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

What’s in Your Creek?

Results of the 2009 Clackamas Basin Volunteer Monitoring Effort.

What is SWRP?

Student Watershed Research Project Started 1991

Saturday Academy National Science Foundation

Monitoring program Watershed education Data collection

SWRP Goals

Accuracy & Reliability Reporting student findings Managing data Providing

Training Equipment Technical supplies

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

Day In Damascus – July 25, 2009

Day in Damascus – July 25, 2009

Local children interaction Games & examples

Water sample testing 3 hour testing window

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

Clackamas Basin sampling area

Site CodesCLA – Clackamas RiverDCR – Deep CreekEGL – Eagle CreekCLE – Clear CreekECK – Eagle CreekGCK – Goose CreekNFD – North Fork Deep CreekRCK – Rock CreekRCH – Richardson Creek

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.

Temperature standard is < 17.8 ⁰C

NFD003 was the only private site that equaled the highest acceptable temperature in the 2009 survey, showing a 1.8⁰C increase from 2008.

Site DCR001 showed a decrease of 0.5C between 2008 and 2009, placing it beneath the critical threshold.

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.

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 DissolvedOxygen is > 8 mg/L

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Data summary from public sitesTemperature Turbidity Phosphorus pH DO Ammonia Nitrate

Macro status

2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009

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

NFC001 15 14.1 0.057 6.8 5.83 0.06 0.3

NFD001 15 16.5 16 3.75 0.06 6.8 7.1 9 8.3 0.07 0.15 1.5 Poor

RCH000 16.5 1.4 0.2 7.5 8.5 0.003 1.7

RCK000 14 14.5 7.578 1.21 0.49 0.1 8.02 7.4 9.833 10 0 0 1.5 1.6 Fair

SEB002 0.12 7.4 10 0 2.2

UNK002 14 17.7 0.18 6.4 1.8 0.17 0.01

Average 14.7 16.6 12.6 5.0 0.27 0.09 7.2 7.2 8.2 8.67 0.03 0.04 0.65 1.04

Data summary from private sites

Temperature Turbidity Phosphorus pH DO Ammonia NitrateMacro status

2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009

CLE001 16 2 0.21 7.2 10 0 0.63

DCR001 18 17.5 2.52 1.6 0.35 0.26 7.27 7.8 10.5 10.2 0 0.06 1.03 1.3

EGL001 15.2 13.8 3 1.13 0.31 0.04 7.1 7.2 8.5 10.1 0 0.96 1.5Exc.

EGL002 14 30.3 0.19 6.75 6.5 0 1.033

NFD002 15 14.5 6.76 4.42 0.14 0.06 6.93 7 10.16 9 0 0.07 1.5 1.6

NFD003 16 17.8 6.89 6.29 0.14 0.02 6.96 7.15 9.5 8.5 0 0.07 1.7 1.6

NFD004 17.5 16.33 3.69 2.94 0.25 0.1 7.04 7.4 8.5 8 0 0.05 1.6 1.8

RCH001 14.5 16.7 6.266 15 0.14 7.34 7.1 9 9.5 0 0.02 0.9 1.3

RCH002 15 16 0.1 6.76 8.83 0.047 0

RCK001 13.5 14 8.92 8 0.27 0.08 7.28 6.9 8.33 8 0.0103 0.06 0.7 1

RCK002 12 2.62 6.6 0.34 7.16 10 0 3.23

UNK001 14 16 19.6 0.48 0.26 7.3 7.6 12.17 9 0 0.02 0.03 1.3

Average 15.1 15.8 9.1 5.8 0.24 0.12 7.1 7.3 9.3 9.0 0.03 0.05 1.11 1.4

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

MacroinvertebratesMacroinvertebrates

Clackamas River BasinClackamas River BasinTim Vidito – Tom Provost – Clayton BuckTim Vidito – Tom Provost – Clayton Buck

What is a Macroinvertebrate?What is a Macroinvertebrate?

Any small insects with no backbone that Any small insects with no backbone that can be seen with the naked eyecan be seen with the naked eye

Stonefly Mayfly Caddisfly

Why study Macros?Why study Macros?

Determine the physical, chemical, and Determine the physical, chemical, and biological quality of a streambiological quality of a stream

Reside in small areas throughout their Reside in small areas throughout their lifespanlifespan

Show the effects of short and long term Show the effects of short and long term pollutionpollution

Assess the potential effects water quality Assess the potential effects water quality can have on humanscan have on humans

Why is Monitoring Important?Why is Monitoring Important?

DrinkingDrinking SwimmingSwimming Crop irrigationCrop irrigation ““If a stream is safe for macroinvertebrates, it is safe for If a stream is safe for macroinvertebrates, it is safe for

us”us” TechniqueTechnique

DiversityDiversity

Polluted Stream = high percentage of Polluted Stream = high percentage of pollutant tolerant macroinvertebrates and pollutant tolerant macroinvertebrates and limited amount of pollutant intolerant limited amount of pollutant intolerant presentpresent

Healthy Stream = high percentage of Healthy Stream = high percentage of pollutant intolerant vs. pollutant tolerantpollutant intolerant vs. pollutant tolerant

Stonefly/Caddisfly vs Damselfly/True FliesStonefly/Caddisfly vs Damselfly/True Flies

Metric SystemsMetric Systems Pollution Sensitive Order Index- Are the Three Pollution Sensitive Order Index- Are the Three

EPT orders present? Caddisfly, Mayfly, and EPT orders present? Caddisfly, Mayfly, and StoneflyStonefly

Tolerant Order Index- Are 50 percent or more Tolerant Order Index- Are 50 percent or more pollutant tolerant organisms? pollutant tolerant organisms?

ADEQUATEADEQUATE LIMITEDLIMITED

Sensitive Sensitive Organisms Organisms PresentPresent

All 3 EPT All 3 EPT orders presentorders present

One or more One or more EPT organisms EPT organisms absentabsent

% Tolerant % Tolerant OrganismsOrganisms

<50% of total <50% of total are tolerantare tolerant

>50% of total >50% of total are tolerantare tolerant

Pollution Sensitive Order IndexPollution Sensitive Order Index

AdequateAdequateEagle Fern ParkEagle Fern ParkLandowner at Eagle CreekLandowner at Eagle CreekBarton ParkBarton Park

LimitedLimitedCarver ParkCarver ParkRock CreekRock CreekBoring Trail StationBoring Trail Station

Tolerant Order IndexTolerant Order Index

AdequateAdequateEagle Fern ParkEagle Fern ParkCarver ParkCarver ParkRock CreekRock CreekLandowner at Eagle CreekLandowner at Eagle CreekBarton ParkBarton Park

LimitedLimitedBoring Trail StationBoring Trail Station

Boring Trail StationBoring Trail Station

Boring Trail Station (NFD001) Sample Population

17%

17%

56%

7%3%

Mayfly, Small Minnow

True Fly, Midge

True Fly, Black Fly Larva

Damselfly

Snail

Dissolved Oxygen 8.3 mg/L

Turbidity

3.75 NTU

Sensitive Order Index

Limited

Tolerance Order Index

Limited

Carver ParkCarver Park

Carver Park (CLE000) Sample Population

38%

26%

14%

2%

2%

18% Mayfly, Small Minnow

Mayfly, Flat Head

Caddisfly, Green RockWorm

True Fly,Midge

Amphipoda,Scud

Snail


Turbidity 1.54 NTU


Limited

Tolerant Order Index

Adequate

Rock CreekRock Creek

Rock Creek (RCK000) Sample Population

65%

4%

2%

4%

4%

15%

1%

4%

1%Mayfly, Small Minnow

Mayfly, Flat Head

Mayfly, Spiny Crawler


True Fly, Midge

Amphipoda, Scud

Beetle, Riffle Beetle

True Fly, Cranefly Larva

True Fly, Black Fly Larva


Turbidity

1.21 NTU


Limited


Adequate

Eagle Fern ParkEagle Fern Park

Eagle Fern Park (EGL005) Sample Population

55%

6%3%

4%

1%

6%

1%

5%

8%

4%

1%

1%

1%

4%


Mayfly, Flat Head

Mayfly, Prong Gill


Caddisfly, Net Spinner


Caddisfly, Casemaker

Caddisfly,Sadlecasemaker

Stonefly, Golden

Stonefly, Green

Stonefly, Pacific Giant



Turbidity

0.8 NTU


Adequate


Adequate

Landowner Eagle CreekLandowner Eagle Creek

Landowner Eagle Creek (EGL001) Sample Population

57%

3%5%

5%

3%

3%

3%

5%

16%


Mayfly, Flat Head



Caddisfly,Sadlecasemaker

Stonefly, Golden

True Fly, Midge

Mites

Caddisfly, Casemaker


Turbidity

1.13 NTU


Adequate


Adequate

Barton ParkBarton Park

Barton Park (CLA024) Sample Population

27%

16%

3%23%

6%

19%

6%


Mayfly, Flat Head


Stonefly, Green


True Fly, Midge

Snail


Turbidity

1.15 NTU


Adequate


Adequate

ConclusionConclusion

Boring Trail Station ImprovementsBoring Trail Station Improvements Generalized Report- SnapshotGeneralized Report- Snapshot Ways to keep stream healthyWays to keep stream healthy The beginning of a new biological assessment for The beginning of a new biological assessment for

studying macroinvertebrates over the yearsstudying macroinvertebrates over the years

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.

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

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

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

Urban settings increase storm runoff, causing channelization and erosion

www.newburgh-ny.com/water/stormwater0.htm

Filtering runoff and “green streets” reduce sedimentation in urban areas

http://www.portlandonline.com/BES/index.cfm?c=44407

“Ditch Checks” effectively slow water, resulting in lower sediment loads in rural areas.

www.ci.mil.wi.us/router.asp?docid=12474

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.

Methods for improving the efficiency of irrigation systemsContour farming Holding ponds

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

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

Healthy Streams Are Important to All of Us!

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

Thank you:Clackamas River Basin Council & community partners:

Clackamas River WaterWater Environment Services

Want to get involved?

Contact the Clackamas River Basin Council:

By email ~ [email protected]

By phone ~ 503-558-0550

Documents

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