WaterQuality-ReportCard

Team is: Kate, Kelly, Carra, Will

April 6: Draft of the Stream Health Report http://conservationsuccess.wikispaces.com/Draft+of+Stream+Health+Report

The planned outline of our report can be found here: Stream Health Report**
 * April 1st: Outline for Stream Health Report


 * March 26th: Meeting with Kris Bass, a member of the Water Quality Group over on Centennial Campus.**

We showed him the report card and what we've done so far, and based on that, he gave us a few suggestions. Namely: -//Length:// Instead of restricting it to 100 feet, he suggested that we let volunteers instead go simply as far down the stream as they can in their alloted time, or use their best judgement. He also gave us a sort of "industry standard" of doing 20 times the bank-to-bank width. -Within the scope we have, recording the //fish// and //benthic macroinvertebrates// won't be useful or feasable for this project. The season (cold weather) is a factor, but Kris pointed out that we won't have very many large fish in our streams, and that you need to do a very thorough investigation for any macro data to be of relevance. -the //barriers to fish movement// category probably isn't necessary: there won't be many to record. -the //stream bottom deposit// and //bank stability// categories don't really provide any data that we could draw conclusions with. Therefore, we'll probably nix these ones, too. -we don't need two separate categories for recording //algae// - using one of them, or combining the two, will be sufficient. -//Riffle Composition//: Kris pointed out that we'll have to explain that a riffle may not necessarily look like the pile of rocks with rapid moving water over them, as most people imagine a riffle to look like. We'll have to give users a very strong definition of what a riffle is - for example, the rocks may be covered with sediment, so it'll just look sandy. This is particularly important, because in this example, it shows that there is poor sediment transportation. -//Banks//: Instead of having a rigid 25 foot definition, maybe it would be better to let the user use their best judgment to determine where the stream bank ends and where the forest begins, as it will vary from stream to stream.

He also suggested new categories, that may give us better information than the ones we'll eliminate: //Habitat structures:// marking down any woody debris, deep pools, boulders, piles of leaves, etc, that creatures can use to build their habitats. This will be better than searching for specific organisms that may not be present at the specific time of data collection. //Watershed Factors:// checking for storm-/wastewater pipes, roads, culverts, livestock pastures, etc, that can impair water quality. Considering that we have the Buffers team to come up with a handout just for this purpose, we're not sure if we'll include it in our handout. //Vegetation:// Again, we have the Invasives to record this, but it may be something to look into - perhaps we can record vegetation that could be beneficial to the stream, what kind of trees are nearby, etc.

We were also given some handouts that we can use for research: a list of some currently used stream assessment programs (RSAT, for example), a program that is used specifically for determining impairments and what needs to be mitigated, along with the system that his program uses for stream assessments.

We don't think this will alter the sampling method too much, we'll just have different things to record. This is especially helpful because the ones he suggested we remove were the ones we were having the most trouble with finding good methods of recording. The only issue that his suggestions bring up is that he often reccommended we let the users use their best judgement and make their own decisions, which may not be good if we are trying to focus on improving the repeatability of the scorecard.

Schedule:

Week of March 16: Finish outline/planning -finalize report card(edit tutorial etc.) Meeting on Saturday at Swift Creek to collect data

Week of March 23rd: More data collection-Swift Creek? Work on power points and report outlines

Week of March 30th: Finish collecting data and analyze it Continue to work on paper and presentation

Week of April 6th: Complete draft for final presentation and report

Week of April 13th: Turning in the report to Dr. Hess on Monday and receive his revisions on Friday the 17th Continue to finalize the presentation and revise the report

Week of April 20th: Turn in the second draft of the report on Tuesday the 21st and receive his revisions on Friday the 24th. Make any necessary changes to the report and presentation

Week of April 27th: Give the final presentation and turn in report

<<george 23 Feb - this is a great set of notes and observations, folks - nicely done. It's time to devote the same attention to designing the variability experiment(s) and the lab on Wed 11 Mar. Will you be treating the lab as a pilot for the variability study? Or are you expecting it to //be// the variability study? (I'm thinking pilot, but perhaps you have better ideas.) You might start posting ideas about that here now, and I can comment as you go. I'd also like to start seeing your full list of project objectives, deliverables, graphs, tables, etc somewhere on the wiki. You've all done your own mental creations - time to reach consensus. You can create a new page and link it to this page, if you wish ... but that information should start showing up. Thanks for all the good work, and please let me know what you need!>>


 * Water Quality Report Card/ Existing Data**


 * Group Assessment Tool Training 02-14-09**

Time: 11:00AM Location: Rocky Branch Creek

Categorical Notes (clarification issues, recommendations etc)

Page 9,12,14 (Kate et al. Assessment Tool)
 * For a sampling area use GPS to identify and record coordinates for selected upstream sampling area and 100 feet down stream. This is one sampling point for the stream assessment.
 * Stream width: measure "where the water is" from bank to bank
 * Stream movement: define terms and provide photo examples (i.e. winds, straight)
 * Stream rate: define terms (high, normal, low, negligible)
 * Barriers to Fish Movement: provide pictures for examples for different barrier types (note if trash is present but if the trash itself is not an actual barrier to stream/fish movement do not include).
 * Surface Water Appearance: bring plastic transparent jar/beaker to observe stream water and provide color scale for reference.
 * Stability of Stream Bed: this refers to actual stream bed under water (idealy use wading boots)
 * Algae Color: provide color scale for reference.
 * Algae Located:make sure to note whether on surface of water or rocks.
 * Stream Channel Shade: note season (i.e. during winter the shade will be minimal).
 * Riffle Composition: identify one specific sampling riffle location (within designated sample location) 3ft X 3ft area.
 * Stream Bank Categories: Score/record for each stream bank within sample area and indicate cardinal direction of each stream bank (i.e. north bank, south bank).
 * Stream Bank Shape: provide photos to reference different bank shapes.

We plan to meet Sunday March 8th to finish organizing training module for NR300 class experiment (on Tuesday March 10th) YEEEHAWWWW!


 * Group Meeting 02-11-09 Overview:**

(1) Present Objectives, time tables, data and learning needs to Jeff from TLC

(2) Met with Kate and Kevin to discuss training dates (Group Tool Training Saturday Feb. 14th at 11am)


 * We will be meeting in the traffic circle outside of Jordan II on NCSU campus Feb. 14th at 11am
 * We will be assessing Rocky Branch Creek for the training session

(3) Jeff suggested that after our assessment tool training is completed we (water quality group) could possibly train the TLC staff?

(4) Corrdinate with Buffer Breach group on tesing the assessment tool witihn their research locations in Wake County?


 * Group Meeting 02-05-09 Objectives:**

- Our group needs to be trained using the Stream Quality Assessment Tool designed by Kate Golden.

- We will contact Kate Golden to inquire if and when she can meet with our group and train (Grad student Kevin Bigsby would like to attend training with our Water Quality group and show/train us with integrative technologies for the tool (in development)).

- After training is complete our group will work with Kevin to select geographic sites for sampling --> to test assessment tool repeatability

- Informative class period explaining the implementation of the tool

- Training/experimental class period involving the entire class to test among and within user variability between two defined methods


 * Time table:**

- Our group should be trained before Spring Break (before 02-26-09) --> we should all be available to train on the weekend if necessary

- Train class possibly the week of 03-09-09 --> possibly Tuesday the 10th

- Try to run pilot experiment either the same week as training 03-09-09 --> possibly Wed. the 11th


 * Data/Learning Needs:**

- For experimental design (selecting sampling sites and number of samples) we will need aerial or topo maps - Obtain existing RSAT scores if available in the Triangle, Wake County (or specific sites of interest for possible baselines) - Literature review --> concerning methodology, recommendations and tools used before (goal is to NOT reinvent the wheel)


 * Useful Links:**

NC DWQ provides basic Classifications, date of classifications and stream index for water ways in Wake County http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/Wake.pdf To search water ways of NC by different categories go to --> http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/reportsWB.html DWQ Classification sheet for waterbodies --> http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/ClassificationDescriptions.pdf

OLD STUFF Goals:

1. Obtain existing data - Any Rapid Stream Assessment Test (RSAT) (or variation of testing system) in Triangle area - Triangle aerial photography/ topo maps of Triangle - Any water quality standards and waterway classifications in the Triangle 2. Test usability of testing system in question (RSAT) - Design an experiment testing the usability and repeatability of RSAT <> - Among observers - Within observers 3. Make improvements accordingly to system testing design and discuss implementation of the system <>

<> <>

<>