Monitoring and Assessment for Watershed Plans November, 2007 Using Hoosier Riverwatch Data for Assessment and Planning.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Middle Eel River Initiative: A collaborative approach for ecological studies.
Advertisements

Watershed Watch Protocols Level I. Goals for this module Understand how biomonitoring is used to evaluate the health of a stream Understand how biomonitoring.
Report on Biological & Water Quality Monitoring in the East Branch DuPage Watershed: 2011 DuPage River-Salt Creek Work Group August 28, 2013 Chris O.
Stream Monitoring in Loudoun County David Ward, Water Resources Engineer Department of Building and Development, Department of Building and Development,
Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment
Long-Term Volunteer Lake Monitoring in the Upper Woonasquatucket Watershed Linda Green URI Watershed Watch ,
Watershed Assessment Analysis of Data. Q Values Raw data values are NOT Q values. We need to convert the raw data/observations into “grades” (Q values)
Lec 12: Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP’s)
Volunteer Monitoring of E. coli in Upper Midwest Streams: A Comparison of Methods and Preferences.
Watershed System Physical Properties Stream flow (cfs) Stream Channel Pattern Substrate Chemical Properties pH Dissolved Oxygen Temperature Nutrients Turbidity.
Nutrient Standards – Where will they lead? OWEA / WEF Webinar February 24, 2011 Dan Dudley, Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water.
Final stuff: n Lab practical –Coleoptera, Hemiptera n Final exam: Fri May 2:15 –Assessment with Invertebrates n Lecture material (IDEM protocol) n.
Common Monitoring Parameters. Step 1 Consider purpose/objectives of monitoring Assess use attainment Characterize watershed Identify pollutants and sources.
TMDL – Fecal coliform Frank Henning UGA Watershed Extension Agent.
“Habitat Assessment Using the QHEI “ Edward T. Rankin June 6 City of Columbus, Level 3 Training Course Columbus, Ohio Senior ResearchScientist
Monitoring and Assessment for Watershed Plans November, 2007 Estimating Monitoring Costs.
Detection and Monitoring
Water Monitoring. What/Why? Water testing Identifying water content Allows scientists to have a full understanding of what is affecting their stream or.
Analysis of Hydrospheric Data to Predict the Health of a Fresh Water Stream: Bio- Inidcators and Water Chemistry Analysis of Hydrospheric Data to Predict.
Turbidity and Water. Turbidity is a measure of water clarity, how much the material suspended in water decreases the passage of light through the water.
Lake Erie HABs Workshop Bill Fischbein Supervising Attorney Water Programs March 16, 2012 – Toledo March 30, Columbus.
To what extent is there excess sediment in the Middle Truckee River that impairs aquatic life use? Application of benthic macroinvertebrate bioassessment.
Probabilistic Monitoring of Streams Below Small Impoundments in Tennessee Debbie Arnwine Water Pollution Control
Georgia Adopt-A-Stream Introduction Georgia Adopt-A-Stream 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. SW Suite 1462 East Atlanta, Georgia
Name of presenter Date of presentation.  To help preserve and protect Wisconsin’s over 15,000 lakes and 86,000 miles of rivers.
Drinking Water, Wastewater & Water Quality Special emphasis on NC streams.
Dr. Matt Helmers Assistant Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer Dept. of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Iowa State University How is.
Effects of Nutrient Enrichment on Rivers and Streams Ohio EPA 2006.
Effects of Human Activity on Water Quality Studies on the Upper Paint Creek Watershed By Emily Daniels Mary Estock and Ashley Hooper.
What is a Watershed? Goals for this module Discuss the goals and objectives of the project Discuss the goals and objectives of the project Learn who.
NC Division of Water Quality Water Quality Assessments and Local Watershed Plans.
Temperature Measured with a thermometer Units are ◦C
Final stuff: n Lab practical: Apr 29 n Final exam: due Fri May 2:15.
Kentucky’s comprehensive Water Monitoring and Assessment Program addresses water quality management objectives outlined in the Clean Water Act, as well.
QA/QC Assessment of Lay Monitoring in Rhode Island Elizabeth M. Herron, Linda T. Green & Arthur J. Gold URI Watershed Watch University of Rhode Island.
National Aquatic Resource Surveys Wadeable Streams Assessment Overview November, 2007.
 Sustainability Master Plan  Effect of Runoff on Stream  Negative Effect on Lake Carnegie  Final Pre-Restoration Assessment  Why this first order.
Chemical Assessment Most complicated, but easiest to do. Extreme natural variations What is normal?
What is a Watershed? An area of land, from ridge top to ridge top, that collects, stores, and releases water to a common point, such as a river or a lake.
Water Quality Monitoring in the Upper Illinois River Watershed and Upper White River Basin Project Brian E. Haggard University of Arkansas.
Biological Assessment Developed by Ken Cooke Kentucky Division of Water Watershed Watch Program Coordinator Modified by Mike Kemp Professor of Environmental.
Deep River-Portage Burns Watershed TMDL Stakeholder Meeting March 13, 2013.
Pollution and Monitoring
Adem.alabama.gov ADEM’s Monitoring Summary Reports Alabama – Tombigbee CWP Stakeholders Meeting Montgomery, Alabama 3 February 2010 Lisa Huff – ADEM Field.
INDIAN HEAD RIVER PROJECT Whitman-Hanson Regional High School RiverNet Club 2005.
MADMEN CHAPTER VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM
Case Study Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highland Region McCormick et al
Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Bradley Hansen John Nieber Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering For BBE 4535/5535 Fall 2011.
Development of Nutrient Water Quality Standards for Rivers and Streams in Ohio Ohio EPA ORSANCO, October 20, 2009 George Elmaraghy, P.E., Chief.
Think about answering the questions: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? Before your volunteers begin collecting data.
Michael Sorge Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources.
EVALUATING STREAM COMPENSATION PERFORMANCE: Overcoming the Data Deficit Through Standardized Study Design Kenton L. Sena (EPA VSFS Intern), Joe Morgan,
Watershed Management Plan Summary of 2014 Activities/Progress Presented by: Matthew Bennett, MS December 2014.
Water Quality & Soil Quality IA Class Lab: Practice testing soil (Activity 2) – Acidity – Nitrogen – Potassium – Phosphate Class Lab: Investigate how water.
Sustainable Development Goal for Water: Indicator 6.3.2
Watershed Health Indicators
GREAT BAY and NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Shirley Birosik Environmental Specialist
Making Data Count: Why you need/want a QAPP
Nebraska Water Quality Index
Assessing PA’s Lake Erie Tributaries
Water Testing Project for the North Fork River
Des Plaines River Watershed Workgroup Midwest Biodiversity Institute
Using Bugs and GIS to Assess and Manage Watershed Health
Citizen Science with Hoosier Riverwatch
The Effect of Temperature on Water Quality
The Effect of Temperature on Water Quality
IBI’s: How It’s Done.
MSDGC Integrated Prioritization System (IPS)
IBI’s: An Introduction
Presentation transcript:

Monitoring and Assessment for Watershed Plans November, 2007 Using Hoosier Riverwatch Data for Assessment and Planning

Volunteers are Great

Hoosier Riverwatch  Emphasis: TRENDS  Groups (not individuals) get kits if:  Adopt a half-mile section of stream  Monitor 200-foot section at least 2x/year for 2 or more years  Complete 8-hour training course Hoosier Riverwatch Volunteer stream monitoring training manual, Indianapolis.

Hoosier Riverwatch  Equipment kits  Chemical monitoring: DO, BOD, temperature, orthophosphate, nitrate, nitrite, pH, transparency  Biological monitoring: sampling nets and identification keys for benthic macroinvertebrates

Methods

 CHEMetrics DO Test Kit K-7512  Range: 1-12 mg/L DO D.O. and B.O.D.

Indiana Criteria 3 or more measurements Key cutoff values: Less than 4 mg/L - OK Less than 5 mg/L - OK Between 4 mg/L and 5 mg/L - OK Greater than 12 mg/L (CHEMetrics kit stops at 12 mg/L) Should have 10 or more samples: e.g., <10% of all measurements can be <5mg/L Aquatic Life Use Support - Rivers and Streams

Orthophosphate  CHEMetrics Phosphate Test Kit K-8510  Range:  mg/L in 0.1 & 0.2 mg/L increments OR  1-10 mg/L in 1 & 2 mg/L increments

Indiana Criteria 3 or more measurements Key cutoff values:  Total Phosphorus: One or more measurements >0.3 mg/l  Increments suitable: 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 mg/L  Kit measures orthophosphate, not TP Aquatic Life Use Support - Rivers and Streams

VariableDetails Total PAll P forms converted to dissolved ortho-PO 4 and measured. Ortho-PO 4 Most stable PO 4. Filterable and particulate. SRPOrthophosphate; filterable (soluble, inorganic) fraction. Acid- hydrolyzable P Condensed PO 4 forms. Filterable & particulate. Organic PPhosphate fractions converted to orthophosphate by oxidation. Forms of P Use Support Criterion HRW Variable

Indiana Criteria 3 or more measurements Key cutoff values:  Less than or greater than 54 ug/L TP (Natural Lakes)  Less than or greater than 51 ug/L TP (Reservoirs)  Should have 10 or more samples: e.g., <10% of all TP values are <54 ug/L  Kit measures orthophosphate, not TP  Kit resolution insufficient for low levels Recreational Use Support

Nitrate/Nitrite  WaterWorks Nitrate/Nitrite Test Strips (#480009): Semi-quantitative  Nitrite: 0.15, 0.3, 1, 1.5, 3, and 10 mg/L  Nitrate: 0, 0.5, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 mg/L

Indiana Criteria 3 or more measurements Key cutoff values: Nitrogen (measured as NO 3 + NO 2 ) -- One/more measurements >10.0 mg/l Kit measures above and below 10 mg/L nitrate, but resolution is not great. Nearest increments are 20 mg/L above and 5 mg/L below. Kit measures EITHER NO 3 or NO 2 but not both. Aquatic Life Use Support - Rivers and Streams

E. coli  Micrology Laboratories Coliscan Easygel  Lower limit: 20/100 mL  One of two best in Univ. MN study of bacteria field test kits (Liukkonen, et al., 2006)

IA & IN – Easygel Incubated  Lab vs volunteer-collected data, all samples  R 2 =.79 Liukkonen, et al., 2006

Indiana Criteria  Two criteria based on two sampling options:  5 equally-spaced samples over a 30-day period  10 or more grab samples where no five of which are equally spaced over a 30-day period Swimmable Use Support –All Waters

Indiana Criteria Swimmable Use Support –All Waters E. coli Sampling OptionFully SupportingNot Supporting 5 or more equally spaced samples over 30 days Geometric mean 576 cfu/100ml Geometric mean exceeds 125 cfu/100mL 10 or more grab samplesNot more than 10% of measurements >576 cfu/100ml and not more than one sample >2400 cfu/100ml. More than 10% of samples >576 cfu/100ml or more than one sample >2,400 cfu/100ml (cfu = colony forming units)

Indiana Criteria  Bottom Line:  HRW E. coli method is suitable provided sampling is either:  5 equally-spaced samples over a 30-day period, OR  10 or more grab samples where no five of which are equally spaced over a 30-day period.  QA/QC must meet state requirements Swimmable Use Support –All Waters

Volunteer vs. Professional Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Rathbun, 2006

Benthic Macroinvertebrates  Kick Seine Sampling Method  Riffle  Three 3’x3’ areas within 200’ location  Collect 200 organisms  Sort by body shape  Record number of each organism

 Dip Net Sampling Method  No riffles available  20 “jabs” of dip net against stream bottom  Count as for Kick Seine sampling method  Combination Sampling Method  If both riffles and pools in 200’ stretch  Kick Seine and Dip Net  Record equipment used and types of habitat Benthic Macroinvertebrates

Pollution Tolerance Index  Macroinvertebrates at order/family level  Four Tolerance Level Groups  Scores: Excellent (23+), Good (17-22), Fair (11-16), Poor (≤10)

Macroinvertebrate Diversity Index  Organisms distinguished by color, size, and shape (no ID)  Number of “runs”/Number of organisms  Not useful

Indiana Criteria Aquatic Life Use Support - Rivers and Streams Sample Collection MethodFully SupportingNot Supporting Artificial substrate sampler 1 mIBI >1.4mIBI <1.4 Kick methods 2 mIBI >2.2mIBI <2.2 Benthic aquatic macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (mIBI) Scores (Range of possible scores is 0-8) 1 Not used by Hoosier Riverwatch 2 Only Kick Seine method of HRW could apply, but HRW doesn’t use mIBI.

Macroinvertebrate Sampling QA/QC  Three-star quality rating  NOT REPORTED Note organisms but don’t count and/or <45 minutes Count organisms and <45 minutes Count organisms (>200) and >45 minutes Hoosier Riverwatch Volunteer stream monitoring training manual, Indianapolis. Questionable for use support analysis.

Data Quality Objectives for Biological Measurements  Calls for  Precision (quantitative or qualitative) and completeness (%)  A qualitative statement regarding accuracy in sampling, identification, and habitat assessments (accuracy cannot be quantified).  If using the HRW 3 Star Rating, indicate the highest rating that applies. IDEM, Guidelines for preparing quality assurance project plans (QAPPs) for section 319 projects.

Habitat  Citizens Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index  Substrate  Fish cover  Stream shape and human alterations  Stream forests and wetlands  Depth and velocity  Riffles/Runs  Measurement a bit “loose”

Indiana Criteria Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)  NOT used to determine aquatic life use support.  Used with mIBI and/or IBI data to evaluate role habitat plays in waterbodies where impaired biotic communities (IBC) have been identified  Substrate, instream cover, channel morphology, riparian zone, pool/riffle quality, and gradient  Range of possible scores is  <51 indicates poor habitat  Despite “loose” nature of CQHEI, it could serve same purpose as QHEI

 Site selection guidance is minimal  Sampling schedule & frequency  Left to preferences of volunteers  2 to 4 times/year  OK for benthic macroinvertebrates  Limited value for water chemistry Data Quality Concerns

Detection Limit and Resolution  Orthophosphate  IN average:.05 mg/L  P test range:.05-1 mg/L  Nitrate  IN average: mg/L  NO 3 test range: 0, 0.5, 2, 5, 20, 20, 50  Transparency  Typical range: NTU  Transparency tube range: NTU

This is Possible* *IFF: (1) Kit is accurate, and (2) Volunteer uses kit correctly.

This Often Happens Rathbun, 2006

Summary  HRW methods suitable for use support analysis  E. coli  HRW methods close  D.O.  CQHEI  HRW methods not suitable  Benthic macroinvertebrates  Orthophosphate  Nitrate/Nitrite All potentially suitable for screening analysis and source identification

References  Liukkonen, B. USEPA Region 5 SWIMS meeting, February 2006, University of Minnesota Water Resources Center, esultsProducts.htm.  Rathbun, J QA/QC Issues with Screening- Level Monitoring Methods, Michigan, DNR, Presentation at 14 th National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Workshop, September 24-28, 2006, Minneapolis.