Volume 2, Issue 1 February Crow River Watershed Citizen Stream Monitoring Results 2000

Transcription

1 Currents Newsletter of the Crow River Organization of Water Volume 2, Issue 1 February 21 Crow River Watershed Citizen Stream Monitoring Results 2 Sponsored by the C.R.O.W. Joint Powers, the Metropolitan Council and the Board of Water and Soil Resources

2 Background The Crow River Organization of Water, or C.R.O.W. is a Joint Powers Organization focused on the preservation and restoration of the Crow River. The C.R.O.W. Joint Powers Board is made up of one representative from each of the County Boards in the watershed (ten members total). The counties involved include Carver, Hennepin, Kandiyohi, McLeod, Meeker, Pope, Renville, Sibley, Stearns and Wright. Using funding received from the Metropolitan Council and the Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR), the CROW has been working in cooperation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to establish a citizen stream monitoring network in the Crow River Watershed. It is anticipated that the data collected by the volunteers will be incorporated into water quality analysis projects and distributed to water planners within the watershed. In addition, the MPCA will enter the data submitted by the citizen volunteers into a national water quality storage database (STORET), along with other MPCA data. It is likely that the data collected by volunteers will help identify water quality problems, prioritize areas for additional research and track progress toward improvement. The first year of data collection took place in 2. The Program Volunteers participating in the Crow River Citizen Stream Monitoring Program receive a transparency tube, rain gauge, data sheets and instructions for taking measurements. Once a week from April to October (and following large rainfall events when possible) volunteers visit an established spot on a nearby stream and measure the following: transparency, precipitation, stream stage, appearance and recreational suitability. CSMP Measures Stream Water provides information about the amount of sediment, algae and other materials suspended in the water. is measured using a transparency tube. The is tube made of clear plastic, is about 2 feet long, 1 ½ inches in diameter and has a release valve at the bottom. The bottom of the tube is sealed by a stopper that has been painted black and white. When looking down into the inside of the tube the distinct black and white symbol is visible. To measure water clarity, the tube is filled with water collected from a stream or river. While looking down into the tube, the monitor releases water through the valve until the black and white symbol at the bottom of the tube is visible. The level of the water is recorded in centimeters using a scale marked on the side of the tube. If the symbol is visible when the tube is full, the transparency reading is > 6 cm. A greater transparency reading in centimeters reflects higher water clarity (clearer water). 1

3 Both dissolved and suspended materials influence water transparency. For most streams and rivers, the amount of solids suspended in the water is the most important factor: The more suspended materials, the lower the water transparency. In lakes, most of the suspended solids are algae. In streams and rivers, soil particles (especially silt and clay) affect transparency as water flows downstream carrying and depositing sediment with it. Dissolved material affects transparency less frequently, a good example is the tea color of some northern, bog-influenced lakes and streams. Their color is caused by dissolved organic material. Precipitation and Stage Precipitation is measured because it provides information as to how rainfall events affect stream transparency, appearance and stage. Depending on land management practices and the amount of nearby ground cover, some rainfall eventually makes it way back into streams. Rainfall can influence the stream water transparency by carrying sediments and other materials overland to streams and ditches through runoff or underground through urban and rural subsurface drainage systems. Rainfall can also affect the stream water level or stage of a stream by increasing the amount and rate at which water flows through stream channels. Daily precipitation readings combined with stream transparency and stage measurements can identify the connections between these factors. Appearance and Recreational Suitability Appearance information provides indications as to the potential causes of low transparency and the perceived suitability of a stream for fishing, swimming or boating. Volunteers rank stream water appearance on a color scale that ranges from crystal clear to green or muddy with floating scum or odor. A low transparency reading in conjunction with a green tint indicates that algae growth may be reducing water clarity. Recreational suitability rankings provide information about what people think about the quality of a stream and what they measure (precipitation and transparency). Appearance 1= Clear: crystal clear, transparent water 2= Milky: not quite crystal clear, cloudy white or gray 3= Foamy: natural or from pollution 4= Tea-colored: clear, but colored due to wetland or bog influences 5= Muddy: cloudy brown due to high sediment levels 6= Green: may indicate excess nutrients in the stream 7= Green or Muddy, plus one or more of the following - extensive floating scum on the stream or shore - strong foul odor Recreational Suitability 1= Very Good: Beautiful, could not be better 2= Good: very minor aesthetic problems; excellent for body contact recreation activities 3= Fair: Body Contact recreation and aesthetic enjoyment slightly impaired 4= Poor: Recreation potential substantially reduced (would not swim, but boating/canoeing okay) 5= Very Poor: Swimming and aesthetic enjoyment of stream nearly impossible 2

4 Crow River Watershed Citizen Stream Monitors The Crow River Watershed consists of approximately 1.8 million acres in portions of ten Counties. Between May and October of 2, 16 volunteers monitored 2 sites in the Crow River Watershed. The monitoring sites are located in 6 of the 1 counties in the Watershed. Table 1: Citizen Stream Monitors and Locations Citizen Monitor (site number) County Stream Name/Site Location Gary Butcher (6) Kandiyohi Middle Fork Crow River, 2 miles South of New London Dave Stuhr (precip. only) (19) Kandiyohi Overland Ditch, tributary to South Fork, 8 miles SE Willmar Torney Marshall (12) Hennepin Crow River, in Hanover Marion Graham (1) McLeod South Fork Crow River, Airport Road Bridge in Hutchinson Marion Graham (17) McLeod South Fork Crow River, School Road Bridge in Hutchinson Jim Hansen (11) McLeod South Fork Crow River, in Hutchinson Gary Schreifels (18) McLeod Buffalo Creek, in Glencoe Thomas Burr (4) Meeker North Fork Crow River, near Lake Koronis Outlet Dennis Holtz (9) Meeker North Fork Crow River, 6 miles NE of Litchfield Dennis Holtz (1) Meeker Jewitts Creek, 5 miles North of Litchfield Thomas Burr (3) Stearns North Fork Crow River, 2 miles west of Paynesville, on County Line Thomas Burr (5) Stearns North Fork Crow River, near Rice Lake Inlet Walt Barlow (2) Wright North Fork Crow River, 6 miles north of Howard Lake Gabe Davidson (7) Wright North Fork Crow River, 5 miles NW of Howard Lake John Hiebert (8) Wright Unnamed Tributary to North Fork, 2 miles South of Montrose Wallace McCurdy (13) Wright North Fork Crow River, 5 miles North of Howard Lake Mark Miller (14) Wright North Fork Crow River, 5 miles North of Cokato Eric Munson (15) Wright North Fork Crow River, 6 miles North of Cokato Jack Russek (16) Wright South Fork Crow River, 3 miles South of Delano Erikson Wuollet (2) Wright North Fork Crow River, 4 miles North of Cokato 3

5 Summary of 2 CSMP Data Average Readings A summary of the data collected by volunteer stream monitors is shown in Table 2. Mean, Minimum, and Maximum transparency readings, as well as the number of >6 cm transparency readings, average appearance reading, and average recreational suitability, were calculated for each site. Table 2 also shows total rain amounts and the number of days with rain reported. Of the sites with six or more transparency readings, the Middle Fork of the Crow River near New London in Kandiyohi County had the highest average transparency (6 cm). The Jewitts Creek monitoring site in Meeker County, near Litchfield was close behind with an average transparency of 58 cm. The lowest average transparency (13 cm) was reported on the South Fork of the Crow River in Wright County, near Delano. The Crow River in Hanover (Hennepin County) had the second lowest average transparency reading at 14. Nine of the sites had at least one reading greater than 6 cm, with the greatest number of >6 cm readings on Jewitts Creek, in Meeker County. The lowest individual transparency reading (5) took place on Buffalo Creek, near Glencoe. This site had a mean transparency reading of 22, and a maximum of 47. Precipitation Precipitation levels throughout the watershed during the 2 water year (October September 2) were approximately 8-1 inches below normal. Differences between precipitation levels recorded by volunteers and those reported by the state climatology office are due to variations in monitoring periods. Most volunteers did not begin monitoring until late spring, and some discontinued monitoring earlier than others. It is expected that the precipitation data submitted by the volunteers will be more consistent as the program develops and expands, and volunteers are able to monitor for a complete season. Water Year Precipitation October, September, 2 Water Year Precipitation Departure from Normal October, September, 2 Prepared by: State Climatology Office DNR Waters Prepared by: State Climatology Office DNR Waters values are in inches values are in inches 4

6 Table 2: Data Summary Location N Mean Min Max N>6 Total Rain Rain Days Average Average Rec. Data Collection Name: (site number) Reported Reported Appearance Suitability Season Middle Fork /21-9/28/ Butcher: (6) North Fork /6-1/1/ Barlow: (2) North Fork /3-1/11/ (Koronis Outlet) Burr: (4) North Fork /3-1/11/ (Rice Inlet) Burr: (5) North Fork /3-8/23/ (County Line) Burr: (3) North Fork /7-1/1/ Davidson: (7) South Fork /22-6/13/ (School Rd Site) Graham: (17) South Fork /22-6/13/ Airport Rd Site Graham: (1) South Fork /16-1/17/ Hansen: (11) Unnamed Tributary /3-1/21/ Hiebert: (8) Jewitts Creek /1-9/21/ Holtz: (1) North Fork Crow /1-9/21/ Holtz: (9) Crow River /5-1/13/ Marshall: (12) North Fork /7-9/8/ McCurdy: (13) North Fork /16-1/14/ Miller: (14) North Fork /8-8/26/ Munson: (15) South Fork /21-8/9/ Russek: (16) Buffalo Creek /11-1/27/ Schreifels: (18) North Fork Wuollet: (2) /9-1/31/ N = Total Number of Stream Readings Taken Mean: Mean of stream transparency readings (cm) Min: Minimum transparency reading Max: Maximum transparency reading N>6: Number of transparency readings greater than 6 cm Total Rain Reported = total amount of rain reported at site in inches Rain Days Reported = total number of days with recorded rain amounts 5

7 & Precipitation Increases or decreases in transparency can be attributed to many sources; however, in many cases, a decrease in transparency can be directly related to an increase in precipitation. This decrease occurs because rainfall tends to produce runoff. Often, precipitation tends to affect transparency more dramatically in the spring. In most cases, this is because there is less ground cover (crops, grass) in the spring. Later in the summer, ground cover has become established and is able to filter and slow runoff and hold some sediment. The site monitored by John Hiebert in Wright County provides a good illustration of how rain events can result in a decrease in transparency. Hiebert monitored an unnamed tributary to the North Fork of the Crow River. On three separate occasions during the summer, significant rainfall appears to have had a direct effect on the transparency of the stream. Sharp increases in precipitation can be correlated with declines in transparency. One significant difference between this site and others in the watershed is that as summer progressed, transparency readings got lower. At most other sites in the watershed, the transparency increased toward the end of the summer. Further investigation of the surrounding area is needed to determine the cause. & Precipitation at Hiebert Monitoring Site May-October 2 (cm) /3/ 5/8/ 5/1/ 5/18/ 5/3/ 6/5/ 6/13/ 6/21/ 7/5/ 7/1/ Date 7/17/ 7/28/ 8/7/ 8/17/ Precipitation 8/24/ 8/31/ Precipitation (inches) Stage vs. Another informative relationship exists between the transparency of a stream and its stage. Stage is defined as the height of water flowing through the river at a particular point. At a few of the monitoring sites, a direct relationship between stream height and transparency appears to exist. In the graphs on the following page, notice how there is almost an inverse relationship between the two measures. As the stage goes up, the transparency of the water goes down, and vice versa. This indicates that as more water flows through the stream channel it brings with it more materials (esp. sediment) that obscure the transparency of the water. Further investigation will need to be done to determine if the decreased transparency readings reflect the normal stream conditions at high flows or if additional materials are being added to the stream through overland runoff or instream erosion. The sites show the stage readings in inches, a greater reading indicates a farther distance to the top of the water (higher numbers mean lower water levels). 6

8 vs. Stage at Davidson Monitoring Site 6/7/ 6/8/ 6/13/ 6/14/ 6/21/ 6/28/ 7/3/ 7/5/ 7/12/ 7/19/ 7/26/ 8/2/ 8/9/ 8/16/ 8/23/ /3/ 9/6/ 9/13/ 9/2/ 9/27/ 1/1/ Date (cm) Stage (inches) transparency stage and Stage at Holtz North Fork Crow River Site /1/ 5/11/ 5/17/ 5/25/ 6/1/ 6/8/ 6/15/ 6/21/ 6/29/ 7/5/ 7/7/ 7/13/ 7/2/ 7/27/ 8/3/ /9/ 8/17/ 8/24/ 8/31/ 9/7/ 9/14/ 9/21/ Date (cm) Stage (inches) Stage vs. Stage at Wuollet Monitoring Site /9/ 5/12/ 5/17/ 5/18/ 5/27/ 5/31/ 6/1/ 6/6/ 6/15/ 6/19/ 6/22/ 7/3/ 7/13/ /19/ 7/25/ 8/9/ 9/7/ 9/1/ 1/31/ Date (cm) Stage (inches) vs. Stage at the McCurdy Monitoring Site Stage 5/7/ 5/12/ 5/18/ 5/28/ 6/1/ 6/4/ 6/5/ 6/15/ 6/19/ 6/22/ 7/3/ 7/13/ 7/19/ 7/26/ 8/1/ 8/16/ 8/19/ 8/25/ 9/8/ Date (cm) Stage (inches) transparency stage 7

9 Discussion data provides a great deal of information about the general quality of a stream, and it can be related to some key water pollutants. In general, a low transparency reading indicates large amounts of sediment or algae in the water. Excess soil material is a significant pollutant. Sediment suspended in stream water reduces light penetration needed by aquatic plants. It may limit the vision of predatory fish, decreasing their ability to capture prey. Excess sediment deposited on stream bottoms can also smother fish eggs and prevent them from getting the oxygen they need to survive. Soil may also have pollutants such as phosphorus or petroleum products attached to it. These pollutants can impact the stream or river directly, or they may be carried downstream into lakes or reservoirs where they can degrade water quality conditions. Excessive phosphorus levels often cause an increase in algae concentrations. Algae can contribute to dissolved oxygen in the stream while they are alive, but they also cause aesthetic problems and limit recreational use of water bodies. When algae die, the oxygen consumed during their decomposition can limit the oxygen available to other species, impacting fish, mussels and aquatic invertebrates. As problem areas are identified, the C.R.O.W. will work with local citizens and agencies in finding solutions. Common examples of practices often employed include storm water management and education in municipal areas, stream bank stabilizations, wetland restorations and installation of buffers in rural areas. Remedies will be determined on a site-by-site basis, based on available funding, priority and willing cooperators. Thanks The CROW truly appreciates the time and effort that each individual volunteer put into collecting monitoring data in 2. The information collected will be used along with water quality data to identify areas for preservation, and problem correction. It will be stored for comparison with future monitoring years. Watershed efforts rely on the cooperation and support of citizens. The C.R.O.W. looks forward to working with existing and new volunteers next year. For information on the Crow River Citizen Stream Monitoring Network, please contact Jennifer Lee at (763) ext. 3. 8

10 C.R.O.W. Joint Powers 36C Brighton Avenue Buffalo, MN Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage Paid Permit #68 Willmar, MN 5621 This publication is sponsored by the Crow River Organization of Water and Prairie Country RC&D Council. Funding for the CSMP program and this publication was provided by the Metropolitan Council through the Environmental Partnership grant fund. Questions? Comments? Please contact Jenny Lee at the Crow River Organization of Water. Phone: (763) Ext. 3 jenny.lee@mn.usda.gov 9

11 1