Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

NG Shell Creek Data Powerpoint 2007

97

Published on

Data collected from Shell Creek in Nebraska by the 2007 Newman Grove Shell Creek Watershed team.

Data collected from Shell Creek in Nebraska by the 2007 Newman Grove Shell Creek Watershed team.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
97
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 1
  • 2. 2007 Shell Creek W atershed StudyAdvisors – Mark Seier & Suzy GoedekenResearchers – Sheila O’Brien, Brett Roberg, Sheana Wallin,Jessica Boschen, Sean Farrier, Ann O’Brien, Lynzee Pieke,Mandy Anderson, Alyshia Nelson, Shae Wallin, JordanNelson, Jesse Knust, Luke Gasper, Darrek Schmidt,Jonathon Dohmen, Connie Dohmen, Tim Wiese, LauraJohnson, Olivia Wiese, Jake Kaufman, Katie O’Brien, KelseyWallin, Josh Kaufman, Tom O’Brien, Heather Schmidt 2
  • 3. Shell Creek and Loseke-Taylor Creek Watersheds (with Township-Range Labels) Lower Platte North Natural Resources District 6 3
  • 4. Site 1 4
  • 5. Site 2 5
  • 6. Site 3 6
  • 7. Site 4 7
  • 8. Site 6 8
  • 9. Site 5 9
  • 10. W.Q.I.• The Water Quality Index was developed by the National Sanitation Foundation as a standard system to compare different bodies of water.• To determine the WQI, a series of nine tests were performed. These tests were: dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, pH, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), temperature, total phosphate, nitrates, turbidity, and total solids. We also did a water discharge test which we use to measure the flow of the creek in cubic feet per second. 10
  • 11. • After the tests are completed, the WQI for each section of the creek can be computed.• To formulate the WQI, we first computed Q-values.• We multiply this number by a weighting factor, which provides a measure of the relative importance of each test to overall water quality.• The water quality index ranges from zero to 100. - 0 - 25 is very bad - 25 - 50 is bad - 50 - 70 is medium - 70 - 90 is good - 90 - 100 is excellent• The bio-indicator tests weren’t part of W.Q.I., but did give us a water quality rating. 11
  • 12. Sample W.Q.I. Curve Chart 12
  • 13. Sample W.Q.I. Form Weighting T o t a l Test Results Q-value Factor DO % sat. 0.17Fecal Coliform col/100 mL 0.16 pH units 0.11 BOD mg/L 0.11 Temperature change in C 0.1Total Phosphate mg/L 0.1 Nitrates mg/L 0.1 Turbidity JTU 0.08 Total Solids mg/L 0.07 Overall Water Quality Index ___ 13
  • 14. 2007 Precipitation 5 4 3Inches 2 1 0 May June July August Rainfall 14
  • 15. pH 8.4 8.1 Site 1 7.8 Site 2p H Le ve l 7.5 Site 3 Site 4 7.2 Site 5 6.9 Site 6 6.6 6.3 Ma y 26 Jun e 15&16 July 9&10 Aug ust 7 Da te 15
  • 16. Cha nge in Wa te r Te mpe ra ture 4 3 Site 1De g re e s Ce lcius 2 Site 2 Site 3 1 Site 4 Site 5 0 Site 6 Ma y 27 Jun e 15 & July 9 & 10 Aug ust 7 -1 16 -2 Da te The higher the change, the worse the water 16 quality.
  • 17. Tota l Solids 2500 2000 Site 1 Site 2 1500mg/ L Site 3 Site 4 1000 Site 5 Site 6 500 0 Ma y 27 Jun e 15 & July 9 & 10 Aug ust 7 16 Da te The higher the concentration, the worse the water quality. 17
  • 18. Fecal Coliform 18
  • 19. Fe ca l Coliform 450 400 350 Site 1colon ie s/ 100 m L 300 Site 2 250 Site 3 200 Site 4 150 Site 5 100 Site 6 50 0 Ma y 27 Jun e July 9 & 10 Aug ust 7 15&16 Da te 19
  • 20. Flow 90 80Cub ic fe e t p e r se con d 70 Site 1 60 Site 2 50 Site 3 40 Site 4 30 Site 5 20 Site 6 10 0 Ma y 27 Jun e 15 & July 9 & 10 Aug ust 7 16 Da te 20
  • 21. Turbid ity 600 500 Site 1 400 Site 2 Site 3JTUs 300 Site 4 200 Site 5 Site 6 100 0 Ma y 27 Jun e 15 & July 9 & 10 Aug ust 7 16 Da te 21
  • 22. Dissolve d O xyge n 100 90 80 70 Site 1% Sa tura tion Site 2 60 Site 3 50 Site 4 40 Site 5 30 Site 6 20 10 0 Ma y 27 Jun e 15 & July 9 & 10 Aug ust 7 16 Da te 22
  • 23. 5 Da y Biologica l O xyge n De ma n d 6 5 Site 1 4 Site 2 Site 3ppm 3 Site 4 2 Site 5 Site 6 1 0 Ma y 27 Jun e 15 & July 9 & 10 Aug ust 7 16 Da te The higher the change, the worse the water 23 quality.
  • 24. N itra te s 40 35 30 Site 1 25 Site 2 Site 3ppm 20 Site 4 15 Site 5 10 Site 6 5 0 Ma y 27 Jun e 15 & July 9 & 10 Aug ust 7 16 Da te 24
  • 25. Phospha te s 3.5 3 2.5 Site 1 Site 2 2 Site 3ppm 1.5 Site 4 Site 5 1 Site 6 0.5 0 Ma y 27 Jun e 15 & July 9 & 10 Aug ust 7 16 Da te 25
  • 26. Chemical Test Conclusion• Significant increase in stream discharge• Increasing nitrate levels• DO consistently low• Total dissolved solids increasing 26
  • 27. WQI Averages by Site Good 70 65 60 MediumWQI 55 50 Bad 45 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 6 Site 5 2003 Averages 2004 Averages 2005 Averages 2006 Averages 2007 Averages 27
  • 28. WQI Averages by Date Good 70 65 60 MediumWQI 55 50 Bad 45 May June July August Month 2003 Averages 2004 Averages 2005 Averages 2006 Averages 2007 Averages 28
  • 29. 2003 to 2007 Chemical Test Average Comparisons18161412 2003 Averages10 2004 Averages 8 2005 Averages 6 2006 Averages 4 2 2007 Averages 0 pH . es e es .D p. g at .O at ar m itr ph Te ch B N os is in D Ph e ng ha Chemical Test C 29
  • 30. 2003 to 2007 Chemical Test Average Comparisons1200 *2006 Fecal Coliform1000 Average 8,058 col/100 mL800 2003 Averages 2004 Averages600 2005 Averages400 2006 Averages 2007 Averages200 0 D.O. % Sat. Turbidity Fecal Coliform Total Solids 30 Chemical Test
  • 31. Macro InvertebratesSensitive Somewhat Sensitive Tolerant 31
  • 32. Sample Bio-Indicator Data Form 32
  • 33. Bio-Indicator Ratings 12 site 1 site 2 10 site 3 8 site 4Ratings 6 site 5 4 site 6 2 0 May June July August Month 33
  • 34. Fa the a d Minnow 18 16 Fish Study Sa nd Shine r Re d Shine r Rive r Shine r Bla ck Bullhe a d 14Avera ge N um ber of Fish Ye llow Bullhe a d G re e n Sunfish 12 Ca rp 10 8 6 4 2 0 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 6 Site 5 58.51 58.28 61.06 50.4 55.24 47.0 WQI 34 WQI WQI WQI WQI WQI
  • 35. 2007 Flood Study 35
  • 36. 2007 Flood StudyDate Avg. Total NO3 Solid Solid Width Flow Fecal Solidsand Depth Discharge Discharge (ft) (cfs) Coliform (ppm)Time (ft) (mg/L) (lbs/min) (tons/hr)5/303:08 110 8.42 2243 200 9300 0 78145 2344AM5/308:00 84 7.38 1451 0 5160 2.31 27876 836AM X cu ft 60 sec 28.32 L X mg 1g 1 lb 1 ton 60 min 1 sec 1 min 1 cu ft 1L 100 mg 453.6 g 2000 lb 1 hr 36
  • 37. tors di ca - InBio 37
  • 38. icalC he m Tests 38
  • 39. 39
  • 40. Website• http://newman.esu8.org/project.html OR • http://newman.esu8.org/ • Click “Our Students” • Click “Student Projects” • Click “Watershed Project” • You can see our data and further information concerning this project, including pictures. 40
  • 41. 41
  • 42. Thank You To: • Lower Platte North Natural Resource District • PrairieLand RC&D• Natural Resource Conservation Service • Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality • Shell Creek Watershed 42 Improvement Group

×