Lowes Creek Monitoring Report, 2004-2005

By: Becca Spaeth, Michelle Washebek, Meg Marshall, Jared Pierce, Mike Schwartz, Sara Schmidt

Introduction

Lowes Creek is classified as a Cold II trout stream and is a 12-mile tributary of the Chippewa River. It originates in the Township of Pleasant Valley in the Southwest part of Eau Claire County and is part of the Lower Chippewa River Basin, emptying into the Chippewa River just south of the City of Eau Claire.

A Priority Watershed Project was implemented in 1993 and completed in 2001. Despite efforts made to implement this plan, a Comprehensive Surface Water Resource Report completed in April 2002 reported that the major problems in Lowes Creek are in-stream sedimentation, habitat degradation, and high temperatures throughout the watershed. The probable cause of this was outlined as urban stormwater runoff, and the proposed solutions were to implement best management practices for controlling urban stormwater runoff, to install habitat improvement structures, and to increase stocking of brook trout (Parkurst et. al., 2002). According to findings in this report, brown trout are abundant with evidence of natural reproduction in the stream, but brook trout are scarce, out-competed by other fish species.

One of the factors that significantly contributes to the degradation of Lowes Creek is the storm sewer on the creek located just below the I-94 overpass. It accepts most of the runoff from the southeastern part of the city of Eau Claire. Parkurst et. al. (2002) mentions that the increase of impervious areas related to development, such as roof tops, roadways, and parking lots may have contributed to thermal impacts on Lowes Creek. The purpose of this report is to assess the impact of this storm sewer on Lowes Creek and to track changes since the Comprehensive Report was completed in 2002.

Methods

Two sites were chosen on Lowes Creek for study. The first (Site 1 or LC1) is just upstream from the I-94 overpass over Lowes Creek, upstream of the storm sewer, and the second (Site 2 or LC2) is downstream of the overpass at the mouth of the culvert or storm sewer (Figure 1). During the summer of 2004, data were collected on water temperature, macroinvertebrate communities, water chemistry, and habitat. In 2005, water temperature and macroinvertebrate communities were assessed.

Figure 1. Map of monitoring sites on Lowes Creek.

Temperature

Continuous temperature monitoring devices (Onset Corporation 75 day HOBOs) were placed in the two sites for the duration of the summer months, recording instantaneous temperatures every hour from June through August in 2004 and June through September in 2005.

Macroinvertebrates

Aquatic macroinvertebrates were collected in the spring and fall of 2004 and 2005 from sites 1 and 2. Specimens were collected in a D-frame net, preserved in alcohol, and taken back to the lab for sorting and identification to family. Data were analyzed using the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (1988), which provides a qualitative measure of organic loading into the stream, family richness, percent EPT (Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera), and Margalef’s Diversity Index (using family diversity instead of species diversity). It should be noted that Hilsenhoff scores calculated in 2005 were based on a modified version of the index, which includes several families that the original left out. This modified index raised average scores in this report by a half a point to a point. This index is more up to date and thought to be more accurate. More info can be found at: http://lakes.chebucto.org/ZOOBENTH/BENTHOS/tolerance.html

Chemistry

In 2004, two storm samples (during/after about 1 inch of rainfall) were collected in Lowes Creek. The samples were collected in sanitized bottles by methods instructed by Eau Claire City County Health Department (ECCCHD) staff. Samples were tested by the ECCCHD for metals (lead, copper, and zinc), phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus, and total suspended solids, and bacteria (fecal coliform and fecal strep).

Habitat

In 2004, stream habitat assessments were completed on two sites of Lowes Creek according to methods developed by Simonson and Lyons (1992).

Results and Discussion

Temperature

Mean water temperatures at Site 1 reveal a cooling trend between 1991 and 2005 (Table 1). Site 2, which is downstream of the storm sewer, reveals cooler or similar mean water temperatures as those upstream (Table 1). In the summer of 2004, both sites are about the same, and both sites are easily within brown trout range (12-19ºC daily optimal mean, 27.2ºC upper limit), and barely within brook trout range (11-16ºC daily optimal mean, 23.8ºC upper limit) (Lyons and Wang, 1996) (Figure 2). Temperatures in 2005 increased slightly, placing them just outside of brook trout range (Figure 3).

Based on USGS streamflow data in the Chippewa River basin about 10 miles north of Lowes Creek, increased flow in early summer versus later summer did not seem to have any effect on the water temperatures of Lowes Creek (Figure 4).

Table 1. Mean Temperatures (ºC) in Lowes Creek in 1991, 2000, 2004, and 2005.

Site and Location	1991	2000	2004	2005
Site 1: Upstream of I-94 and storm sewer	21.0	21.0	15.7	16.8
Site 2: Downstream of I-94, mouth of culvert	17.9	19.5	15.8	17.1

Figure 2. Temperature data collected by Onset Corporation HOBOS
in Lowes Creek Sites 1 and 2 in 2004.

Figure 3 .  Temperature data collected by Onset Corporation HOBOS
in Lowes Creek Sites 1 and 2 in 2005.

Figure 4.  Chippewa River Basin USGS stream flow data (CFS)
10 miles upstream from Lowes Creek Sites 1 and 2.

Macroinvertebrates

The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) values (Table2) were all within the “excellent” range in 2004, which didn’t change from 2000 (Figure 5). HBI values in 2005 were within the “good” range. Percent EPT values are high, especially in the spring 2004 sampling (Figure 6). In the HBI, the culvert site is slightly lower than the upstream site, but still in excellent condition (Figure 6). The percent EPT does not show any differences.

Although the scores for these two sites look good, there is a factor that is not taken into consideration. When sampling, all procedures were carried out according to standards, but it was very difficult to collect enough macroinvertebrates to get a full sample in 2004. In the 2 sites, spring and fall, we were not able to collect 100 individuals (see Appendix 1). It was difficult to find a good riffle for collection, as much of the stream bottom was either sand or bedrock. The individuals we did find were very low tolerance individuals, which suggests good water quality, but there were very few areas for these individuals to survive. 2005 found much the same difficulty at LC 2 in both spring and fall. We were, however, able to barely acquire 100 samples in the fall.

Table 2.  Interpretation of the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (Hilsenhoff, 1988).

Biotic Index	Water Quality	Degree of Organic Pollution
0.00 – 3.50	Excellent	No apparent organic pollution
3.51 – 4.50	Very Good	Possible slight organic pollution
4.51 – 5.50	Good	Some organic pollution
5.51 – 6.50	Fair	Fairly significant organic pollution
6.51 – 7.50	Fairly Poor	Significant organic pollution
7.51 – 8.50	Poor	Very significant organic pollution
8.51 – 10.00	Very Poor	Severe organic pollution

Due to a lack of days with large rainfall, a sample was taken after .5 inch of rain from July 31-August 2 (see Figure 7), as well as after the large amount of 1.60 inches on September 15 (there was also 1.04 inches on September 14). However, the water was

dangerously high during the second sample on September 15, and samplers were only able to get a sample from the site at the mouth of the culvert. In future years, it would be beneficial to take a baseline sample at the beginning of the summer during a dry period to find chemical and bacterial levels at normal periods. This was an oversight in 2004; we neglected to collect the baseline sample as was intended.

During runoff events, lead and TSS (Total Suspended Solids, a measure of turbidity) both significantly increased from the site above the culvert to below (Table 2). Some possible sources of lead in runoff are automobile residual fluids, paint from houses, and other urban sources. Since the culvert drains much of the southeast side of Eau Claire, this data shows that runoff from these urban areas is having effects in the stream. Turbidity is measured much higher below the culvert, also most likely due to urban runoff sources. However, levels of copper (extremely toxic to aquatic environments, sources in wastewater) and zinc (some present naturally, other sources from automobiles) remain at low levels during runoff.

Table 2. Chemistry on Lowes Creek (Summer 2004)

Site	date	Pb (ug/L)	Cu (ug/L)	Zn (ug/L)	Phosphorus (mg/L)	Dissolved Phosphorus (mg/L)	TSS (mg/L)
Above I-94	8-2	1.4	<49	<41	0.28	0.27	7
Below I-94	8-2	2.9	<49	<41	0.35	0.23	24
	9-15	3.3	<49	<41	0.12	<0.1	14

Bacteria levels were at shocking values during runoff, especially at the mouth of the culvert (Figure 8). According to the ECCCHD, safe moderate levels of E.Coli for recreation (such as swimming) are at 90-150 col/100ml, with a maximum at about 250 col/ml. During runoff events above the culvert in Lowes Creek, E.Coli levels exceed this by over 2000 col/100ml. Below the culvert, standards are exceeded by almost 12000 col/ml! These rates are especially alarming because there is evidence of frequent activity just downstream of this site on Lowes Creek; some lawns lead almost directly to the creekside and may contribute bacteria from animal waste.

Habitat

In 2000, aquatic habitat factors (fine sediments, pools, fish cover) were rated “poor” and non-aquatic habitat factors (riparian buffer area, bank erosion) were rated “good” in the Lowes Creek Mainstem. In the upstream site in 2004 (LC1), pools and fine sediments were still rated “good,” but fish cover improved to “good.” Riparian buffer area and bank erosion were also still rated “good.” Below the culvert (LC2), results were similar except that fine sediments improved to “fair.” These ratings seem to show minimal improvement or change in either site in 2004.

Table 3 shows a summary of the habitat evaluations. In both sites, fine sediments are abundant, but in the upstream site, soft sediments are much deeper than in the downstream site. This could have been due to the fact that many of the transects measured in the downstream site were on top of bedrock. Both sites lack a strong pool-riffle-run structure as is necessary for macroinvertebrate and fish survival.

Figure 8. Levels of E. Coli and Enterococcus bacteria in Lowes Creek in 2004.
Safe human contact standards are 235 Colonies per 100 ml.

Table 2. Habitat evaluation summary (2004)

Site	Mean Steam Width (m)	Mean Water Depth (m)	Mean Depth of Soft Sediment (m)	Substrate Composition	Percent Riffles	Percent Pools	Score
LC1	10.3	.36	1.62	51% sand; 19% bedrock; 13% gravel; 11% silt/clay; 4% rubble/cobble; 2% detritus	25	0	55 good
LC2	10.6	.34	.09	49% sand; 22% bedrock; 12% rubble/cobble; 6% gravel; 5% boulder; 5% detritus; 1% silt/clay	37	0	67 good

Conclusion

According to our data, the problems in Lowes Creek as reported in 2002 (Parkurst et. al.) of in-stream sedimentation, habitat degradation, and high temperatures throughout the watershed are still present. Temperatures are at the very top of the optimal range for brook trout. The habitat for these fish continues to be degraded, with high sediment levels and lack of pool-riffle-run structure. If the stream was stocked with brook trout there would be little chance of natural reproduction occurring.

On top of this, chemical and bacterial levels, especially below the storm sewer, are extremely high during runoff events. Numbers indicate urban sources, especially since levels are much higher below the storm sewer.

Efforts need to be taken on Lowes Creek to reduce sediment load and bacterial and chemical discharge into the stream. Some of these are at very dangerous levels, especially due to evidence of high activity in urban Lowes Creek.

References

Farmer, Darryll. January 19, 2005. Verbal.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7(1):65-68.

Lyons, J. and L. Wang. 1996. Development and Validation of an Index of Biotic Integrity for Coldwater Streams in Wisconsin. North American Journal Fisheries Management. Vol. 16:241-256.

Parkurst, A. et. al. 2002. Lowes & Rock Creeks Watershed (LC24-262) Comprehensive Surface Water Resource Report, Dunn, Eau Claire, and Pepin Counties, Wisconsin, MWBC = 2123900 and 2119000. Wis. Dept. Nat. Res. West Central Region.

Simonson, T. and J. Lyons. 1992. Fish habitat evaluation monitoring manual. Wis. Dept. Nat. Res. Madison, Wis.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Ken Schreiber (Water Resource Specialist), Dan Simonson, and John Sours (Fisheries Biologist) of the Western District of the Wisconsin DNR, as well as Darryll Farmer, director of the Eau Claire City-County Health Department, and Jean Schomisch, supervisor of the Eau Claire County Land Conservation Department for direction, instruction, and guidance in this project.

Appendix 1.   Macroinvertebrates found in Lowes Creek, 2004.

Spring		Fall
Site 1 (Above I-94) 14 Jun 04		Site 1 (Above I-94) 29 July 04
Baetidae	4	Athericidae	4
Brachycentridae	32	Baetidae	12
Chironomidae	2	Belostomatidae	1
Elmidae	3	Calopterygidae	1
Gammaridae	2	Elmidae	9
Glossomatidae	1	Gammaridae	2
Hydropsychidae	9	Heptageniidae	9
Perlidae	1	Limnephilidae	9
Psychomyiidae	3	Physidae	1
Tipulidae	1	Pteronarcidae	1
		Simuliidae	2
		Tipulidae	13
Total	58	Total	64
Site 2 (Below I-94) 14 Jun 04		Site 2 (Below I-94) 29 Jul 04
Baetidae	1	Athericidae	16
Brachycentridae	15	Baetidae	7
Hydropsychidae	2	Brachycentridae	9
Limnephilidae	3	Elmidae	3
Perlidae	7	Gammaridae	1
Taeniopterygidae	2	Hydropsychidae	3
		Physidae	1
		Pteronarcidae	5
		Simuliidae	3
		Tipulidae	3
Total	30	Total	51

Appendix 2. Summary of macroinvertebrate analyses for spring and fall 2004.

Spring 2004	Site 1	Site 2
Hilsenhoff FBI	2.26	1.60
Water Quality	Excellent	Excellent
Degree of Organic Pollution	none apparent	none apparent
% EPT	86.2%	100.0%
Family Richness	10	6
Margalef's Diversity Index	2.22	1.47
Fall 2004	Site 1	Site 2
Hilsenhoff FBI	3.88	3.39
Water Quality	Excellent	Excellent
Degree of Organic Pollution	none apparent	none apparent
% EPT	48.4%	47.1%
Family Richness	12	10
Margalef's Diversity Index	2.64	2.29

Appendix 3. Macroinvertebrates found in Lowes Creek, 2005.

Spring		Fall
Site 1 (Above I-94) 25 May 05		Site 1 (Above I-94) 23 Sep 05
Baetidae	26	Athericidae	3
Brachycentridae	2	Baetidae	2
Chironomidae	28	Brachycentridae	2
Dytiscidae	1	Calopterygidae	1
Ephemerellidae	10	Chironomidae	18
Gammaridae	10	Elmidae	2
Glossomatidae	2	Gammaridae	51
Heptageniidae	6	Heptageniidae	11
Hydropsychidae	2	Hydropsychidae	5
Hydroptilidae	1	Simuliidae	4
Limnephilidae	5	Tipulidae	1
Perlidae	2
Perlodidae	2
Simuliidae	1
Tipulidae	2
Unknown	1
Total	100	Total	100
Site 2 (Below I-94) 25 May 05		Site 2 (Below I-94) 23 Sep 05
Athericidae	1	Baetidae	27
Baetidae	19	Brachycentridae	15
Brachycentridae	15	Chironomidae	33
Chironomidae	17	Dytiscidae	1
Dytiscidae	4	Elmidae	1
Ephemerellidae	11	Gammaridae	3
Gammaridae	10	Hydropsychidae	12
Heptageniidae	7	Physidae	1
Limnephilidae	1	Simuliidae	7
Physidae	3
Total	73	Total	100

Appendix 4. Summary of macroinvertebrate analyses

Spring 2005	Site 1	Site 2
Hilsenhoff FBI	4.42	4.66
Water Quality	Good	Good
Degree of Organic Pollution	Some	Some
% EPT	58.0%	52.0%
Family Richness	16	9
Margalef's Diversity Index	3.26	1.86
Fall 2005	Site 1	Site 2
Hilsenhoff FBI	5.32	4.73
Water Qual