This is the html version of the file http://www.umass.edu/tei/wrrc/WRRC2004/pdf/annrpt00.wri.PDF.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:RsiqxPM68CsJ:www.umass.edu/tei/wrrc/WRRC2004/pdf/annrpt00.wri.PDF+leverett+watershed+pond+leverett+pond+%22leverett+pond%22&hl=en

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: leverett watershed pond leverett pond leverett pond 
Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center Annual Program Report - 2000
Page 1
Grant No.
MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER
G2025
Member: National Institutes for Water Resources
Massachusetts
Water Resources Research Center
Annual Program Report - 2000
for
U.S. Department of the Interior
Geological Survey
Federal FY99
Grant No. 14-08-0001-G2025
by
Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
Paul J. Godfrey, Director
August 2000
The activities on which this report is based were financed in part by the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey,
through the Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center.
Thecontentsofthis publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Department of Interior, nor does the
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement by the United States Government or any other
state or local government or agency.
Page 2
i
ABSTRACT
The Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center program for 1999-2000 (Federal Fiscal Year
1999)focusedonfourareasofhighprioritytothestateandthe New England region: citizen volunteer
water quality monitoring, improvement of groundwater location methods, development of new
methods for airport deicing waste products, and comparison of estuarine nitrate loading models.
Support continued from the USGS Water Resources Institute Program (WRIP) with a high level of
Universityof Massachusetts support through the Graduate School. Additional program support was
provided by the Massachusetts Environmental Trust, Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Management, U.S. Geological Survey and many lake and watershed
associations.
InFY96,"EffectivenessofRemotely-SensedLineaments and Outcrop-Scale Fractures in Identifying
Bedrock Aquifers in New England" was one of two Massachusetts projects funded by the USGS
Regional CompetitionProgram. This project, extended to compensate for construction delays in the
METRO-WEST tunnel, was completed in FY99.
“The Watershed Assessment Program,” one of two Massachusetts projects funded by the USGS in
FY97, was extended until September, 2000 to complete final edits on video material.
A one year project to conduct a conference on airport deicing fluids led to a two year project
investigating deicing fluid waste treatment. “Comparative Toxicity of Formulated Glycols and Pure
Ethylene and Propylene Glycol” is focusing on better characterizing the waste treatment
characteristics of aircraft deicing fluids to improve the design of pretreatment facilities in order to
avoid the high oxygen demand of these fluids on aquatic environments and aerobic waste treatment
facilities.
A second new project, “Comparison of Models Used ot Estimate Land-derived Nitrogen Loads” seeks
tocompareexistingnitrogenloadingmodelsagainstthecomprehensive database of groundwater and
estuarine nitrate concentrations in the Waquoit Bay area developed by researchers at the Marine
Biological Laboratory.
The Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership continues to grow. More than 60 lake and 16 river
associations currently participate. Citizen monitoring has become an intrinsic part of the state’s
Watershed Initiative, a restructuring of its monitoring, management and permit programs along
watershed lines.
The ten year-old Water Watch Partnership has become the mainstay of
coordination, training and quality control for volunteer activity within the Initiative. Consequently,
principal support for the Partnership and related Monitoring Service Centers is provided by the
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA). and support is provided by a
diverse array of environmental, industry, university, local, and state sources. While that role has
assisted state agencies in meeting monitoring requirements, it has also significantly increased
legislative support for all water quality monitoring programs and underscored the role that the
University of Massachusetts can play in water quality outreach. The Water Resources Research
Center provides many of the essential elements for both statewide comprehensive water quality
monitoringandregionalcoordinationofmonitoringprograms. Out of this more than 15 year effort to
increase water quality monitoring information, first through the Acid Rain Monitoring Project and
thentheWaterWatch Partnership, has evolved additional interest in UMASS/EOEA cooperation. As
Page 3
ii
a result the Center has been involved in state-supportedwater quality management issues such as the
recently completed “Generic Environmental Impact Review of Eutrophication and Aquatic Plant
Management in Massachusetts” and the current development of a guidebook and templates for
volunteer groups to use in developing Quality Assurance Project Plans.
The WRRC’s Environmental Analysis Laboratory (EAL) continues to provide water quality analyses
for the University community, the Water Watch Partnership and community groups. Its service
includes the Greater Springfield Lead Abatement Program, the joint USGS/Environmental
Management/WRRC remote sensing project, participating Water Watch Partnership groups and
University researchers. EAL has been identified by EOEA as the laboratory Monitoring Service
Center for Massachusetts.
Page 4
iii
CONTENTS
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Water Problems and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Program Goals and Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Fiscal Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Training Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Departments and Faculty/Staff Involved in the Water Resources
Research Center Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Notable Achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
University Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Research Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Effectiveness of Remotely-Sensed Lineaments and Outcrop-Scale Fractures in
Identifying Bedrock Aquifers in New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Comparative Toxicity of Formulated Glycols and Pure Ethylene
and Propylene Glycol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Comparison of Models Used to Estimate Land-derived Nitrogen Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Quality Assurance Project Plan Support for Lake, River and Coastal Monitoring . . . . . 33
Outreach Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Watershed Assessment Training Program: A Partnership in Service to
New England Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Monitoring Assistance for Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Regional Service Provider Network Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Laboratory Activities
Page 5
iv
The Environmental Analysis Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Laboratory Services to Volunteer Monitoring Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Page 6
1
WATER PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
The development of new watershed management by partnership techniques continues to evolve
in Massachusetts. Increasingly, the role of universities and citizen groups expands. The success
of enhanced cooperation between state agencies, federal agencies, citizen groups, and university
researchers has been underscored by the success of the cooperative lake monitoring program of
the past three years, a program that has demonstrated the interests of citizen volunteers, the
ability to generate quality data, and the potential to combine simple monitoring techniques with
complementary high-tech, remote sensing techniques. The sum has been more than the parts.
But this partnership simply doesn’t happen. All those involved must find better and more cost-
effective ways to harness the power of individual citizens in constructive and rewarding ways.
They must find ways to make citizen participation more than a passing fancy and ways to move
beyond basic monitoring to ways to more broadly address solutions and preventions.
As part of the new interest in citizen participation, previously neglected water resources are
taking a more prominent role in policy and management. Within the last few years, the badly
neglected task of preventing and mitigating lake eutrophication and the especially troublesome
problem of invasive plant and animal introductions have gathered attention. For rivers, the
attention paid to resolving the difficult problem of remaining combined sewer overflows has
come to the forefront. New techniques are being developed that may yield alternatives to costly
oversizing of sewage treatment plant capacity or resewering cities. These solutions may also
help resolve the problem of urban runoff. The public response has been highly encouraging. As
rivers improve in water quality and people begin to appreciate the recreational benefits, the
demand for further improvements and imaginative land use planning for greenways and
protected riparian areas increases. Most notable has been the planning process for the
Connecticut River Conte refuge, a refuge unlike others because its protection is a patchwork
quilt of sensitive resources throughout a major river watershed. Success will rely on the
principle that increased protection of these areas and increased efforts to remediate others will
result in a mixture of natural and cultural diversity throughout the basin. Inner cities that border
a river are the major beneficiaries as environmental benefit also creates economic benefit.
The universities have an important role to play in helping to find innovative ways to reduce the
cost of improving previously degraded systems, in seeking creative ways to make greenways
economically attractive, and in helping to educate all citizens on the importance of these changes
in their personal lives.
Some issues have largely disappeared from the public perception but are still serious threats.
Recently, mercury bioaccumulation in aquatic species has received considerable attention. The
source of the problem, however, is tied to the emission of mercury from electric-generating and
trash incineration facilities combined with lakes that have a relatively high acidity as a result of
acid deposition. The full scope of the problem in Massachusetts is not known. Acidification
still exists as a significant concern for the water resources of the state. Although work by the
Center showed a small but significant improvement in some lakes and streams as of 1993, a
substantial number in the southeastern corner of the state are becoming more acidic while the
Page 7
2
vast majority have not changed or their status is not known. Much of the observed mercury
bioaccumulation may be found in the same areas where acidification continues to be a major
problem. Provisions of the Federal Clean Air revisions permitting trading of pollution reduction
credits has created concern for public health in areas near grandfathered or dirtier emission
sources maintained by purchase of credits. The deregulation of the electric utility industry,
allowing users to choose their electricity provider, raises a new threat that costly efforts to
reduce emissions will create a competitive disadvantage against more polluted sources.
Non-point source pollution continues to be a major challenge for water resources protection. In
the sole source aquifer of Cape Cod, non-point pollution from private septic systems and inter-
related water conservation questions continues to threaten the drinking water. In the more
western parts of the state, urban runoff and atmospheric deposition impede water quality
improvements.
Demand for groundwater has drastically reduced stream flows in some areas of the state and
underscored the need for new policy regarding in-stream flow maintenance and mechanisms to
encourage water conservation.
Page 8
3
PROGRAM GOALS AND PRIORITIES
It is the long-term goal of the Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center to continue as a
major participant in a redefinition of the basic approach to environmental problems in the state.
Through the Acid Rain Monitoring Project and the Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership, the
Center has already helped to define a new direction, but the details are not fully resolved. The
principal objective for the next several years will be to integrate the needs of the state, the efforts
of citizen volunteers and the research and training capabilities of the University of Massachusetts
system to make significant advances in the solution of existing and new water resources
problems. Most important will be the development of new approaches that reinforce the
integration of grass roots, agency and university capabilities.
The long-term research plan of the Center reflects this combined need to include a broader array
of participants in the discovery, understanding and resolution of environmental problems and to
provide research in areas where problems are most severe and answers are in shortest supply.
For the period 1996-2001, the Center's priority research interests were:
1. Exploration of ways to enhance the environmental partnership between universities,
government, and citizens.
2. Protection and improvement of surface and groundwater resources impacted by non-
point source contamination;
3. Acid deposition and its effects;
4. Water supply system improvement;
5. Resolution of conflicting demands for water resources;
6. Pathways of metal release and bioaccumulation in aquatic systems; and
7. Effects of global warming on the freshwater resources of Massachusetts and New
England.
Page 9
4
(19.6% )
(34.0% )
(4.2%)
(7.9%)
(34.3% )
Federal
State
UMASS Funds
Private
Match
Fund Sources
(3.1%)
(12.7%)
(39.6%)
(34.1%)
(10.5%)
Administration
Coordination
Research
Outreach
Lab Services
Fund Uses
Fiscal Composition
The Massachusetts Water Resources
Research Center receives program
support from federal, state, university,
and private sources. For state fiscal
year 2000 (federal fiscal year 1999),
19.6% of program support was
derived from the federal Water
Resources Institute Program grant;
34.0% from state contracts; 4.2%
from the direct support by the
University; 7.9% from private
sources; and 34.3% contributed as
matching funds by the universities
participating in the Center’s research
program. Eighty percent of the
Center’s support is from non-Federal
sources. Thus, the Center leverages each Institute Program Federal dollar, that creates the core
of the Center’s program, four-fold into a $397,485 program.
The national average for institute revenues is 6% from Institute Program funds, 34% from other
Federal funds, and 60% from non-Federal sources.
The Center expends 39.6% of its total revenues on its research program. Administrative costs
represent 3.1% of the total; 12.7% is
expended on coordination, 34.1% on
outreach (training, education and
information transfer); and 10.5% on
laboratory services.
The national average for all water
resources research institutes in
FY1999 was 8% for administration,
6% for development and
coordination, 8% for training and
education, 5% for information
transfer, and 73% for research
(including laboratory services).
Page 10
5
Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center Awards for 1999-2000
Source
Project
Federal
State
U M A S S
Funds
Private
Match
USGS 104
Director's
$20,303
$15,713
$26,837
Switzenbaum
$23,609
$46,327
Valiela
$24,266
$63,294
Total
$68,178
$0
$15,713
$0
$136,458
MWWP
Exec. Office of
Environmental Affairs
$70,000
MA Environmental Trust 1
$20,000
MA Environmental Trust 2
$30,000
Membership
$7,120
Videos & Manuals
$147
Workshops
$160
Equipment
$76
Services
$459
MA Watershed Coalition
$7,500
EAL
Exec. Office of
Environmental Affairs
$15,000
U.S. Geological Survey
$9,918
UMass Depts.
$820
Greater Springfield Lead
Program
$9,885
Volunteer Groups
$3,435
Other Laboratories
$2,617
Total
$397,485
$78,096
$135,000
$16,533
$31,398
$136,458
Page 11
6
Source
Project Administration Coordination Research Outreach
Lab
Services
Participants
USGS 104 Director's
$12,283
$34,858
Switzenbaum
$69,936
Valiela
$87,560
Total
$12,283
$50,571 $157,496
$0
$0
MWWP
Exec. Office of
Environmental
Affairs
$70,000
MA
Environmental
Trust 1
$20,000
MA
Environmental
Trust 2
$30,000
Membership
$7,120
Videos &
Manuals
$147
Workshops
$160
23 members
Equipment
$76
23 products
Services
$459
2
MA Watershed
Coalition
$7,500
5 items
4
EAL
Exec. Office of
Environmental
Affairs
$15,000
U.S. Geological
Survey
$9,918
UMass Depts.
$820
Greater
Springfield
Lead Program
$9,885
Volunteer
Groups
$3,435
Other
Laboratories
$2,617
Total
$397,485
$12,283
$50,571 $157,496 $135,461
$41,l675
Page 12
7
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER
SIXTEEN YEAR TREND IN WRRC SUPPORT
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000
Year
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Thousands
Basic USGS Grant
Regional Competition
Other federal
State
Private Sector
Lab Services
Univ. funds
Contributed Matching
Page 13
8
Training Accomplishments
Fifteen students have been supported on the projects described here and a class of 12
undergraduates and graduates participated in the workshops for one project. Nearly all were
supported on Water Resources Institute Program (WRIP) funds and one was supported on
Cooperative Aquatic Research funds (CARP).
Degree
WRIP CARP
Undergraduate
(instructed)
4 (12)
1
Masters
8
Ph.D.
2
Departments and Faculty/Staff Involved in the Water
Resources Research Center Program
University
Department
No. of Faculty/Staff
Others
UMass
Geosciences
1
Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority
UMass
Environmental
Engineering
1
UMass
Chemistry
1
3 municipalities, 5
laboratories, 4 UMASS
depts., 1 MA college, 1
Fed. agency, 2 state
agencies, and 11 river and
lake groups.
Page 14
9
UMass
Cooperative Extension
1
U.S. EPA, New England
Council of State
Governments, New
England Assoc.
Environmental Biologists,
Project Wet, Groundwater
Protection Council,
Bridgewater State
College, Charles River
Watershed Association,
Volunteer Environmental
Monitoring Network,
UNH Seagrant, NH DES,
Great Bay Stewards, CT
River Monitoring
Coalition, North
American Benthological
Society, and Houlton
Band of Maliseet Indians
UMass
Water Resources
Research Center
4
University of Rhode
Island
Cooperative Extension
1
University of Maine
Cooperative Extension
1
University of Maine
Public Affairs/Marketing
1
University of New
Hampshire
Cooperative Extension
1
River Network
1
Merrimack River
Watershed Council
1
Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research
Reserve
1
Notable Achievements
Dr. Paul J. Godfrey was presented an award for “dedicated and outstanding service as Treasurer
and on many special projects” by the National Institutes for Water Resources.
The New England Regional Monitoring Collaboration is cited by the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs as providing the model for the operation of volunteer
monitoring programs.
Jerome Schoen, statewide coordinator for the Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership was
awarded the Chancellor’s Citation for his efforts in developing long-term institutional support
for citizen monitoring in Massachusetts with a key role for the university system.
Two products of efforts by Marie-Françoise Walk, a manual on data presentation “Ready, Set,
Present!” and a video on lake sampling techniques, were nationally reviewed and highly
recommended to monitoring groups.
Page 15
10
UNIVERSITY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Guy Lanza
Environmental Sciences
Stockbridge Hall
John D. Edman
Entomology
Fernald Hall
John T. Finn
Forestry and Wildlife Management
Holdsworth Hall
John R. Mullin
Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning
Hills North
David W. Ostendorf
Civil Engineering
Marston Hall
Cleve Willis
Resource Economics
Draper Hall
Richard F. Yuretich
Geology/Geography
Morrill Science Center
Ex Officio Member:
Joseph S. Larson
The Environmental Institute
Blaisdell House
Page 16
11
Research Projects
Page 17
12
SYNOPSIS VERIFICATION OF FRACTURE TRACE
TECHNOLOGY IN GROUNDWATER
LOCATION
Start: 9/96
End: 9/00
Title:
Effectiveness of Remotely-Sensed Lineaments and Outcrop-Scale Fractures
in Identifying Bedrock Aquifers in New England
Investigator: Stephen B. Mabee, Department of Geosciences
Project No.: C-01
Funding Source:
USGS WRIP 104B regional
Descriptors: Hydrogeology, Bedrock Fluid Flow, Lineament Analysis, Water Resources
Planning
PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority is constructing a new water supply tunnel
through eastern Massachusetts. Construction began in the summer of 1997. The 28 km-long
tunnel will traverse two accreted geologic terranes at an average depth of 70 m below ground.
This will provide an unparalleled opportunity to make detailed observations of fracture features
and groundwater flow conditions in the subsurface. Measurements made in the tunnel will
provide a unique database of fracture information against which surface geophysical, borehole,
geochemical, remotely-sensed lineament and outcrop-scale fracture data can be rigorously
compared.
The purpose of this proposed research is to: 1) document the location, orientation, physical
characteristics, and approximate yield of water-bearing discontinuities within an initial, 9 km
section of the tunnel; and, 2) use these measurements to; a) assess the reliability of using
remotely-sensed lineaments to predict zones of high groundwater yield within the bedrock, and,
b) compare the geometry and physical characteristics of fracture features observed in surface
outcrops with those observed in the tunnel. Results of this work will not only quantify the
relationship between lineaments and subsurface fractures but will also evaluate whether or not
fracture characteristics observed in surface outcrops can be extrapolated into the third dimension
with any degree of certainty.
METHODOLOGY
The project consists of seven tasks as follows: 1) Map the tunnel exposure and document the
rock types, lithologic contacts, and structural elements (folds, faults, foliations, and fractures;
emphasis will be placed on describing the physical characteristics of fractures), and note all
Page 18
13
water-bearing features and their approximate yield; 2) Map lineaments along the entire length
of the tunnel using a variety of scales and types of imagery (color infrared and black and white
aerial photography and SLAR imagery); 3) Gather existing borehole data, available surficial
geologic mapping, and topographic maps showing the type and extent of surficial deposits,
location of wetlands, ponds, lakes, streams, and rivers along the trace of the tunnel; 4) Map all
bedrock exposures within 1 km of the tunnel (focusing on the initial 9 km section) and record the
same features as described in item 1 above (i.e., rock type, structural features, fracture
characteristics, etc.); 5) Compare lineaments with subsurface water-bearing features by: a)
quantifying the number of lineaments that actually correspond to highly productive zones in the
tunnel; and, b) examining other geologic factors that may influence the association between
lineaments and yield such as bedrock type, topographic setting, the type and thickness of the
overburden, proximity to surface water bodies or structural setting; 6) Compare the orientations
and physical characteristics of fracture features observed in surface outcrops with the
orientations and physical characteristics of water-bearing features observed in the subsurface;
and, 7) Prepare summary maps and journal articles to disseminate the findings of the project.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND SIGNIFICANCE
From September 1999 to September 2000, most of the work involved completing MS theses and
commencing the preparation of manuscripts for publication. No additional mapping of the
tunnel was undertaken. One student from Amherst College did perform a geochemistry project
in the tunnel during the 99/00 academic year. To summarize, a total of 413 fracture features,
including faults, have been characterized in the tunnel to determine the orientation of major sets
and the extent of subsurface fracture domains. A subset of 156 fracture features was used to
evaluate fracture characteristics such as planarity, trace length and spacing. In addition, every
feature in the tunnel exhibiting flow was identified and characterized. An estimate of their yield
was also provided. A total of 65 water samples were obtained in the fall 1998, winter 1999 and
fall 1999 from flowing structures within the tunnel. Ten water samples were obtained from
surface water bodies above the tunnel. At the surface, 1513 fracture measurements were made at
21 outcrops located within 3 km of the trace of the tunnel to determine major fracture sets and
surface fracture domains. Spacing, trace length and planarity were determined from scanline
measurements (n=899) at each outcrop.
Lineaments were drawn on three platforms: 1:250,000 Side-Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR)
images, 1:58,000 Color Infrared (CIR) and 1:80,000 Black and White (BW) aerial photographs.
Lineaments were drawn by three observers during two independent trials producing 18 sets of
lineaments (n=9137). Three or more overlapping lineaments (azimuths within ±5
/
and within 1
mm at the scale of the imagery) define a single coincident lineament. This generated three sets
of coincident lineaments (n=794), of these 35 cross the 9 km section of tunnel.
Major findings to date are as follows:
1.
Lineaments can identify high-yield flow zones in the bedrock but this finding can not be
substantiated statistically. Flow rate plotted as a function of tunnel location revealed
Page 19
14
several discrete peaks of high flow separated by sections of the tunnel exhibiting very
little to no flow at all. These well-defined peaks, herein referred to as “flow zones” are
defined as a section of the tunnel that exceeds a flow of 19 liters/min (5 gpm). Nineteen
discrete flow zones were identified in the tunnel. Thirteen (68%) of the flow zones
correlate with coincident lineaments, 6 zones correlate with more than one image type,
and 1 zone correlates with all 3 image types. Median discharge observed in the flow
zones that were captured by coincident lineaments were not significantly higher (at the
95% confidence level) than the flows observed in the zones located outside of the
lineament buffer zones.
2.
In addition, the 35 coincident lineaments were compared with 99 individual, through-
going water-bearing structures within the 9 km tunnel section. Flowing structures that
parallel coincident lineaments (all platforms) and occur within the lineament buffer zones
(±1 mm at the scale of the imagery) have higher median yield (10,500 l/day) than those
structures outside the buffer zones (6,600 l/day). However, this difference is significant
at the 70% confidence level. The BW aerial photographs were the best at detecting
individual through-going flowing structures. There is a 90% level of confidence that the
median yields of through-going flowing structures in the lineament buffer zones are
higher than the median yields of those located outside the buffer zones.
3.
While some lineaments can identify high-yield water-bearing zones in the bedrock, it is
difficult to distinguish the successful lineaments from the unsuccessful ones without
additional information. For example, 15 of the 35 coincident lineaments actually
correlate with the flow zones. This means that the remaining 20 coincident lineaments
do not correlate with features producing more than 19 liters/min. Therefore, less than
half of the coincident lineaments are associated with high-yield water-bearing zones.
Other factors can help reduce the uncertainty in deciding which coincident lineaments do
or do not correlate with water-bearing zones in the tunnel. Lineaments which align with
topographic valleys and bedrock lows correlate with higher flows in the tunnel than those
that fall on topographic flats or slopes (1,800 liters/min versus 950 liters/min and 820
liters/min, respectively). The zones of highest flow within the tunnel are generally
associated with permeable overburden such as sand and gravel rather than less permeable
glacial till and, thus, lineaments corresponding with conductive overburden tend to
correlate with higher flows. Finally, high groundwater inflows are generally located near
surface water bodies. Groundwater inflows are highest where there is a greater fracture
frequency and a higher density of surface water bodies in close proximity to the tunnel.
Flow zones 8 and 9 are close to the Sudbury River and northwest of Lake Cochituate.
These findings are consistent with the results of other investigators and confirm that
interpretations made from lineament analyses can be improved if other factors such as
topographic position, type and thickness of overburden, proximity to surface water
bodies, or bedrock type are considered in the selection of well sites.
4.
Fracture-supported coincident lineaments do not necessarily improve the ability of
lineaments to discriminate high flow zones in the bedrock. Fracture-supported
coincident lineaments are those lineaments which parallel nearby surface fracture sets,
mapped faults, lithologic contacts, and/or primary ductile structures. There were two
Page 20
15
occurrences where fracture-supported coincident lineaments from all three scales
overlapped and were parallel. One occurrence mapped the zone of greatest fracture
density in the tunnel and highest groundwater inflow (>560 l/min). The other occurrence
mapped an area of high fracture density and significant subsurface flow (95 l/min).
When considering all fracture-supported coincident lineaments and parallel subsurface
structures, the median flow (13,600 l/day) for the mapped structures is greater than the
unmapped structures (6,800 l/day). However, this difference is significant at the 60%
confidence level.
5.
The trends of major fracture sets in the tunnel do not show a one to one correlation with
the trends of major fracture sets identified in surface outcrops. Five fracture sets were
observed in the surface outcrops (14, 38, 86, 117 and 171) and seven fracture sets (13,
29, 41, 62, 132, 159 and 175) in the tunnel. The 14 and 171 fracture sets in the surface
outcrops correspond well with the 13 and 175 sets in the tunnel. These are the dominant
fracture sets observed both at the surface and in the tunnel. The 38 set observed at the
surface includes parts of the 29 and 41 sets in the tunnel. The 86 set does occur in the
tunnel but is undersampled because it is aligned with the tunnel. The 62 and 159 sets
occur in the tunnel but are not seen at the surface.
6.
The geographic distributions (domains) of the surface and subsurface fracture sets do not
show a one to one correlation. Only the dominant fracture set domains (14 and 171 in the
surface and 13 and 175 in the tunnel) show a reasonable spatial overlap. All the other
sets show only a partial overlap or no overlap at all. Interestingly, the 13 and 175
fracture sets are the fractures generating most of the groundwater inflow into the tunnel.
7.
Spacing and trace lengths distributions measured in surface fractures can not be
extrapolated into the subsurface with much confidence. Median fracture spacing and
trace lengths for the 13 and 175 fracture sets in the tunnel are significantly (at the 95%
confidence level) wider and longer than the corresponding 14 and 171 fracture sets at the
surface. Fracture planarities showed no significant differences between any of the
surface and subsurface fracture sets.
8.
Areas of high groundwater inflow into the tunnel generally correlate with high subsurface
fracture density, where four or more subsurface fracture domains overlap, proximity to
surface water bodies (close proximity = higher inflows), position with respect to
permeable overburden deposits (sands and gravels = higher inflows), and topographic
depressions, especially those with corresponding lows in the bedrock surface. In
addition, subsurface structures which correlate with prominent surface fracture domains
(14 and 171 fracture sets) produce the highest volume of groundwater inflow. However,
these factors together still do not predict all the locations of high groundwater inflow in
the tunnel.
9.
The waters in the tunnel are characterized as sulfate+chloride and calcium+magnesium.
Results from statistical analyses indicate that alkalinity, calcium, sodium, and potassium
vary as a function of rock type and that these differences are significant at the 95%
confidence level.
Page 21
16
10.
Preliminary results of oxygen isotope and nitrate analyses also suggest that some of the
fault zones in the tunnel may have a rapid and direct hydraulic connection to the surface.
Results show elevated levels of nitrate in two water producing fault zones (>10 mg/l for
some samples) and may result from accidental contamination during sampling, the use of
explosives at discrete locations in the tunnel, or from leaking septic systems. Preliminary
oxygen isotope data indicate that two large water-producing fault zones are isotopically
enriched (average d
18
O = -7.75) relative to other water producing features in the tunnel
(average d
18
O = -8.96). The d
18
O values obtained from all surface water bodies located
above the tunnel average -7.56 whereas those values in surface ponds immediately above
the fault zones averages -6.71.
11. Overall, lineaments can, in some instances, predict water-bearing subsurface structures in
poorly exposed, glaciated, metamorphic terrain that has a high degree of suburban
development. However, although some of the tunnel sections with the greatest fracture
density and highest groundwater inflows are successfully mapped by coincident
lineaments, not all water-bearing zones are delineated. Other factors such as proximity to
surface water bodies (close proximity = higher inflows), position with respect to
permeable overburden deposits (sands and gravels = higher inflows), and topographic
depressions, especially those with corresponding lows in the bedrock surface must be
considered along with lineament analysis to improve the ability to locate high yield zones
in the bedrock. Inclusion of all these factors including overlapping surface fracture
domains certainly aid prediction but do not guarantee finding all the water-producing
zones.
12. Although the density of surface outcrops over the trace of the tunnel was sparse, their
geographic distributions (domains) and their characteristics, specifically spacing and
trace length distributions, observed in surface outcrops can not be extrapolated into the
3
rd
dimension with a high degree of confidence. Fracture sets occur in the tunnel that do
not appear in surface outcrops, domains of surface fractures do not always show a one to
one spatial correlation with the domains of subsurface fractures and spacing and trace
length distributions for those fracture sets that do correlate are significantly different.
Thus, some caution is advised when using surface outcrop data as a guide to subsurface
conditions. However, the most prominent fracture sets mapped at the surface (14 and
171) do show a reasonable spatial correlation with their counterparts in the tunnel (13
and 175). These latter fracture sets also are the fractures generating the greatest
groundwater inflow into the tunnel.
Six abstracts have been published since the last progress report. The references are given below.
Five were presented together at the recent national Geological Society of America meeting in
Denver. One was presented at the Northeast GSA meeting in March, 2000. In addition, a
manuscript summarizing the results of the lineament analysis has been submitted and is under
review for publication in Geology. A draft of the paper is attached to this report. A second
manuscript is currently being prepared comparing surface and subsurface fracture characteristics.
It is expected that this paper will be submitted in late summer 2000. A third manuscript is
forthcoming which will examine the factors that influence inflows into the tunnel. A proposal to
Page 22
17
continue mapping in the tunnel was submitted to the Hydrology Program at the National Science
Foundation in December, 1999. Unfortunately, the proposal was not funded.
Three students have completed their Master’s degrees using data from this project. Patrick
Curry performed the lineament analysis. His work is summarized in the manuscript under
review with Geology. Katherine Williams studied the relationship between surface and
subsurface fracture characteristics. A manuscript summarizing her work is in preparation.
Rebecca Weaver examined the geochemistry of the tunnel inflows. A student at Amherst
College continued the water quality investigation of the tunnel as part of an independent study
during her senior year.
FUTURE WORK
Two additional projects are proposed that will augment the studies that have already been
completed. Both of these projects are not funded.
1. Nitrate/Dudley Pond Investigation – Dudley Pond lies directly over the tunnel. In the two
years since the tunnel passed beneath the pond, water levels in the pond have dropped
steadily. Nitrate levels in the tunnel are also elevated in many of the high flow zones,
particularly those in close proximity to Dudley Pond. We believe that these observations
indicate a strong and possibly rapid hydraulic connection between the tunnel and surface
waters. In this supplementary study, the fate and transport of nitrate through an
unconsolidated/bedrock aquifer system will be examined with a particular focus on the
effects of flow paths and residence times on nitrate levels in the tunnel. This work will be
done in collaboration with Dr. Anna Martini at Amherst College. One graduate student from
the University of Massachusetts will participate along with a senior thesis candidate at
Amherst College.
2. Characterization of Water-bearing Features in the Bloody Bluff Fault Zone – One of the
fundamental uses of vertical and horizontal boreholes is to provide contractors with an
accurate representation of subsurface conditions prior to commencing with tunneling
operations. The tunnel is about to cross the Bloody Bluff Fault Zone. This fault zone
represents the boundary between two tectonic terranes. A series of vertical borings were
constructed during the design phase of the tunnel project to estimate subsurface conditions.
In addition, a horizontal borehole was also drilled through the Bloody Bluff Fault Zone. In
this investigation, fracture characteristics and water-bearing features in the tunnel will be
compared with fractures in the vertical and horizontal boreholes. The main issue that will be
examined is the adequacy of borehole data in predicting water-bearing characteristics in the
tunnel. The tunnel provides a unique opportunity to address this issue.
Abstracts Published this year
Curry, P.J., K.C. Hardcastle, S.B. Mabee, and K.W. Williams. Factors Influencing Groundwater
Inflows in a Newly Constructed Cross-Strike Tunnel, Eastern Massachusetts: 1.
Lineaments and Subsurface Structures, Geological Society of America, Abstracts with
Programs, v.31, no.7, p.A347.
Page 23
18
Hardcastle, K.C., Curry, P.J., K.W. Williams, and S.B. Mabee. Factors Influencing
Groundwater Inflows in a Newly Constructed Cross-Strike Tunnel, Eastern Massachusetts:
2. Fracture-Supported Coincident Lineaments and Subsurface Structures, Geological
Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v.31, no.7, p.A348.
Mabee, S.B., K.W. Williams, Curry, P.J., and Hardcastle, K.C. Factors Influencing Groundwater
Inflows in a Newly Constructed Cross-Strike Tunnel, Eastern Massachusetts: 3. Surface
vs. Subsurface Fracture, Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v.31,
no.7, p.A348.
Williams, K.W., Mabee, S.B., Hardcastle, K.C., and Curry, P.J. Factors Influencing
Groundwater Inflows in a Newly Constructed Cross-Strike Tunnel, Eastern Massachusetts:
4. Occurrence and Characterization of Groundwater Inflows, Geological Society of
America, Abstracts with Programs, v.31, no.7, p.A348.
Weaver, R.A., S.B. Mabee, K.W. Williams, and P.J. Curry. Factors Influencing Groundwater
Inflows in a Newly Constructed Cross-Strike Tunnel, Eastern Massachusetts: 5.
Geochemical Interpretation of Groundwater Inflows, Geological Society of America,
Abstracts with Programs, v.31, no.7, p.A348.
Levin, E., A. Martini, S.B. Mabee. 2000. Geochemistry of groundwater flow through bedrock
fractures, Metrowest Water Supply Tunnel, Massachusetts, Geological Society of
America, Abstracts with Programs, Northeastern Section, v.32, no.1, p.A30.
Mabee, Stephen B., Patrick J. Curry and Kenneth C. Hardcastle. in review.
Relationship of
Lineaments to Groundwater Inflows in a Bedrock Tunnel.
Page 24
19
SYNOPSIS
ANAEROBIC TREATMENT OF
AIRCRAFT DEICING FLUIDS
Start: March 1999
End: February 2001
Title: Comparative Toxicity of Formulated Glycols and Pure Ethylene and Propylene
Glycol
Investigator: Michael S. Switzenbaum, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Massachusetts/Amherst
Project No.: B9901
Funding Source:
USGS WRIP 104B
Descriptors: Stormwater, Nonpoint Source Pollution, Deicing Fluids
PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
With the advent of new regulations concerning aircraft deicing and management of spent aircraft
deicing fluids, many airports now face the challenge of maintaining public safety along
with environmental protection. Each year large quantities of propylene glycol and ethylene
glycol are used to de-ice aircraft. Pavement deicing materials are also used on taxi- and
runways. All of these compounds exert large oxygen demands when introduced into
natural waterways. In addition, there are toxicity concerns with certain glycols. As a
result, the collection and treatment of these wastes is now being mandated by regulatory
agencies for protection of both human health and the environment. While numerous
alternatives have been proposed for deicing wastewater management, at the present time
there is no firm consensus on the best means of managing this significant problem.
This project involves testing of pure ethylene glycol (EG), ethylene glycol based aircraft deicing
fluid (EG-ADF), pure propylene glycol (PG) and propylene glycol based aircraft deicing
fluid (PG-ADF). Since the PI has been investigating anaerobic treatment of ADFs for the
past three years, some experimental data used in this study was collected before the official
start of this study (in the Winter and Spring of 1998/99) in anticipation of receiving
support for this study. This project officially began during the summer of 1999. The
project consists of the following sets of experiments:
1.
Anaerobic biodegradation experiments for PG, PG-ADF, EG, and EG-ADF.
2.
Anaerobic kinetic experiments for PG, PG-ADF, EG, and EG-ADF
3.
Anaerobic toxicity testing on triazoles (which are used in ADF formulation), and
4.
Aerobic activity testing
Page 25
20
To date, the experiments for Task 3 (trizaole testing) are completed and a summary will be
presented in this report. Task number 4 (aerobic activity) will be performed this coming
spring and summer. Tasks number 1 and 2 are in progress (biodegradation and kinetics
experiments). These experiments take a long time to conduct and will take place over the
last year of the project.
Progress
Task 1 and 2.
Reactor Construction
We began operating reactors to characterize anaerobic treatment of glycol-based deicing fluids
and pure glycols in October, 1999. Four continuous flow stirred tank reactors (CSTRs)
were constructed for evaluating the treatment of the following:
CSTR 1: Propylene glycol-based Type I and Type IV aircraft deicing fluid
CSTR 2: Pure propylene glycol
CSTR 3: Ethylene glycol-based Type I and Type IV aircraft deicing fluid, and
CSTR 4: Pure ethylene glycol
The reactors were assembled out of Schedule 40 PVC plastic tubing and 3/8” plastic pieces cut
to size, with appurtenances constructed and attached with suitable materials. The working
contents of the reactors were taken from anaerobic fill-and-draw reserve digesters that were
acclimated to PG-based aircraft deicing fluid (ADFs) for CSTRs 1 and 2, and EG-based ADFs
for CSTRs 3 and 4. The contents are being continuously mixed using Talboys motorized stirrers
bearing stainless steel shafts to which flat plastic paddles have been affixed. Masterflex
peristaltic pumps are being used to draw solutions containing substrate (ADF or glycol),
nutrients, and buffer. Two solutions are being prepared for each reactor: (1) a feed solution
containing either ADF or glycol along with buffer and some nutrients, and (2) a nutrient solution
containing several additional nutrients. The reactor volume is kept constant by using an
overflow structure; thus as feed and nutrient solutions are pumped into the reactor, an equal
volume overflows. The total flow rate (feed solution plus nutrient solution) sets the hydraulic
residence time. Since these are suspended growth cultures, the hydraulic residence time is the
same as the solids residence time. The total flow rate has been set to provide an approximately
15-day solids residence time.
The feed solutions are different for each reactor. Each reactor’s feed solution contains
ammonium phosphate dibasic (phosphorus), urea (nitrogen), and sodium bicarbonate (buffer).
The feed solutions for each reactor differ in the substrate added. CSTR 1 feed solution contains
ARCO Type I ADF and Octagon Maxflight Type IV ADF (both propylene glycol-based); CSTR
feed contains pure propylene glycol; CSTR 3 feed contains UCAR Type I and UCAR Ultra+
Type IV ADFs (both ethylene glycol-based); and CSTR 4 feed contains pure ethylene glycol.
The ADFs are composed primarily of glycol but also contain several types of additives that may
affect the kinetics of degradation of the glycols in the ADFs.
Page 26
21
The nutrient solutions for all four reactors are the same. The nutrient solutions are made
separately from the feed solutions and are fed at the same time. The nutrient solutions provide
magnesium, manganese, potassium, calcium, iron, cobalt, nickel, boron (boric acid), copper,
zinc, and molybdenum to the reactors.
The combined flow (feed solution plus nutrient solution) into each reactor provides an overall
influent feed concentration (from glycol-based ADFs or pure glycol) of 9000 mg COD/L. This
was found to be an appropriate influent strength based on previous bench-scale investigations at
University of Massachusetts/Amherst.
Reactor Performance
CSTRs 1 and 2. The reactors treating PG-based ADF (CSTR 1) and pure PG (CSTR 2) have not
yet been successfully started up. It was discovered that the paddles placed on the ends of the
stirrer shafts attached to the motorized stirrers had slipped off. These were pulled out, the
paddles affixed with tension pins to assure they remained on the shafts, then the reactors were
restarted. The shaft/paddle on CSTR 3 (EG-based ADF) was similarly modified; that for CSTR
4 had a different shaft and paddle which had been used previously without incident. The
restarting of these reactors involved emptying their contents and adding new seed along with
distilled water, nutrients, and a starting load of Type I ADF (CSTR 1) or pure glycol (CSTR 2).
They are also being operated at a 30-day residence time to give them time to adjust. They are
currently operating as follows (Table 1).
Table 1. Performance of PG-based ADF and pure PG reactors as of 11/30/99
Influent COD
(mg/L)
Effluent COD
(mg/L)
% COD
Conversion
CSTR 1
9000
3895
56.7 %
CSTR 2
9000
2010
77.7 %
The performance of these reactors could be characterized as stressed. This may be due to the
fact that they were recently restarted and need to become fully acclimated before they attain
higher COD conversion percentages. We are also checking on the source of the Type IV PG-
ADF to make sure that it has not been contaminated. If so, a new source will be found.
CSTRs 3 and 4. The performance of the reactors treating EG-based ADF (CSTR 3) and pure EG
(CSTR 4) is as follows.
Table 2. Performance of EG-based ADF and pure EG reactors as of 11/30/99
Influent COD
(mg/L)
Effluent COD
(mg/L)
% COD
Conversion
CSTR 3
9000
226
97.5 %
CSTR 4
9000
226
97.5 %
These reactors have been going since the initial start-up in late September. They have been
achieving the same level of performance as that summarized in Table 2 throughout their
Page 27
22
operation. These reactors are ready to be tested to characterize their day-to-day performance at
9000 mg COD/L influent COD. This is anticipated to take place shortly. Following this, a batch
kinetics test will be performed during which an entire day’s worth of feed will be introduced to
each reactor at one time; COD measurements will be made immediately after this feeding and
periodically afterward until the COD has levelled off. Continuous flow operation will then
resume, and the total influent (feed + nutrient) substrate concentration will be raised to 12,000
mg COD/L.
Problems Experienced So Far
1.
The repair of the shaft/paddles has cleared up the concern that we were not getting
adequate mixing in the reactors.
2.
It is expected that the performance of CSTRs 1 and 2 will improve. Their performance
will continue to be monitored.
3.
At present, CSTR 1 is being fed only Type I ADF out of concern that we do not have a
suitable, uncontaminated propylene glycol-based Type IV aircraft deicing fluid. The PG-
based Type IV fluid we are currently using is of suspect quality, due possibly to its prior
handling and/or storage. We are going to contact a manufacturer of one of the PG-based
Type IV fluids to obtain another source of PG based Type IV ADF.
Task 3. Anaerobic toxicity testing on triazoles
Methods and Materials
Three trizaoles are being tested. Benzotriazole, 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole and 5,6-dimethyl-
1H-benzotriazole used in this study were obtained from Aldrich Chemical. Since these
compounds are only sparingly soluble in water, solutions of known concentration were prepared
by dissolving each compound in pure EG or pure PG and then using the glycol in the stock
solutions as the test control. A uniform glycol concentration with varying concentrations of the
test compounds was obtained by combining pure glycol and triazole-amended glycol stock
solutions in varying proportions.
Serum bottle tests were used for toxicity assessment. The methods used are an adaptation of a
method originally developed by Hungate (1969), and later modified by Miller and Wolin (1974)
and Owen et al. (1979).
In each test, serum bottles (160 mL) were filled with a mixture of seed, mineral salts,
bicarbonate buffer, and sample to a volume of 100 mL, leaving a headspace of 60 mL.
Resazurin was added to the bottles at a concentration of 1 mg/L to detect possible oxygen
contamination, and Na
2
S×9H
2
O was added to maintain a reducing environment. The transfer of
all media was conducted in a manner that minimized oxygen contamination, and the sample
bottle headspace was gassed out using a mixture of 70% nitrogen/30% CO
2
prior to sealing.
Seals consisted of a butyl rubber septum (Wheaton 224100-193) with an aluminum crimp cap
(Wheaton 224182-01).
All serum bottle incubations were carried out in the dark at a temperature of 35° C. Tests were
conducted for a period of 15 days or until gas production ceased. During each test, a sample
Page 28
23
blank was run to correct for the degradable material introduced with the seed. In all cases the
COD introduced with the seed was less than 1% of the total sample COD, thus seed corrections
were small.
Samples and sample blanks were run in duplicate. Serum bottles containing nutrients and seed
were initially inoculated with 500 mg/L glycol and varying volumes of the triazole under
consideration. Methane production was monitored over time against a control containing 500
mg/L acetate and neither glycol nor ADF. Toxic or inhibitory effects were observed when
samples produced less methane than the acetate control over a prescribed period of time
.
In the first experiment glycol concentrations that provided 1000 mg COD/L were used.
Triazole concentrations ranged from 5 to 100 mg/L (benzotriazole), 2.5 to 100 mg/L (5-methyl-
1H-benzotriazole), and 0.5 to 20 mg/L (5,6-dimethyl-1H-benzotriazole). 20 mL of acclimated
seed was used. A second test was conducted to test higher triazole concentrations. Twice as
much triazole was dissolved in pure glycols, and glycol concentrations that provided 1500 mg
COD/L were used. Benzotriazole and 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole were tested from 60 to 300
mg/L; testing of 5,6-dimethyl-1H-benzotriazole was not repeated due to solubility limitations.
30 mL of seed was used in the second test to provide the same F/M ratio as in the first test.
Gas production in the serum bottles was measured periodically, usually every two to
three days. Volumetric measurements were conducted in the 35° C incubation room. Excess gas
was extracted from the serum bottles and wasted using a Perfectumâ fitted glass hypodermic
syringe with a 19-mm, 23-gauge needle (Becton-Dickinson Precision Glideä, Model 5156). The
syringe was lubricated with distilled water prior to analysis to provide a gas-tight seal and permit
free movement of the syringe plunger. Syringes were held horizontally and allowed to
equilibrate with atmospheric pressure to determine gas volume. The total volume of methane
produced by each serum bottle was computed from measurements of total gas volume and gas
composition, and corrected for seed contribution.
Gas analysis was completed immediately following gas volume determination to insure that the
headspace pressure in the serum bottles was at atmospheric pressure. One milliliter of headspace
gas was withdrawn using a 1-cc gas-tight syringe (Hamilton #1001) equipped with a 25.4-mm,
22-gauge needle and immediately injected into a GOW Mac Series 550 GC for analysis.
Separation and detection of the gas components was accomplished by using a 1.83-m x 6.35-mm
Poropak Q column (Supelco, Inc.) and a thermal conductivity detector. Ultra-pure helium
(Merriam Graves Corporation) was used as a carrier gas at a flowrate of 30 mL/min with an
injector port temperature of 110° C, a column temperature of 80° C, and a detector temperature
of 70° C. Methane content and CO
2
content for the samples were determined by comparing the
observed peak height response of the sample to calibration curves prepared during each run,
using methane and CO
2
calibration gases of known purity (Merriam Graves Corporation).
Replicate injections were made for each point on the calibration curve, and a regression line
forced through the origin was used to calculate sample CH
4
and CO
2
values.
Inoculum used in the serum bottle tests was taken from two separate suspended-growth, semi-
continuous flow, fill-and-draw seed reactors. Each reactor contained a mixed methanogenic
culture that had been acclimated to the degradation of either an EG or PG-based Type I ADF.
Page 29
24
The EG reactor was fed Union Carbide ADF while the PG reactor was fed with ARCO Plus
Dilute ADF. Seed was drawn prior to feeding to minimize the amount of degradable COD
introduced to the serum bottles with the seed. A 20% or 30% by volume seed was used in the
serum bottles, resulting in the addition of approximately 16-24 mg total suspended solids (TSS)
to each serum bottle. EG degraders were used as the seed in the tests involving EG, and PG
degraders were used in the tests involving PG. The seed for the reactors was originally derived
from several municipal wastewater digesters and the organisms were slowly transitioned from a
simple sugar source (sucrose) to the glycol. At the time of the study, the reactors were operating
under steady-state conditions at an SRT of 30 days. The seed reactors were kept in the dark at a
constant 35° C and had been in operation with ADF as the sole substrate for over one year before
the start of testing.
Results and Discussion
Unsubstituted and mono- and dimethyl- substituted benzotriazole.
Although the exact formulations for the additive packages used in ADF are not known,
tolytriazoles are known to be present in ADF. For this reason we tested the potential anaerobic
toxicity of benzotriazole, 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole, and 5,6-dimethyl-1H-benzotriazole against
anaerobic cultures that had been acclimated to dilute Type I ADF solutions containing small
quantities of these compounds. In this testing glycol (either EG or PG) was used as a control, and
the concentration of each test compound varied. The maximum concentration of each compound
tested was selected to correspond to the concentration of benzotriazole that might be found in
diluted ADF released to the environment (approximately 300 ppm). Higher concentrations were
not examined because they are not environmentally relevant and because of difficulty in getting
the compounds into solution. ADF runoff with benzotriazole concentrations above 300 ppm
would be greater than 5% ADF, concentrations not generally found in the environment.
The results of the tolytriazole testing are summarized in Table1, and Figures 1 to 6. These data
lead to the following observations.
1.
Benzotriazole appears to have only a minimal inhibitory effect on anaerobic
biodegradation of ethylene glycol (Figure 1); the minimal inhibition observed increases
gradually between 60 and 300 mg/L benzotriazole. Benzotriazole appears to have a more
inhibitory effect on anaerobic propylene glycol biodegradation at the same triazole
concentrations (Figure 2), but this effect is only slight and gradually increases as
concentration increases from 60 to 300 mg/L.
2.
5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole has a noticeable inhibitory effect on anaerobic degradation of
both EG and PG degradation (Figures 3,4); inhibition is slight up to 120 mg/L, moderate
at 180 and 240 mg/L, and severe at 300 mg/L.
3.
The low concentrations of 5,6-dimethyl-1H-benzotriazole tested on anaerobic EG
degradation were shown to be only minimally inhibitory up to 20 mg/L (Figure 5) and
appears to be noninhibitory on anaerobic PG biodegradation up to 20 mg/L (Figure 6).
In our tests, the mono-substituted 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole had the greatest observed
anaerobic toxicity. However, because of solubility limits, we could only test 5,6-dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole up to 20 mg/L, whereas we tested 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole at concentrations of
up to 300 mg/L. Nonetheless, it is notable to conclude that no significant inhibition was
Page 30
25
observed at tolytriazole concentrations that would be found in deicing runoff that one could
reasonably expect would be released to the environment.
References
Hungate, R E. (1969) A Roll Tube method for cultivation of strict anaerobes. In: Norris, J. R.
and D. W. Ribbons (Editors), Methods in Microbiology, Vol. 3B (pp 117-132). Academic Press,
New York.
Miller, T. L. and M. J. Wolin. (1974) A serum bottle modification of the Hungate technique for
cultivating obligate anaerobes. Applied Microbiology 27, 985-987.
Owen, W. F., D. C. Stuckey, J. B. Healy, Jr., L. Y. Young, and P. L. McCarty. (1979) Bioassay
for monitoring Biochemical Methane potential and Anaerobic Toxicity. Water Research, 13,
485-492.
Page 31
26
Table 1 Triazole Testing Summary
Test Material
Test on
anaerobic
degradatio
n of:
Serum Bottle
Triazole
Concentration
(mg/L)
Serum
Bottle
Glycol
COD
(mg/L)
Glycol-based
ADF
acclimated
Seed (mL)
Observe
d
Inhibiti
on
Benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
0
1500
30
Control
Benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
60
1500
30
None/slight
Benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
120
1500
30
None/slight
Benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
180
1500
30
None/slight
Benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
240
1500
30
None/slight
Benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
300
1500
30
None/slight
Benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
0
1500
30
Control
Benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
60
1500
30
Slight
Benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
120
1500
30
Slight
Benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
180
1500
30
Slight
Benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
240
1500
30
Slight
Benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
300
1500
30
Slight
5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
0
1500
30
Control
5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
60
1500
30
Slight
5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
120
1500
30
Slight
5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
180
1500
30
Moderate
5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
240
1500
30
Moderate
5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
300
1500
30
Severe
5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
0
1500
30
Control
5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
60
1500
30
Slight
5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
120
1500
30
Slight
5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
180
1500
30
Moderate
5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
240
1500
30
Moderate
5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
300
1500
30
Severe
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
0
1000
20
Control
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
0.5
1000
20
None
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
1.0
1000
20
None
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
2.5
1000
20
None
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
5.0
1000
20
None
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
10
1000
20
None
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Ethylene glycol
20
1000
20
None
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
0
1000
20
Control
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
0.5
1000
20
None
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
1.0
1000
20
None
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
2.5
1000
20
None
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
5.0
1000
20
None
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
10
1000
20
None
5,6-Dimethyl-1H-
benzotriazole
Propylene glycol
20
1000
20
None
Page 32
27
Figure 2 - PG with Benzotriazole
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time (days)
Cumulative Methane Production (mL)
60 mg/L BZT
120 mg/L BZT
180 mg/L BZT
240 mg/L BZT
300 mg/L BZT
Pure PG
Figure 1 - EG with Benzotriazole
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (days)
Cumulative Methane Production (mL)
60 mg/L BZT
120 mg/L BZT
180 mg/L BZT
240 mg/L BZT
300 mg/L BZT
Pure EG
Page 33
28
Figure 4- PG with 5-Methyl-1H-Benzotriazole
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time (days)
Cumulative Methane Production (mL)
60 mg/L 5-MeBZT
120 mg/L 5-MeBZT
180 mg/L 5-MeBZT
240 mg/L 5-MeBZT
300 mg/L 5-MeBZT
Pure PG
Figure 3 - EG with 5-Methyl-1H-Benzotriazole
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time (days)
Cumulative Methane Production (mL)
60 mg/L 5-MeBZT
120 mg/L 5-MeBZT
180 mg/L 5-MeBZT
240 mg/L 5-MeBZT
300 mg/L 5-MeBZT
Pure EG
Page 34
29
Figure 6 - PG with 5,6-Dimethyl-1H-Benzotriazole
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Time (d)
Cumulative Methane Production (mL)
0.5 mg/L 5,6-diMeBZT
1 mg/L 5,6-diMeBZT
2.5 mg/L 5,6-diMeBZT
5 mg/L 5,6-diMeBZT
10 mg/L 5,6-diMeBZT
20 mg/L 5,6-diMeBZT
Pure PG
Figure 5 - EG with 5,6-Dimethyl-1H-Benzotriazole
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (d)
Cumulative Methane Production (mL)
0.5 mg/L 5,6-diMeBZT
1 mg/L 5,6-diMeBZT
2.5 mg/L 5,6-diMeBZT
5 mg/L 5,6-diMeBZT
10 mg/L 5,6-diMeBZT
20 mg/L 5,6-diMeBZT
Pure EG
Page 35
30
SYNOPSIS
COMPARING NITROGEN
LOADING MODELS
Start: 3/99
End: 2/2001
Title: Comparisons of models used to estimate land-derived nitrogen loads
Investigator: Ivan Valiela
Project No.: B9902
Funding Source:
USGS 104B
Descriptors: Model, Nitrogen Loading, Watershed, Land Use, Estuary, Groundwater
PROBLEM AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The core goal of this proposal was to address the issue of the many untested and quite different
models and protocols used in nitrogen loading estimates. We proposed to 1) compare the
performance of selected model types versus actual measurements of nitrogen loads from
watersheds to receiving estuaries; 2) compare the different models as to components and
processes and relative ability to predict measured loads; and 3) present the comparisons and
descriptions of the models in a format accessible to stakeholders and other potential users.
METHODOLOGY
We started our work by detailed examination of published descriptions of perhaps two dozen
models designed to calculate land-derived nitrogen loads to estuaries. We selected to work on a
narrower list, based on the following criteria:
1.
Availability of clearly stated procedures and data requirements
2.
Range of scale of area to which the models were applicable (from single parcel to entire
watersheds
3.
Range of structure from relatively simple to more complex
4.
Inclusion of surface runoff and groundwater as the freshwater delivery mechanism
5.
Prediction of either annual nitrogen loads or mean annual dissolved inorganic nitrogen in
the water of the receiving estuaries.
We made detailed readings of the published sources for each model, to keep track of the
components included in each model, and worked out the protocols needed to use the models to
predict either loads or concentrations in a set of Cape Cod estuaries from which we had a
substantial data set. These measurements were to be used as the “measured” against which to
compare “predictions” made by the various models. We obtained measured estimates of both
loads and concentrations.
Page 36
31
Before using the “measured” values of either loads or concentrations, we carried out a detailed
analysis of the way we calculated “measured loads. To do this, we planned to multiply the
average nitrogen concentration found in hundreds of groundwater samples, times the annual
recharge of freshwater. The validity of this approach was established by comparing the rates of
annual recharge versus freshwater flow rates measured in sets of 9 seepage meters deployed
through the seepage face. We established the dimensions of the seepage face by measurements
of salinity in the groundwater about to flow through the seepage face. If we found fresh water,
we were confident we were within the seepage face.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND SIGNIFICANCE
In terms of the verification of the measured estimates of loads, we found remarkably good
agreement between the recharge-based values and the seepage meter-derived freshwater flow
rates. In fact, there was, on average, only a 9% difference, which we took to mean that there
were some flows through channels that took small portions of the freshwater under the seepage
face and delivered some freshwater into the estuary floor. These flows were inconsequential
relative to the much larger flow of freshwater through the seepage face. It is evident from these
results that recharge-based measurement estimates capture over 90% of the freshwater flow, and
thus furnished an excellent way to obtain measured nitrogen loads. These data are all worked
up, and ready for publication.
We also had a large data set of monthly surface and near-bottom samples of water collected
across four years of work in each estuary. The concentrations of nitrate, ammonium, and
dissolved organic nitrogen in these samples were to calculate mean annual values for each
estuary and nitrogen species.
Having established that the measured values of loads and concentrations were reasonable, we
proceeded to compare the predictions of the selected models to measured values. The initial
selection of models included 9 models; more will be added as we proceed. Some initial results
are appended in attached figures: the basic approach is to plot the model prediction against the
measured values for as many estuaries as we can (the points in the appended figs. are for
Waquoit Bay; we are preparing data from other estuaries to add more points to the comparisons).
The first step in the comparison is to calculate a regression to assess the precision of the model
predictions. Then to evaluate the accuracy of the model predictions, we examined the
significance of the statistical difference between the calculated regression and the 1:1 line of
perfect fit. Our initial analyses were done with Model I regression, under the assumption of the
Berkson case. Since we did the initial comparisons, we developed spreadsheet calculations with
which to do Model II regressions, which we prefer to use from now on.
In any case, the performances of the various models differ quite markedly, and our procedure
seems quite robust. We anticipate that we will be able to quantify the differences among the
models, and what is more, to develop inter-calibration coefficients so that users may choose the
model they might find most convenient, yet apply correction factors that will produce reasonable
predictions. In addition, the examination of the different models will provide insight as to what
simplifications of model structure might be possible while still managing to capture the
magnitude of the loading from land.
Page 37
32
We also plan to evaluate the relative potential of each model to serve management purposes by
examining the ability of the models to partition loads as derived from specific sources of
nitrogen, and identify key land use types amenable to management options.
We will finish this work during the second year of this grant. We will not need to change the
budget allocations. The existing budget arrangement will do quite well to allow us to carry out
the remaining work.
The following students participated in this work: Jennifer Bowen (Masters candidate), who
applied the models tested to the Waquoit Bay estuaries, and performed many of the statistical
analyses; Marci Cole (PhD candidate) who tabulated all of the land uses to apply the models to
non-Waquoit estuaries, and Gabrielle Tomasky (Research Assistant) who collected and analyzed
the nutrient samples necessary for the verification. We are nearly finished preparing one
manuscript detailing the work above.
Page 38
33
SYNOPSIS
QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR
VOLUNTEER MONITORING
Start: 09/98
End: 06/2001
Title: Quality Assurance Project Plan Support For Lake, River And Coastal Water
Monitoring
Investigator: Paul J. Godfrey
Funding Source: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Descriptors: Quality Assurance, Citizen Monitoring, Volunteer, Rivers, Lakes, Estuaries,
Monitoring
Problem and Research Objectives
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that each state develop a program to monitor the
quality of surface and ground waters and to prepare a 305(b) report every two years to determine the
levels of support for specific designated uses of each waterbody. The Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA) has established the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative to use
twenty Basin Teams to monitor water quality on a five year rotating schedule in each of the 27
watersheds in Massachusetts. Due to a limited budget and the large numbers of rivers, lakes,
wetlands and coastal / marine areas in Massachusetts to be assessed, only a small fraction of the
waters are directly assessed by staff of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
For example, in the 1995 305(b) report, only 18% of lakes and 17% of rivers were assessed. The
number and area of surface waters assessed could be greatly increased if volunteer monitors could
be assisted and utilized to collect the data.
Many rivers and lakes are monitored by various volunteer groups, planning agencies, nonprofit
groups as well as scientists working for private companies or state agencies. Due to inconsistencies
in data collected, data quality, and data availability; these monitoring efforts have not been used to
any large degree by either the Basin Teams, or in the past 305(b) reports. Without documented
QAPPs, the data may be of limited use to the groups themselves. These data could be more widely
used if all groups used Quality Assurance Project Plans with consistent or comparable sets of
methods, data quality objectives and data management. In addition, many watershed associations,
planning commissions, private consultants and other scientists conduct surveys and use their results
to address in local forums problems that they identify. Those who apply to the US Environmental
Protection Agency for monies for these surveys are required to supply an approved Quality
Assurance Project Plan which includes Standard Operating Procedures. Because the necessary plan
is technically difficult for many groups, projects cannot be funded and data is not collected and
processed so as to be used and accepted by government agencies and other data users. Additionally,
re-writing similar plans repeatedly for each project is an inefficient use of staff time and grant
funds. This project will decrease the time and resources spent on writing QAPPs; it will result in
Page 39
34
more surveys being conducted, and will increase the amount of citizen-collected data that are
suitable for 305(b) reports and for use in local forums.
Methodology
I. Review current reports and data needs:
a. Obtain copies of past QAPPs, SOPs, and other related reports (e.g guidance documents on
writing QAPPs). Maintain library, provide copies to interested monitoring groups.
b. Meet with staff from Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to determine
data needs including data type, frequency, data quality requirements, documentation, data
units and reporting formats for inclusion in 305b reports.
A. Meet with staff from US EPA region 1 to discuss format and required elements of the
QAPPs, suitable for approval by the EPA.
B. Meet with staff from EOEA Basin Teams and with NGOs in 5 target basins to determine
specific data needs for surveys they are planning under the Massachusetts Watershed
Initiative.
II. Select at least 3 existing QAPPs, and modify if necessary, to serve as template Quality
Assurance Project Plans for
A. Basic Monitoring of Rivers
B. Basic Monitoring of Lakes
C. Basic Monitoring of Coastal Waters.
III. Compile an annotated list of SOPs for the most commonly used monitoring methods in rivers,
lakes, and coastal waters, to be used as reference documents by groups preparing QAPPs. The list
will include both rigorous and basic methods for some indicators and surveys. This will allow
groups that are preparing QAPPs to reference the indicators and methods that match specific data
quality objectives (DQOs) of the surveys they are planning. For instance, if a survey is intended to
provide information for use a 305(b) report, the QAPP may refer to more rigorous methods, quality
control measures, and frequency of sampling than would a QAPP for a similar survey that is
intended purely as a public education tool. The list will be annotated to indicate what methods
match which DQOs.
The Standard Operating Procedures will follow established methods of Standard Methods or EPA
methods and approved methods used by the River Watch Network and the Massachusetts Water
Watch Partnership after consultation with DEP and EPA staff. Based on consultation with DEP and
EPA staff, these may include:
Physical elements such as flow rate monitoring, temperature, suspended solids, transparency
(Secchi disk).
Chemical elements such as dissolved oxygen, BOD, nutrients total Phosphorus, ammonia,
nitrate+nitrite), pH.
Biological elements such as Chlorophyll a, coliform bacteria (fecal coliform), benthic
invertebrates (Rapid Bioassessment Protocols), macrophytes.
IV. Write a guidebook that provides step by step assistance in adapting template QAPPs into
Quality Assurance Project Plans for specific surveys (basic lake, river, or coastal) that will they plan
to conduct, either to generate data suitable for inclusion in 305(b) reports or for more rudimentary,
Page 40
35
public education purposes. The guidebook will provide instructions in using the annotated SOP list
to reference methods that will meet their data quality objectives. It will also contain worksheets that
help groups determine and record survey-specific decisions such as location and number of
sampling sites, frequency of sampling, number and type of quality control samples, etc. A
reference section will provide guidance on where to obtain information and additional assistance
(e.g. lists of certified laboratories, organizations that provide training in methods, methods manuals,
etc.).
V. Hold three workshops to explain the use of the template QAPPs and the guidebook. The
“yellow” basins, where year 2 assessment work is scheduled for 1999 will be targeted for these
workshops. These include: French & Quinebaug, Merrimack, Boston Harbor, Narragansett Bay &
Mt. Hope Bay Shore, and Cape Cod.
VI. Consult with groups and with their associated Basin Teams to help the groups write QAPPs
for surveys that are consistent with the goals of the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative. At least 5
QAPPs will be written, by groups with our assistance. Recognizing the experimental nature of the
MWI and the many unanswered questions about how best to implement it, we will explore, with
these groups and Basin Teams, creative ways to deal with information needs and organizational and
resource constraints.
VII Write Semi-annual Progress Report.
VIII Respond to comments on draft and write final versions and Final Project Report. This is a
demonstration project that will attempt to determine what forms of assistance in developing QAPPs
work best; what degree of direct assistance is necessary, in addition to the guidance documents and
workshops, to enable groups to produce their own QAPPs. The report will contain
recommendations on reproducing or modifying this system of collaboration among Basin Teams,
monitoring groups, and service providers to facilitate development of QAPPs for volunteer
environmental surveys in all basins.
Principal Findings and Significance
Task I
Copies of existing QAPPs have been collected and compiled. Each has been reviewed for examples
that may be used in the development of templates and to develop a sense of areas of difficulty. The
research team has met with representatives from EPA and the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection to discuss the means of presenting guidance, selecting appropriate QAPP
guidelines, and reviewing QAPP availability. Three meetings were held with members of the
EOEA watershed teams and citizen monitoring groups to develop appropriate frameworks for the
guidebook and templates.
Task II
All QAPPs have been reviewed and examples from sections excerpted to provide portions of the
planned templates.
Task III
Page 41
36
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) appropriate for providing data quality useable by federal and
state agencies have been compiled and assembled on a web site. Both field and laboratory SOPs are
included. Until the site is reviewed by federal and state project officers, the site has restricted
access. However, it will be linked to the Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership site when
approved (www.umass.edu/tei/mwwp).
Task IV
A draft guidebook has been prepared. A preliminary draft was reviewed by state and federal QA
staff and comments have been incorporated. The guidebook is currently undergoing internal
review. A draft river template is complete and is in internal review. Lake and coastal templates are
in rough draft form awaiting finalization of the river template.
Task V
Three workshops have been held to explain the use of the templates and guidebook and to receive
further input on appropriate information to include.
Task VI
Groups that are required to provide QAPPs have been assisted in the development of their QAPPS
as part of the learning process on how best to format the templates and guidebooks. The groups
initially targetted because they were in watersheds undergoing intense monitoring activity by state
or federal agencies have not always been active or ready to develop QAPPs. The project has been
flexible in providing assistance where it is needed.
Task VII
Quarterly reports have been provided.
Task VIII
With one year to go on the project, this final stage is not complete.
The project provided support for one UMass undergraduate.
Page 42
37
OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
Page 43
38
SYNOPSIS
WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
TRAINING PROGRAM
A PARTNERSHIP IN SERVICE
TO NEW ENGLAND COMMUNITIES
Start: September 1997
End: September 2000
Title:
The Watershed Assessment Training Program
Investigator:
Jerry Schoen, Water Resources Research Center
Project No.:
C03
Funding Source: USGS 104B regional
Descriptors:
Citizen Monitoring, Regional Coordination, Water Quality
PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:
Problem Statement:
The Watershed Assessment Training Program, a collaboration of: the Water Resources
Research Center, University of Massachusetts; Cooperative Extensions of the Universities of
Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Maine; University of Maine Public Affairs;
the River Network; and the Merrimack River Watershed Council, was initiated in 1997 with
grant funds received from the National Institute of Water Resources and the US Geological
Survey. The training program was established to address the growing training needs of
volunteer water monitoring programs that are proliferating in New England. Reduced federal,
state and municipal funding sources increases the need for community based volunteer
monitoring programs. Volunteer programs continue as a cost-effective means to collect credible
information used in screening, assessment, base line documentation, and community decision
making. Many volunteer programs have mastered basic sampling techniques and are now at the
stage where they require assistance to go the next step. They are requesting guidance on how to
expand their monitoring to tackle nonpoint source pollution at the origins and how to better
integrate their programs to address community concerns in the context of a watershed approach.
Project Goals:
Project collaborators (collectively named the New England Regional Monitoring Collaborative,
or NERMC) sought to:
1. help volunteer groups perform focused assessments that produce credible information
relevant to important regional environmental problems;
2. increase the use of relatively low cost and user-friendly watershed monitoring tools
throughout New England by making training and related services more accessible.
Page 44
39
METHODOLOGY
1. Produce a set of written and videotaped training materials for several different watershed
assessment methods designed for New England volunteer environmental monitoring groups.
The surveys are:
– Macroinvertebrate sampling for river systems.
– Habitat assessment for river systems.
– "Following the Flow": a non-point source pollution site assessment method that uses an
"expert system" approach to allow observers to determine the actual or potential extent of
pollution generation and delivery from a site to a receiving water of some kind be it a
wetland, lake, river stream shoreland or estuary.
– Watershed Natural Resource Inventory Method: an extension of a currently used Community
Natural Resource Inventory Guide which focuses more in-depth on the water resources
aspects and bases the inventory unit on a watershed level. This is a useful
watershed/waterside assessment tool for proactive community planning, minimum impact
site design, and the overall management and stewardship of watershed resources. This
inventory and mapping procedure can also be utilized for meeting local decision-making
needs, developing protection strategies for watershed lands and/or source-waters, and the
design and implementation of monitoring programs
– An introductory videotape describes the methods available to assist viewers in determining
the types of surveys suitable for their programs.
2. Set up a delivery system to provide these materials and relevant training to groups
throughout the region. This includes conducting a series of workshops that cover topics
discussed in the videos and manuals.
3. Initiate a communications system and planning process among service organizations to
provide comprehensive cost-effective assistance on an on-going basis to citizen monitoring
programs.
Instructional materials and workshops were or will be developed with a focus on a "training the
trainers" approach. The target audience includes program leaders, educators, and others who are
or will themselves become trainers of volunteer watershed monitors.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND SIGNIFICANCE
1) Training materials
Written materials:
Training manuals for all surveys are completed in draft form. They have been used in training
sessions, feedback has been received, and is being incorporated into the manuals. An additional
draft of all manuals must still be completed to fully incorporate "training the trainers" materials.
The manuals will then be reorganized as necessary to fit into a common format that bears the
New England Regional Monitoring Collaborative (NERMC) stamp.
Page 45
40
Videos:
Introductory Video and Habitat Assessment videos are in final edit. They will be mailed along
with a full packet of NERMC materials.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring and Following the Flow Assessment videos are complete.
The former covers both simplified streamside and intensive surveys. The latter provides an
overview on NPS pollution sources and impacts, an outline of what is involved in the training for
the assessment and an introduction to the method.
Three of the NERMC partners (UMaine Public Affairs/Marketing, UNH Extension, and River
Watch Network) spearheaded development of these videos. Additional assistance and
participation was received from several students at UNH, from the Houlton Band of Maliseet
Indians, several faculty members in biological sciences at the University of Maine, and from the
North American Benthological Society.
After careful consideration of the best way to present the topic of watershed natural resources
inventories, project participants realized that the guide does not lend itself to the medium of
videotape. Several other products were developed instead: two Powerpoint presentations, a set of
overheads of example GIS maps of WNRI data, a “Supplementary Guide to Community Natural
Resources” manual and other written training materials were developed. The NERMC
introductory video will include a discussion of the WNRI – what it is and what is involved.
Further funding will be sought to create a CD-ROM demonstration disk of the WNRI process.
2. Workshops, delivery system
NERMC partners have compiled lists of potential NERMC trainers, who receive invitations to
NERMC workshops via mail, and email. Workshop schedules are also posted on the NERMC
web site
Introduction to NERMC Workshops:
NERMC introductory workshops were presented at the Volunteer Environmental Monitoring
Conference, November 14, 1998, at the New England Association of Environmental Biologists
meeting in Ascutney VT March 10-12, 1999, the National Water Quality Monitoring Conference
in Austin Texas April 25-27 2000 and at the National Volunteer Monitoring Conference in
Austin, Texas April 27-29, 2000. The objective of the workshops was to inform audiences of
NERMC services available and to receive feedback on our plans for NERMC operations in the
coming year. NERMC was a co-sponsor of the “Watershed Academy- Working at a Watershed
Level” 5 day workshop sponsored primarily by the USEPA and the Council of State
Governments, August 15 – 21 in Durham NH.. Presentations by NERMC cooperators included:
Watershed Assessment Approaches, A Following the Flow demonstration/field trip, and an
Introduction to Watershed Natural Resources Inventory Applications. Over 80 people from local,
state, federal and non-governmental groups attended the event..
Page 46
41
Following the Flow Workshops:
Initially, three workshops were held on the "Following the Flow" survey to test out the materials
developed and provide feedback from our targeted audiences, as well as to try out different
training scenarios and logistics. The first workshop included volunteer monitoring coordinators,
local, state, federal and tribal agency staff, and interested citizens (15 people in all). It was
conducted during the New England regional watershed and volunteer monitoring conference
held at UNH, Durham on June 26-28, 1998. Participants completed a ½ day training session,
then de-briefed on the training approach, materials and specifics of the method. This venue was
also used to shoot some of the video footage.
The second training session was done with local decision makers (12 people) on July 2, 1998 in
Durham, NH. The length of the training was shorter (1 hour prep with A/V materials; ¼ day
field session) to accommodate scheduling but offered a chance to determine the minimum
training elements required to adequately convey the methodology. Again a debriefing was held
on the method to receive feedback from the participants.
The third training session was held on July 21 with formal and informal educators (17 people) in
Exeter, NH. This was a ¾ day of training with a slightly shortened field component as
participants were assigned to go out on their own and survey their local area. Debriefing and
discussion of their findings occurred on the following day. This proved to be a successful
approach but it is probably not as practical for most training situations that we will encounter.
This training design option will be included in the train the trainer materials.
Following the incorporation of the recommendation from the aforementioned participants the
method was refined and a final draft manual and training materials were produced.
A ½ day Following the Flow workshop was conducted in northern New England (Bonnyvale
Environmental Education Center, Brattleboro VT; May 7, 1999) as part of a Project Wet
facilitator training conference
A two day NERMC Following the Flow Trainer’s Workshop was conducted following the
“Watershed Academy- Working at a Watershed Level” 5 day workshop (discussed above) on
August 20-21, 1999. This was the first time the new “train the trainer” materials and the video
were incorporated into the training.
Watershed Natural Resources Inventory Workshops:
“Watershed Resource Inventory Approaches and Applications”, was presented September 21,
1999, in Newport Rhode Island. This ½ day interactive workshopworkshop was held in
conjunction with the Ground Water Protection Council’s (GWPC) annual forum. It was well
attended (over 40 participants) and was well received.
GIS Watershed Mapping: Developing and Implementing a Watershed Natural Resources
Inventory”.invited 1 hour presentation for: Water Sensitive Ecological Planning & Design- An
International Symposium to introduce, review and critically examine design options & planning
procedures for ensuring water sensitive development. February 25 - 26, 2000 Harvard University
Graduate School of Design.
Page 47
42
An expanded three hour interactive workshop - “GIS Watershed Mapping: Developing and
Implementing a Watershed Natural Resources Inventory”was presented at the New England
Regional Lake Congress, Storrs, CT on June 3, 2000.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Workshops:
A Streamside Benthic Macroinvertebrate workshop was presented at the Annual New England
Lakes conference (sponsored by NE chapter of North American Lakes Management Society)
held in Auburn Maine (June 19 –20, 1999).
A Streamside Macroinvertebrate workshop was held on August 14, 1999 in South Kingstown,
Rhode Island. Held at a facility generously donated by the Audubon Society of Rhode Island,
fourteen people participated in this daylong workshop. A half-day classroom session focused on
basic habitat issues and training techniques. This was followed by an afternoon field session
which concentrated on field sampling methods and macroinvertebrate identification and
classification.
A "training the trainers" workshop on macroinvertebrate sampling and habitat assessment was
held on November 14, in Concord, NH.
Three biomonitoring workshops were conducted by Anna Hicks, UMass Extension:
_ Stream Health and Aquatic Invertebrates – March – June 2000, Concord MA. For the
Suasco and other eastern watershed groups.
_ Estuarine Invertebrate Biomonitoring – June – July 2000, Salem MA.
_ Stream Health and Aquatic Invertebrates – July 2000, Amherst MA.
A macroinvertebrate monitoring workshop was conducted in Williamstown, Massachusetts, for
members of the Hoosic River Watershed Association and Williams College staff. June – July
2000.
3) Communication system, planning process
Various surveys recently conducted by the Sea Grant program, Cooperative Extension,
Merrimack Watershed Council's Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Network (VEMN), and
the Gulf of Maine Coalition were reviewed to determine the availability of information regarding
approach to study design, program operation, and evaluation of current training and support of
volunteer monitoring programs in New England. While a great deal of information is available
on volunteer monitoring programs in the region in general through these surveys, few of these
surveys addressed the issues of concern to this project.
A survey instrument was developed to ascertain the training needs, program operation, and
mastery of various program components of volunteer monitoring groups throughout the region.
The two page, legal length survey was tested by the Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership at
their annual spring conference. Upon review of the test surveys, a final survey instrument was
completed (attached). Surveys were initially distributed at various conferences and workshops
attended by NERMC collaborators. This resulted in fewer than anticipated returns, and limited
regional distribution. In order to ensure that a diversity, and significant number of programs are
Page 48
43
contacted, surveys will be distributed and returned through the Internet in August of 1998.
Regional list servers and direct email contact will be used. Initial survey results will be
compiled by September 30th. Results indicate that the current set of workshops have broad
appeal, but that summer is simply too busy a period for many people. Workshop schedules were
revised to accommodate these preferences.
The results of the survey have been used to identify future training needs, to guide NERMC
partners in selection of workshop locations and timing, and in our planning of new services and
products . We are currently using the surveys as we finalize a 5 year plan as part of a grant from
the US EPA.
The Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership (MassWWP) has established a Web site, which
contains links to Web sites of other NERMC organizations and a schedule of upcoming
workshops. A NERMC page has been added to the MassWWP. It describes the NERMC
manuals and videos, workshops and other NERMC services. MassWWP has also established a
volunteer monitoring list server to which approximately 100 organizations have signed. This list
server is used to exchange information and requests for information on volunteer monitoring,
and to announce NERMC and related workshops and other events. MassWWP is also sending
workshop notices to a calendar distributed by the Massachusetts Environmental Affairs Office.
Other NERMC partners post NERMC information or links on their Web sites. All partners are
also using their own meetings and workshops as a means to distribute NERMC surveys and
workshop announcements.
The Watershed Assessment Training Program has spawned similar collaborations in
Massachusetts. MassWWP, MRWC, and several other institutions (the Watershed Access
Laboratory at Bridgewater State College, the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
and the Charles River Watershed Association) received funding from the Massachusetts
Environmental Trust to provide collaborative service to volunteer monitoring groups in
Massachusetts. Together, these institutions have run workshops on chemical and physical
sampling methods, coordinated announcements and scheduling of workshops (on a variety of
topics), provided laboratory analysis services, and conducted a quality control program for
groups sampling dissolved oxygen and pH. These organizations are working with other
Massachusetts agencies and non-profits to build a regional service provider network with
enhanced delivery of assistance to Massachusetts monitoring groups. The Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs has recommended NERMC protcocols in its requests
for proposals for a volunteer monitoring grant program established in 1999.
Similarly in New Hampshire, a statewide volunteer monitoring support group has been initiated.
NERMC assessment and survey materials are being modified to collect information on the needs
of New Hampshire’s volunteer programs. Participants include UNH CE, VEMN, UNH Seagrant
Extension, NH Department of Environmental Services, the Great Bay Stewards, the Connecticut
River Monitoring Coalition and various watershed groups from across the state.
Student Support
· Peter Mitchell, graduate student in MS program, Dept. of Natural Resources, UMass
Amherst. Paid to assist in biomonitoring workshops conducted by Anna Hicks.
Page 49
44
· Sean Werle, graduate student in PhD program, Organismic and Evolutionary Biology,
UMass Amherst. Paid to assist in biomonitoring workshops conducted by Anna Hicks.
· Peter Hooker, Environmental Conservation Undergraduate Student (Senior) utilized
”Following the Flow” methodology in a practicum project that studied Pettee Brook in
Durham NH in the summer of 1999.
· Robert Craycraft,- Natural Resources Graduate (Masters) Student was trained and did
training for “Following the Flow” at the Bonnyvale Environmental Education Center in VT
in May 1999.
· Erin Clough, Zoology (Marine and Freshwater Biology) Undergraduate Student (Senior) was
trained in and facilitated the compilation of Watershed Natural Resources Inventory Method
data for a UNH USGS WRRC funded study on Statewide Nutrient Export Coefficients and
also helped prepare materials and data for the class listed below.
· 12 upper undergraduate and graduate students utilized the Watershed Natural Resources
Inventory Method as part of the requirements for completing Multidisciplinary Lakes
Management taught Spring Semester 2000.
· Derek Boucher, Microbiology, Undergraduate Student (Junior) participated in the Streamside
Macroinvertebrate training held in South Kingstown, Rhode Island in August of 1999 as part
of his URI Partnership for the Coastal Environment Fellowship.
· Denise Burgess, Natural Resources Science Graduate (Masters) Student was also trained to
teach Streamside Macroinvertebrate monitoring in South Kingston. Ms. Burgess utilized that
training in the development and implementation of an environmental education training
program for teachers conducted as part of her masters project.
Resulting publications
Schloss, Jeffrey A. (submitted for text chapter for publication in 2000). GIS Watershed
Mapping: Developing and Implementing a Watershed Natural Resources Inventory. Proceedings
of: Water Sensitive Ecological Planning & Design- An International Symposium to introduce,
review and critically examine design options & planning procedures for ensuring water sensitive
development. February 25 - 26, 2000 Harvard University Graduate School of Design.
"Following the Flow" Trainers Guide- 1999 Schloss, J. UNH Cooperative Extension Publication,
Durham, NH.
Abstract: GIS Applications for Lake Management (Overview of Watershed Natural Resource
Inventory Method) in Our New England Waters: Watershed Stewardship for the Next
Millenium. June 26-28 1998 University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH. UNH Cooperative
Extension. p 10.
Abstract: GWPC conference in Newport RI- “Developing and Implementing a Watershed
Natural Resources Inventory Sept 1999 (published in registration brochure).
Abstract: GIS Watershed Mapping: Developing and Implementing a Watershed Natural
Resources Inventory. In: The Seventh Annual NEC NALMS Conference: “Our New England
Waters”Lake Management into the 21st Century:Unifying Theory and Practice. University of
Connecticut, Storrs. June 1-3 2000.
Page 50
45
Proceedings: Schloss, J. 1999. “Applications of a Watershed Natural Resources Inventory in a
Multi- jurisdictional Watershed” in NOAA publication: Proceedings of the Tijuana River
Watershed Workshop. May 1999.
Presentations: (in addition to NERMC workshops listed above)
As part of UNH Summer Course: Watershed Ecology (Natural Resources 702A/802A) 36
students (formal and informal educators) were trained in FTF protocols August 1999 and 2000.
As part of UNH Summer Course: Community Mapping with GIS (Natural Resources
702E/802E) 32 students (local decision-makers and educators) were trained in FTF protocols
July 1999 and 2000.
An abstract has been submitted for presentation at the 20
th
Annual International Symposium of
the North American Lake Management Society in Miami, Florida between December 1
st
and 4
th
,
2000. If accepted, this presentation will reach a diverse audience of lake and watershed
managers, lakeside residents and other watershed professionals
Follow-on funding
$25,000 grant from USEPA, (Regional Administrator’s Disrectionary Fund) as mentioned
above to be administered through RWN.
Received $63,000 grant from USDA under the Water Quality Competitive Grants Competition:
"Toward Cleaner NH Waters: Support for Statewide Volunteer Monitoring and Education
Programs" (April 1999 through March 2000) for which some monies are targeted to work with
NERMC to enhance in-state activities. Also have some monies for publication and copies of
"Following the Flow" manuals and videos. Some additional funds will also support student work
study help (2 undergraduates) on these efforts. Grant will be administered by UNH CE.
Received a grant from the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental
Technologies (CICEET- UNH/NOAA) $134,000 9/98 through 8/2000 for which a part of the
work-plan incorporates the GIS Watershed Natural Resources Inventory training. Grant will be
administered through UNH.
Awards or notable recognition resulting from this research
NERMC protocols were cited as models in funding guidelines for volunteer monitoring grant
program established by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs in 1999.
SEE http://www.statesnews.org/ecos/working.htm for listing of NERMC participation in
Watershed Academy program
SEE http://gwpc.site.net/meetings.htm for abstract and “highlight” recognition for upcoming
NERMC workshop.
Theses produced
None
Page 51
46
SYNOPSIS
CITIZEN MONITORING
THE MASSACHUSETTS WATER
WATCH PARTNERSHIP
Start: 01/90
End: Ongoing
Title: Monitoring Assistance for Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring:
Report of the Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
Investigators: Jerome Schoen, Paul J. Godfrey and Marie-Françoise Walk
Funding Source: Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Massachusetts
Environmental Trust, and Partnership Members
Descriptors: Citizen Monitoring, Non-point Pllution, Rivers, Lakes, Monitoring,
Volunteer, Quality Control
The Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership (MassWWP) was formed in 1990 to
empower citizens
to collect, evaluate, and act on scientifically credible water quality information for the
Commonwealth's surface waters. To accomplish this task, we rely on building a partnership
with government, industry, educators, conservation organizations and the general public, who
lend their respective talents to this effort to achieve practical solutions to water quality problems.
The program has grown from working with 15 groups in 1990 to over 80 today. Funded
principally through grants from foundations and industry and membership fees until 1999, the
program is currently principally funded through contracts with the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) and grants from the Massachusetts Environmental
Trust Fund (MET).
Methodology:
MassWWP services fall into several broad categories:
1) Workshop and conference series, which trains volunteers and promotes information sharing
on the major aspects of planning and running a monitoring program, from program planning
to field and laboratory methods to data management and presentation.
2) Technical services, including laboratory analyses of some parameters and a quality control
program for other analyses which volunteers perform themselves.
3)
Partnership and network building to foster productive relationships among volunteer groups
and between volunteer programs and governments, business, and other interests.
4) Special projects on specific issues, such as satellite imagery and a nationwide Secchi disk
survey.
Page 52
47
5) Research on topics that have potential to enhance the utility of volunteer monitoring
programs.
6) Consultation and advice, loan of sampling equipment, and other direct services.
7) Conferences. MassWWP regularly presents papers and workshops or helps plan water
monitoring related conferences around New England and the nation.
8) Publications. Development and/or distribution of documents of use to volunteer monitors.
9) Statewide Coordinator and Western Massachusetts Service Provider. A principal task
of the EOEA support is to provide statewide coordination of citizen water quality monitoring
and guide the four current regional service providers. The Water Watch Partnership is also
one of the designated regional service providers, covering western Massachusetts.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND SIGNIFICANCE:
Project One: Support to Volunteer Monitoring Network
Task 1:
Coordination between Monitoring Support Centers:
1.
Identify skill strengths, as identified by the Support Centers, of the Support Centers
contracted by EOEA.
1.
Sponsor meetings of Support Centers to share strengths between service centers.
Distribute to the Support Centers and EOEA a matrix identifying key skills of each
Support Center.
2.
Summarize information compiled through the FY 1999 Volunteer Monitoring Group
Survey and make a presentation to the Support Center liaisons on those skills most
sought after by local monitoring groups.
We used the 1999 monitoring group needs survey and an earlier Volunteer Environmental
Monitoring Network (VEMN) document titled “Characteristics of a Successful Volunteer Water
Quality Monitoring Program” to develop a questionnaire for Monitoring Support Centers
(MSCs). We discussed and distributed this at an April 3 meeting. Based on the written
responses of the MSCs, we have produced a table listing the respective needs and services. See
file mscservice2000.doc. Another file, trainingaids.doc lists the manuals and other materials
MSCs use in their assistance programs. Earlier drafts of these files were distributed to the
MSCs. The issue discussed at the April 3 MSC meeting, and as part of wide-ranging discussions
at the May 9 and June 14 CAC meetings. In addition, we wrote a brief report discussing MSC
services and products. See file mscdiscuss.doc
A minimum of four (4) workshops are required. The Data Presentation Manual published by
MWWP in 1999 is one topic that must be presented during a workshop
We held the following workshops from December 15 1999 – June 30 2000:
- January 8 and 29. Study Designs and Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs). Lawrence,
MA. Co-presented with Merrimack River Watershed Council.*
Page 53
48
- January 22. How to start a monitoring program. Leicester MA. Co-sponsored by
Massachusetts Congress of Lakes and Ponds.
- February 5. Study designs / QAPPs. Amherst MA.*
- February 9. Study designs / QAPPs. Falmouth MA. Co-sponsored by Waquoit Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve (WBNERR).*
- We also presented at and facilitated a discussion at a Suasco water quality monitoring forum,
March 4 in Sudbury.
- Data presentation. March 29 at Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (co-
sponsored by WBNERR)
- Field sampling techniques for lake groups. May 6. Southwick MA.
- Data Presentation. June 3, Sudbury MA. With Anna Hicks, UMass Extension NREC.
- Watershed survey and weed mapping. June 10 Fort Meadow Reservoir, Hudson MA.
- Macroinvertebrate and habitat sampling. June 17, Williamstown MA.
* these workshops were part of an ongoing project with MA DEP to provide assistance in writing QAPPs.
One other way we assisted Monitoring Support Centers was to maintain a listserve of
approximately 100 individuals (which includes volunteer monitors, agency representatives and
service providers), and use this listserv to communicate with the volunteer monitoring
community and get their feedback and questions. We also continued the 1999 survey of
monitoring groups. We conducted a March 3 mailing to volunteer monitoring groups asking for
updated information on their program activities. Using the responses and information collected
at workshops, we added numerous entries to a slightly modified version of the 1999 MS-Access
group profile database. The database, which had approximately 30 group entries last year, now
lists approximately 80 groups conducting 150 surveys. We are currently writing a brief user’s
guide to the database; when complete, we will mail the guide to EOEA and make both the
database and the guide available to other MSCs for their use in tracking group activities. We are
willing to serve as the main repository for data on group activities, until such time as a new data
management system is developed. Thus, when we distribute the Access database, we will ask all
MSCs to distribute a related questionnaire to any groups they are working with, and to forward
any responses to MassWWP for entry into the database.
Promote presentations of Technical Support Centers with Geographic Centers and individual
monitoring groups.
We created a web page that lists services, area of activity, upcoming events, and contact
information of the MSCs, and added it to the WWP web site:
http://www.umass.edu/tei/mwwp/msc.html.
We have had frequent phone, email and in-person contact (usually at workshops or conferences)
in which we answered questions or distributed information about the services of the UMass
Environmental Analytical Laboratory and to a lesser extent NREC’s macroinvertebrate
workshops. We printed a brochure “Did you know?” presenting the concept of the MSC
network and showcasing each MSC , their services and how to contact them. The brochure was
mailed to 106 people (who don’t have email) on 5/16.
Page 54
49
Task 2:
Coordinate Activities of the Volunteer Monitoring Citizen Advisory
Committee
Continue to serve as administrator/Executive Director of the Volunteer Monitoring Citizen
Advisory Committee (CAC). A minimum of three meetings of the CAC are required under this
task as well as ongoing communication and distribution of information. A minimum of two
presentations to the WISC on CAC findings for the purpose of developing consensus are
required.
We convened three meetings of the CAC: April 3, May 9 and June 14. Meeting notes for the
meetings were disseminated electronically, and a paper copy mailed to one CAC member
without Internet access. We made presentations about the CAC to the WISC at its March 15 and
May 17 meetings. A summary of the River Network report was distributed at the May 17
meeting. WISC has scheduled a longer discussion of the report and CAC recommendations
regarding the report for an upcoming meeting.
The major work of the CAC this fiscal year (FY 2000) involved reviewing, discussing,
modifying and adopting the recommendations of the River Network’s report on volunteer
monitoring. This was done at CAC meetings and by using phone and email to communicate
CAC member comments. In fiscal year 2001, the CAC’s work will shift to more in-depth
analysis of several of the recommendations, as we endeavor to implement them. This will
require more active participation by CAC members than we received this year. Attendance at
CAC meetings was low – apart from MSC representatives, few people showed up. See file
cacattendance2000.doc. In particular, key players from some state agencies and from volunteer
monitoring programs were largely or entirely absent. It might be wise for the CAC to tackle, as a
first priority, the River Network’s recommendations on committee structure. The current
committee structure, with a core of approximately 15 members and a broader committee of
approximately 12 more, hasn’t worked particularly well. The core committee may be too large,
some ‘broader’ committee members attend more than some core members, and other members,
core or broad, don’t attend at all. We might want to consider either:
1.
reducing the core committee size, to 7-10 members. Committee might obtain general
guidance from an annual or semi-annual Citizen’s Advisory Congress;
2.
have the large committee meet regularly, but spend the bulk of its meetings in breakout
committees, who are each tasked to work on a particular topic or set of recommendations
(e.g. on funding, or on developing standards for monitoring procedures, etc.)
We welcome further discussion with EOEA on this issue.
Task 3:
Provide services statewide to foster the implementation of high quality citizen monitoring
efforts.
a. Publicize existence of training manuals, fact sheets, and training videos to volunteer monitoring groups
statewide.
We do this primarily through our web site ( http://www.umass.edu/tei/mwwp/). We also
distribute such information and materials at workshops and other events we attend.
Page 55
50
b. Distribute one copy of each manual, fact sheet, training video, and similar materials at no
cost to Support Service Centers and EOEA in a sample binder for their review and re-
distribution.
The following materials were sent to John Clarkeson and all the MSCs:
1. Mass WWP
Lake Field Sampling Manual
2. Mass WWP
Manual for Volunteer Water Quality Monitors
3. Mass WWP
Watershed Survey Manual for Lakes and Rivers
4. Mass WWP
Data Interpretation Manual
5. Mass WWP
Data Management Manual for Volunteer Monitors
6. Mass WWP
Data Presentation Manual: Ready, Set, Present
7.
Fact Sheets
1. MWWP High pH
2. MWWP Chloride
3. MWWP Nitrogen
4. MWWP Total Phosphorus
Videos
1. MWWP Lake Sampling Techniques
2. MWWP Lab Analysis Training
c. Include Support Service Centers and EOEA on The Volunteer Monitor Newsletter
distribution list.
In response to John Clarkeson’s request, we have forwarded the addresses of all Watershed
Team Leaders and four EOEA staff members (John Clarkeson, Robert O’Connor, Sharon
McGregor, and Karl Honkonen) to the editor of the Volunteer Monitor with a request that they
be placed on the mailing list.
d. In accordance with current MWWP policy, continue distribution of training materials (see
Task 3b above) to Massachusetts monitoring groups in response to their requests.
We honored approximately 30 requests for equipment & materials loans, including items such as
macroinvertebrate and chemical sampling equipment, the MassWWP bugquarium, and training
manuals. The accompanying file helpfy2000.wpd lists assistance requests and how we handled
them. In addition, we passed out 222 copies of our data presentation manual (including 50 at the
national volunteer monitoring conference in Austin Texas), and continue to distribute copies of
The Volunteer Monitor newsletter (several issues) at workshops, along with other materials such
as the EPA’s “Volunteer Stream Monitoring – A Methods Manual”, MassWWP fact sheets,
portions of our draft QAPP guidance document, and similar documents.
e. Promote training sessions offered by a Support Service Center (open to participation by
monitoring groups statewide), including a web link through the MassWWP Internet page.
We have established the MSC web link, and have asked MSCs to send us calendar information,
which we post on the MassWWP calendar (http://www.umass.edu/tei/mwwp/workshop.html),
along with information we receive from other service providers. We also promote training
sessions via listserv announcements. In June we added an “upcoming events” bullet for each
MSC on the web page to reduce search time for web users.
Page 56
51
f. Assist Support Service Centers by developing for them and distributing to them an on-line
workshop registration computer program.
An on-line registration form for events was developed (see it at
<http://www.umass.edu/tei/mwwp/registration.html>) and was offered to the other MSCs. To
date, no MSC has requested the form.
g. Serve as a communications clearinghouse for volunteers through a web page and Internet list
serve. Clearly identify EOEA as a partial sponsor of these services.
We are providing these services.
Web page services resources must include: listing of the QAPP library contents developed for
the DEP/EPA QAPP contract (98-05/104); upon completion and DEP/EPA approval of QAPP
templates these should be posted; upon completion and DEP/EPA approval of template guidance
this should be posted;
The MassWWP web page and listserv currently serve these functions. EOEA is listed as a
sponsor on our web pages and on the listserv page on our web site:
<http://www.umass.edu/tei/mwwp/listserv.html>. QAPP materials will be presented on the web
site when they are completed and approved by DEP. With regards to posting existing QAPPs
written by volunteer monitors on the web, we received this email from Art Johnson of DEP on
March 16:
“After discussing this with several other staff members here, we feel that it would be premature
and inappropriate to make the library available through the internet at this time. Let me try to
explain further our concerns.
First, from the existing listing it is not easy for us to tell what these are, or what is contained in
them, so we cannot comment on the appropriateness of using many of them as models (if that is
the intent). Perhaps if the QAPP were identified by the name of the preparer, rather than the
waterbody or watershed, it would be clearer as to what particular QAPP is available in the library.
Nonetheless, It would seem to me that it will be much more important to make the QAPP
templates that are being developed as Task 2 of this project available through the internet. Then, at
the same time, a few carefully selected model QAPP chosen from the library could be included as
examples. Right now, I am concerned that end-users will mistake this library for the actual QAPP
templates that are still in development. It is important to recognize that the current library contains
many QAPP written for many different purposes, using guidelines that may differ significantly
from those we are requiring today (e.g., EPA, 1996, etc.). For example, our own "DEP-Millers
Watershed QAPP" from 1995 is still considered "Draft", and would not meet our present-day
internal requirements for a QAPP.
DEP, EPA, and EOEA continue to maintain that citizen groups must establish their individual
missions, and goals and objectives for monitoring that will provide information for local decision-
making. If desired by these groups, the data may be submitted to agencies responsible for preparing
such Clean Water Act "deliverables" as the 305(b) report, 303(d) List, etc. Many of the QAPP in the
library were developed to respond to specific data needs directed at answering specific questions as
defined by those preparing the QAPP. Whether the data could be used for 305(b) assessment is
secondary, and probably cannot be determined without reviewing each individual QAPP. As an
example, the QAPP entitled "DEP Lake Study" (1999) was designed first and foremost to provide data
for the derivation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for lakes on the 303(d) List. Reference to
the term "Baseline Lake Survey" in the title in all likelihood, means different things to different people.
Page 57
52
The fact that there is interest and demand for the availability of the library through the internet
suggests to me that we need to be very clear with respect to what it is we are posting, and for what
purpose. Groups that are interested in preparing QAPP should continue to be directed to the Volunteer
Monitor's QAPP Guidance (1996), supplemented by other guidance, as needed. The templates that are
still in development will supplement, but not replace existing guidance.
In summary, the Scope of Services for this contract does indeed call for the compilation of a library of
QAPP, SOP, and related reports that will be distributed to interested monitoring groups; and it does
make sense to ultimately make materials available through the internet. We simply don't believe that
the appropriate documents are available yet, and that the library as it presently exists, could lead to
more confusion than anything.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.”
Until further discussion with and approval from DEP, we will hold off on posting sample QAPPs
on our web site.
h. Serve as a referral center for those groups who have a Service Support Center. Provide
ongoing service by phone, e-mail, and in-person to groups engaged in volunteer monitoring not
supported by Service Support Centers.
We do these services as part of our general assistance for groups who call, write or email
requesting help; also via handouts, announcements and discussions at workshops. The file
helpfy2000.wpd documents many of our contacts with groups seeking assistance.
In addition to the above, we advised WBNERR on a project they are working on: developing a
guidance document describing standard operating procedures for monitoring several water
quality parameters common to coastal groups. We served on a panel that reviewed drafts of the
document, now currently in a second editing phase.
Task 4:
Capacity Building for Volunteer Monitoring Organizations:
In anticipation of a volunteer monitoring conference in the fall of 2000, MWWP shall prepare
training workshop sessions for volunteer monitoring groups on developing sustainable
fundraising skills, seeking 501(c)(3) status, effective public relations (i.e. data presentation,
press relations, working with municipal boards), and other topics as requested by volunteer
monitoring groups.
Planning in progress. We have contacted 2 or 3 potential conference speakers, and will continue
to confer with the CAC, MSCs and the WISC regarding conference objectives and content. We
have sent messages through our listserv and to other groups through email to propose a date and
to solicit topic suggestions. So far the best date looks like Saturday November 4
th
and topics
include non-science subjects such as fundraising and how to establish 501(C) (3) status, and
technical topics such as writing a QAPP and Understanding Pathogens.
Task 5:
Technical Skills Development for Volunteer Monitoring:
1. Assist the EOEA Geographic Support Centers in QAPP training in the Buzzards Bay,
Islands, Ipswich, Shawsheen, and Deerfield watersheds.
We are currently working with WBNERR and MRWC to provide followup assistance to
workshop attendees on an individual basis. WBNERR’s volunteer monitoring coordinator left to
take an out-of-state job, so efforts in that area are slowed until the replacement begins work in
early September. We have provided QAPP review / writing assistance to approximately 8
Page 58
53
groups. We advised WBNERR on how to find a replacement for their departed WQ monitoring
coordinator, posted the job announcement on our listserv, and served on a panel that interviewed
applicants for the job. We participated in a data interpretation /study design session for the
Ipswich River Watershed Association on March 8, and handed out several copies of our data
presentation manual at that time. We have assisted DRWA in writing a QAPP for their volunteer
monitoring program.
2. Identify a recommended Geographic Support Center Tool Kit of equipment that could be
provided by support centers to volunteer monitoring groups on a lending basis. Include specific
items and estimated costs of developing such a tool kit.
A toolkit list was prepared and sent to the MSCs for their input. To date, we have only received a
response from the Merrimack River Watershed Council. Estimated costs not included yet.
We would like to take this issue up again with the MSCs in FY 2001. At present, this is just a
list recommended by MassWWP. We would like more feedback from MSCs, agencies, and
others on how the list might be modified. It might then be useful for each MSC to compare this
list with their own inventory, and either obtain additional material so they will have a complete
set of “tools” on hand for loans, or identify and keep a list of where these things might be
available in each region: e.g. if an MSC knows EPA loans a GPS or USGS a flow meter, keep
this information on file and advertise it to groups, to complement loans of equipment that each
MSC owns.
MassWWP/WRRC staff attended the national water quality monitoring and the national
volunteer monitoring conferences in Austin Texas, April 21 – 29. We presented or moderated at
5 sessions. Topics included data presentation, service providers, and quality assurance project
plans. Highlights of the conference included sessions where we learned more about STORET /
volunteer data interfaces and made contacts with EPA and our partners in NERMC, to explore
possible collaboration with EPA on developing a system for use by NE volunteer groups.
Projects Two and Three: Regional Support to Volunteer Monitoring Groups in the
Deerfield, Westfield, Connecticut, Hudson, Housatonic, and Farmington Watersheds
1. Provide ongoing service by phone, e-mail, and in-person to volunteer monitoring groups on
all aspects of volunteer monitoring.
2. Publicize existence of training manuals, fact sheets, and training videos to volunteer
monitoring groups statewide.
3. Distribute manuals, fact sheets, training videos, The Volunteer Monitor Newsletter and
similar materials at no cost to volunteer monitoring groups in response to their requests.
4. Assist in QAPP development
5. A minimum of 6 site visits to monitoring groups to provide technical and/or organizational
assistance is required by this Project. An initial written survey of needs may be taken to
prioritize training topics.
On March 7 we mailed a letter to 30 organizations, outlining a proposed range of assistance to
Western Massachusetts groups under this contract, and asking them to respond with their priority
needs. Based on the responses, the following assistance has been provided:
Page 59
54
1.
April 12. Conducted a site visit of Bray Lake on Mt. Tom Reservation, with Karen
Simon, Mt. Tom Citizen’s advisory Committee. Provided advice on organization and
study design for a monitoring program. Followed up with additional email advice.
2.
May 6 lake sampling workshop at Lake Congamond. Attended by 8 representatives of 4
lake groups.
3.
May 7 site visit on Green River, Williamstown, to help select sites for HooRWA
macroinvertebrate sampling program.
4.
Assistance to Deerfield River Watershed Association: moderated water quality and spills
sessions at DRWA forum March 18; Led training session for sampling volunteers;
session attended by Watershed Team Leader and Science teacher from Academy at
Charlemont and a dozen volunteers. wrote a QAPP for DRWA’s monitoring program in
March; trained volunteer monitors April 8, 9, and 12; provided lab assistance April 6,
April 11, April 16, May 25, June 16; Site visit with Team May 4 to South River.
Attended several Deerfield River Team Monitoring Subcommittee meetings in
Greenfield. Assisted in ordering bacteria analytical supplies. Provided some lab supplies.
Loaned GPS unit for sampling site positioning and led a site tour.
5.
June 13 site visit to Pittsfield MA for work session to assist Onota Lake association and
Berkshire Regional Planning Commission in developing QAPPs.
6.
June 17 site visit to Williamstown MA to offer training in macroinvertebrate and habitat
sampling for HooRWA and Williams College volunteers. An additional training is
scheduled for July.
7.
Attended Connecticut River Team Meeting, June 20.
Page 60
55
SYNOPSIS
REGIONAL VOLUNTEER
MONITORING SERVICE NETWORK
Start: 07/99
End: 06/2001
Title: Regional Service Provider Network Project
Investigator: Jerry Schoen
Descriptors: Citizen Monitoring, Non-point Pollution, Rivers, Lakes, Monitoring,
Volunteer, Quality Control
Cooperators: Merrimack River Watershed Council (MRWC) and Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve (WBNERR)
Funding Source: Massachusetts Environmental Trust
Problem and Project Objectives
- To advance the development of a regional service provider (RSP) network for Massachusetts
volunteer monitors.
- To help monitoring groups incorporate three critical elements into their programs: written
study designs, annual program reviews, and (as needed), written Quality Assurance Project
Plans.
- To facilitate increased communication and collaboration among individual volunteer
monitoring programs within a watershed.
- To facilitate collaborations between volunteer monitoring groups and their associated
EOEA-sponsored Watershed Teams, which are also planning and conducting watershed
studies. These collaborations will help ensure a strong integration of volunteer surveys into
decision making that occurs under the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative.
As proposed in our grant application, we selected four watersheds to focus on in developing the
products and communication networks important to achieving project objectives. The
watersheds selected are the Deerfield and Housatonic (MassWWP), Suasco (MRWC), and
Islands (Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, selected by WBNERR). In addition, we continue to
provide a variety of services that benefit groups from other watersheds in the state.
Principal Findings and Significance
Develop a unified training / assistance program:
We have compiled a list of manuals, fact sheets, and related guidance materials for monitoring
programs. These have been posted on the MassWWP web site
(http://www.umass.edu/tei/mwwp/). These include protocols developed or supported by
MassWWP, along with some others, such as the Riverways program’s shoreline survey or EPA’s
Page 61
56
macroinvertebrate monitoring manual. Most of these contain full instructions in downloadable
format; we are in the process of adding the others. In addition to instructions on sampling
procedures, these materials include guidance on several aspects of volunteer monitoring, such as
data interpretation and data presentation.
We are currently working with several organizations and agencies to have these protocols and
guidance documents undergo a thorough review to ensure that they meet the needs of the
Massachusetts Watershed Initiative (MWI). We will use the Volunteer Monitoring Citizen’s
Advisory Committee (CAC) as the forum for this process. The CAC was established by the
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) in 1999 as part of the MWI. Members
include several agencies, academics, monitoring group representatives, and the Monitoring
Service Centers (MSCs - formerly known as the Regional Service Providers) contracted by
EOEA to support volunteer monitoring groups. MassWWP protocols are also undergoing
review by the Department of Environmental Protection and the US EPA as part of a related
project to provide assistance to volunteer groups in writing Quality Assurance Project Plans
(QAPPs).
In addition, WBNERR has begun drafting a set of standard operating procedures for tests
commonly performed by coastal groups. This effort grew out of a series of meetings held on the
Cape regarding volunteer monitoring, and has been endorsed by several groups and agencies.
MassWWP will participate in the review of the guidance documents. These will also be
reviewed by the CAC. We are coordinating communication among all parties to avoid
duplication of effort.
We anticipate that the review process may take some time, given the size and diverse makeup of
the CAC and conflicting demands on committee members’ time. In the interim, however, these
guidance documents are being shared among the MSCs and with EOEA Watershed Teams, are
widely used by Massachusetts monitoring groups, and serve as de facto standard methods.
MassWWP has developed a web-based calendar containing information on workshops and
conferences of interest to Massachusetts volunteer monitoring groups. The calendar can be found
on the MassWWP web site. We are soliciting entries from all MSCs, agencies, and others who
sponsor such events.
Conduct training programs in each of 3 regions: Northeast, Southeast, and Western Massachusetts.
Workshops held to date include:
MassWWP:
Field sampling methods for new lake groups: one in April, one in May 1999; lab analysis
techniques, May 1999; aquatic plant and watershed mapping techniques, one in June and one in
July 1999; data management, October 1999; data interpretation, November 1999; How to start a
monitoring program, January 2000; writing a QAPP, February 2000; Data presentation March
2000 (co-sponsored by WBNERR).
MRWC:
Page 62
57
Several shoreline survey training sessions in July and August, 1999; Water quality monitoring
methods, one in July and one in August 1999; Benthic Macroinvertebrate Streamside Rapid
Assessment Training, September 1999; Study Designs and QAPPs – a 2 part workshop in
January 2000.
WBNERR:
An informal information exchange event among local monitoring groups; an interactive
workshop to educate volunteers about basic biology and ecology concepts; a Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Monitoring workshop; a QAPP writing workshop, February 2000; and a data
presentation workshop March 2000.
All project partners collaborated on the QAPP workshop series; we are currently engaged in
followup consultations with groups to assist them applying their training to write QAPPs for
their programs. Approximately 30 groups are involved in this project.
Support development of a service infrastructure for volunteer monitors.
On a statewide level, all three project partners have been active in the Volunteer Monitoring
Program Development Process initiated by EOEA in spring of 1999, and which continues today.
As part of this process, MassWWP recommended that the Regional Service Provider network
begun in 1999 be expanded both geographically and in program scope, to include providers with
specialized expertise that might be useful on a broader regional or even statewide level. EOEA
adopted these recommendations for fiscal year 2000. As a result, two new Technical Service
Centers were added: The UMass Environmental Analysis Lab (EAL) to provide lab analyses,
quality control assistance and related training for groups across the state (and with an added
focus on western Massachusetts); and the Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation
(NREC) program of UMass Extension. NREC is providing training and related assistance in the
area of biological monitoring. Otherwise, last year’s RSPs were retained by EOEA for this year
(MRWC, WBNERR, the Charles River Watershed Association and the Urban Harbors Institute
of UMass Boston). MassWWP was also designated as the Monitoring Service Center for groups
west of the Connecticut River.
We developed informal surveys for both monitoring groups and laboratories, to gauge the need
and the ability to fill the need for various kinds of lab analyses. This has been given to all the
MSCs, to then deliver via phone or personal interview with groups and laboratories. It is
anticipated that this will take some time to complete, because the process is time-consuming. So
we agreed to concentrate on the monitoring groups first, especially in areas where historically
the need has been greatest. We will then contact laboratories in those areas, and eventually
move on to new areas to complete the survey.
MassWWP assisted both the UMass Environmental Analytical Lab and the NREC program to
apply for the EOEA grants they eventually received; both are now providing specialized
assistance to monitoring groups. MRWC has assisted groups in the Merrimack and Shawsheen
watersheds to secure analysis services from the State Water Analysis Lab in Lawrence, and has
secured services from the Andover and Tewksbury wastewater treatment plants for coliform
analysis for groups in these watersheds. WBNERR included $4000 in their current contract with
EOEA for analyses to be performed by the Cape Cod National Seashore for volunteer groups; in
Page 63
58
addition, WBNERR continues to broker arrangements between monitoring groups and lab
service providers such as UMass Dartmouth.
All three organizations are active in promoting inter-group collaboration and partnerships
between EOEA Watershed Team Leaders and volunteer monitoring groups. MRWC staff meets
regularly with both the Suasco and Merrimack/Shawsheen watershed teams; WBNERR meets
with the Cape and Islands teams; and WWP staff meets with the Deerfield team, and is a
member of the Deerfield’s subcommittee on monitoring. This subcommittee is at work
integrating the efforts of DEP, EPA, Department of Environmental Management, the Deerfield
Watershed Association, and Ashfield Lake Association. MassWWP has submitted a proposal to
EOEA for a project to oversee a monitoring project in the watershed that would expand and
further integrate these efforts.
MRWC has drafted a set of guidelines for operating a watershed-wide Technical Advisory
Committee that would assist multiple groups in a watershed to run effective monitoring
programs that coordinate with one another. This concept is being tested in the above-mentioned
watersheds. MassWWP and MRWC helped to plan and facilitate a Suasco Water Monitoring
Forum which took place in March 2000. Some 30 individuals representing over a dozen
monitoring groups and related agencies and organizations participated; they agreed to pursue the
collaboration further, with watershed-wide data interpretation sessions in the fall, among other
steps.
WBNERR, in collaboration with Coastal Zone Management (CZM) and the Community
Foundation of Cape Cod, organized and held a Citizens' Monitoring Forum in June 1999. The
goals of the Forum were to: get input from the community about what services citizen groups
need (ultimately to find gaps in services provided and to find out what is and is not working for
the groups); get buy-in and ownership for a Cape and Islands-wide network from the local
groups and service providers; inform groups of the potential use of their data; validate (or not)
the concept of a network. MassWWP assisted at this forum by facilitating one of the forum’s
breakout sessions. One recommendation that came out of the forum was to consolidate the
various monitoring methods now in use, into a practical set of approved monitoring options. As
mentioned above, WBNERR is now drafting these standard operating procedures for volunteer
coastal monitoring, with input from MassWWP, CZM and others.
MassWWP has developed a computer database that contains information on groups who are
monitoring, type of studies they are conducting, whether or not they have written study designs
or QAPPs, and whether the QAPPs have received EPA or DEP approval. This database is being
shared with EOEA and MSCs, to use when groups are surveyed as to their existing and planned
monitoring activities. MassWWP will maintain the database.
MassWWP has begun to assist the western chapter of the Lakes and Ponds Association – West
(LAPA West) to put together a care package for lake groups in the Housatonic, Hoosic,
Deerfield, Westfield and Connecticut watersheds that are trying to form new lake and pond
associations. MassWWP will help on monitoring issues, with a special focus on facilitating inter-
group collaboration. This is an outgrowth of several of the workshops that were held in the
spring of 1999. We have been offering study design assistance to several of the individual lake
Page 64
59
groups in the region as well as the Housatonic Valley Association, and encouraged them to work
together on their study designs. These initial groups are serving as the model for an integrated
region-wide monitoring effort.
Challenges ahead:
In our fiscal year 2000 grant application, we proposed to “work with EOEA and the MA DEP to
develop generic plans for studies that integrate volunteer and agency monitoring within the 5-
year cycle” that EOEA uses to schedule its activities in each basin, as part of the Watershed
Initiative. We have been informed by DEP that they cannot spare the staff time to devote to such
a planning effort. We have therefore shifted our plans, to focus on the Watershed Team Leaders
as the primary agency contact in each basin. It is our hope that successful collaborations in
individual basins will provide a foundation on which to build a statewide system that is accepted
at all levels within all the EOEA agencies.
We will also work with the volunteer monitoring CAC to secure their input on how best to
proceed in advancing multi-year agency/volunteer monitoring partnerships. The ability of both
the CAC and the MSCs to conduct their activities on a regular schedule is hampered by
interruptions in funding from EOEA for volunteer monitoring. This year as last, contracts were
not tendered to the MSCs until approximately 8 months into the fiscal year. As a result, the
CAC has not yet evolved into a proactive working group – its function so far has been to review
documents and participate in discussions at the 3 or 4 meetings held each spring, during the
active contract periods. We will endeavor to keep the CAC functioning this year throughout the
year. We have expressed these concerns to EOEA and have been assured that they will make
every effort to avoid lengthy service disruptions in FY 2001. We intend to organize the CAC
into subcommittees that follow through with more earnest investigations of important issues.
Three issues that we will attempt to get the CAC to focus on this coming year are the uniform
assistance program, advising on watershed team / volunteer partnerships, and developing a set of
recommendations to EOEA for a statewide data reporting system.
Followup assistance to groups who have taken our workshops continues to be a time consuming
process – particularly for those who are writing QAPPs. We have found that groups do not
enjoy this technical exercise, and therefore tend to place it “on the back burner”. We have to
keep reminding and encouraging them to follow through. The situation is currently exacerbated
by a turnover in staff at WBNERR. Tara Nye, Citizen Water Quality Monitoring Coordinator,
has left for a different job. Her position is now being advertised. In the interim, other
WBNERR staff is fulfilling her duties, and MassWWP has provided some assistance.
We are still in the early stages of exploring the question of how volunteer monitors and EOEA
Watershed Teams can best partner. Currently there is no designated agency liaison for volunteer
monitoring in each basin. In general, the Team Leader is the primary contact, but each Team
Leader has a different background and set of skills. Some are more familiar with monitoring
issues, and with working with volunteer groups, than others. We have asked EOEA to appoint
such a liaison; they are now considering this.
We are planning a fall 2000 volunteer monitoring conference and intend to continue this as an
annual event. This year’s conference will feature the issues discussed in this report, along with
Page 65
60
some others, such as building organizational strength for monitoring groups. We will provide
MET with further information on the conference as it becomes available, and hope that you will
be able to attend.
Page 66
61
SYNOPSIS
THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS LABORATORY
Start: 1983
End: Ongoing
Title: The Environmental Analysis Laboratory
Investigators:
Paul Jos. Godfrey, Peter Kerr, and O.T Zajicek
Funding Source:
Analytical Fees
Descriptors:
Analytical Services, Inorganics, Water Quality, Monitoring
OBJECTIVE
The goal of the Environmental Analysis Laboratory (EAL) is to support the research, education
and outreach roles of the University by providing inorganic chemical analysis of water, soils,
tissue and other environmental media. It seeks to achieve this goal as a unit of the public
University of Massachusetts.
ADMINISTRATION
EAL is located in the inorganic chemistry section of Tower A of the Graduate Research Towers
in space allocated to Dr. O.T. Zajicek by the Department of Chemistry. EAL is administered by
the Director of the Water Resources Research Center with account assistance from the Business
Manager of the Graduate School. Dr. Zajicek serves as faculty adviser for the laboratory.
STAFFING
EAL is staffed by professional chemists and students. The EAL lab supervisor is Dr. Peter Kerr.
When sufficient projects are underway, graduate and undergraduate students are also employed
part-time; at higher levels of steady operation, a second lab technician is added as professional
staff.
HISTORY
The Water Resources Research Center created the Environmental Analysis Laboratory (EAL) in
1984 to assist the Acid Rain Monitoring Project, analyzing more than 40,000 ARM samples for a
suite of 21 parameters. These data have been reviewed by EPA and used in preparing the final
state-of-the-science report for the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP).
Since 1988, the Lab has also provided services to off-campus and other on-campus researchers.
Off-campus users include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Living Lakes
Page 67
62
Corporation, State of West Virginia, Harvard University, and Williams College. Beginning in
1990, EAL has provided analyses to participants in the Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER LABS
EAL is interconnected with other professional laboratories on the University of Massachusetts
campus. These include the College of Food and Natural Resources Mass Spectrometry Facility,
Pesticide Laboratory, Microanalytical Laboratory, and West Experiment Station Laboratory.
Each of these has specific capabilities which can be seamlessly accessed through the
Environmental Analysis Laboratory.
QUALITY CONTROL AND AUDITS
EAL has a quality control plan which meets EPA requirements for proposal submissions to EPA.
EAL can provide a copy to researchers planning proposal submissions. EAL participates in the
Environmental Lead Proficiency Analytical Testing (ELPAT) audits as part of that national
program. EAL also participates in the state administered EPA audit programs for water quality
and drinking water quality.
SERVICE
EAL served the following in 1999-2000:
Municipalities
City of Springfield
Cambridge Water Department
Barnstable County Health Department
Local Laboratories
Massachusetts Pesticide Lab
Amherst Water Lab
Howard Lab
Norwich Lab
Lycott Environmental Consulting, Inc.
UMass Departmental Research Groups
Chemistry
Biology
Microbiology
Environmental Science
Other Massachusetts Colleges
Salem State
Government
U.S. Geological Survey
Mass. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Mass. Department of Environmental Management
Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
Page 68
63
Lake and River Volunteer Organizations
Lake Attitash
Leverett Pond
Shawmee Pond
Billington Sea
Organization for the Assabet River
Lake Singletary
Lake Wyola
Chandler Pond
Lake Waban
Jenkins Pond
Lake Congamond
The lab supports 60 lake and 15 river groups in their Water Watch Partnership efforts.
Page 69
64
SYNOPSIS
LABORATORY SERVICE PROVIDER
Start: 07/99
End: 06/2000
Title:
Laboratory Services to Volunteer Monitoring Groups
Investigators:
Paul Jos. Godfrey, Peter Kerr, and O.T. Zajicek
Funding Source:
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Descriptors:
Analytical Services, Inorganics, Water Quality, Monitoring
The Environmental Analysis Laboratory (EAL) is part of the Massachusetts Water Resources
Research Center at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. EAL offered the several services
itemized below in support of citizen volunteer monitoring groups in Massachusetts. Many of these
services have been historically provided in conjunction with the Massachusetts Water Watch
Partnership (MassWWP).
However, the recent introduction of the EOEA-sponsored volunteer monitoring grants program and
Monitoring Service Center (MSC) network has brought new responsibilities for MassWWP.
MassWWP is now moving towards a greater emphasis on providing coordinating services for the
MSCs, working with a Citizens’ Advisory Committee to guide future volunteer monitoring program
development, and facilitating information exchange among volunteer monitors, service providers,
state agencies, data users and others. While MassWWP will continue to offer workshops and a
variety of technical assistance to watershed groups, some of its historical activities can perhaps now
be better performed by other entities. Just as the MSC network has distributed the work load on a
geographic basis, this proposal creates a logical division of labor along lines of expertise, taking
advantage of EAL’s unique blend of scientific proficiency, proximity and close working
relationship with MassWWP. This will allow MassWWP’s past laboratory assistance services to
continue and to expand; in addition, some new services are proposed that will allow for expanded
citizen and watershed teams participation.
The EAL is the laboratory which supported the now completed Massachusetts Acid Rain (ARM)
Monitoring Project. This program was a pioneer in using citizen volunteers to collect and analyze
surface waters statewide. Through its training programs and quality control measures (blind
samples and consultation) the ARM Project was the first to compare citizen volunteer results with
those of paid professionals (EPA) and was able convince the EPA to accept their results. Dr.
Zajicek, one of the co-founders of the ARM project (including the QC program ) and its technical
director, will be active in providing the services proposed here. The EAL is physically located in the
Chemistry Department at UMass/Amherst and is administrated through the Water Resources
Research Center at the University.
Page 70
65
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND SIGNIFICANCE
Services Provided Statewide
The following services were provided to volunteer monitoring programs throughout the
Commonwealth:
1. Quality Assurance/Quality Control There are citizen volunteer groups who have equipment to
analyze their own samples. Typical parameters are pH, Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC), and
Dissolved Oxygen (DO). For their data, and even for professional laboratories, a viable QA/QC
program is critical if the data are to be useful in a database.
The EAL has been providing QA/QC samples for the above parameters on a monthly basis for the
seven months April – October since 1991. After the first few years, the cost of this service had to
be charged to the monitoring groups, and several groups discontinued participation . In FY2000, the
EAL provided QA/QC samples at no cost to the volunteers, with this program funding the costs of
preparing and determining the “expected” values. In addition, EAL personnel were available for
technical assistance to the volunteer groups when they experienced problems with quality control.
The “blind” (to the volunteers) QA/QC samples for pH, ANC, and DO was prepared by Peter Kerr
and/or Prof. Zajicek. Replicates were run of each parameter to determine the “expected” value by
both Kerr and Zajicek, independently.
2. Phosphorus The EAL has been providing low-level (DL
≤
2
µ
g/L) phosphorus determinations
through MassWWP. The extreme care needed for this very low detection limit, in addition to
providing acid-rinsed sample bottles, results in a high fee per sample, which can be prohibitive to
small monitoring groups, especially when combined with the cost of shipping the samples frozen
overnight. In FY2000, this program subsidized the fee charged for phosphorus at the rate of $10
per sample. Cost of shipping frozen samples back to EAL was also picked up by this program (up
to $4 per sample).
3. Instructional Workshop MassWWP has historically organized a one-day workshop to train new
volunteers to analyze their own samples for pH, ANC, and DO. This was continued in FY2000.
The day consists of some lecture discussing the theory and practice (and pitfalls) of determinations
for the above parameters. This is followed by in-lab, hands-on instruction in the procedures.
EAL personnel (Kerr) will conduct the lectures and oversee the lab portion. He prepares all test
samples and standards. The laboratory space for the workshop and the equipment used was
furnished, ready to use, by the Chemistry Department at UMass/Amherst and its preparation staff.
This service is offered as an in-kind contribution to the citizen volunteer program, a concept the
department has faithfully supported through the years.
4. Chlorophyll In the recent past, MassWWP has coordinated a project with USGS and MA DEM,
offering free chlorophyll analysis through the EAL. The excellent methodology for accurate
chlorophyll determination currently in use was worked out in the EAL by the efforts of several
investigators. Volunteers took all samples and mailed in the dried membrane filter containing the
biomass to be analyzed. Many groups wish to continue chlorophyll monitoring and this project
permitted a subsidy of the cost of analysis.
Page 71
66
Services Provided to Western Massachusetts
In the context of providing extra services to western Massachusetts as part of the MSC concept, the
following services were restricted to the eight watersheds of Western Massachusetts: Hudson,
Housatonic, Farmington, Westfield, Deerfield, Connecticut, Millers, and Chicopee rivers.
There are several reasons for restricting these services, some of which are obvious from the nature
of the services proposed: First, providing these services will increase citizen volunteer awareness of
the resource (EAL) located close to where they live, allowing them to plan their programs with the
EAL in mind. Second, many of the communities in western Mass. are small and not wealthy; the
free or reduced-cost services proposed will increase their opportunities to participate in good
monitoring studies. Additionally, sample transport costs can be reduced because all locations are
within a short drive, obviating expensive mailings. Third, the use of the EAL facilities by
volunteers is only viable for those volunteer groups within easy driving distance.
MassWWP was the coordinating body for the following services since they were most familiar with
the region and the volunteer groups and watershed team leaders. They made the region aware of
the services and schedule contacts between the volunteers and the EAL. For the in-house use of
facilities the EAL personnel conducted training and supervision, provide standards, etc.
1. Watershed Team Leaders The Massachusetts Watershed Initiative Watershed Team Leaders in
the western watersheds are in many cases coordinating monitoring activities with volunteer groups
in their region. At times, especially during non-assessment years, EOEA watershed teams need
various determinations that are not performed by the volunteer groups in their watershed and that
are not budgeted by the leaders though they would be useful. And even during assessment years,
Page 72
67
travel time to the state lab in Lawrence sometimes precludes collecting samples with a short holding
period.
To the western Massachusetts watershed team leaders who are cooperatively working on a common
monitoring program with volunteer groups in their watershed, EAL offered a total of $1,800 worth
of determinations (of their choice) during the year. They coordinated their requests through
MassWWP and the EAL provided the services. This flexibility is a new approach and was a
valuable asset to the watershed team leaders.
2. On Site Laboratory Use There are some volunteer groups in our region that have no access to
laboratory facilities or expensive equipment, even if they are were able and willing to do their own
determinations. At the present time the only recourse for these groups is to send out all samples for
analysis. This can be costly and, in some cases, prohibitive.
EAL made its facilities available to the western watersheds groups. Volunteers brought their
samples to the EAL and made their own determinations using the EAL equipment. Any needed
training and supervision was provided by EAL personnel.
Chicopee River watershed:
Chicopee River Watershed Council, Karl Bergman
Friends of the Chicopee River, Jean Kidwell
Lampson Brook Watershed Association, Judith Gillon
Spec Pond, Ed Jamro
Lake Lashaway Association, Peter Barstow
Lake Wickaboag Association, Dave Steltzer
Sugden Reservoir, Frank Rivers
Page 73
68
Beaver Lake Club, Keith Davies
Thompson Pond Association, Roland Janbergs
Jabish Brook, Bob Stover
Dimocks Pond, Stascha Falkowski
Brookhaven Lake Association, Troy Steele
Lambs Gions Association, Scott L. Allen
Lake Dean Improvement Association, Michael Peluso
Friends of Five Mile River, Peggy Middaugh
Upper Ware River Watershed Assoc., Don and Ginny Rich
Turkey Hill Pond, Jerianne Donnelly
Lake George Association, William Terry
EOEA Chicopee River Watershed , Paul Lyons
Ludlow Pond Management Committee , Manny Leito
Connecticut River watershed:
Connecticut River Watershed Council, Tom Miner
Leverett Pond Association, Shirley Thomas
Lake Wyola Advisory Committee, Bill Elliott
Friends of the Mill River, Nancy Rapoport
Mill River Watch, Deborah Lee
Tri-Lakes Association , Sharon Hart
Sawmill River Watershed Alliance, Glen Ayers
Lake Metacomet. LeeAnne Connolly
EOEA Connecticut River Watershed, John O’Leary
Broad Brook Coalition, Deborah Cadwell
Mill River Group, Scott Jackson
Deerfield River watershed:
Deerfield River Watershed Association, Jane Burnett
Green River Watershed Preservation Alliance, Pat Serrentino
Ashfield Lake Association, Gail Abott
EOEA Deerfield River Watershed, Chris Duerring
Farmington River watershed:
EOEA Farmington River watershed, Michael Parker
Lake Buel District, Dave Lewis
Hoosic River watershed:
Hoosic River Watershed Association, Lauren Stevens
EOEA Hudson River Watershed, Tom O’Brien
Housatonic River watershed:
Housatonic Valley Association, Dennis Regan
Lake Garfield Association. Pat Edelstein
Lake Onota Association, Robert Race
Goose Pond Education Program , Peter Baxter
Pontoosuc Lake, Lee Hauge
Stockbridge Bowl Association, Don & Chris Deno
Page 74
69
Center Pond Association, Al Kirchner
Lake Buel, Dan Andrus
Laurel Lake Preservation Assoc., Bill Rudge
Plunkett Lake Assoc., Rene Moser
Ashmere Lake, Bob Walter
Ashmere Heights Lake Association, Donna Hopkins
EOEA Housatonic River Watershed, Tom O’Brien
Millers River watershed:
Millers River WA monitoring project, Myron Becker
Eagleville Pond Association, Rick Wilkey
Winchendon Springs Lake Association, James Bevan
Hastings Pond, Karro Frost
White Pond Association, Ed Conkey
Sportsman Pond, Robert Gray
Wendell Concerned Citizens, Nancy Riebsclaeger
Otter River Association, Jim Morrill
Parker Terrace Association, Laura Casker
EOEA Millers River Watershed, Alice Rojko
Westfield River watershed:
Westfield Chapter Trout Unlimited, Jack Teahan
Westfield River Watershed Association, Dan Call
Center Lake Association, Linda Bacon
Big Pond Association, Rich Gallup
Citizens Restoring Congamond, Tom Burke
Lake Damon Corporation, Judy Terry
EOEA Westfield River Watershed, Michael Parker