Minutes of Wolf Creek Stream Team Meeting 12/6/06

I.Suggestions & Comments on Graphed Trend Data

Those present were: Rich Barksdale, Meko Boose, Wendy Boucuvales, Trish Brechlin, Jim Henderson, Deb Hull, Steve Krieg, Mary Ann Moore. Those unable to attend were Kate Christian, Felicia Graham, and Gus Kamphaus.

Each team was given a copy of data graphs for their site. The agenda made notations about methods and format to help people understand the information. The data presented is considered a rough draft at present. Everyone is encouraged to take home their copy to examine at your leisure. Additional comments and suggestions are encouraged. In particular, consider for example, graphing a single parameter for all five sites on a single graph. Which one would be most revealing? There is still the option of refining the data presentation, continuing to work with Chelsea Riegel, the Brookville high school student who used Microsoft Excel to create the graphs.

These are the main comments from the team.

  1. Additional copies of data graphs will be made for other team members as needed.(only one copy per site was distributed).
  2. Scale of values on the y-axis needs to be the same for every graph, as far as is practicable.
  3. Dissolved Oxygen should be graphed also as percent saturation
  4. Turbidity units should be labeled in NTUs
  5. Standard statistical analysis of data might reveal additional significant trends.
  6. Each graph should also include tabular data, clearly showing when a zero data point on the graph actually indicates a zero value rather than no data available.
  7. The data should be separated chronologically, as 2003-2005, and 2006. This is because our testing methods changed. Prior to 2006, the titration method was used for dissolved oxygen, and the color comparator method for nitrate and phosphorous; turbidity tube for turbidity measuring. In 2006, we began using the Hach DR 850 colorimeter for all tests.

II. Publication of Analyzed Data

It is important to consider that looking at the trends graphically isn’t the same thing as explaining what it means. This is the difference between analysis (graphed data) and conclusions (what it means). Each team member is encouraged to spend some time looking at the data and posing comments about conclusions that may be drawn, or ways to refine the analysis.

However, the graph of nitrate levels, looking at all five sites (average of first two readings of the season, 2003-2006) is somewhat revealing. It clearly shows increasing nitrate levels as you go upstream from west Dayton to Brookville, including points on the North Branch. This is logically expected, because of the surrounding land uses. That is, land use becomes less urban and more suburban, rural, and agricultural from lower to higher places in the watershed.

At the very least, an initial publication of our findings might be based on this graph. That is, something shows a correlation between land use and nitrate levels. It could also mention a couple of other related points, namely, that our nitrogen (lawn and field fertilizers, failing septic systems, etc.) being sent down the Ohio River, Mississippi River and ending up in the Gulf of Mexico is creating a huge anoxic zone that is killing marine life and crippling commercial fisheries. Of course I would also include an explanation of the chemical mechanism that creates the problem.

A second related point is discussion of Miami Conservancy District’s new partnership program with SWCDs and farmers, called the Water Quality Credit Trading Program. It proposes to pay farmers to implement agricultural practices which measurably reduce the amount of phosphorous reaching streams and watercourses, rather than requiring waste water treatment plants to invest in upgrading technology to remove more phosphorous.

III. WolfCreek Watershed Study Completed by University of Dayton Students

Caroline McColloch and Rich Barksdale attended the presentation of findings by UD students on December 6th. We reviewed the presentation with the Stream Team. The students were from two different courses, Environmental Biology and Environmental Geology, and this was a semester-long project.

They did a very broad survey to include many aspects of the watershed, including things such as chemical, biological and physical assessments, historical data from Ohio EPA and vegetative analysis of riparian zones, just to name a few. We spend a good deal of time discussing very high Coliform and total bacteria counts found at the monitoring site near the Target store on SR 49 / Shiloh Springs Rd. in Trotwood.

I have requested electronic copies for my files, and will distribute print and/or electronic copies to all team members when I receive them from the instructor.

IV. Next Steps / 2007 Planning

The group suggested the following changes in our 2007 stream monitoring program.

  1. Add monthly precipitation data to each site’s monthly data collection. This is available at Miami Conservancy District’s web site; I will inquire as to the best numbers to use (i.e. just for Brookville, or include other points in the watershed…?)
  2. Include data collection sheets for all five sites in a single binder that stays with the kit.
  3. Stop collecting data about the change in temperature (site < > 1 mile upstream), because none of the sites reveal any significant changes in temperature, such that it is worth recording
  4. Add a test for e coli. I will look into methods used and costs associated with equipment that may be needed.
  5. I will report early in the year, on steps we can take individually and as a team to become Certified Data Collectors for Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. This is a new program that came on line in March of this year, designed for citizen groups like ours. Besides making our work more meaningful by being connected to the larger conservation community (via OEPA), this step would be a major advance in credibility in our local communities.
  6. Beginning with the March ’07 newsletter, I will be submitting pre-publication issues to contacts for municipal newsletters in Brookville, Clayton, and Englewood. The goal is that they will pick up on articles in our newsletter that they would like to publish in theirs. This will give us a wider reading audience, in addition to the ‘Associate’ members that already receive the Stream Team Times.
  7. We are trying to stick with the same day of the month, same time & place for our meetings. The first Fridays of the quarter, 6:30 pm here at the SWCD office, with pizza and pot luck items for refreshments. The following dates are set for 2007 quarterly volunteer meetings:
  8. March 2nd
  9. June 1st
  10. September 7th
  11. December 7th

We also had some discussion about the continuing efforts to help local governments learn how to implement Low Impact Development (LID) practices. We acknowledge that the place to begin is with planning and zoning. Discussion included some hearty joking at the expense of developers – thanks! I needed that.) We also commiserated with one another on how difficult it can be sometimes, to see how complex and extensively connected our society’s environmental problems are. It is tempting to despair, become cynical, and stop trying. But here is some great advice from Mother Theresa:

“We can’t do great things; we can only do small things with great love.”

THANKS TO EACH ONE OF YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED DEDICATION TO THE WOLF CREEK STREAM TEAM !

Respectfully Submitted,

Caroline