Monitoring and Assessment for Watershed Plans November, 2007 Estimating Monitoring Costs.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Importance of Quality Assurance Volunteer Monitoring Summit October 1, 2004 Todd W. Kratzer, P.E. NJ Department of Environmental Protection Division of.
Advertisements

PRESENTED MARCH 17 TH 2009 BY FRIENDS OF THE CHEAT Water Quality Monitoring & Mapping Assessment for Watershed Scale Restoration Planning in the Cheat.
Year of Clean Water: National Water Monitoring Day Water Testing Kits.
Biological Assessment Developed by Ken Cooke Kentucky Division of Water Watershed Watch Program Coordinator Modified by Mike Kemp Professor of Environmental.
Watershed Watch Protocols Level I. Goals for this module Understand how biomonitoring is used to evaluate the health of a stream Understand how biomonitoring.
Collecting a Stormwater Sample Annual CMTA Marine Trades Exposition October 5, 2010.
What’s Mud Got to Do With It? Stephen J. Klaine, Ph.D. Department of Biological Sciences Clemson University
DATA COLLECTION METHODS FOR NUTRIENTS IN TEXAS STREAMS Evaluation of Periphyton Abundance Joint Project In cooperation with the TCEQ Water Quality Standards.
Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment
Lec 12: Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP’s)
Rapid Bioassessment for Volunteers SALMON RIVER WATERSHED.
DESIGNING MONITORING PROGRAMS TO EVALUATE BMP EFFECTIVENESS Funded by grants from USDA- CSREES, EPA 319, NSF Nancy Mesner - Utah State University, Dept.
Working with Citizen Scientists: Rogue Basin (Oregon) Watershed Councils Stream Biomonitoring Study Michael Mulvey Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Final stuff: n Lab practical –Coleoptera, Hemiptera n Final exam: Fri May 2:15 –Assessment with Invertebrates n Lecture material (IDEM protocol) n.
WEST VIRGINIA SAVE OUR STREAMS A WVDEP SPONSORED CITIZEN ’ S VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM.
Stream Sampling Assessing water quality through the collecting of macro-invertebrates found on woody debris.
Common Monitoring Parameters. Step 1 Consider purpose/objectives of monitoring Assess use attainment Characterize watershed Identify pollutants and sources.
Inorganic Chemicals (IOC) Non-Metals Sampling Procedures.
Field Trip Date: 02/07/08 Destination: Tap Mun 塔門 (Grass Island) Site: Rocky shore 岩岸 Aims: To investigate the relationship between physical and biological.
Module 10/11 Stream Surveys Stream Surveys – February 2004 Part 3 – Hydrologic Assessment.
Water Quality Monitoring and Parameter Load Estimations in Lake Conway Point Remove Watershed and L’Anguille River Watershed Presented by: Dan DeVun, Equilibrium.
California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program SWAMP Today Emilie L. Reyes November 29, 2007.
Water Quality Monitoring : Galla Creek Bayou Bartholomew L’Anguille River Presented By: The Ecological Conservation Organization.
Introduction Larger streams and rivers in the Piedmont, Southwestern Appalachians, Ridge and Valley, and parts of the coastal plain ecoregions of Alabama.
National Aquatic Resource Surveys National Coastal Condition Assessment – 2010 Sarah Lehmann.
A performance-based system (PBS) approach is a process that can be used to measure quality control characteristics of various aspects of field sampling.
Invertebrate Standards in Rivers Paul Logan. Existing CEN standards relating to the ecological assessment of freshwaters - TG1 - invertebrates Quality.
West Fork of the White River Stream Restoration Monitoring Dan DeVun Ecological Conservation Organization (501)
West Fork of the White River Stream Restoration Monitoring Dan DeVun Ecological Conservation Organization (501)
Monitoring and Assessment for Watershed Plans November, 2007 Using Hoosier Riverwatch Data for Assessment and Planning.
PLANNING AND CONDUCT OF FIELD WORK BY DRC TEAM IN COLLABORATION WITH CONGO PROJECT By José Justin MBIMBI MAYI MUNENE.
James Beckley Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
Dr. Matt Helmers Assistant Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer Dept. of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Iowa State University How is.
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.
Nicole Reid, Jane Herbert, and Dean Baas MSU Extension Land & Water Program W. K. Kellogg Biological Station Transparency tube as a surrogate for turbidity,
Using Standard Operating Procedures in the Field 2 nd Annual Red River Basin Water Quality Monitoring Training – April 13 th, 2005.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Water-Quality Monitoring: Data Collection and Analysis Strategies for Designing Program.
REGIONAL COORDINATION High Level Indicators Draft “white paper” to recommend a core set indicators that can be shared among all types of monitoring Protocol.
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.
Starting and Sustaining a Volunteer Watershed Monitoring Program.
Rudan ltd. For efficient energy management. Our Vision With efficient management and application of new technologies, to become a leading company in the.
The Meadows Center Texas Stream Team Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and U.S. EPA. The preparation of this presentation.
Response of benthic algae communities to nutrient enrichment in agricultural streams: Implications for establishing nutrient criteria R.W. Black 1, P.W.
Biological Assessment Developed by Ken Cooke Kentucky Division of Water Watershed Watch Program Coordinator Modified by Mike Kemp Professor of Environmental.
Summary Overview Primary Headwater Habitat Assessment.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for low gradient streams) for species richness, composition and pollution tolerance, as well as a composite benthic macroinvertebrate.
Quantifying Stream Ecosystem Responses to Smart Growth: How to Design an Assessment Allison Roy Cross-ORD Postdoctoral Researcher US Environmental Protection.
Water Quality Causal factors & Urban Impact Water Resource Management Agency Michael Skeete.
Biological Health Inquiry (What is the health at Dry Creek 0.8?) Justine Jangula Skills Center Biological Health can be determined by catching macro-invertebrates.
Portable Fuel Container Spillage Control Project Monitoring and Laboratory Division June 28, 1999 California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources.
Water quality sensors provide insight into the suspended solids dynamics during high flow events in the Lamprey River, NH Nicholas K. Shonka and William.
Recommendations for Applying the Critical Elements Methodology.
Lab: Benthic Bugs and Bioassessment
Born from the Governor’s efforts to engage all stakeholders to solve problems Designed to provide technical support to local organizations ODEQ Program.
Development of Nutrient Water Quality Standards for Rivers and Streams in Ohio Ohio EPA ORSANCO, October 20, 2009 George Elmaraghy, P.E., Chief.
The Arizona Rivers Project Southwestern Academy June 2009 Fun with Macroinvertebrates.
Think about answering the questions: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? Before your volunteers begin collecting data.
Tools of the Biologist. In order to observe, discover, and explore, scientists use many different pieces of lab equipment. A.Measuring Length 1. Meter.
Disentangling the effects of multiple stressors in lakes; should we use littoral benthic invertebrates? Rebeka ŠILING, Gorazd URBANIČ Institute for Water.
EVALUATING STREAM COMPENSATION PERFORMANCE: Overcoming the Data Deficit Through Standardized Study Design Kenton L. Sena (EPA VSFS Intern), Joe Morgan,
Headwater Macro-invertebrate Field Evaluation Index (HMFEI) Photo by Garrett Rauckhorst.
Macroinvertebrates as Water Quality Indicators on Mount Mansfield
Cara Cowan Watts Graduate Student Biosystems Engineering
Fun with Macroinvertebrates
Assessing PA’s Lake Erie Tributaries
Henrico County Stream Assessment / Watershed Management Program
Biological Assessment of Pond Health
Presentation transcript:

Monitoring and Assessment for Watershed Plans November, 2007 Estimating Monitoring Costs

Assumptions  Watersheds: 14-digit HUAs  5,000 Acres  50 miles driven for site selection/prep  6 miles driven for sampling events  20,000 Acres  80 miles driven for site selection/prep  13 miles driven for sampling events  Laboratory 60 mile R/T away  $0.40/mile driving  Labor costs:  Field staff = $27/hour  Volunteers = $0/hour

Assumptions  All monitoring completed in 1 year  4 monitoring sites per watershed except Scenarios 8 & 9  Sampling frequency sufficient for use support analysis  Every sample replicated (excessive)  Macroinvertebrate sampling equipment needs from EPA RBP  Staff gage at each site except Scenario 7  Incubator holds 16 E. coli samples

Assumptions  No site access fees  No LU/LT treatment tracking  Data analysis performed by group collecting samples  Office supplies = ink and paper  100 paper and CD copies of all annual/final reports

Cost Items  Salaries  Site Selection  Site Establishment  Installed Structures  Fees  Monitoring Equipment Purchase & Rental  Monitoring Supplies

Cost Items  Travel and Vehicles  Laboratory Analysis  Office Equipment and Supplies  Electricity and Fuel  Site Service and Repair  Data Analysis, Reports, and Printing  Station demolition/site restoration

RBP Field Equipment Needs (Barbour, et al., 1999)  Standard kick-net, 500 F opening mesh, 1.0 meter width  Sieve bucket, with 500 F opening mesh  95% ethanol  Sample containers, sample container labels  Forceps  Pencils, clipboard  Benthic Macroinvertebrate Field Data Sheet*  First aid kit  Waders (chest-high or hip boots)  Rubber gloves (arm-length)  Camera  Global Positioning System (GPS) Unit

RBP Analysis Equipment Needs (Barbour, et al., 1999)  Log-in sheet for samples  Standardized gridded pan (30 cm x 36 cm) with approximately 30 grids (6 cm x 6 cm)  500 micron sieve  Forceps  White plastic or enamel pan (15 cm x 23 cm) for sorting  Specimen vials with caps or stoppers  Sample labels  Standard laboratory bench sheets for sorting and identification  Dissecting microscope for organism identification  Fiber optics light source  Compound microscope with phase contrast for identification of mounted organisms (e.g., midges)  70% ethanol for storage of specimens  Appropriate taxonomic keys

Scenarios 1. E. coli - 5 samples/30 days 2. E. coli - 10 samples; 2 incubators 3. E. coli - 20 samples; 3 incubators 4. N, P, D.O., stage – 3 samples a. HRW-NO3, NO2, Ortho-PO4, D.O., stage b. Paid - NO 3 + NO 2, TP, D.O. probe, discharge c. HRW- Lab for N, P; D.O. probe, stage 5. N, P, D.O., stage – 20 samples 6. N, P, D.O., stage – 20 samples plus Scenario 1

Scenarios 7. Bugs and habitat – 1 sample, no staff gage a. Kick net, trays, and tweezers for Kick method b. With/without RBP equipment, paid 8. Refrigerated automatic samplers, bugs, habitat – 6 Years for 1 site b. Paid c. Volunteers do 40 of 52 sampling trips; 1 day of training 9. Scenario 8 with no new equipment

Scenarios  Two basic variations on each scenario  Volunteers perform all labor (e.g., Hoosier Riverwatch) and conduct all analyses in the field  Paid state/local/contractor staff perform all labor and use laboratories for chemical analyses  A mix of volunteer labor and professional laboratory analysis was assumed for Scenarios 4c and 5c to provide data suitable for use support analysis.

Scenario 8 1. Tipping bucket rain gage 2. Stilling well, float gage, and staff gage 3. Bubble flow meter 4. Power drop 5. Refrigerated Isco model 6712FR sampler 6. Isco Flow Link software and 581 RTD

Scenario 8 (cont.) 7. Weekly flow-based composite samples – 2 bottles 8. EPA Method NO2+ NO3 by colorimetry 9. EPA Method – Total Phosphorus by automated colorimetry OxyGuard D.O. Probe 11. RBP equipment

Results  Cost difference between 5,000 acre and 20,000 acre watershed trivial for volunteers so used 20,000 acres

Cost Summary Scenario (HRW) Cost ($) Scenario (Paid/Lab) Cost ($)Scenario (HRW/Lab) Cost ($) 1a1,1301b4,8741c1,958 2a1,3002b7,4402c2,904 3a1,5443b12,6263c4,796 4a1,120 a 4b7,2724c2,665 b 5a1,734 a 5b20,3885c7,833 b 6a1,867 a 6b24,9726c13,632 b 7a7417b7,101 c 2,911 d 8b62,4298c40,210 9b d 39,5579c d 17,338 a N, P, and D.O. may not meet needs for use assessment b All samples suitable for use assessment c Includes purchase of GPS, camera, 2 microscopes, and other equipment d Assumes no new equipment purchases

Results  Volunteers can perform use support analysis with E. coli samples for $285- $325/site (Scenarios 1a and 2a)  Using a D.O. probe and lab for N & P, volunteers can perform 3-sample Aquatic Life use support analysis and D.O. for under $700/site. (Scenario 4c)  Salary accounts for 33-83% of total costs when volunteers not used  60-62% for Scenarios 1b, 2b, 3b  36-49% for Scenarios 4b, 5b, 6b

Closing Thoughts  Data that don’t support the purpose have no value regardless of the cost  Purchase the right equipment  Monitor the right variables  Use the right methods

References  Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.