INDIAN HEAD RIVER PROJECT Whitman-Hanson Regional High School RiverNet Club 2005

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