Post on 17-Jan-2016
INDIAN HEAD INDIAN HEAD RIVER PROJECTRIVER PROJECTWhitman-Hanson Regional Whitman-Hanson Regional
High SchoolHigh SchoolRiverNet ClubRiverNet Club
20052005
RiverNet ClubRiverNet Club
We are a group of We are a group of students interested in students interested in
local rivers. Some of us local rivers. Some of us have worked with RiverNet have worked with RiverNet in Middle School with Ms. in Middle School with Ms.
Kofton. We are continuing Kofton. We are continuing the research on the Indian the research on the Indian
Head River that the Head River that the Hanson Middle School has Hanson Middle School has
done in the past.done in the past.
RiverNet ClubRiverNet Club
StudentsStudentsSteve, Jacob, Liam, Steve, Jacob, Liam, Winnie, Eddie, Liz, Winnie, Eddie, Liz,
Amanda, Amanda, Alexandra, TimAlexandra, Tim
PurposePurposeTo discover whether To discover whether or not water quality or not water quality has improved over has improved over the past four yearsthe past four years..
To compare two study To compare two study sites along the river.sites along the river.
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
MA TownsIndian_streams.shpIndian_ponds.shpIndian_ws.shp
Indian HeadRiver
RiverNetProgram
2000 0 2000 4000 Meters
2 October 2004
A
B Study Sites
Indian Head River Site Indian Head River Site BB
ProblemProblemThere have been There have been high nitrate high nitrate readings in the readings in the pastpast
ÊÚÊÚ
MA Towns
Clip4.shpCrop LandPasture
ForestNon-Forested Wetland
MiningOpen LandPartic ipation Rec.
Spectator Rec.Water-based Rec.
Multi-Fam. Res.High Density Res.
Medium Dens. ResLow Dens. Res
Salt W ater W etlandCommercialIndustrial
Urban OpenTransportation
Waste DisposalWater
Woody Perennial
Indian_streams.shpIndian_ponds.shp
Indian_ws.shp
Indian Head River
WatershedStudies
2000 0 2000 4000 Meters
2 October 2004
Land Use
Land UseLand Use
Forest 60.9 %Forest 60.9 %
Agriculture 0.5%Agriculture 0.5%
Residential 28.8%Residential 28.8%
Commercial/Industrial Commercial/Industrial 2.4%2.4%
Wetlands 1.6 %Wetlands 1.6 %
Other 5.5%Other 5.5%
WatershedWatershed
Watershed Area – Watershed Area –
29 square miles.29 square miles.
There are 40 stream There are 40 stream miles in the miles in the
watershed and 159 watershed and 159 road miles.road miles.
10 % imperviousness10 % imperviousness
Indian Head River pH Readings Site A Winter Street
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7
7.1
7.2
Oct.2001 Oct. 2002 Oct. 2003 Mar. 2004 Sept. 2004
Date
pH pH Site A
Indian Head River pH Readings Site B Curtis Crossing
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7
Oct.2001 Oct. 2002 Oct. 2003 Mar. 2004 Sept. 2004
Date
pH pH Site B
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
MA TownsIndian_streams.shpIndian_ponds.shpIndian_ws.shp
Indian HeadRiver
RiverNetProgram
2000 0 2000 4000 Meters
2 October 2004
1
3
2
4 Fecal ColiformTestSites
Site A
Site B
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Site of Test
Fecal Coliform Comparison 10/22/04
Fecal Coliform Colonies per 100 mL
Fecal Coliform Comparison Between Sites A and B in the Indian Head River
April 1 and October 22, 2004
05
10152025303540
Site A Site B
Sites
# C
olo
nie
s/ 1
00 m
L
4/1/2004
10/22/2004
Note: At Site B there was not a plate count with 20-60 colonies per 100 mL in Oct.2004.
Changes in Total Discharge Indian Head River 2001-2004
7 6.9
27.3
19.7722.5
18.6
33.3
27.07
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Flo
w in
ft3
/sec
Site A
Site B
Comparison of Phosphorus Load For Two Study Sites
Indian Head River 2003-2004
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Site A Site B
Study Site
Lo
ad in
g/d
ay
9/25/2003
10/20/2003
2/12/2004
3/31/2004
9/22/2004
Nitrogen Load Sites A & B 2001-2004 Indian Head River
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Date Sampled
Lo
ad in
kg
/day
Site A
Site B
10/20 10/9 10/24 12/18 3/16 9/25 10/20 2/12 4/1 9/222001 2002 2002 2002 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004
N:P RatiosN:P RatiosSite A Site A 638:1638:1
Site BSite B 210:1210:1
Dissolved Oxygen Indian Head River Site A 9/22-9/23, 2004
8.68.78.88.9
99.19.29.39.4
Time
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved Oxygen Indian Head River Site B 9/22/04
9
9.05
9.1
9.15
9.2
9.25
9.3
9.35
9.4
Time HH/MM/SS
mg
/l
DO mg/l
Comparison of Dissolved Oxygen from 5 PM September 22 to 3 PM September 23, 2004
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
170000 180000 190000 200000 210000 220000 230000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000 130000 140000 150000
Time
Site A
Site B
Temperature Comparison Indian Head River Site A 2001-2004
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
18:0
019
:00
20:0
021
:00
22:0
023
:00
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
time
tem
p.
2001
2002
2003
2004
Temperature Comparison Indian Head River Site B 2001-2004
02468
101214161820
Time
Tem
pera
ture
(deg
rees
C
elsi
us)
2001
2002
2003
2004
Comparison of Dissolved Oxygen and TemperatureIndian Head River Site A 2001-2004 6PM- 8AM
84.7 82.989.5
95.8
16.58.8 9.4
18.7
8.2 9.7 10 8.92
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2001 2002 2003 2004
Years
Percent Saturation
Degrees C°
Dissolved Oxygen
Comparison of Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Indian Head River Site B 2001-2004 6pm-8am
85.389.1
104.597.4
15.77.8 10.3
17.5
8.4 10.7 11.4 9.32
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2001 2002 2003 2004Year
Percent Saturation
Degrees C°
Dissolved Oxygen
Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates Site ASite A
Macroinvertebrate Macroinvertebrate collection Site B collection Site B 10/7/0410/7/04
Macroinvertebrates Indian Head River October 7, 2004
Site A
Hydropsychidae13%
Gammaridae7%
Philopotamidae4%
Pelecypoda62%
Chironomidae5%
Psephenidae2%
Gastropoda0%
Elmidae
Asellidae
Hydropsychidae
Gammaridae
Philopotamidae
Psephenidae
Pelecypoda
Elmidae
Gastropoda
Chironomidae
Asllidae
Percent Composition of Macroinvertebrates Indian Head River
Site A 2003
Hydropsychidae
40%
Gammaridae
31%
Philopotamidae
24%
Psephenedae
2%Pelecypoda
2%Elmidae
1%
Hydropsychidae
Gammaridae
Philopotamidae
Psephenedae
Pelecypoda
Elmidae
Macroinvertebrates Indian Head River October 7, 2004 Site B
Hydropsychidae82%
Philopotamidae14%
Pelecypoda3%
Psephenidae1%
Gastropoda0%
Hydropsychidae
Philopotamidae
Pelecypoda
Psephenidae
Gastropoda
Percent Composition
Percent Composition Macroinvertebrates Indian Head River Site B 2003
Hydropsychidae
47%
Philopotamidae
32%
Pelecypoda
10%
Elmidae
1%
Assellidae
1% Hirudinea
1%
Gammaridae
2%
Crayfi sh
0%
Gastropoda
0%
Psephenedae
6%
Hydropsychidae
Philopotamidae
Pelecypoda
Psephenedae
Gastropoda
Elmidae
Assellidae
Hirudinea
Gammaridae
Crayfi sh
Macroinvertebrates and Tolerance Indian Head River 10/7/04
61.4
73 4 4
73
84
7
0.0051.61.64.25.35.313.2 6.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Family
% Composition
Tolerance to Pollution
Macroinvertebrates and Tolerance Indian Head River Site B 10/7/04
% Composition 81
% Composition 3.2%
%Composition, 14.3%Composition, 1.1 %Composition, 0.4
Tolerance 7 Tolerance 4 Tolerance 3 Tolerance, 3
Tolerance 7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Hydropsychidae Philopotamidae Pelecypoda Psephenidae Gastropoda
Family
Percent Composition
Tolerance to pollution
Family Biotic Indices-Indian Head RiverSite A: 2001-2004
5.14 3.433.89 5.9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2001 2002 2003 2004Year
Family Biotic Indices-Indian Head RiverSite B: 2001-2004
3.12
3.58
4.13 4.29
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Hilsenhoff Biotic Hilsenhoff Biotic IndexIndex
0.0-3.75 0.0-3.75 ExcellentExcellent
3.76-4.253.76-4.25 Very GoodVery Good
4.26-5.004.26-5.00 GoodGood
5.01-5.755.01-5.75 FairFair
5.76-6.505.76-6.50 Fairly PoorFairly Poor
6.51-7.256.51-7.25 PoorPoor
7.26-10.007.26-10.00 Very PoorVery Poor(Culp and Halliwell 1999)(Culp and Halliwell 1999)
ConclusionsConclusions
The Indian Head The Indian Head River meets all River meets all
criteria for Class B criteria for Class B warm water warm water
fisheries according fisheries according to the parameters to the parameters
tested.tested.
ConclusionsConclusions
Water quality Water quality appears appears
better at Site better at Site B than Site A. B than Site A.
ConclusionsConclusions
The The macroinvertebrate macroinvertebrate analysis at Site A analysis at Site A rated fairly poor rated fairly poor which indicated a which indicated a deterioration in deterioration in substrate conditions substrate conditions from 2003. from 2003.
ConclusionsConclusions
The water The water chemistry results chemistry results at Site A, however, at Site A, however, are acceptable. are acceptable. The problem The problem appears to be in appears to be in the sediment.the sediment.
ConclusionsConclusions
Greater flow and Greater flow and discharge may be discharge may be
an important an important variable in the variable in the
dissolved oxygen dissolved oxygen and and
macroinvertebrate macroinvertebrate data.data.
ConclusionsConclusions
Nitrate readings Nitrate readings were in the were in the acceptable range acceptable range in October 2004.in October 2004.
RecommendationRecommendationss
To further determine the To further determine the sources of nitrates in sources of nitrates in the system, water the system, water samples should be samples should be collected at more collected at more locations and at different locations and at different times of the year.times of the year.
RecommendationRecommendationss
Monitoring should Monitoring should continue for continue for macroinvertebrates, macroinvertebrates, flow, discharge, and flow, discharge, and water chemistry to water chemistry to observe variations over observe variations over time. time.
RecommendationRecommendationss
Weather data Weather data should be should be noted for the noted for the week before week before data is data is collected.collected.
ThanksThanks
We wish to express our We wish to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. sincere gratitude to Dr. Curry and Kim McCoy Curry and Kim McCoy for all their work and for all their work and support. support.
Thanks to Ms. Kofton Thanks to Ms. Kofton for all the data from for all the data from years past and years past and information about the information about the river.river.
ThanksThanks
Thanks also to Thanks also to sponsors of the sponsors of the
RiverNet Program RiverNet Program and Watershed and Watershed
Access Lab.Access Lab.
Executive Executive SummarySummary
Click here to access the sumClick here to access the summary.mary.
The The EndEnd