wyoming department of environmental quality...

1

WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYWATER QUALITY DIVISION

BENEFICIAL USE RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAM MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT REPORT

Waterbody: Prairie Dog Creek

Watershed: Tongue

8-digit HUC: 10090101

Segment Assessed: 019-2

Class: 2AB

1996 305(b) Report and 303 (d) List: Listed as only partially supporting aquatic life use.

Author: Scott Collyard

INTRODUCTION

Prairie Dog Creek originates in the Bighorn Mountains near Moncreiffe Ridge, northwest ofStory, Wyoming. The stream flows east until the confluence with Jenks Creek, where it turnsnorth until it enters the Tongue River near the Montana border. Tributaries to the assessedsegment of Prairie Dog Creek segment include Jenks Creek, Murphy Gulch, Buffalo Run Creek,Meade Creek, and Wildcat Creek. Stream flow in Jenks and Meade Creek is augmented duringthe irrigation season by a trans-basin diversion from the Piney Creek drainage and has asignificant influence on flow in Prairie Dog Creek.

Classification

Prairie Dog Creek is classified by the Wyoming Surface Water Classification List as a Class2AB, cold water stream (WDEQ/WQD, 2001b). According to Wyoming Water Quality Rulesand Regulations, Chapter 1, Class 2AB waters are those known to support game fish polulationsor spawning and nursery areas at least seasonally. Unless it is shown otherwise, these waters arepresumed to have sufficient water quality and quantity to support drinking water supplies and areprotected for that use. Class 2AB waters are also protected for nongame fisheries, fishconsumption, aquatic life other that fish, primary contact recreation, wildlife, industry,agriculture and scenic value uses.

REPORT OBJECTIVE

Prairie Dog Creek was included on the 1996 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies becauseanecdotal data suggested that the stream was only partially supporting aquatic life use.Recognizing the repercussions of such a listing, Prairie Dog Creek was later removed from the

2

impaired waters list and placed on a separate list of waters needing credible assessment databefore impairment status could be determined. Originally, suspected causes of impairment weresiltation, nutrients, salinity/TDS/chlorides, flow alteration, and habitat degradation. Thesuspected sources of impairment included range land, irrigated cropland, pasture land,channelization, flow alteration, streambank alteration, and removal of riparian vegetation. Thepurpose of this report is to document the DEQ assessment data and provide a determination ofwhether the designated uses of Prairie Dog Creek are supported

In 2000-2001, EnTech, Inc, under contract with the Wyoming Water Development Commission,conducted a Level I study of the Prairie Dog Creek watershed (EnTech, 2001). As part of thisstudy, water quality data was collected at 11 locations within the watershed. These water qualitydata will be used in conjunction with WDEQ data to determine use support status.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

All collection, analysis, and evaluation of Prairie Dog Creek was conducted in accordance withapproved assessment procedures as outlined in the following documents:

1) Manual of Standard Operating Procedures for Sample Collection and Analysis(WDEQ/WQD, 2001).

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

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

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

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

ASSESSMENT STATIONS

Nine assessment stations were established on Prairie Dog Creek and one station was establishedon each of four tributaries (Table 1). In most cases, stations were selected upstream anddownstream of each of the four targeted tributaries, as well as on the tributary itself. Two of thetributary stations (Murphy Gulch and Wildcat Creek) were limited to water samples only.

PHYSICAL SETTING

Prairie Dog Creek

Prairie Dog Creek originates in the transition between the Middle Rockies Central (MRC) andNorthwestern Great Plains (NGP) ecoregions (Omernik and Gallant, 1987), with the majority of

3

stream miles flowing through the NGP. The uppermost station, PD-1, is assessed an NGP stationalthough it lies on the transition from the mountains to the plains and may display somecharacteristics of a montane stream. All stations downstream of PD-1 clearly are in the NGPecoregion.

Prairie Dog Creek is utilized extensively for irrigation. Its headwaters lie at a small springproducing less than one cubic foot per second (cfs) of flow. Natural streamflow is augmentedduring the irrigation season by trans-basin diversions from the Piney Creek drainage to Jenks andMeade Creek and then into Prairie Dog Creek. Upon receiving this influx of irrigation water,Prairie Dog Creek can flow as high as 60-80 cfs during irrigation season (EnTech 2001). InOctober, the trans-basin diversion of water is ceased, resulting in greatly decreased streamflowuntil the irrigation season begins in May. Although the most upstream reaches of Prairie DogCreek were not included in the WDEQ assessment, they have been considerably altered byirrigation water diversion systems and could have negative impact on Prairie Dog Creek. Inparticular, the trans-basin diversions have caused considerable erosion to the Jenks Creek andMeade Creek drainage below their respective drop structures near Tunnel Hill in Story. Moredetailed descriptions of the aforementioned diversion systems, including photos, can be found inthe EnTech final report (EnTech, 2001).

Specific station characteristics such as land use, geology, soils, and channel type variedthroughout the watershed. See Table 3 for these characteristics, as well as for drainage area anddischarge data.

Photos were taken at all of the WDEQ stations, including upstream, downstream, panoramics ofthe area around each station, and other descriptive photos. Representative photos can be foundin the Appendix B.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

WDEQ water quality sampling results from the October sampling are presented in Table 4.WDEQ water quality sampling results from the November sampling are presented in Table 5. Please note that EnTech sampled a “short list” of parameters during the first five samplingevents, with a more extensive list utilized during the last two sampling events. Only significantresults are discussed below; parameters not discussed below either did not vary from valuesexpected to be found in the presence of minimal human influence, were within State waterquality standards, or did not have values considered to have negative affects on aquatic life(EnTech 2001).

Water Quality

Temperature

WDEQ data showed each station to be below the WDEQ/WQD (2001c) standard of 20oC for a

4

cold water fishery. However, the mid to late fall sampling dates were not conducive to detectionof violations of the temperature standard. The EnTech data showed water temperatureapproaching or exceeding the temperature standard at the lower five stations during their Juneand August sampling events, suggesting that the lower reaches of Prairie Dog Creek may notfully-support the protection and propagation of cold water fish species (EnTech 2001).

Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids

WDEQ data showed that October turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations werehigh at the most downstream stations (Table 4 and Table 5). In November, turdidity and TSS haddecreased significantly. Although it is not unusual for turbidity and TSS concentrations of astream to increase somewhat in a downstream direction, the increase in these parameters fromPD-7 to PD-8 are of greatest concern. In October, turbidity increased more than 17 NTU fromPD-7 to PD-8, reaching 23 NTU at PD-8. An increase of 10 ntu or more than can be attributed toanthropogenic activities is a violation of Wyoming water quality standards (WDEQ/WQD,2001c). TSS exceeded 100 mg/l at PD-8 and PD-9.

EnTech data showed greater extremes for turbidity and TSS than did DEQ data (EnTech 2001).Turbidity readings of 200-550 NTU were recorded at below Dutch Creek, below Coutant Creek,and above the Tongue River in October of 2000. In June of 2001, turbidity exceeded 20 NTUfrom Jenks Creek downstream, with turbidity readings exceeding 100 NTU at four of five sitesdownstream of Meade Creek.

Turbidity and TSS exceeded levels considered detrimental to fish and other aquatic life. Lloyd(1987) stated that turbidity as low as 10-25 mg/l and TSS concentrations greater than 35 mg/l cannegatively affect fish communities. Newcombe and Jensen (1996) states that TSS greater than 18mg/l can affect fish feeding behavior and abundance, and TSS greater than 50 mg/l can result inreduced rates of weight gain and affect avoidance behavior of adult rainbow and cutthroat trout.PD–8 and PD-9 clearly exceeded the thresholds suggested by Lloyd (1987) and Newcombe andJensen (1996), suggesting impairment of the cold water fishery designated use.

Electrical Conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids

Electrical conductivity (EC) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) increased in a downstreamdirection during both DEQ sampling events (Table 4 and Table 5) and each EnTech samplingevent (EnTech 2001). One exception was an unusually high EC at EnTech’s above Hwy 87station in June. The trend of increasing EC reflects an increase in dissolved constituents in adownstream direction. Although no numeric EC or TDS standards exist for Wyoming streams,an EC of between 700 to 3000 uS/cm can limit suitability of water for agricultural uses. For theOctober DEQ data, EC slightly exceeded 700 at PD-8 and PD-9, and approached 2000 in WC-1.

DEQ data indicated that for all stations except PD-1, EC was higher in November than inOctober, reflecting the end of flow diversion from North Piney Creek. In November, EC

5

exceeded 700 at all stations downstream of PD-4 and exceeded 2000 at WC-1. North PineyCreek drains a primarily granitic watershed with few sources of dissolved constituents, whereasPrairie Dog Creek and the sampled tributaries drain watersheds with largely sedimentarygeology. Thus, it appears that the water diverted from North Piney Creek increases the suitabilityof Prairie Dog Creek water for irrigation, although Prairie Dog Creek would not be able tosupport nearly as much irrigation without the North Piney Creek diversion.

Sulfate

Sulfate concentrations increased steadily downstream in both October and November, withhigher concentrations being observed in November (Table 4 and Table 5). This follows the sametrend as was observed for EC and TDS. The EnTech data showed concentrations as high as 865mg/L (EnTech 2001). Wildcat Creek appears to be a significant source of sulfate during both theirrigation and non-irrigation seasons, although, in November, elevated sulfate concentrations areobserved upstream of Wildcat Creek. Although Wyoming does not have a numeric surface waterstandard for sulfate, Winget and Mangum (1979) suggest that concentrations above 150 mg/Lmay have negative effects on aquatic life.

Chapter 8 of WDEQ Water Quality Rules and Regulations limits sulfate to less than 250, 200,and 3000 mg/L for groundwater to be used for domestic, agricultural, and livestock purposes,respectively (WDEQ 2001d). It can be implied that these limits for groundwater would also beappropriate for surface water being used for similar purposes. The domestic and agricultural criteria were not exceeded at any of the sampled locations in October, but was exceeded at PD-8and PD-9 in November.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have a maximum contaminant levelfor sulfate in drinking water, but does have a “maximum contaminant goal” of 500 mg/L. This“goal” was not exceeded at any station except WC-1.

Sulfate is a natural component of surface waters, and generally increases in concentration asstreams flow from its headwaters to its mouth through the NGP ecoregion. However, sulfateconcentrations can be increased by irrigation returns and industrial and other point-sourcedischarges. The presence of higher sulfate concentrations in November indicate that much of thesulfate in Prairie Dog Creek is from sources other than irrigation returns, and could be from otherman-induced factors or from natural sources. Nevertheless, the high concentrations of sulfate inWildcat Creek are clearly affecting Prairie Dog Creek water quality, whether from natural oranthropogenic origin.

Hardness, Total Alkalinity, Bicarbonate, and Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR)

Hardness and alkalinity increased in a downstream direction, with higher values being found inNovember (Table 4 and Table 5). There are no standards for hardness or alkalinity in Wyoming,however, hardness in excess of total alkalinity is considered “excess” and is indicative of the

6

presence of divalent metals, such as iron, strontium, and manganese. The EnTech data showedtotal iron concentrations exceeding 2.0 mg/L (EnTech 2001).

EnTech alkalinity, bicarbonate, and the sodium absorption ratio (SAR) data showed the sametrend as the WDEQ data, although SAR remained low (EnTech 2001). Each parameter increasedin a downstream direction, with bicarbonate concentrations exceeding 300 mg/L at the mostdownstream stations. When bicarbonate concentrations are high, calcium and magnesium ionsprecipitate as carbonates in the soil water as the water becomes more concentrated throughevaporation and transpiration. As a result, the ratio of sodium to calcium and magnesiumincreases (increasing SAR), possibly resulting in soil and plant damage (USEPA, 1986). Therefore, the low SAR of Prairie Dog Creek water may not be a true representation of irrigationsuitability over the long-term. Continued application of Prairie Dog Creek water could result indecreased crop production over time due to the elevated bicarbonate concentrations.

Fecal Coliform

Fecal coliform samples collected by EnTech (EnTech 2001) from 10/11/2000 to 8/16/2001showed numerous samples from the mid to lower reaches of Prairie Dog Creek that exceeded 200colonies per 100 ml, with several exceeding 400 colonies per 100 ml (Table 13). These samplesindicate that fecal coliform is present in quantities that threaten the use of Prairie Dog Creek forprimary contact recreation at certain times of the year, and that impairment of the use of PrairieDog Creek for contact recreation may exist. In response to these results, WDEQ sampled E. colibacteria at 6 sites along Prairie Dog Creek (Figure 2) from 7/9/2003 to 7/17/2003. E. coli resultsand site descriptions are presented in tables 14 and 15 respectively . The 5-sample, 30-daygeometric mean value for all sites on Prairie Dog Creek exceeded the EPA recommended WaterQuality Standard for E. coli of 126 organisms per 100 ml. E. coli was lowest at the mostupstream site and increased downstream to EC-3 before steadily decreasing at remainingdownstream sites. This pattern may be related to land use activity. Primary land use in the upperPrairie Dog Creek drainage is livestock grazing whereas Primary land use on the lower PrairieDog Creek drainage is irrigated hayland. Date is presented in table C.

Habitat Quality

Riffle Substrate Composition and Silt Cover

Riffle substrate composition varied among the Prairie Dog Creek assessment stations. Gravel(coarse + fine) was the dominant riffle substrate component at PD-1, PD-3, PD-4, PD-5, and PD-6. Cobble was dominant at PD-2 and PD-7, as well as the tributary stations JC-1 and MC-1.Jenks and Meade Creek appeared to contribute little sand or silt to substrate compositionimmediately below the confluences despite the high degree of bank failure found on these creeks(EnTech 2001). Sand was dominant at PD-8 and PD-9, which were the most downstreamassessment stations on PDC (Table 6). Prairie Dog Creek becomes a sand dominated streambetween PD-7 and its confluence with the Tongue River. It is believed that the sand dominated

7

stream bed below PD-7 is largely due to the alterations in the natural flow regime, streambedmobility, and channel morphology and is a result of irrigation diversions and returns. Alterationsin any of the above parameters could result in an increased width to depth ratio and lower streamgradient and could result in increased deposition through a loss in stream energy. It was notedthat cobble and gravel was found in isolated areas underneath the sand-dominated substrate,suggesting the channel has become embedded with sand.

Qualititative habitat assessment scores are shown in Table 7. PD-1, PD-2, and JC-1 haverelatively high habitat scores. JC-1 had some instability and disruptive pressure along the leftbank. Habitat scores are considerably lower at the other stations, with PD-3 and PD-4 having thelowest scores. Scores are lower at PD-3, PD-4, and PD-5 primarily due to increased silt cover onriffle substrate, a decrease in the ratio of pools to riffles (decreased geomorphic complexity), and a high width to depth ratio. The decreased geomorphic complexity and high width to depth ratioare often characteristic of streams receiving significant flow augmentation. During the irrigationseason, streamflow greatly exceeds the natural capacity of the stream channel, resulting inexcessive widening and straightening. At PD-8 and PD-9, the greater percentage of fine substratematerials lowered the total score, although other habitat parameters scored fairly well.

Macroinvertebrates and Biological Condition

Biometrics developed by Jessup and Stribling (2002) were utilized as a tool to assessbiotic/ecological integrity of Prairie Dog Creek as a means of determining whether designateduses, such as aquatic life, are attained. Prairie Dog Creek was evaluated with the WyomingStream Integrity Index (WSII) developed for the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion (Jessupand Stribling 2002). According to Jessup and Stribling (2002), streams that receive WSII scoresthat rate at or above the 25th percentiles of reference conditions are rated as ‘good’ or ‘very good’by the WSII and are deemed supportive of aquatic life uses (Table 1).

Narrative rating of WSII scores indicate that the biological condition of Prairie Dog Creek was“good”. JC-1 and MC-1 were narratively assessed as “good” and “fair,” respectively (Table 8).These data suggest that aquatic life use (other than fish) is fully-supported by Prairie Dog Creek.

Examination of individual WSII metrics (Table 8) as well as supplemental metrics (Table 9)indicate that Prairie Dog Creek is affected by anthropogenic activities, although overall thestream appears to fully-supporting aquatic life uses.

Percent dominant taxa is a measure of the extent the single most common macroinvertebrate taxahas in the sample. Like percent 10 dominants, the percent dominant taxa is an indicator ofcommunity balance. Additionally, the nature of the dominant taxa may also give some additionalinsight into the overall water quality at the station. The dominant taxa at the most upstreamstation (Above Jenks Creek) was riffle beatle Optioservus. Species of this taxa are generallyscrapers or collector - gatherers in erosional or depositional (sediment and detritus) streamsystems (Merritt and Cummins, 1996). The dominant taxa in Jenks Creek and also in Prairie

8

Dog Creek below Jenks Creek was the caddisfly Culoptila. Species of this taxa are scrapers arewidespread in distribution and commonly found in erosional stream systems (Merritt andCummins, 1996). The dominant taxa in Prairie Dog Creek above Murphy Gulch was thecaddisfly Brachycentrus occidentalis. This species is a collector - filterer that clings to vascularhydrophytes, logs, or branches in erosional stream systems (Merritt and Cummins, 1996). Thedominant taxa at the next five downstream locations (below Murphy Gulch, above and belowMeade Creek, Mead Creek, and below Highway 14) was the caddisfly Hydropsyche. Species ofthis taxa are clinging collector - filterers that are found in erosional stream systems (Merritt andCummins, 1996). The dominant taxa in Prairie Dog Creek above Wildcat Creek was the blackfly Simulium. This species of this pollution tolerant taxa are collector - filterers found inerosional stream and pond systems (Merritt and Cummins, 1996). The dominant taxa at the mostdownstream station (Prairie Dog Creek below Wildcat Creek) was the mayfly Baetis tricaudatus.This species is a collector - gatherer that is common in erosional and depositional stream systemsand also found on vascular hydrophytes in littoral zones of lentic systems (Merritt and Cummins,1996). The black fly Simulium was the second most common taxa at this station. These datasuggest an overall decrease in water quality in Prairie Dog Creek from the upper to lower stationswith the dominant taxa going from scrapers to collector - filterers to collector - gatherers.

Other Historical and Ancillary Information

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has historical water quality information onPrairie Dog Creek and Jenks Creek that corresponds to some of the sites that were sampled in1998. Samples were collected at PD-1, PD-2, JC-1, and PD-5. The parameters of interest areturbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), sulfates, total phosphorus, and nitrate nitrogen. Table 10lists all of the analyzed parameters for the samples collected in 1992.

The turbidity and TSS values at all four of the sampling stations are very low and suggest thatthese two parameters are not impairing the water quality at these locations at the time ofsampling. The sulfates are relatively low at the PD-1 (17 mg/L) and PD-2 (50 mg/L) stations. The sulfate concentrations are significantly higher at JC-1 (146 mg/L) and PD-5 (186 mg/L). According to King’s 1993a review, sulfate levels less than 150 mg/L were optimal formacroinvertebrates. The sulfate level is nearing the 150 mg/L optimal limit formacroinvertebrates at the JC-1 station and has exceeded this limit at the PD-5 station. The totalphosphorus and Nitrate Nitrogen levels were very low at all of the stations sampled and are not asource of impairment to the stream at the sampled locations. According to these results, sulfateshave historically been high within the Prairie Dog Creek Drainage.

During the summer flow periods between June, 1986 and September, 1992 the United StatesGeological Survey collected pesticide samples from Prairie Dog Creek near the confluence withthe Tongue River. These data were retrieved from the Water Resources Data System (WRDS1998). The location of this station is well downstream of the segment of Prairie Dog Creekcovered by this assessment report, however those data are of interest to the entire watershed. Ingeneral, pesticides levels were very low. Picloram (Tordon®) was the only pesticide commonly

9

observed above the 0.01µg/L detection level. Picloram levels in lower Prairie Dog Creek rangedfrom <0.01 to 0.07µg/L. Dicamba and 2 - 4 D were observed slightly above the detection levelon a couple of occasions. The higher pesticide levels appeared to correspond to the higher flowlevels in Prairie Dog Creek. Additionally, water temperature was collected during these summersampling events. Summer water temperatures (18 samples) in lower Prairie Dog Creek rangedfrom 10°C to 27°C with a mean temperature of 17.4°C. Only one sample (27°C) exceeded the20.0°C maximum allowable stream temperature standard for Class 2 cold water fisherieswaterbodies.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Stream and Lakes Database reports 14 fish species present inPrairie Dog Creek near the confluence with the Tongue River (Sec. 23, T.58N., R. 83W.). Thesespecies are presented in Table 11.

Historically, trout have been observed in Prairie Dog Creek as far back as 1959, and are thedominant trout species found in the creek. Records show that between 1959 and 1999 browntrout were collected and identified below Jenks Creek, with an estimated density of 281 fish permile. In 1968, brown trout were introduced above Meade Creek, with a density estimate of 420trout per mile. In 1969, brown trout were again introduced above Meade Creek, but theestimated number of trout per mile had dropped to 215. Brown trout population estimatesdropped considerably in 1970 above Meade Creek where only 22 Brown Trout per mile wereobserved. In 1999, 257 Brown Trout per mile were reported at the Below Highway 14 crossingon the Baccari property. Of the 257 trout collected, 117 were between one and six inches longand 70 were greater than six inches long. According to Wyoming Game and Fish Biologists,trout do not migrate during their first year and the large number of fish less than one year old(117) suggests that spawning was successful. Other common fish species found in Prairie DogCreek include the Mountain Sucker, White Sucker, and Longnose Sucker (WGFD, 1999).

Biological assessments (macroinvertebrates) were collected by the WDEQ/WQD at three PrairieDog Creek locations in 1992. These three stations: Prairie Dog Creek above Jenks Creek; PrairieDog Creek below Jenks Creek; and, Prairie Dog Creek above Meade Creek correspond to 1998stations PD-1, PD-2, and PD-5, respectively. Although the direct comparison of 1992 data to the1998 data using the Wyoming Stream Integrity Index is not truly valid because of the use of a1000 µm mesh sampler in 1992, these data comparisons do help substantiate the results of the1998 data (Table 12).

The 1992 data would have rated out as either “good” or “very good” under the Wyoming StreamIntegrity Index. There are several similar attributes between the 1992 and 1998 data, includingEPT taxa numbers and the percent non-insects. Major differences between the two sample events(percent Plecoptera taxa and percent 10 dominants) may be primarily associated with mesh sizewhere smaller organisms such as midges were not collected with the larger mesh sample, thusskewing the data toward the larger-sized taxa such as those in the Order Plecoptera.

10

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Classification

Prairie Dog Creek is classified as a Class 2 cold water stream. This classification is supported by the Wyoming Game and Fish Stream and Lake database which identifies Brown Trout presentwithin the assessed segment. Wyoming Game and Fish data indicates successful Brown Troutspawning.

Water Quality

Water quality data collected from Prairie Dog Creek on October 6, 1998 indicates an increase inturbidity of greater than 10 NTU’s and corresponding increase in TSS values from PD-7 to PD-8and PD-9 (Table 4). These increases may be the result of irrigation returns adding sediment toPrairie Dog Creek upstream of PD-8 and PD-9. Water samples collected on November 23, 1998show low turbidities and TSS values through the assessed segment on Prairie Dog Creek. Thehighest turbidity and TSS values were recorded at PD-8 with values of 5.4 NTU and 18 mg/L,respectively. The lower flows throughout Prairie Dog Creek during the November 23 samplingsuggest that irrigation was no longer occurring and therefore reducing the amount of flow andsuspended solids entering Prairie Dog Creek. While the turbidity and TSS values decreased inNovember, the conductivity, total dissolved solid, sulfates, and total hardness increased throughout the drainage. The lower flows eliminated the dilution effect observed in October andconcentrated the dissolved constituents in solution. Of main concern is the concentration ofsulfates throughout the drainage. From PD-2 to PD-9 the levels of sulfates increased significantlyin Prairie Dog Creek (Table 4). These results suggest that water quality in Prairie Dog Creek isvariable, and appears to depend on the flow in the stream which is controlled by the amount ofirrigation which occurs in the drainage. During the summer when irrigation is occurring, theflows in Prairie Dog Creek increase due to the additional flow provided by diverted water fromNorth Piney Creek into Jenks Creek. The irrigation demands in the drainage have resulted inseveral irrigation diversions and returns which add suspended sediments to Prairie Dog Creek,increasing the overall turbidity. When irrigation is completed in the fall, the flows in Prairie DogCreek are reduced, and the amount of suspended sediment entering the stream goes down. Thisresults in a lower turbidity throughout the drainage. Also, the lower flows concentrate thedissolved constituents and result in higher conductivities, dissolved solids, sulfates, and totalhardness values. The high turbidity and TSS values recorded at PD-8 and PD-9, as well as the 0.3mg/L total phosphorus concentration at both stations on October 6, 1998, suggest that the additionof sediment and the increase in phosphorus may be due to irrigation returns in Prairie Dog Creek,above the Wildcat Creek confluence.

Physical and Habitat Quality

The habitat quality varies from the upper, to the lower stations on Prairie Dog Creek. The highesthabitat scores were recorded at PD-1and PD-2 and JC-1. The lowest scores were recorded at PD-

11

3 and PD-4. Reasons for the drop in habitat scores throughout the remainder of the assessedsegment can be attributed to increased channelization due to irrigation diversions and returns,decreases in vegetation cover and bank stability, increased sedimentation, and a reduction inavailable aquatic habitat. Although habitat scores throughout the assessed segment are notdramatically lower than reference conditions, they do suggest that the habitat may have beenaffected to some degree by the irrigation practices in the area. There is a fair amount ofsedimentation in Prairie Dog Creek, potentially due to the irrigation return water adding sedimentto the system. A reduction in the amount of sediment entering the system would help to providebetter habitat for aquatic biota and improve the quality of water in Prairie Dog Creek.

Macroinvertebrates and Biological Condition

The WSII metrics indicates that the macroinvertebrate community is in “Good” condition, withthe exception of Meade Creek (“Fair”) when compared to Wyoming Plains reference streamcondition. All of the stations on Prairie Dog Creek are meeting criteria for aquatic life and appearto be supporting a healthy macroinvertebrate community. However, some of the upstreamstations may be lacking in community balance as indicated by the high percent 10-dominantvalues recorded. This result was supported by additional biometrics where the majority of themacroinvertebrates collected belonged to a single taxonomic group in many of these upstreamstations. Also, based on the relatively low number of Scraper taxa and high number of percent“Collector - Gatherers” at the PD-8 and PD-9 stations, results could be due to increased sedimentfilling in the available niche space for the more sensitive functional feeding group. The higherturbidity and TSS values recorded from the October 6, 1998 samples at both of these locationsmay also indicate that this is an area of excessive sediment deposition.

FINAL ASSESSMENT AND SIGNATURE

A review of physical, chemical and biological observations on Prairie Dog Creek indicate thatPrairie Dog Creek is fully supporting protection and propagation of cold water fish. Chemical data and Wyoming Game and Fish documentation suggest the presences of healthyBrown trout population. EnTechs data did suggest that temperature exceedences can occur but isunclear to the extent of the problem. Additional temperature monitoring may be required.

A review of chemical, biological, and physical data collected on Prairie Dog Creek suggest thatPrairie Dog Creek is fully supporting non-fishery aquatic life use. Although Prairie Dog Creekis clearly impacted by anthropogenic activities the marcoinvertabrate community appears to beadapted and healthy.

A review of E. coli data collected on Prairie Dog Creek suggest that Prairie Dog Creek is notsupporting contact recreation water use. Currently, Prairie Dog Creek is listed on Wyoming’s2004 draft 305(b) list for contact recreation.

12

A review of the biological and chemical data collected on Prairie Dog Creek indicate that PrairieDog Creek is fully supporting drinking water, agricultural, industrial and aesthetic value.

Author Date

Monitoring Program Supervisor Date

13

REFERENCES

EnTech. 2001. Prairie Dog Creek Watershed Mater Plan. Level I Study. En Tech, Inc. Consulting Engineers. Sheridan, WY.

Jessup, B.K., and J.B. Stribling. 2002. Further evaluation of the Wyoming stream integrity index,considering quantitative and qualitative reference site criteria. October, 2002. Tetra Tech,Inc., Owings Mills, MD.

King, K. 1993. A bioassessment method for use in Wyoming stream and river water quality monitoring. Draft. Wy. Dept. Env. Qual., Water Qual. Div., Cheyenne, WY 84 pp.

King, K. 1993a. A laboratory manual and illustrated guide to orders of common Wyoming stream macroinvertebrates. Wy. Dept. Env. Qual., Water Qual. Div., Cheyenne, WY68 pp.

Lloyd, D. 1987. Turbidity as a water quality standard for salmonid habitats in Alaska. NorthAmerican Journal of Fisheries Management. 7: 34 - 45 pp.

Merritt R.W., and Cummins K.W. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of NorthAmerica. Third Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Dubque, Iowa.

Newcombe, C.P. and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16(4): 693 - 727.

Omernik, J. M. and A. L. Gallant. 1987. Ecoregions of the west-central United States (map). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapidbioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers. Office of Water (WH-553),EPA/444/4-89-001. Washington, D.C.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied river morphology. Illustrated by H.L. Silvey. Wildland Hydrology,Pagosa Springs, CO.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality criteria for water: 1986. Office of WaterRegs. And Standards. Washington, D.C.

Water Resources Data System. 1998. Wyoming statewide water resources data inventory.Http://waterplan.state.wy.us.

Whittaker, Mike. 2000. State Board of Control. Personal Conversation. November 28, 2000.

14

Winget, R. N. and F. A. Mangum. A biotic condition index: Integrated biological, physical, andchemical stream parameters for management. U. S. D. A. Forest Service. Ogden, UT. 51 pp.

WDEQ/WQD. 1998. Beneficial use reconnaissance project-wadeable stream monitoringmethodology. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division,Cheyenne, WY.

WDEQ/WQD. 2001. Manual of standard operating procedures for sample collection andanalysis. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Cheyenne,WY.

WDEQ/WQD. 2001a. Quality assurance project plan (QAPP) for Beneficial Use ReconnaissanceProgram (BURP) water quality monitoring. Water Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY.

WDEQ/WQD. 2001b. Wyoming Surface Water Classification List (Table A). June 21, 2001update. Water Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY.

WDEQ/WQD. 2001c. Water Quality Rules and Regulations: Chapter 1. Wyoming SurfaceWater Quality Standards. Water Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY.

WDEQ/WQD2001d. Water Quality Rules and Regulations: Chapter 8. Wyoming Surface WaterQuality Standards. Water Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY.

WDEQ/WQD. 2002. Wyoming’s method for determining water quality condition of surfacewaters. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division,Cheyenne, WY.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1999. Fish inventory for Prairie Dog Creek

Wyoming Oil and Gas Resource Assessment Mapper website (WOGRAM). 2002. University ofWyoming. Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center. (http://wogra.wygisc.uwyo.edu/misc/wograindex.htm)

15

Table 1. WDEQ station information for Prairie Dog Creek and tributaries.

Station name (ID code) Section/

Town/Range

North

Latitude

West

Longitude

USGS 71/2'

Quadrangle

1:100,000

BLM Map

Prairie Dog Creek above

Jenks Creek (PD-1)

SESW Sec 27

T54N/R83W

44° 37' 08.43" 106° 50' 35.39" Banner Sheridan

Jenks Creek (JC-1) SESW Sec 27

T54N/R83W

44° 37' 02.76" 106° 50' 33.36" Banner Sheridan

Prairie Dog Creek Below

Jenks Creek (PD-2)

NESW Sec. 27

T54N/R83W

44° 37' 11.70" 106° 50' 37.41" Banner Sheridan

Prairie Dog Creek Above

Murphy Gulch (PD-3)

NENE Sec. 27

T54/R83W

44° 37' 47.98" 106° 50' 06.08" Buffalo Run

Creek

Sheridan

Murphy Gulch (MG-1) NW SW Sec. 14

T54?R83W

44° 39' 13.94" 106° 49' 42.27" Buffalo Run

Creek

Sheridan

Prairie Dog Creek below

Murphy Gulch (PD-4)

SWSE Sec. 10

T54/R83W

44° 39' 34.76" 106° 50' 12.34" Buffalo Run

Creek

Sheridan


Meade Creek (PD-5)

NESE Sec. 33

T55N/R83W

44° 41' 40.91" 106° 51' 09.75" Buffalo Run

Creek

Sheridan

Meade Creek (MC-1) SWSE Sec. 28

T55N/R83W

44° 42' 16.15" 106° 51' 27.69" Buffalo Run

Creek

Sheridan


Meade Creek (PD-6)

SWSE Sec. 28

T55N/R83W

44° 42' 18.91" 106° 51' 30.40" Buffalo Run

Creek

Sheridan


Hwy 14 (PD-7)

NW SW Sec. 17

T55N/R83W

44° 44' 20.07" 106° 52' 43.38" Big Horn Sheridan


Wildcat Creek (PD-8)

NENW Sec. 9

T56N/R83W

44° 50' 50.96" 106° 51' 51.70" Wyarno Sheridan

Wildcat Creek (WC-1) NENW Sec. 9

T56N?R83W

44° 50' 52.90" 106° 51' 49.28" Wyarno Sheridan


Wildcat Creek (PD-9)

SESW Sec. 4

T56N/R83W

44° 51' 50.96" 106° 51' 51.70 Wyarno Sheridan

16

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

Aquatic life use supportstatus

Narrative assessment Percentile of reference indexvalues

WSII score

Full-support Very good - >77.5

Full-support Good $25th 55.0 - 77.5

Partial-support Fair <25th 36.7 - 55.0

Non-support Poor - 18.3 - 36.7

Non-support Very Poor - <18.6

17

Table 3. Station characteristics of Prairie Dog Creek and tributaries

PD-1 PD-2 PD-3 PD-4 PD-5 PD-6 PD-7 PD-8 PD-9 JC-1 MG-1 MC-1 WC-1

Elevation(ft)

4380 4360 4280 4160 4060 4040 3920 3660 3650 4360 4180 4040 3650

Bedrockgeology1

Wasatch Wasatch Wasatch Wasatch Quaternaryalluvium

Quaternaryalluvium

Quaternaryalluvium

Quaternaryalluvium

Quaternaryalluvium

Wasatch Quaternaryalluvium

Quaternaryalluvium

Quaternaryalluvium

Soils1 HesperusVariant-

Reget

HesperusVariant-

Reget

HesperusVariant-

Reget

ColiamsWorthento

n

ColiamsWorthento

n

ColiamsWorthento

n

Worthenton-Recluse

Haverdad-Worthento

n

Haverdad-Worthento

n

HesperusVaraint-

Reget

Moskee-Nuncho

ColiamsWorthenton

Haverdad-worthenton

PrimaryLand use

Livestockgrazing

Livestockgrazing

Livestockgrazing

Livestockgrazing

- - - - Irrigatedhayland

Livestockgrazing

- - -

Secondaryland use

Recreation/Wildlife

Recreation/Wildlife

Recreation/Wildlife

Recreation/Wildlife

- - - - Livestockgrazing

Recreation/Wildlife

- - -

Discharge(cfs)2

4.45/3.82 26.5/6.24 23.7/5.12 28.9/12.2 36.1/7.16 45.4/12.9 44.4/14.6 64.9/21.8 68.3/24.0 22.1/2.42 5.57/1.13 9.28/5.79 3.49/2.14

Drainagearea (mi2)

5.9 9.9 11.7 34.1 45.5 48.6 70.5 89.6 116.1 4.0 18.1 12.1 25.9

Streamorder3

3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 - - -

Streamtype3

C4 F3 C4 F4 F5 C4 C4 F5 F5 C3 E5 E4 -

1 WOGRAM (2002)2at the time of sampling3Rosgen

18

Table 4. Prairie Dog Creek and tributary water quality data, October 6, 1998.

Parameter (Units) PD-1 JC-1 PD-2 PD-3 MG-1 PD-4 PD-5 MC-1 PD-6 PD-7 PD-8 WC-1 PD-9

Time (hours) 0935 0836 0904 1049 1210 1120 1435 1355 1335 1525 1700 1710 1615

Temperature (C°) 7.4 5.5 6.0 7.0 8.1 7.6 9.4 9.6 9.4 9.3 9.7 9.7 9.6

pH 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.5 8.0 7.9 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.5 7.8

Conductivity (µS/cm) 474 192 227 310 493 411 472 590 515 569 750 1940 748

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 11.0 11.2 11.2 11.1 10.7 11.0 11.0 10.6 10.9 10.8 10.3 9.7 10.2

Turbidity (NTU) 1.2 4.0 2.7 2.6 14 5.4 5.2 3.6 4.5 5.2 23 5.9 20

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) <2 10 11 9 20 20 17 8 17 29 117 8 132

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 276 120 148 208 328 268 304 380 312 356 496 163 504

Alklinity (mg/L) 250 75 100 120 150 140 170 235 180 180 225 370 245

Chlorides (mg/L) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 8 <5

Sulfate (mg/L) <10 14 13 40 98 75 96 79 97 108 145 780 168

Total Hardness (mg/L) 269 91 115 158 226 202 238 321 265 289 384 1085 408

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3

Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.1 0.1 5.0 0.4

19

Table 5. Prairie Dog Creek and tributary water quality data, November 23, 1998.

Parameter (Units) PD-1 JC-1 PD-2 PD-3 MG-1 PD-4 PD-5 MC-1 PD-6 PD-7 PD-8 WC-1 PD-9

Time (hours) 1225 1254 1200 1138 1000 1045 1112 1120 1105 1258 1412 1435 1355

Temperature (C°) 5.0 4.7 4.2 3.3 2.0 2.0 1.2 1.6 1.6 3.2 3.9 2.9 4.0

pH 8.0 7.9 8.0 8.0 8.3 7.9 8.2 8.4 7.9 8.6 8.6 8.2 8.6

Conductivity (µS/cm) 150 775 579 664 1137 787 925 803 884 917 1076 2060 1203

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 12.4 11.9 12.5 13.0 12.3 127 11.3 11.6 11.3 10.5 10.6 10.1 10.7

Turbidity (NTU) 1.4 3.6 1.5 1.5 3.0 2.6 3.7 4.2 3.9 1.9 5.4 5.2 5.2

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 5 14 11 9 <2 18 6 17

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 256 624 460 532 1002 648 660 552 620 664 796 1800 916

Alklinity (mg/L) 290 355 312 335 425 360 350 350 355 310 320 365 325

Chlorides (mg/L) <5 <5 <5 <5 7 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 6 <5

Sulfate (mg/L) <10 132 69 109 354 170 182 105 156 180 277 789 355

Total Hardness (mg/L) 320 480 380 420 640 500 500 420 500 520 620 1160 680

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.1 5.2 0.8

20

Table 6. Substrate composition, weighted embeddedness, and average water velocity at Prairie Dog Creek and tributary assessment stations, October 1998.

Substrate PD-1 JC-1 PD-2 PD-3 PD-4 PD-5 MC-1 PD-6 PD-7 PD-8 PD-9

Cobble (2.5 - 10") 29% 63% 54% 12% 11% 38% 67% 19% 62% 0% 0%

Coarse Gravel (1 -2.5") 14 14 18 30 49 26 6 34 17 3 3

Fine Gravel (0.3 - 1") 35 9 19 12 28 14 19 23 5 23 21

Sand (�0.3" , gritty) 21 14 9 38 13 22 8 24 15 74 76

Silt* (�0.3", fine) 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Clay (Hard Pack) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Organic (fine, black) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Precipitate (Oil,

WW TF)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Weighted

Embeddedness

99 89 87 65 56 49 47 48 85 100 100

Mean Velocity (ft/sec) 1.36 1.58 1.50 1.32 2.52 1.65 2.96 1.26 1.75 1.62 1.68

21

Table 7. Habitat Scores for Prairie Dog Creek and tributary assessment stations, 1998.

Parameter (points possible) PD-1 PD-2 PD-3 PD-4 PD-5 PD-6 PD-7 PD-8 PD-9

Bottom Substrate/Percent Fines (20) 16 10 6 14 10 9 13 3 3

Embedddedness (20) 17 20 12 9 8 7 17 20 20

Instream Cover For Fish (20) 19 19 17 5 15 13 8 4 6

Velocity/Depth (20) 15 15 15 14 17 15 13 11 11

Channel Flow Status (20) 19 19 16 20 18 19 19 19 19

Channel Shape (15) 10 14 9 12 8 10 10 11 13

Pool/Riffle Ratio (15) 14 13 14 6 7 9 7 12 12

Channelization/Alteration (15) 12 13 9 10 15 15 14 15 15

Width to Depth (15) 6 12 3 6 6 8 11 9 10

Bank Vegetation Protection (10) 9 10 7.5 9.5 7 9 7.5 9 9

Bank Stability (10) 8 10 7.5 9 7 9 8 9 8.5

Disruptive Pressures (10) 5.5 9.5 8.5 9 10 9 9 9 9

Riparian Vegetative Zone Width (10) 1 1 1.5 2.5 1 1 1.5 2 2

Total Score 151 .5 165 .5 126 126 129 133 138 133 137 .5

22

Table 8. Individual metric values, metric scores, cumulative index value and narrative condition rating for Prairie Dog Creek and tributaries.

Core M etric 5 th or 95th

percentile of

reference data

Metric

Value

PD-1

Metric

Score

PD-1

Metric

Value

JC-1

Metric

Score

JC-1

Metric

Value

PD-2

Metric

Score

PD-2

CMetric

Value

PD-3

CMetric

Score

PD-3

Metric

Value

PD-4

Metric

Score

PD-4

Total Number

Taxa

45 27 60.0 26 57.8 29 64.4 26 57.8 31 68.9

Ephemeroptera

Taxa

9 4 44.4 4 44.4 4 44.4 3 33.3 4 44.4

Plecoptera Taxa 5 3 60.0 3 60.0 4 80.0 3 60.0 5 100 .0

Trichoptera Taxa 10 6 60.0 7 70.0 7 70.0 7 70.0 5 50.0

% Plecoptera 13 1.04 8.0 2.53 19.5 1.09 8.4 1.62 12.5 4.29 33.0

% Trichoptera

(no Hydro)

31.3 16.1 51.4 53.88 100 .0 45.7 100 .0 75.7 100 .0 13.4 42.8

% non-insects* 0.5 2.4 96.5 1.08 98.9 0.55 99.9 0.9 99.3 1.86 97.5

% scrapers 31.8 51.6 100 .0 56.78 100 .0 45.7 100 .0 7.57 23.8 13.8 43.4

BCI CTQa* 62.6 69.96 84.5 73.37 77.3 67.2 90.3 83.4 56.1 70.3 83.8

Semi-voltine 7 5 71.4 4 57.1 5 71.4 4 57.1 5 71.4

Index Score 63.6 68.5 71.4 57.0 63.5

Narrative Rating Good Good Good good good

* The macroinvertebrate data for PD-3 did not meet data quality objectives for precision.

23

Table 8. (continued)

Core M etric Metric

Value

PD-5

Metric

Score

PD-5

Metric

Value

MC-1

Metric

Score

MC-1

Metric

Value

PD-6

Metric

Score

PD-6

Metric

Value

PD-7

Metric

Score

PD-7

Metric

Value

PD-8

Metric

Score

PD-8

Metric

Value

PD-9

Metric

Score

PD-9

Total Number

Taxa

34 75.6 19 42.2 32 71.1 37 82.2 32 71.1 28 62.2

Ephemeroptera

Taxa

5 55.6 5 55.6 5 55.6 6 66.7 7 77.8 6 66.7

Plecoptera

Taxa

3 60.0 1 20.0 3 60.0 2 40.0 3 60.0 3 60.0

Trichoptera

Taxa

9 90.0 5 50.0 9 90.0 7 70.0 4 40.0 5 50.0

% Plecoptera 2.03 15.6 0.53 4.1 3.75 28.8 4.73 36.4 11.04 84.9 10.05 77.3

% Trichoptera

(no Hydro)

14.3 45.7 7.72 24.7 29.6 94.6 14.6 46.6 1.74 5.6 0.79 2.5

% non-insects* 2.22 96.8 1.96 97.3 2.56 96.2 3.94 93.7 4.65 92.4 1.58 98.0

% scrapers 9.81 30.8 5.79 18.2 15.19 47.8 3.55 11.2 5.52 17.4 60.8 19.1

BCI CTQa* 76.06 71.6 82.21 58.6 75.17 73.5 84.76 53.2 83.44 56.0 80.03 63.2

Semi-voltine 5 71.4 2 28.6 4 57.1 4 57.1 4 57.1 5 71.4

Index Score 61.3 39.9 67.5 55.7 56.2 57.1

Narrative

Rating

good fair good good good good

24

Table 9. Supplemental metric values for all Prairie Dog Creek and tributary bioassessment stations.

Supplemental

Metrics

Metric

Values

PD-1

Metric

Values

JC-1

Metric

Values

PD-2

Metric

Values

PD-3

Metric

Values

PD-4

Metric

Values

PD-5

Metric

Values

MC-1

Metric

Values

PD-6

Metric

Values

PD-7

Metric

Values

PD-8

Metric

Values

PD-9

Ratio Scraper /

Filtering Collector

3.68 2.53 1.72 1.82 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.45 0.13 0.22 0.24

Ratio EPT Taxa /

Chironomidae

Abundance

0.00 28.52 22.48 12.67 38.47 7.12 18.04 7.76 3.25 2.64 7.12

% Dominant Taxa 42.63 46.65 35.10 45.05 57.65 38.70 59.82 32.74 22.88 22.09 38.70

% Chironomidae

Abundance

0.00 3.07 3.85 7.02 2.05 10.92 4.74 10.66 20.72 18.59 10.92

% Hydropsychidae /

Total Trichoptera

46.34 28.01 36.23 5.20 81.11 73.10 85.02 52.51 61.12 63.64 73.10

% M ultivoltine 4.90 12.66 17.64 9.14 17.72 26.76 29.43 22.73 39.35 26.89 26.76

% Univoltine 27.86 78.48 71.02 43.29 53.36 59.17 62.50 62.47 49.21 67.88 59.17

% Semivoltine 67.24 8.86 11.33 47.57 28.92 14.07 8.07 14.80 11.44 5.23 14.07

Modified HBI 4.09 2.89 3.17 1.79 3.52 3.71 4.25 3.44 4.45 4.99 3.71

25

Table 10. Historical water quality data collected in 1992 by the Wyoming Department of EnvironmentalQuality, Water Quality Division.

Parameter PD-1 JC-1 PD-2 PD-5

Temperature C° 10.1 11.2 10.0 6.8

pH (su) 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.6

Conductivity (µS/cm) 589 926 746 1008

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 9.80 9.20 9.00 9.40

Turbidity (NTU) 1.14 1.13 1.29 0.99

TSS (mg/L) �2 �2 �2 �2

Alkalinity (mg/L) 277 348 295 285

Chlorides (mg/L) �5 �5 �5 �5

Sulfate (mg/L) 17 146 50 186

Total Hardness (mg/L) 159 192 148 190

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.18 �0.1 �0.1 �0.1

Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) �0.1 �0.1 �0.1 �0.1

26

Table 11. Prairie Dog Creek near confluence with Tongue River, fish species and their characteristics.

Species Name Game / Nongame1 Cold- / Warmwater2 Native / Introduced3

Brown Trout Gamefish Coldwater Introduced

White Sucker Nongame Fish Coldwater Native

Mountain Sucker Nongame Fish Coldwater Native

Longnose Dace Nongame Fish Coldwater Native

Flathead Minnow Nongame Fish Coldwater Native

Creek Chub Nongame Fish Coldwater Native

Stonecat Nongame fish Coldwater Native

White Crappie Gamefish Warmwater Introduced

Flathead Chub Nongame fish Coldwater Native

Plains Minnow Nongame fish Coldwater Native

Sand Shiner Nongame Fish Coldwater Native

Carp Nongame Fish Coldwater Introduced

Shorthead Redhorse Nongame Fish Coldwater Native

1

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Chapter 1 Water Quality Standards (1998)2 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Chapter 1 Water Quality Standards (1998) for gamefish species. Wyoming

Game and Fish Stream and Lakes Database for nongame fish species.

27

Table 12. Prairie Dog Creek macroinvertebrate data, 1992 and 1998 collections at three stations.

Above Jenks Cr. Below Jenks Cr. Above Meade Cr.

Metric 1992 1998 1992 1998 1992 1998

Total Number Taxa 38 27 21 29 33 34

Ephemeroptera Taxa 5 4 3 4 3 5

Plecoptera Taxa 6 3 2 4 4 3

Trichoptera Taxa 7 6 5 7 4 9

% Plecoptera 5.5 1.04 10.45 1.09 5.25 2.03

% Trichoptera (no Hydro) 13.1 16.1 16.99 45.7 24.5 14.3

% non-insects 5 2.4 0.38 0.55 2.83 2.22

% scrapers 37.7 51.6 3.75 45.7 2.42 9.81

BCI CTQa 70 69.96 72.8 67.2 82.3 76.06

Semi-voltine 5 5 4 5 5 5

WSII Scoring* 74.2 63.6 55.2 72.9 57.9 61.3

WSII Rating* Good Good Good Good Good Good

* The W SII Scoring and Rating system is based on collections made with 500 µm mesh

28

Table 13. Fecal Coliform bacteria (number/100 ml) analyses for samples collected in the Prairie Dog Creek drainage by EnTech.

Site Descriptions Sampling dates

10/11/2000 2/1/2001 4/26/2001 6/21/2001 8/16/2001

Prairie Dog Ditch 9 1 2 22 86

Prairie Dog Creek above Hwy. 87 5 1 1 88 80

Jenks Creek 21 5 91 27 52

Prairie Dog Creek below confluence with Jenks Creek 26 0 79 32 520

Prairie Dog Creek below confluence with Murphy Gulch 24 98 2 1100 360

Prairie Dog Creek below confluence with Meade Creek 62 18 99 490 590

Prairie Dog Creek above Highway 336 156 6 15 390 210

Prairie Dog Creek below confluence with Wildcat Creek 1050 6 2 390 310

Prairie Dog Creek below confluence with Dutch Creek 116 8 7 224 161

Prairie Dog Creek below confluence with Coutant Creek 148 13 2 330 82

Prairie Dog Creek above confluence with Tongue River 183 1 5 510 59

29

Table 14. Additional descriptive information for Prairie Dog Creek E. coli collection sites.

EC-1 EC-2 EC-3 EC-4 EC-5 EC-6

Quarter NE SW NW NE NE NE SW SE NW NW SW SW

Section 27 15 20 18 18 23

Township 57 54 55 56 57 58

Range 83 83 83 83 83 83

Latitude 44.6204 44.6584 44.7309 44.8219 44.9215 44.9853

Longitude 106.8444 106.8365 106.8747 106.8999 106.8599 106.8389

Land Use Livestock grazing,recreation andwildlife, irrigatedhayland

Livestock grazing,recreation andwildlife, irrigatedhayland

Livestock grazing,recreation andwildlife, irrigatedhayland

Irrigated hayland,limited livestockgrazing, recreationand wildlife

Irrigated croprow/hayland,limited livestockgrazing, recreationand wildlife

Irrigated croprow/hayland,limited livestockgrazing, recreationand wildlife

30

Table 15: WDEQ Prairie Dog Creek E. coli bacteria results (most probable number/100 ml).

7/9/2003 7/14/2003 7/15/2003 7/16/2003 7/17/2003 Geometric Mean

EC-1 218.7 193.5 325.5 307.6 261.3 256.4

EC-2 686.7 1119.9 920.8 648.8 1119.3 899.1

EC-3 1413.6 770.1 2419.6 1299.7 1986.3 1467.2

EC-4 549.3 1203.3 1046.2 2419.6 980.4 1104.1

EC-5 629.5 816.4 686.7 1553.1 1299.7 934.4

EC-6 686.7 271.8 178.2 307.69 547.58 354.5

31

APPENDIX A-1: Prairie Dog Cr. abv. Jenks Cr., 279-4MR, Oct. 6, 1998

WY: DEQ-Water Quality Division. Deter. by Aquatic Biology Associates, Inc.

Benthic invertebrate biomonitoring. Composite 8 Surbers (500 micron).

Abundance per square meter, 500+ organism subsample. FILE: 98WD160

IDENTIFICATION CODE 98WD160

CORRECTION FACTOR 2.37

Taxon Abundance %

Turbellaria 2 0.17

Physella 17 1.21

Gammarus 2 0.17

Acari 12 0.87

TOTAL: NON INSECTS 33 2.43

Baetis tricaudatus 7 0.52

Heptagenia/Nixe 2 0.17

Rhithrogena 2 0.17

Paraleptophlebia 40 2.95

TOTAL: EPHEMEROPTERA 52 3.81

Chloroperlidae 5 0.35

Malenka 2 0.17

Isoperla 7 0.52

TOTAL: PLECOPTERA 14 1.04

Brachycentrus occidentalis 88 6.41

Micrasema 9 0.69

Helicopsyche borealis 114 8.32

Hydropsyche 190 13.86

Oecetis 7 0.52

Limnephilidae 2 0.17

TOTAL: TRICHOPTERA 410 29.98

Petrophila 2 0.17

TOTAL: LEPIDOPTERA 2 0.17

Cleptelmis 159 11.61

Microcylloepus 2 0.17

Optioservus 583 42.63

Zaitzevia 88 6.41

TOTAL: COLEOPTERA 832 60.83

Dixa 2 0.17

Simulium 2 0.17

Stratiomyiidae 2 0.17

Dicranota 5 0.35

Hexatoma 12 0.87

TOTAL: DIPTERA 24 1.73

GRAND TOTAL 1367 100.00

32

APPENDIX A-2: Jenks Creek, 279-2MR, October 6, 1998






Taxon Abundance %

Lumbriculidae 5 0.18

Acari 24 0.90


Acentrella insignificans 38 1.45


Ephemerella inermis/infrequens 81 3.07



Capniidae 5 0.18

Pteronarcella 57 2.17

Taeniopterygidae 5 0.18



Culoptila 1226 46.65

Glossosoma 10 0.36


Lepidostoma-sand case larvae 19 0.72


Psychomyia 100 3.80



Zaitzevia 5 0.18


Atherix 43 1.63

Chelifera 5 0.18

Simulium 38 1.45

Antocha 10 0.36


Chironomidae-pupae 24 0.90

Cardiocladius 14 0.54

Cladotanytarsus 5 0.18

Lopescladius 5 0.18

Orthocladius Complex 33 1.27

TOTAL: CHIRONOMIDAE 81 3.07


33

APPENDIX A-3: Prairie Dog Cr. blw. Jenks, 279-3MR, October 6, 1998






Taxon Abundance %

Nematoda 5 0.18

Enchytraeidae 10 0.37


Acentrella turbida 111 4.02





Zapada cinctipes 5 0.18

Isoperla 5 0.18





Culoptila 968 35.10

Glossosoma 15 0.55




Psychomyia 101 3.66


Petrophila 5 0.18


Cleptelmis 5 0.18


Zaitzevia 20 0.73


Atherix 71 2.56

Simulium 15 0.55

Dicranota 5 0.18

Hexatoma 5 0.18




Cricotopus Trifascia Gr. 5 0.18

Eukiefferiella 10 0.37




34

APPENDIX A-4: Prairie Dog Creek abv. Murphy Gulch, 280-1MR, Oct.7, 1998






Taxon Abundance %

Imma. Tubificid w/o cap. setae 8 0.18

Physella 8 0.18

Acari 23 0.54






Chloroperlidae 8 0.18

Isoperla 46 1.08




Glossosoma 23 0.54

Protoptila 185 4.32




Psychomyia 31 0.72


Optioservus 85 1.98

Zaitzevia 8 0.18


Atherix 15 0.36

Hexatoma 15 0.36

Tipula 8 0.18




Micropsectra 31 0.72

Odontomesa 15 0.36


Robackia 23 0.54



35

APPENDIX A-5: Prairie Dog Cr. blw. Murphy Gulch, 280-1MK, Oct. 7,1998






Taxon Abundance %

Turbellaria 27 0.37

Nematoda 13 0.19

Nais variabilis 54 0.75


Acari 27 0.37


Ophiogomphus 27 0.37

TOTAL: ODONATA 27 0.37






Zapada cinctipes 13 0.19

Perlodidae-early instar 13 0.19

Isoperla 40 0.56

Skwala 13 0.19





Culoptila 13 0.19



Psychomyia 13 0.19





Atherix 215 2.99

Antocha 13 0.19

Dicranota 27 0.37

Hexatoma 13 0.19



Cricotopus 27 0.37




Rheotanytarsus 13 0.19



36

APPENDIX A-6: Prairie Dog Creek abv. Meade Cr., 281-1MR, Oct. 8,1998






Taxon Abundance %

Acari 72 2.22




Ephemerella aurivillii 6 0.19


Tricorythodes minutus 6 0.19


Isoperla 30 0.93




Amiocentrus aspilus 36 1.11




Hydroptila 12 0.37


Nectopsyche 6 0.19

Oecetis 12 0.37

Psychomyia 96 2.96


Petrophila 42 1.30




Zaitzevia 6 0.19


Atherix 18 0.56

Chelifera 12 0.37

Hemerodromia 6 0.19

Simulium 24 0.74

Dicranota 12 0.37




Cricotopus 72 2.22




Polypedilum 6 0.19




37

APPENDIX A-7: Meade Creek, 280-2MK, October 7, 1998






Taxon Abundance %

Acari 63 1.93


Acentrella turbida 167 5.09






Isoperla 17 0.53




Cheumatopsyche 92 2.81


Hydroptila 17 0.53


Petrophila 98 2.98


Optioservus 52 1.58


Simulium 109 3.33








38

APPENDIX A-8: Prairie Dog Cr. blw. Meade Cr., 280-3MR, Oct. 7, 1998






Taxon Abundance %

Ferrissia 8 0.59

Acari 25 1.97


Baetidae 3 0.20







Perlodidae-early instar 5 0.39

Isoperla 20 1.58







Hydroptila 35 2.76


Nectopsyche 5 0.39

Oecetis 13 0.99

Triaenodes 3 0.20

Psychomyia 141 11.05


Petrophila 20 1.58



Optioservus 10 0.79


Atherix 3 0.20

Chelifera 5 0.39

Simulium 10 0.79

Hexatoma 3 0.20




Cricotopus 8 0.59







39

APPENDIX A-9: Prairie Dog Creek blw. HWY 14, 281-1MK, Oct. 8, 1998






Taxon Abundance %


Ophidonais serpentina 3 0.20

Lymnaeidae 3 0.20

Acari 50 3.16


Ophiogomphus 6 0.39





Cinygmula 3 0.20




Isoperla 31 1.97






Hydroptila 12 0.79

Ochrotrichia 16 0.99

Nectopsyche 12 0.79

Psychomyia 25 1.58


Petrophila 12 0.79



Optioservus 6 0.39


Atherix 9 0.59

Chelifera 3 0.20

Hemerodromia 9 0.59

Simulium 71 4.54

Dicranota 3 0.20



Brillia 3 0.20



Cricotopus 16 0.99


Diamesa 6 0.39





40


APPENDIX A-10: Prairie Dog Creek abv. Cat Cr., 296-1MK, Oct. 23,1998






Taxon Abundance %


Nais variabilis 3 0.58


Hyalella azteca 15 3.20


Baetidae 5 1.16

Acentrella 8 1.74


Caenis 1 0.29


Stencron 8 1.74

Leptophlebia 8 1.74



Capniidae 3 0.58

Acroneuria 1 0.29




Hydropsyche 14 2.91

Oecetis 1 0.29

Triaenodes 1 0.29


Petrophila 3 0.58


Dubiraphia 3 0.58



Hemerodromia 5 1.16

Simulium 103 22.09



Cricotopus 1 0.29

Cricotopus Bicinctus Gr. 7 1.45


Diamesa 8 1.74



Pagastia 1 0.29

Parametriocnemus 1 0.29

Thienemanniella 1 0.29


41


APPENDIX A-11: Prairie Dog Creek blw. Cat Cr., 296-2MK, October 23,1998






Taxon Abundance %


Hyalella azteca 1 0.26

Acari 4 0.79


Ophiogomphus 3 0.53


Baetidae 5 1.06

Acentrella 13 2.65



?Stenacron 4 0.79

Leptophlebia 1 0.26



Acroneuria 3 0.53

Isoperla 12 2.38




Cheumatopsyche 3 0.53

Hydropsyche 24 4.76

Nectopsyche 1 0.26

Oecetis 1 0.26


Petrophila 3 0.53


Dytiscidae 1 0.26



Hemerodromia 1 0.26

Simulium 74 14.55



Cricotopus 1 0.26


Diamesa 7 1.32





1

APPENDIX C

2

SUMMARY REPORT FOR TOTAL COLIFORM and E. coli 7/23/2002

WATERBODY: Prairie Dog Creek

WATERSHED: 10090101

CLASS: 2AB

DESIGNATED USES: General aquatic life, fish consumption,protection and propagation of cold waterfish, drinking water, wildlife, aestheticvalue, industrial and agricultural

1996 305(B) REPORT AND 303(d)LIST:

Listed as only partially supporting aquaticlife use

AUTHOR: Scott Collyard

The Consulting Engineers, EnTech, Inc. of Sheridan WY measured Fecal coliformbacteria in Prairie Dog Creek in 2000 and 2001. The provisional data from that studyindicated high fecal coliform bacteria in several sites between the months of June andAugust of 2001 (Table 1).

In response to these studies the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, WaterQuality Division conducted E. coli bacteria sampling at 6 sites along Prairie Dog Creekduring the period from 7/9/02 to 7/17/03.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

Samples were collected, prepared and analyzed using the Colilert? method distributed byIDEXX, Inc. A most probable numbers table (MPN) was used to enumerate the numberof E. coli per 100ml (MPN/100 ml).

WDEQ STATION DESCRIPTIONS:

PD-1: First bridge crossing on Prairie Dog Creek Road heading north off of Interstate 90 (Approximately ? mile downstream of Jenks Creek Confluence).

PD-2: Fifth bridge crossing heading north on Prairie Dog Creek Road (at confluencewith Murphy Gulch).

PD-3: Bridge crossing on Highway 14 east of Sheridan (approximately 2 milesdownstream of Meade Creek confluence).

PD-4: Highway 336 bridge crossing east of Sheridan

PD-5: County Road 114 bridge crossing.

PD-6: County Road 1211 bridge crossing downstream from confluence with the TongueRiver.

3

Additional site information is provided in Table 2.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

E. coli results are presented in Table 3. The 5-sample, 30-day geometric mean value forall sites on Prairie Dog creek exceeded the EPA recommended Water Quality Standardfor E. coli of 126 organisms per 100 ml. E. coli was lowest at the most upstream site andincreased downstream to PD-3 before steadily decreasing at the remaining sites. Thispattern seems to be related to land use activity. Primary land use in the upper Prairie DogCreek drainage is more related to livestock grazing whereas the lower Prairie Dog Creekdrainage is mostly irrigated row crop hayland. In addition there are numerous residencesalong the entire length of the Creek.

These data indicate that the designated use of Recreation is not being fully supported onPrairie Dog Creek due to E. coli bacteria.

QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL

All E. coli analysis contained a minimum of one blank of which none exhibited any E.coli. One duplicate was collected at PD-3 on 7/16/03. The relative percent differencebetween the two samples was 0.

4

Table 1. Fecal Coliform bacteria (number per 100 milliliters) analyses for samples collected in the Prairie Dog Creek drainage by EnTech.

Sampling dates

Site Descriptions 10/11/2000 2/1/2001 4/26/2001 6/21/2001 8/16/2001

Prairie Dog Ditch 9 1 2 22 86


Jenks Creek 21 5 91 27 52

Prairie Dog Creek below confluence with Jenks Creek 26 0 79 32 520

Prairie Dog Creek below confluence with Murphy Gulch 24 98 2 1100 360

Prairie Dog Creek below confluence with Mead Creek 62 18 99 490 590


Prairie Dog Creek below confluence with Wildcat Creek 1050 6 2 390 310

Prairie Dog Creek below confluence with Dutch Creek 116 8 7 224 161

Prairie Dog Creek below confluence with Coutant Creek 148 13 2 330 82

Prairie Dog Creek above confluence with Tongue River 183 1 5 510 59

wyoming department of environmental quality...

Documents