1. What’s in Your Creek? Results of the 2009 Clackamas Basin Volunteer Monitoring Effort.

2. What is SWRP? Student Watershed Research Project Started 1991  Saturday Academy  National Science Foundation Monitoring program  Watershed education  Data collection

3. SWRP Goals Accuracy & Reliability Reporting student findings Managing data Providing  Training  Equipment  Technical supplies

4. The Importance of Continuous Monitoring Urbanization & agriculture Critical habitats  Short term fluctuations Maintaining a record Can help to determine the success or failure of remediation measures

5. Day In Damascus – July 25, 2009

6. Day in Damascus – July 25, 2009 Local children interaction  Games & examples Water sample testing  3 hour testing window

7. Stream Chemistry Results Compared are 11 public sites and 8 private landowner sites Stream chemistry only provides a snapshot of what the overall health of the stream may be

8. Clackamas Basin sampling area Site Codes CLA – Clackamas River DCR – Deep Creek EGL – Eagle Creek CLE – Clear Creek ECK – Eagle Creek GCK – Goose Creek NFD – North Fork Deep Creek RCK – Rock Creek RCH – Richardson Creek

9. Temperature standard is < 17.8 ⁰C Only one public site sampled was higher than needed for salmonid breeding, at Goose Creek, which is a stagnant body of water. A trend is difficult to establish here, due to a lack of previously established baselines, but where comparable data exists, temperatures have risen.

10. Temperature standard is < 17.8 ⁰C NFD003 was the only private site that equaled the highest acceptable temperature in the 2009 survey, showing a 1.8 ⁰ C increase from 2008. Site DCR001 showed a decrease of 0.5C between 2008 and 2009, placing it beneath the critical threshold.

11. Standard for dissolved oxygen is > 8 mg/L All public sites showed sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen, except North Fork Deep Creek, and an unknown tributary that at the time of sampling was an isolated pool.

12. All private sites sampled in 2009 showed dissolved oxygen levels at or above DEQ standards for fish-bearing streams. All sites on North Fork Deep Creek showed declines in dissolved oxygen between 2008 and 2009. Standard for Dissolved Oxygen is > 8 mg/L

13. Standard for pH is between 6.5 – 8.5 All of the public sites sampled fell within acceptable range, with the exception of unknown tributary, which is slightly acidic at 6.4.

14. Standard for pH is between 6.5 – 8.5 pH readings at all private sites were within the accepted range. All of the sample sites on Deep Creek and North Fork Deep Creek became more basic between 2008 and 2009.

15. Standard value equals < 5 N.T.U. Turbidity measurements at the public sample sites were below the 5 NTU mark, with the exception of two stagnant stream sites, Goose Creek and the Unknown tributary of Richardson Creek. Sites NFD004 and RCK000 showed marked decreases in turbidity from 2008 to 2009, though it is possible that a recent storm event increased erosion in 2008 at the time of sampling.

16. Standard value equals < 5 N.T.U. Site NFD003, RCH001, and both Rock Creek sample sites were above Washington State guidelines for turbidity. However, all North Fork Deep Creek sample sites showed a decrease in turbidity from 2008 to 2009.

17. Standard Phosphorous concentration is < 0.10 mg/L Clear Creek, Richardson Creek, and Sieben Creek had values above the EPA recommendations at the public sites sampled. Rock Creek site 000 however, showed a near five-fold decrease in phosphorous concentrations, and now falls within acceptable standards.

18. Standard Phosphorous concentration is < 0.10 mg/L Two of the private sites sampled were above the EPA recommended limit, Deep Creek 001 and the unknown tributary 001 site. All private sites with data available from 2008 showed a significant decline in phosphorous levels in the 2009 study.

19. Standard for Ammonia concentration is < 0.03 mg/L Ammonia levels in three of the public sites were well above recommended levels, Eagle Creek, North Fork Deep Creek, and unknown tributary 002. There is not sufficient data from 2008 to draw any comparisons at the public sites.

20. Standard for Ammonia concentration is < 0.03 mg/L All but two of the private sample locations showed elevated levels of ammonia. The Rock Creek location site showed a six-fold increase in ammonia concentration between 2008 and 2009.

21. Standard Nitrate concentration is < 10 mg/L All public sites measured in 2009 were well below recommended surface level nitrate concentrations. Continuous monitoring could provide trendline data, and warn of long range increases in nitrate concentrations.

22. Standard Nitrate concentration is < 10 mg/L All private locations sampled were below the recommended surface concentrations in 2009. Most of the sites sampled in both 2008 and 2009 showed small increases in nitrate concentrations.

23. Data summary from public sites TemperatureTurbidityPhosphoruspHDOAmmoniaNitrate Macro status 20082009200820092008200920082009200820092008200920082009 CLA024 16.5 1.15 0.04 7.2 9.5 0 0.8 Good CLE000 16.5 1.54 0.04 7.2 8.7 0.01 0.9 Fair CLE019 14.5 1.57 0.17 7.3 9.3 0.02 1.3 ECK001 17.8 0.74 0.02 6.9 8.8 0.1 1.2 Good EGL005 12.5 0.8 0.07 7.2 10.2 0.02 0.03 Exc GCK001 27.125 20.3 0.04 7.4 10.17 0.02 0.2 NFC00115 14.1 0.057 6.8 5.83 0.06 0.3 NFD0011516.5163.75 0.066.87.198.3 0.070.151.5 Poor RCH000 16.5 1.4 0.2 7.5 8.5 0.003 1.7 RCK0001414.57.5781.210.490.18.027.49.83310001.51.6 Fair SEB002 0.12 7.4 10 0 2.2 UNK002 14 17.7 0.18 6.4 1.8 0.17 0.01 Average14.716.612.65.00.270.097.2 8.28.670.030.040.651.04

24. Data summary from private sites TemperatureTurbidityPhosphoruspHDOAmmoniaNitrate Macro status 20082009200820092008200920082009200820092008200920082009 CLE00116 2 0.21 7.2 10 0 0.63 DCR0011817.52.521.60.350.267.277.810.510.200.061.031.3 EGL00115.213.831.130.310.047.17.28.510.10 0.961.5 Exc. EGL00214 30.3 0.19 6.75 6.5 0 1.033 NFD0021514.56.764.420.140.066.93710.16900.071.51.6 NFD0031617.86.896.290.140.026.967.159.58.500.071.71.6 NFD00417.516.333.692.940.250.17.047.48.5800.051.61.8 RCH00114.516.76.266150.14 7.347.199.500.020.91.3 RCH00215 16 0.1 6.76 8.83 0.047 0 RCK00113.5148.9280.270.087.286.98.3380.01030.060.71 RCK00212 2.626.60.34 7.16 10 0 3.23 UNK001141619.6 0.480.267.37.612.17900.020.031.3 Average15.115.89.15.80.240.127.17.39.39.00.030.051.111.4

25. Juvenile Salmonid Found dead in North Fork Deep Creek at Boring Trail Station Could be negative sign, indicating poor stream conditions Could be a positive sign that salmon breeding is still occurring here Boring Trail Station is a restoration site

26. Macroinvertebrates Clackamas River Basin Tim Vidito – Tom Provost – Clayton Buck

27. What is a Macroinvertebrate? Any small insects with no backbone that can be seen with the naked eye Any small insects with no backbone that can be seen with the naked eye Stonefly Mayfly Caddisfly

28. Why study Macros? Determine the physical, chemical, and biological quality of a stream Determine the physical, chemical, and biological quality of a stream Reside in small areas throughout their lifespan Reside in small areas throughout their lifespan Show the effects of short and long term pollution Show the effects of short and long term pollution Assess the potential effects water quality can have on humans Assess the potential effects water quality can have on humans

29. Why is Monitoring Important? Drinking Drinking Swimming Swimming Crop irrigation Crop irrigation “If a stream is safe for macroinvertebrates, it is safe for us” “If a stream is safe for macroinvertebrates, it is safe for us” Technique Technique

30. Diversity Polluted Stream = high percentage of pollutant tolerant macroinvertebrates and limited amount of pollutant intolerant present Polluted Stream = high percentage of pollutant tolerant macroinvertebrates and limited amount of pollutant intolerant present Healthy Stream = high percentage of pollutant intolerant vs. pollutant tolerant Healthy Stream = high percentage of pollutant intolerant vs. pollutant tolerant Stonefly/Caddisfly vs Damselfly/True Flies Stonefly/Caddisfly vs Damselfly/True Flies

31. Metric Systems Pollution Sensitive Order Index- Are the Three EPT orders present? Caddisfly, Mayfly, and Stonefly Pollution Sensitive Order Index- Are the Three EPT orders present? Caddisfly, Mayfly, and Stonefly Tolerant Order Index- Are 50 percent or more pollutant tolerant organisms? Tolerant Order Index- Are 50 percent or more pollutant tolerant organisms? ADEQUATELIMITED Sensitive Organisms Present All 3 EPT orders present One or more EPT organisms absent % Tolerant Organisms <50% of total are tolerant >50% of total are tolerant

32. Pollution Sensitive Order Index Adequate Adequate Eagle Fern Park Eagle Fern Park Landowner at Eagle Creek Landowner at Eagle Creek Barton Park Barton Park Limited Limited Carver Park Carver Park Rock Creek Rock Creek Boring Trail Station Boring Trail Station

33. Tolerant Order Index Adequate Adequate Eagle Fern Park Eagle Fern Park Carver Park Carver Park Rock Creek Rock Creek Landowner at Eagle Creek Landowner at Eagle Creek Barton Park Barton Park Limited Limited Boring Trail Station Boring Trail Station

34. Boring Trail Station Dissolved Oxygen 8.3 mg/L Turbidity 3.75 NTU Sensitive Order Index Limited Tolerance Order Index Limited

35. Carver Park Dissolved Oxygen 8.7 mg/L Turbidity 1.54 NTU Sensitive Order Index Limited Tolerant Order Index Adequate

36. Rock Creek Dissolved Oxygen 10.0 mg/L Turbidity 1.21 NTU Sensitive Order Index Limited Tolerant Order Index Adequate

37. Eagle Fern Park Dissolved Oxygen 10.2 mg/L Turbidity 0.8 NTU Sensitive Order Index Adequate Tolerant Order Index Adequate

38. Landowner Eagle Creek Dissolved Oxygen 10.1 mg/L Turbidity 1.13 NTU Sensitive Order Index Adequate Tolerant Order Index Adequate

39. Barton Park Dissolved Oxygen 9.5 mg/L Turbidity 1.15 NTU Sensitive Order Index Adequate Tolerant Order Index Adequate

40. Conclusion Boring Trail Station Improvements Boring Trail Station Improvements Generalized Report- Snapshot Generalized Report- Snapshot Ways to keep stream healthy Ways to keep stream healthy The beginning of a new biological assessment for studying macroinvertebrates over the years The beginning of a new biological assessment for studying macroinvertebrates over the years

41. Conclusions Several trends are observed in between 2008 and 2009 data among the North Fork Deep Creek data, decreasing dissolved oxygen, increasing pH, and decreased turbidity. All comparable data show a decrease in phosphorous concentration between 2008 and 2009. More yearly and seasonal data is needed for adequate comparisons for all sites.

42. Conclusions Ammonia was a problem at several sites this year, likely due to decreased flow Turbidity was generally lower in 2009 than 2008, possibly due to storm events in 2008 Temperature continues to be problem, with most sites falling within two degrees of the maximum Seasonal fluctuations must be accounted for, and further testing would be useful at times of higher flow

43. Recommendations Continue monitoring of Clackamas Basin streams Control runoff that leads to excessive sedimentation and nutrient load Remove invasive species and replace with native plants and trees Make sure septic systems are properly maintained Don’t put yard debris, chemicals, or garbage near streams or riparian zones

44. Continue monitoring of Clackamas Basin streams Monitoring is the first step in ensuring clean water and healthy habitats Can catch potential problems before they become a threat to species like salmon

45. Urban settings increase storm runoff, causing channelization and erosion www.newburgh-ny.com/water/stormwater0.htm

46. Filtering runoff and “green streets” reduce sedimentation in urban areas http://www.portlandonline.com/BES/index.cfm?c=44407

47. “Ditch Checks” effectively slow water, resulting in lower sediment loads in rural areas. www.ci.mil.wi.us/router.asp?docid=12474

48. Contain excessive nutrient load Runoff from fertilizer use, both agricultural and residential is best controlled at the source Reduce the use of fertilizers and pesticides and use more efficient delivery methods.

49. Methods for improving the efficiency of irrigation systems Contour farming Holding ponds

50. Temperature control Preserve native riparian cover, and restore it where clearing has taken place Augment summer stream flows and improve efficiency of irrigation systems apps.dataintheclassroom.org/.../level2.html

51. The threat of inaction Headwaters of the lower Clackamas could cease to be spawning grounds for salmon The quality of drinking water could be affected, even becoming toxic

52. Healthy Streams Are Important to All of Us!

53. Ongoing Action The more community participation, the more meaningful the results Land owners can help by volunteering their stream frontage as a sample site Citizens can volunteer to be stream monitors to collect data, helping to make the data more complete and conclusive

54. Thank you: Clackamas River Basin Council & community partners: Clackamas River Water Water Environment Services

55. Want to get involved? Contact the Clackamas River Basin Council: By email ~ info@clackamasriver.orginfo@clackamasriver.org By phone ~ 503-558-0550