NG Shell Creek Data Powerpoint 2011

241 views

Published on

Data collected from Shell Creek in Nebraska by the 2011 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
241
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

NG Shell Creek Data Powerpoint 2011

  1. 1. 2011 Shell CreekWatershed Research Group Advisors: Mark Seier and Karen Malmkar Researchers: Audrey Wondercheck, Mark O’Brien, Alisha Dunlap, Caitlin Bennett, Joan O’Brien, Lila Wondercheck, Ciera Afrank, Kendra Nelson, Liz Backhaus, Darienne Pokorny, Jason Kaufman, Demi Edgell,Jacob Haase, John O’Brien, Brock Donelson, Billy O’Brien, MeganNelson, Brooke Pieke, Alex Wiese 1
  2. 2. Shell Creek and Loseke-Taylor Creek Watersheds (with Township-Range Labels) Lower Platte North Natural Resources DistrictSouth Branch North Branch 6 2
  3. 3. Below Newman GroveAbove Newman Grove 6 3
  4. 4. Below Lindsay 6West Platte Center 4
  5. 5. 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. 5
  6. 6. • 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 are not part of the W.Q.I., but do give us a water quality rating. 6
  7. 7. Sample W.Q.I. Curve Chart 7
  8. 8. Sample W.Q.I. Form W e ig hting Te s t R e s ults Q -value Fac tor T o ta l DO % s at. 0 .1 7Fe c al C olifor m c ol/1 0 0 mL 0 .1 6 pH units 0 .1 1 BOD mg /L 0 .1 1 Te mpe r atur e c hang e in C 0 .1Total P hos phate mg /L 0 .1 N itr ate s mg /L 0 .1 Tur bidity J TU 0 .0 8 Total S olids mg /L 0 .0 7 Overall Water Quality Index ___ 8
  9. 9. 2011 Precipitation 4.5 4 3.5 3Inches 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 May June July August Rainfall 9
  10. 10. pH 8.4 8.1 Site 1 7.8 Site 2pH Level 7.5 Site 3 Site 4 7.2 Site 6 6.9 Site 5 6.6 6.3 May June 23 July 20 August 4 26,27 10 Date
  11. 11. Change in Water Temperature 3.5 3 2.5 Site 1Degrees Celcius 2 Site 2 1.5 Site 3 1 Site 4 Site 6 0.5 Site 5 0 May 26, 27 June 23 July 20 August 4 -0.5 -1 Date The higher the change, the worse the water quality. 11
  12. 12. Total Solids 2500 2000 Site 1 1500 Site 2mg/L Site 3 1000 Site 4 Site 6 Site 5 500 0 May 26, 27 June 23 July 20 August 4 Date The higher the concentration, the worse the water quality. 12
  13. 13. Fecal Coliform 13
  14. 14. Fecal Coliform 3,500 3,000 2,500colonies/100 mL Site 1 2,000 Site 2 Site 3 1,500 Site 4 Site 6 1,000 Site 5 500 0 May 26, 27 June 23 July 20 August 4 Date 14
  15. 15. Fecal Coliform 1600 In 2006 In 2010 Site 1- 21,418 Site 1- 11,387 1400 Site 5- 17,800 Site 6- 2,313 1200colonies/100 mL Site 1 1000 Site 2 800 Site 3 Site 4 600 Site 6 Site 5 400 200 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 15 Date
  16. 16. Flow 120 *Flow was not measured for May Sites 3,4,5,6 100Cubic feet per second 80 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 60 Site 4 Site 6 40 Site 5 20 0 May 26, 27 June 23 July 20 August 4 16 Date
  17. 17. Turbidity 1200 1000 800 Site 1 Site 2JTUs Site 3 600 Site 4 Site 6 400 Site 5 200 0 May 26, 27 June 23 July 10 August 4 17 Date
  18. 18. Dissolved Oxygen 100 90 80 70 Site 1% Saturation 60 Site 2 50 Site 3 Site 4 40 Site 6 30 Site 5 20 10 0 May 26, 27 June 23 July 20 August 4 Date 18
  19. 19. 5 Day Biological Oxygen Demand 6 5 4 Site 1 Site 2ppm 3 Site 3 Site 4 Site 6 2 Site 5 1 0 May 26, 27 June 23 July 20 August 4 Date 19 The higher the change, the worse the water quality.
  20. 20. Nitrates 50 45 40 35 Site 1 30 Site 2ppm 25 Site 3 Site 4 20 Site 6 15 Site 5 10 5 0 May 26, 27 June 23 July 20 August 4 20 Date
  21. 21. Nitrates 60 50 40 Site 1 Site 2ppm 30 Site 3 Site 4 20 Site 6 Site 5 10 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Date 21
  22. 22. Phosphates 3.5 3 2.5 Site 1 2 Site 2ppm Site 3 1.5 Site 4 Site 6 1 Site 5 0.5 0 May 26, 27 June 23 July 20 August 4 Date 22
  23. 23. WQI Averages by Site 70 Good 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 2008 Averages 23 2009 Averages 2010 Average 2011 Average
  24. 24. Total WQI Averages by Year 70 Good 65 60 MediumWQI 55 50 Bad 45 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 WQI 24
  25. 25. 2003 - 2011 Chemical Test Average Comparisons30 2003 Averages 2004 Averages25 2005 Averages 2006 Averages 2007 Averages20 2008 Averages 2009 Averages15 2010 Average 2011 Average1050 Total Rainfall Inches Discharge CFS Nitrates ppm pH 25
  26. 26. 2003 - 2011 Chemical Test Average Comparisons 3 2003 Averages2.5 2004 Averages 2005 Averages 2006 Averages 2 2007 Averages 2008 Averages1.5 2009 Averages 2010 Average 2011 Average 10.5 0 Phosphates ppm B.O.D. ppm Change in Temp. Celcius 26
  27. 27. 2003 - 2011 Chemical Test Average Comparisons1200 *2006 Fecal Coliform Average 8,058 col/100 mL 2003 Averages1000 2004 Averages 2005 Averages 2006 Averages800 2007 Averages *2010 Fecal Coliform Average 3,648 col/100 mL 2008 Averages600 2009 Averages 2010 Average 2011 Average400200 0 D.O. % Sat. Turbidity JTU Fecal Coliform Total Solids 27 Colonies/100 mL mg/L
  28. 28. Chemical Test Conclusions• Upstream sites have a decreasing WQI, while lower stream sites have an increasing WQI.• Flow and Nitrate are continuing to follow each other.• May phosphate levels are high.• Nitrates overall are stabilizing. 28
  29. 29. Macro InvertebratesSensitive Somewhat Sensitive Tolerant 29
  30. 30. Beaver-Shell Creek Comparison 201120181614 Beaver Creek12 Shell Creek10 8 6 4 2 0 30 pH Nitrates Phosphates B.O.D
  31. 31. Beaver-Shell Creek Comparison 2011800700600500400 Beaver Creek300 Shell Creek200100 0 Turbidity Fecal Total Solids D.O. % Sat. 31 Coliform
  32. 32. Beaver-Shell Creek WQI Comparison 70 Good 60Medium 50 Bad 40 30WQI 20 10 0 May June July August Summer Summer Summer Summer Average Average Average Average Beaver Creek Average WQI 11 10 09 08 32 Shell Creek Average WQI
  33. 33. 2010 Flood Study 33
  34. 34. Total Dissolved Dissolved Temp. Solids Fecal Flow Turbidity Oxygen % Oxygen 5 day WQIDate Site pH Chan. mg/L Coliform CFS JTUs Saturation ppm BOD Nitrates Phosphates number WQI Rating6/22 Site 1 8 0.2 410 750 5.4 171.77 36% 3.8 0 40.92 1.44 44.71 Bad Site 2 7.5 1 390 2800 2.93 399.02 12% 0.2 0 9.68 0.2 35.05 Bad Site 3 7.3 0.2 670 350 8.96 379.2 10% 1 0 12.5 0.19 52.53 Medium Site 4 7.9 1.1 670 750 28.44 410 18% 1.7 0.7 4.62 1.23 48.94 Bad Site 6 7.9 0 1600 200 43.89 406 14% 0.1 0 2.83 2.8 48.97 Bad Site 5 7.8 0.3 1660 400 81.2 1076 11% 1.4 0 2.82 1.56 51.03 Medium6/23 Site 1 8.1 0.1 540 550 5.78 66.7 64% 6.7 0 26.22 0.84 63.11 Medium Site 2 7.7 1.9 590 550 2.34 114.2 47% 4.5 0 10.56 0.69 57.66 Medium Site 3 7.8 -0.2 730 300 17.3 139.81 48% 4.6 0 32.65 0.56 56.66 Medium Site 4 7.8 0.3 630 400 11.16 177 65% 6.2 0.7 11.66 1 56.3 Medium Site 6 7.7 2 600 300 30.42 245 53% 5.2 0 9.6 1.27 53.9 Medium 34 Site 5 7.8 0.2 670 800 101.89 358 62% 6.2 0 11.04 1.19 54.31 Medium
  35. 35. Total Dissolved Dissolved Temp. Solids Fecal Flow Turbidity Oxygen % Oxygen 5 Day WQIDate Site pH Chang. mg/L Coliform CFS JTUs Saturation ppm BOD Nitrates Phosphates number WQI Rating7/20 Site 1 7.9 1.5 620 50 1.97 89.5 50% 4.3 0.7 38.02 0.81 53.86 Medium Site 2 7.8 2.1 650 0 2.32 86.4 39% 3.3 0 33.79 0.65 60.87 Medium Site 3 8.2 0 580 150 6.89 52.17 55% 4.6 0.3 29.04 0.76 54.77 Medium Site 4 7.7 0.2 660 100 16.0997 67 50% 4.1 0.1 21.47 0.87 59.07 Medium Site 6 8.3 0.2 640 200 50.41 61 63% 5.4 2.8 22.704 1.09 52.37 Medium Site 5 8 0.3 400 150 11.283 52 63% 5.4 3 20.5 1.12 54.21 Medium7/21 Site 1 7.9N/A 430 400N/A 70.91 23% 3.5 0.7 26.576 1.19 42.87 Bad Site 2 7.9N/A 440 50N/A 120.09 16% 2.5 0 12.32 0.55 46.93 Bad Site 3 7.9N/A 540 50N/A 217.27 14% 2.3 0.3 12.012 0.47 47.16 Bad Site 4 7.6N/A 2510 400N/A 235.4 0% 0 0 0 2.25 42.64 Bad Site 6 8.2N/A 1320 200N/A 760.84 0% 0 3 5.02 2.25 41.03 Bad 35 Site 5 7.5N/A 4170 150N/A 271.56 0% 0 2.8 13.16 0.96 38.38 Bad
  36. 36. Student Scientists in Action 36
  37. 37. 37
  38. 38. 38
  39. 39. 39
  40. 40. 40
  41. 41. Website • http://www.newman.esu8.org/ • Click “Activities” • Click “Watershed Project” • Click “Watershed Homepage”• You can see our data and further information concerning this project, including pictures. 41
  42. 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

×