (a _" in �IV, o `n to ate., O a, ' fa o o C ,
i N OE a ° oaa) o > oma ciao ° . NEE o UCr clic
."�. > t on n O N a, a, (^ N a, 7 N an col
O on a! C a, N 0
I- OruL co On a, vE ` .2 aoL ° on�vs > N � U ° 115
a
'G ` L C E on`� on 4; E w ° •c 7 0 3 0
N
-. N a) 41 a`O C co ms o 0 `a N y a, 0 ,N., _y < v 4, N -0 •
4-._ ' RS i a) -0 p V1 VI U C 4-- a-, U 4-' U N ';-, O to R •° aJ w t6 C a, L N
U O 0 G 0 a, a, 0 a, i v, a, +' 0 o 3 a (a > C •L > •� -o -o +-j
u � ac n� 1, c -oy0 � a 0E ° 4E 'C v ° fa ° e) to
C L 00 (4 '- C o i >, C c N >+ p O 7 p .O N L L L C v
y0 a. v aNa, • `, O o R CI. OU ON O_I Ti t6 '= 3 -Op n cl) 0 E O n i• 0 1 UO v
"� a1 H o a, v ate., s N E a, vi U V H 'E c 0 U co E '+_07., ' +L.,
-` O N O i4'i, O a, a, O C N O a, a, U a, L1 0 M 'O +' " '• '' U E -0 O .-
(1 O VI 0 Or. r' OO. On 8,2 L N on fa 3 j, C O (La a, o v U a, 2 C m a, (>a 7
.0 O n co U .o (a 3 (n y., LC (a 3 0- N E I- U Ce U 4.., rts et +., 0 (a d' t o-
a...+
c
CU
a E a) m >, c *c
di c _> o E O L C O
L a, O
L O C R = C U a, O a, co" lJ
,+• N C d U N j �v, U H 'D coC a,
.o co E ° 0 .0 ce L a, a, L as an O
""`. Q 0 3 O o C. i O t °% 3 c M C N a., 00 0 M L T
o3� NoZ eV oVz° 0 3 = C. � � No (il o r` U °��` 3
--•.
00 }, o
a, w. a) a, a, v >, o ..
a 0 = v oonn a>i Y
a N 0 U ra F i, CO
Y 0 vl ro � � 3 +, ,0 0 1- 0_ uL
3 a) 3 0
U i � ° v � n0 >, Eo Z
L 1 L y �' 7 O R 1L6 O
m :�
N °0' 3 0 30 ° v o03 La,
t L . a+ C Q (Q IP
��
O n 'o a) �, a- > � 0 0ET '
3 g , al ) C n O O -0 N
O CL D = N in C L p . O CO ' a N o a)
# 5 'Op O 'C 10 p v O r.6 rv\1 On N Q \s
v, Ln v ,r E v N -- —•- .7 N -o ,- � v
.6, C ,-, a) I.-
L v aJ N O a (0 �„+
cu i, 4- 4, cu 4- ) L _0 E
a) 0 yv, • • • E 3 o (U t O 2 Ovi �, L O O O +, rn
3 a 3 .LLfoov3o -, -0Ci- uao3 (13
+' at ',ow,v.) C
7 3
-0 vi cLLN C a. O `..
C
fC O .O N 03 vi 'l 'C
�_ ofI i:+ L � J \.
U vL On
s_ 4- ,+, . 1 C - O Y
c a) �.
v w 03 � � v;
U c O on ono E o f U .,.
• L C L
N t0 s O , L O CO
V 61 U 0 u ro v) on C
ro o > a � o 'CT) ...
CD V_ Tti � s v v 0 Dona
t, W L O N On O U
t a, L a)
_ 'F.) N
CO Y H
= L E cu +, � ' C al
L/) 0 ' H \o co c a1 - . .....
k f0 U v 0 0 L .O fO
on N ., 0 H
a) f• 0° roUO •cooa ` v
f0 a. O n o n°° o f
U rn a. a. 0- E '° a. E
O N M 'D -0 O N NIOU
cC 0 s rt E .L ..
3 N o„ roua) ss v) ..
b N 3 0 0 > yam, v
O td d O �, C > ..
O 3 C C
a O —C.) O a " v 41 a) > U (U �..•
03 L o VI .- L L 3
+.+ H a 03 ° • 0 . a) a) >,
C to 4_, "0 j > aJ .►
a 06 a) a, >.
0 _C C
'O 3 C v � on = 2, v, v, R
ti..
N L 3 s L L L ca R 3 0
a U Ce O co 0 ,,, 0 3 3 �
C L >• CD i C VI
C VI
C >.
, C a) a" • , L. a.) a, a a) r6
O .55 � TO v v 0 v `.
N 4- ( .E (UY ` v 0 - On R 1 'C
ra cu L 7
� 0 3 U L 40 3 L E 3 0
Onv o 0 0 � o
a-.+ Lii O a) -la O in 'C LC 4- 17 0000 .0 �•
in .c
I� Nr > C E 4..' N '0 N 0 -0 ,) 4-,
4--'
C t
CD ^
O 03
c L so r6 _
MS
C
• O J C cc.
OL a1 N OL `�
IN
7 U V Ln v C N ,�, V ,m,
a) +, . a)
• N 0 L C r•M ,L rn E y U L 0 7
CS O O O a) O +1•' O• O N U rv'p ra O O ,.—
F— NZ NI— N = V N > x m N V)
GN
,.� -C p
(0 -C Co
Lr) c vi t C on tn
�. nLrl 0 �'vs a m C aa) CO
'� oL 3a ° c "0 3 � ti
o`n aa)i •,, o L >, a 0 „, Z
�� N • L O O O L N L
N C4 L (6 U) +N., O
N M L on 0 7 +:+ C Cl)
O N 4-+ C y O on a) C Cl.) C
on O v' r6 U -p
�'1 v N C a0.+ a) a) E U) N i
C i-, � N L
co
L. t3D N▪ 4-1 N O O , O U L_ a) co
L on c
C W w OE O L O O
O N 3 L }' 3 - . rD L)
'� it 7-4+, o ci 0 To o � a' N 3 3
a) }!
Q15.� � � N +' s N cs
O a)
a) M on '0 .' C 0 U) U t
Q t✓ 0
.N % vi ,_ L ,v+ , rD a) d To' i
u a,
N � >, 3 N Non+-' a) "0 -CC L f0
L r6 U L., C ,n L O >, p
,.1, •-, y0 n v N L VI C •on C .a N L
O E U •N w- O a) +� a) con C
R CO .+ C H N .. ca N iLi_
cu a) N O
O
^� J
E-perO Cw -p °C to C O ,
N 4- MI a)
a)-p U E -0 a) 1 (D U .. ' O n•N a)i) C C N s- >, O i O a NO � U 0U Q N NpL N (L
RS
4-
i) M N C
OQ M(A crs y - -0 .0 V UU IN 0 U .••• OJ
!PI
1 0 a)
O L-, on vs L C
C
"'� N '� N 'a . _. N
on 0. 0. 'O C(13 C
L a v , U 0 0 a
"� +, n c 3 on
�-+ U di rLD r6 N C U
05 on-o N a N
}• C on C on rD d N
+, c . E c coL
O O "O > L L •inon U on
+, N LL6 Q U O O C N L_
�.. _O fC >,U CCp v^ E_. O 05
rLD a)
+J 3 L L LO L_ O on 4-'
fC N O 0 C U) n a) 4.-
w faLvon _, c. �' o a v
s_ � aTivnoon N 0 L 0
o .0 ,rI a > , E •a a) v,
+., U ° a) ,,, +,
+� _
L 2oa .0 ;pc aU E 4-1
O E c 0 2 R .p CO -p a
� CD
L O VI '0 O O O C O C
• ,O aJ n3 a) ,n 0 +-+
N as c. >,� > . N. U .so w .o -6
4-
O
vI
Q)
7)
VI CO t a)
+J
L
C p a� c
C 3 C +.,
/N 4) G) (U a) 2 N 2
U N O
co
M O N a) ra J N O
L
,IN QJ N CO N Y +' i R
V a) J O O N i L)
�..� -Q ,p aL-+ M C M .0 N C C N p N 4-I
C) O L- 0 C O r6 0 C r6 E E O O
F— � z oI- o ? �� • ~CC3NII°
10wpm �.
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
r..
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 -- R2S 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
13(11%) ° °
Creek watershed today? (n=118) 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
24-271W .r:,. _ t x:!' , ,.. ,7,. i‘ % ,_ ,-.3 . ,zz v, ._d, x=- 12
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° 340 48 10 1
amount of soil loss in this area(n=116) (19.8%) (29.3%) (41.4°/o) (8.6%) (0.9%)
Septic systems can affect the water quality of Sink 9 43 54 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 a-
water quality of Sink Creek(n=117) (6.8%) (31.6%) (48.7%) (12%) (0.8%) �.
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%) "a►
Water contamination is an important environmental 21 44 44 7 1
issue in Sink Creek (n=117)
(17.9%) (37.6%) (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%) (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%)
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 It 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
13
Mr 4atiEWIIIIM VW
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 34 29 3
(41.1%) : (30.4%) ; (25.9%) (2.7%)
Native landscaping/Wildflower ardens/Rain ardens 43 29 35 5
gardens/Rain (38.4%) (25.9%) (31.3%) (4.5%)
-. (n=112)
Assistance in disposal of household hazardous waste 42 29 17 24
.-� (21.4%) (25.9%) (15.2%) (21.4%)
(n=112)
"` Inlet protection for storm sewers (n=112) 42 i 35 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
(34.5%) (28.3%) (29.2%) (8%)
(n=113)
-, Minimal use of lawn and garden fertilizers &pesticides. 36 33 17 25
(32.4%) (29.7%) (15.3%) (22.5%)
-. (n=111)
Windbreaks around dwellings (n=113) 36 i 33 i 32 12
^ (31.9%) : (29.2%) : (28.3%) (10.6%)
Waterways (n=111) 36 32 39 4
-1 (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%) i (29.5%) ; (37.5%) (3.6%)
Filter strips along the creek(n=112) 330 330 420
(29.5%) : (29.5%) : (37.5%) (3.6%)
Conservation cover(n=110) 32 33 36 9
(29.1%) i (30%) (32.7%) (8.2%)
Terraces (n=109) 29 i 32 i 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
(21.4%) (32.1) (44.6%) (1.8%)
Private septic system upgrades (n= 113) 9 41 54 9
(8%) (33.6%) (47.8%) I (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 -- R2S UNI Fall 2010
;,. a-� - 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
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.
❖ 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
ground 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.
Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010
17
❖ Recent flooding issues due to poor drainage and blocked waterways with debris which mus 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.
❖ 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.
❖ 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 wa✓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 -- RLS UNI Fall 2010
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:
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.
Bartlett, C. (2006). Stormwater Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors: A 2005 Survey of North Carolina
Residents. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Online:
!www.ncstormwater. �/pdfs/stormwater survey 12506.pdf Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Beeman, P. (2006, March 24). Rivers in Iowa among the nation's most highly polluted. Des Moines
Register.
City of Cedar Falls (2006). Storm Water Management Program. Currents! 16(2), 8. Online:
www.cedar /archives/73/Currents V16-2.pdf Retrieved June 1, 2008
(CF Ordinance 2569). (2006). Storm Water Management Program.
http://www.cedarfatts.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
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.nemzctr.orgi ecosystems/
Hoope, K. (2005). Assessment of Maine's Stormwater 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.gov/dep/blwq/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.govinps/toolbox/surveys/mainegeneral.pdf
Iowa DNR. (n.d). Improving Stormwater. Iowa DNR Watershed Improvement. Online:
http://www.iowadnr.goviwater/watershed/stormwater.html Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Salt Lake County, Utah. (2003). Salt Lake County Storm Water Study. Online:
tip:i, www.epa.gov/nps/toolbox/surveys/SL Watershed Report.pa Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Scholl, K. (2005). Dry Run Creek Watershed Development Grant Survey Results.
Scholl, K. Inui, Y, Ft 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., & 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.statelibrary.sc.goviscedocs/H3496/000146.pdf
Wagner M., Et Thompson, J. (2006). Social Dynamics Assessment of Iowa Urban Stormwater Issues.
Iowa DNR Watershed Improvement. Online:
http://www.iowadnr.gov/water/watershed/stormwater.html Retrieved May 23, 2008.
Water Tech Online. (June 6, 2005) Pollution in Iowa drinking water raises concern. Online:
-:::p://www.watertechonline.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
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.
Sink Creek Landowner Watershed Awareness -- R2S UNI Fall 2010